Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Apropos Akbar (Score 1) 644

A trap? You mean like ignoring their own lawyer's advice over what is and is not legal?

Interestingly enough, I can't help but notice that this is from the WaPo, which is the same one that held this fundraiser the lawyers told them not to hold...


Explanation: https://theconservativetreehou...

Comment Another Giveaway? (Score 3, Insightful) 86

Why don't they collect on the broadband promises that never materialized from the last round of subsidies before giving away another half billion dollars? Oh, right, never mind. They're just bribing people with our own money and trying to make it sound like a good thing, knowing that most people won't be able to call them on it.

Maybe this time it'll be different? I wish I could believe that.

Comment Re:Google needs to be responsible (Score 1) 153

> Well guess what: that isn't the copyright holders problem. If your business model is such that you can't monitor everything, then YOU NEED TO FIX your business model.

This is utter nonsense. One, that's not how the DMCA is set up--this burden is squarely on the copyright holder to identify and issue takedowns.

Two, it shouldn't work the other way. You see, copyright relies upon PERMISSION. So even if I upload a "leaked' video that looks completely pirated to an outsider, if I have permission from the copyright holder, it's legal. Given that the copyright holder is the only one who can reasonably be expected to know who they have and have not given permission to, they are the only reasonable party to do so. If you think this example sounds far-fetched, then you need to go back and read Viacom v. YouTube, because Viacom did exactly this and had to remove "infringing" videos they'd given permission to from the case. Twice. After extensive review by expensive lawyers. If their own lawyers with all that information can't get it right, what hope does a 3rd party have?

That this burden is unreasonable is of no concern to the rest of us--it's simply not our property, so it's unreasonable to expect the rest of the world to manage it for them.

Comment Re:Duh (Score 1) 644

> Hillary didn't pull dirty tricks. That's all lies that idiots who believe everything they are told fall for.

So you mean the DNC didn't give her access to Sanders' campaign info while cutting him off from the system?

Oh... right, let's just forget about that.

Comment Re:Vox (Score 3, Informative) 100

> OK, I just realized that there are some of you who may believe that I'm overdoing my criticism of, so I'm going to post a story from their motherfucking front page today

That makes them better than Mother Jones (reporter of the original story) who has a "meme of the day" then, no?

I'm curious as to how RF causes cancer only in *male* rats and why they live longer anyhow, or why the middle exposure group tended to have zero rats with cancer, rather than the low exposure groups, which had about as much cancer as the high exposure groups. Frankly, from reading the data reported in the study (you all did that... right?), all I could help think there's no clear pattern here. It really looks like the noise is larger than the effects, given all the 'anomalous' zero samples assuming the hypothesis that it really does cause cancer.

Comment Re:Yawn. (Score 1) 476

> Political parody is explicitly protected as fair comment - this explicit protection was established in the famous Larry Flynt "free speech" trial [] over a fake ad in Hustler magazine with a fake interview with Moral Majority founder discussing his first sexual encounter as a Campari liqueur fueled romp with his mother in an outhouse.

> So bottom line - make fun of a political figure with their likeness? No problem. Try to make money doing it? Yeah, problem.

So ... Larry Flynt didn't make any money off of selling that issue of Hustler, or via the infamy it generated?

> Apple doesn't have to sue every Apple Fruit Stand or Apple Moving & Storage business in the country because it's not diluting their trademark on computers and electronics.

Might've wanted to pick a better example due to Apple Records...

Comment Re:Fair Use (Score 1) 476

I don't think you fully appreciate how being a public, political figure weighs into the fair use factors. The courts would balance the public's right to engage in political speech (the most protected category) against Bernie's rights here.

And there's no way they're going to shut down all critical political discourse because of trademark rights, because let's be honest, every politician would use it to stop "unfair" criticism of themselves.

It may not be anything like immunity but let's be clear here, this is trademark abuse. I don't like that no matter who is abusing IP law, whether that's SCO, the RIAA, the RNC or Bernie.

Comment Re:Yawn. (Score 1) 476

> defending a trademark is not bullying.

Sure it is, because it ignores fair use:

Note that political speech is MORE protected than other categories. You can't just trademark your likeness and shut down all political parody or it would soon cease to exist. Imagine for a moment if Bush had been able to use a trademark on his name and likeness to shut down all of the mockeries of him, using your myth of continual enforcement?

> in fact, its required, or else you lose trademark status.

That's a damned, dirty lie. If you'd been reading Slashdot lately, you might've seen this from the EFF:

Comment Fair Use (Score 1) 476

See, this is why you read the *case law* and not just the statutes themselves. Otherwise you'd miss the fact that there's a fair use defense for trademarks:

"A nonowner may also use a trademark nominativelyâ"to refer to the actual trademarked product or its source. In addition to protecting product criticism and analysis, United States law actually encourages nominative usage by competitors in the form of comparative advertising"

"The fair use defense in trademark law is not precluded by the possibility of confusion, according to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2004."

Slashdot Top Deals

"If a computer can't directly address all the RAM you can use, it's just a toy." -- anonymous comp.sys.amiga posting, non-sequitir