Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:It's the conversation, (Score 1) 367

by zotz (#46598709) Attached to: More Than 1 In 4 Car Crashes Involve Cellphone Use

Second, I really wonder how they defined a cell phone as being involved in an accident. Did they just record any accident where a phone was someplace visible to the driver? Did they record any accident where a call was in progress? Did they try to determine if the call itself contributed to the accident? Did fault come into it? If you're parked talking on the phone and somebody rear-ends you, does that count as a phone-involved accident?

These stats might be really telling us that lots of cars have cell phones in them.

Ah, someone who thinks along the lines I do. The one I get here in the islands on US AM radio speaks of 1 in every X fatal accidents involves a pedestrian. (I think X=4)

So I say, right, so when a pedestrian jumps in front of a car causing teh driver to swerve and plunge into a deep roadside canal and die, are they counting that as a fatal accident involving a pedestrian? What about one where two cars collide head on and a pedestrian is "involved" as the only witness?

all the best,


Comment: Re:Physical Stores (Score 3, Insightful) 323

I can walk into a physical store 2 miles from my house, drop 5 bucks for a movie, and if I bring it back within 24 hrs, I get 4 bucks back.
Why can't I just pay $1 /movie to stream any video I want whenever I want?

Well if the movie studios had their way, you wouldn't be able to rent movies cheaply on disc either. They have no interest in customer satisfaction, convenience, or affordability.

Comment: Re: In before... (Score 5, Informative) 321

by cpt kangarooski (#46354057) Attached to: Google Ordered To Remove Anti-Islamic Film From YouTube


No, publicity rights are a branch of state tort law. Copyrights are a sui generis branch of federal law.

And a copyright release is just a copyright license (or more rarely, an assignment), which means that it pertains to a particular creative work. A publicity release has to do with using someone's face, image, statements, etc. While you could conceivably have them both in the same form, it's rare that you'd need to or want to.

And I assure you, they are not related even the teeniest tiniest bit. Not in their policy goals, or how they originated, or which governments created them, or who gets them, or how long they last, or what they cover. There is no commonality.

Are you too lazy to google for the difference between copyrights and publicity rights? Perhaps this web page from the Library of Congress will help you out:

Comment: Re:Dangerous precedent (Score 1) 321

by cpt kangarooski (#46353541) Attached to: Google Ordered To Remove Anti-Islamic Film From YouTube

A performer owns copyright of their performance, unless otherwise agreed.

No, not quite.

A mere performance, by itself, is not copyrightable. In order to be copyrightable, a performance must be fixed in a tangible medium. This always raises the question of whether the person doing the fixation is the actual author, or at least a joint author, with equal rights in the work. Basically it hinges on creativity. If the actor is in charge of their own costuming, lighting, cinematography, and direction, and everyone else is just following orders like a robot, with no creative input, and we set aside issues of works made for hire, then yes, the actor would be the sole author of the film. But if the actor isn't in charge of everything which, along with the performance, is being filmed, then they may be only one of many authors, and if it's the actor who is following orders like a robot, the actor may not have contributed any sort of authorship at all.

Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony is what you'll want to take a look at.

Comment: Re:In before... (Score 4, Interesting) 321

by cpt kangarooski (#46353423) Attached to: Google Ordered To Remove Anti-Islamic Film From YouTube

Second is the long-standing interpretation of copyright law saying that people own copyright on their own appearance.

Got some cases you can cite for that?

Typically, when making a movie or taking pictures of a person, you need the actors' or models' permission*.

And publicity and privacy rights, which are what you get releases for, are not copyrights. They are not even vaguely related.

Comment: Re:Is Snowden being tried? (Score 4, Insightful) 261

Everyone needs many lawyers at all stages.

More seriously, a child -- even a stupid child -- could tell that Snowden faces legal threats, among other threats. It's not foolish of him to consult with lawyers. Besides, you think there are no lawyers out to get him?

Comment: Re:DO NOTE (Score 2) 97

by zotz (#46242121) Attached to: Hyperlinking Is Not Copyright Infringement, EU Court Rules

This ruling only applies to copyrighted content that is legally and publicly available. Linking to content that is behind e.g. a paywall would constitute a copyright-infringement.

Wait, how can it be a problem to link to content *behind* a paywall. Either the person clicking the link will not be able to get to the link as the content is behind a paywall and they haven't paid, or, they have paid, have rights to the content, and can get to it by following the link. Is there some other possibility?

all the best,


Comment: Re:"rare earths" (Score 1) 251

But ours are all stuck at the bottom of a big gravity well. Materials mined on the moon, or better yet, nearby asteroids, are not. They could be sent down to us as raw materials to be turned into finished goods here, but alternatively we could begin to industrialize space.

There are plenty of plans on the books for building solar power arrays that could send power down to us cleanly, for example. It's too expensive to build them with parts that come from the Earth, but it might be more practical with parts that didn't.

1 Billion dollars of budget deficit = 1 Gramm-Rudman