Fair Use is an affirmative defense; /. posting an article claiming that something "Is Not Fair Use" is misleading and irresponsible - only a judge/court can determine if something is or is not Fair Use, and only if given the chance to do so.

Given that the video in question is a work of fan fiction, the following seems relevant:

"Works of fanfiction are more likely to constitute fair use if they are "transformative" with respect to the original work, if they are non-commercial, if they appropriate relatively little of the original work, and/or if they do not tend to detract from the potential market for or value of the original work.[9]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L... http://www.copyright.gov/title...

Bennett Haselton doesn't seem to know how Fair Use works, and is dangerously and irresponsibly mischaracterizing it as something he himself can assess and negate/affirm. The non-commercial and transformative aspects of the Power Rangers video in question might in fact hold up in court; he doesn't know otherwise, and to insist that he does is legally misguided.

Given that the Supreme Court has already weighed in twice on the constitutionality of campaign finance reform (money = speech, etc.), is traditional legislation even enough - at this point isn't an actual amendment necessary, to overcome existing rulings?

And if so, by how much? It's one thing to say that flies perceive time differently than we do, but I'm curious as to whether: 1. Among many flies, there is variance from fly to fly (both independent and dependent of relative size), and if so, what that variance is... 2. For a single fly, whether there is variance based on age, environment, time of day, etc. It's always seemed to me like those with an extraordinary talent at something, esp. an athletic or musical talent, are able to slow down time when performing this talent. I'd tend to say that perception of time should more and more be considered a sense, like sight, sound, taste, etc.

http://ocremix.org/forums/showthread.php?p=790254#790254 "In my opinion, the album art was not particularly more or less transformative than the music on the album. If the intent was commercial sale, and the music was licensed to be above board, as mentioned, the album art probably should have been treated the same way, right? I'm not saying the photographer's not being a douche, or that the sums asked for weren't inappropriate, or anything of that regard, I'm just saying, if you look at the album as comprised of two elements - the music, and the cover - the first was licensed for commercial sale, and the second was not, so if you make a fair use argument for the cover... why not the music as well? If you acknowledge that the music needed to be licensed in the first place, and hence did NOT fall under fair use, it seems odd to make the opposite argument for the album art. That's my only real point, but I feel it's worth making, because it seems like music is often treated very differently (MORE scrutiny & copyright concern) than images. My favorite example that hits close to home is video game fan art vs. video game fan mixes. Peeps been submitting drawings of Mario, Zelda, etc. to EGM before the Internet took over, but the second mixes became a thing, everyone was VERY concerned w/ copyright issues. Again, no hate. We talk about fair use a lot here, it's relevant to us, and I'm pretty sure all of us read this article as a damn unfortunate thing happening to a good person. It's just... that doesn't make him right about the law, or fair use, and I just thought the inconsistency between the music being licensed and the image not was worth mentioning."

Now we need realtime implementation in ZSNES....

... our local file station burnt down.

"Windows" makes sense as a trademark for an OPERATING SYSTEM because it is not particularly generic or obvious; yes, modern GUIs have "windows," and if they were trying to enforce that term outside the boundaries of OS names, it would be more problematic, but it's not the same as "App Store".

The functional trademark equivalent of "App Store" for an OS would be trademarking the phrase "Operating System".

Apple should lose.

I have a Macbook Pro, an iPod, an iPad, and 5 PCs.

Ignoring the expected language-wars comments for a second, this is actually really cool. These were solid, expensive pieces of software that will now reach a wider audience. Netbeans (which I don't use much) was always better than Eclipse in at least this one way - visually building GUIs. It will be nice to see Eclipse achieve parity or exceed its primary free rival in this regard, finally.

Excuse my ignorance, but to continue your supposedly improved analogy, if I post a comment that is nothing but spam, filled with links to malware, illegal torrents, or whatever, it doesn't get deleted, and /. readers can still see it? I would have expected otherwise, based simply on the potential legal repercussions & CYA policies... that's really what we're talking about, here - violations of law, or at least terms of service...

Hey, don't tell me, I know. But studies show people will basically answer "Yes" to anything, and there's no reason a BASIC level of scrutiny couldn't be applied to Android marketplace apps, especially those that do access account info, without going too far and blocking legitimate apps as Apple has. Actually, there is a reason, and I suppose it has to do with cost and trying to juxtaposition Android as the "open" alternative, but "open" doesn't have to mean "jam-packed with spam apps & sexy wallpaper crap that steals data if you're not careful"...

Bad, knee-jerk analogy - removing this application from the marketplace isn't "punishing the few" - who on Earth would ever want it? Policies to prevent similar apps would only be beneficial, so long as they were *sanely* implemented, and specifically addressed security/deceptive practices, not profanity, obscenity, etc. A basic level of review for security and some very OPEN standards would be a good thing. Doesn't /. moderate its comments for a reason??