Home | Subscribe | Post a Job | Advertise | Contact
« Crown Packaging v. Ball Metal Beverage Container: The Problem-Solution Approach to Written Description Issues |
| New Members of the PPAC: Google’s Michelle Lee »
The following video features politician Charlie Crist apologizing to his body double David Byrne (Talking Heads) for using Byrne's song to promote Crist's campaign.
Posted on Apr 13, 2011 at 04:48 PM | Permalink
| Save to del.icio.us
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Time to mix in some Head & Shoulders (TM)
Inviting Body Punches |
Apr 13, 2011 at 07:45 AM
I, on the other hand, support and condone any actions taken by anyone involved in a senate campaign that were inconsistent with David Burn's rights, or with any other artist's rights or the various legal protections afforded intellectual property. Especially if these actions are taken as a protest to the current copyright regime.
Copyrights lol. What a legacy nonsensical system just waiting for the killing stroke from the younger generation.
Apr 13, 2011 at 08:00 AM
...says an anonymous poster, whose content isn't even worth putting a name on...
Inviting Body Punches |
Apr 13, 2011 at 08:04 AM
Crist sure has a bad case of dandruff ... or pshopping.
My oh my |
Apr 13, 2011 at 09:25 AM
...pot meet kettle - chuckles for everyone.
Apr 13, 2011 at 10:56 AM
You may find yourself living in a shotgun shack...
Same as it ever was |
Apr 13, 2011 at 10:59 AM
Always funny that what is missing from these apologies is a reason they did it. He just says: (1) It was wrong to do. (2) I am sorry I did it. (3) I won't do it again. But, mens rea information there. A) I knew it was wrong, but I was desperate. B) I did not know it was wrong. C) I am responsible, but I did not know they were going to do it. D) I did it and gave my permission, but I was in a rush and thought it'd be ok. Seems it makes a big difference, yet the PR people have it down where they simple do not give a why. In the real world (or what was the real world when I was a young man), it mattered why you did it.
Note he just says that it was used and posted with no actor until the very end where he says I am sorry.
Apr 13, 2011 at 11:08 AM
You have to love the way they use their voice so they sound as if they are the police, judge, victim, and perpetrator.
Just bizarre. Sorry scumbag, unless you tell us why you did it, you haven't fessed up.
Apr 13, 2011 at 11:11 AM
Except I'm not the one who trashed copyright.
Your "pot meeting kettle" analogy is therefore inapposite.
Get a grip Ping!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Inviting Body Punches |
Apr 13, 2011 at 11:52 AM
"You have to love the way they use their voice so they sound as if they are the police, judge, victim, and perpetrator."
Or simply as a potential lawlmaker that could have ended the "rights" outright but who, instead, wants to show that he believes what he did was wrong and to leave no doubt that he is not a progressive on this issue but is rather just another old man living in the 80's.
Also, iirc some other piece on this story that came out when it happened stated that he had not known they were doing it but he takes responsibility since it was his campaign.
Apr 13, 2011 at 12:09 PM
O I have quite the firm grip, shot ta the head
"anonymous poster, whose content isn't even worth putting a name on"
You done got plenty O content that aint worth putting a name on - and you got no position to rip into anyone else for bein anonymous.
Just cause you be too thick to get the sting O my post, dont mean the sting aint there.
Apr 13, 2011 at 12:46 PM
Kudo Lolz to you.
Apr 13, 2011 at 12:47 PM
Not really that funny at all. "Reasons why" often comes across as an attempt to make an excuse. Further, to many people, adding "but" after "I'm sorry" often turns what was otherwise an apology into not much of an apology afterall.
Yo gots to learn for yo self |
Apr 13, 2011 at 12:57 PM
Wow - harsh words for arguably a fair use (i.e., legal but "unapproved" by the author) of otherwise copyrighted material.
If I run for any office, I'm going to (unapologetically) use as much material from authors, singers, etc., who DON'T support me as I can under the fair use exception, just to bother them and as a protest agains the pretty much unlimited "limited term" copyright protection enjoys.
Yo gots to learn for yo self |
Apr 13, 2011 at 01:01 PM
lulz lulz lulz lulz.
Apr 13, 2011 at 02:42 PM
Ah, Florida. Meet one of Marco Rubio's typical constituents:
This is the kind of person who thinks the deficit is the worse thing ever, but doesn't care a bit about the 9% unemployment rate. In other words, a typical Republican.
Malcolm Mooney |
Apr 13, 2011 at 03:49 PM
single entity |
Apr 13, 2011 at 03:56 PM
lulz, yeah, right, the single-entity rule is totally bogus. Yeah, right. Mhmm, soon you and me will be implicated in the infringement of some method claims because we logged on to the internet or checked our email. Yeah, right, I see that happening. Or not. Yeah I think maybe not.
Suffice to say, the fed shouldn't make an exception to the longstanding rule of single-entities being required for direct infringement just so that people can write claims easier. Or write claims that involve so many elements that it is impossible to 103 them all together because different people or entities would be required or the sheer number or diversity of limitations is prohibitive of such. The majority was quite right in what they held here and not in any implication that the single-entity rule is wrong. Without the single entity rule you could sue, what, nearly an entire country for direct infringement of any upgrade to the internet backbone that happens to infringe your claims?
Apr 13, 2011 at 04:15 PM
"This is the kind of person who thinks the deficit is the worse thing ever, but doesn't care a bit about the 9% unemployment rate. In other words, a typical Republican."
Come on MM, I'm not rep but even I can tell we have a glut of female labor causing/contributing to massive unemployment. This is practically undeniable and noted by many mainstream (even liberal) sources. In fact, women just edged out men in the workforce I read the other day. Or was it that they edged them out in white collar jobs? One of the two. 51%-49%. Imagine the "unemploymentlol" if as many women worked back in 1940 as do today. They'd have been sitting at what? 30-40% unemployment?
And to be clear, I'm not being sexist against women, I don't mind if they go out and work, indeed I encourage and support it (even require it of pretty much any girl looking to get married to me). But I do mind if people btch and moan as if there are no jobs when we have a record amount of people who traditionally did not work out working. The real miracle was that we had as low percent unemployment for the last decade as we had.
And also, the deficit is the worst thing ever. Except for AIDS.
Apr 13, 2011 at 04:24 PM
...the fed shouldn't make an exception to the longstanding rule of single-entities being required for direct infringement just so that people can write claims easier.
Longstanding? Since 2007?
Without the single entity rule you could sue, what, nearly an entire country for direct infringement of any upgrade to the internet backbone that happens to infringe your claims?
That's not the issue here. Saying that there's joint direct infringement is not the same as saying that there is joint liability for that infringement. At stake in McKesson (and I think also in BMC Resources) is whether someone can be liable for inducing "nearly an entire country" to upgrade the internet backbone in a way that happens to infringe your claims.
single entity |
Apr 13, 2011 at 04:28 PM
"Longstanding? Since 2007?"
That's approximately 1/8th of my ENTIRE LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"That's not the issue here. Saying that there's joint direct infringement is not the same as saying that there is joint liability for that infringement. At stake in McKesson (and I think also in BMC Resources) is whether someone can be liable for inducing "nearly an entire country" to upgrade the internet backbone in a way that happens to infringe your claims."
I don't know about that man, in this case it seemed as if they were saying that the patients were doing one part of the method of their own free will. And I didn't say that we'd be liable, I was just saying that we'd be involved in the suit, as the people that were supposedly induced or otherwise coerced into doing something that we did of our own free will. I don't know, bottom line, I don't see any reason to open up infringement liability to corps over actions that their users apparently did of their own free will. Patent lawl need not turn in such a lol worthy direction.
Apr 13, 2011 at 04:38 PM
um, what does free speech have to do with this post? Nothing.
John Marshall |
Apr 13, 2011 at 04:57 PM
If you do not explain what you were thinking when you did something, then you have not fully admitted what you did. This is another example of weak minded people being cowed by the PR people of the wealthy. (I'll say too, that this is a small example of what is wrong with the entire country. Someone should not be able to get away with giving us a faux admission. He should be told to fess up proper.)
And, by the way, I have sat in the room and watched as top level PR people coach politicians.
And note since many civil and criminal statutes include the mental state of the perpetrator this is both true from a legal perspective and from common sense of being a human being.
Apr 14, 2011 at 03:24 AM
We're on the road to nowhere.
Same as it ever was.
Little Creature |
Apr 14, 2011 at 04:36 AM
Lolz kudos to Little Creature
Apr 14, 2011 at 06:15 AM
that guy turns like a crp ton of flips without even using his hands like twice.
Apr 14, 2011 at 07:05 AM
Republicans always are taking IP. Remember when Martin Luther King's descents tried to prevent Republicans from using King's image/likeness and other protected IP? How about when PETA activist and Pretenders singer Chrissie Hynde went after Rush Limbaugh for using edited instrumental version of The Pretenders' "My City Was Gone" for his theme song? Now we have former Republican Florida governor Crist apologizing for his Senate campaign's use of Byrnes's song Road to Nowhere without permission. It is important that blogs stand up against Republican misuse of IP.
Apr 14, 2011 at 01:35 PM
I'm going to have to look up this video now. The resemblance between the two of them is uncanny!
New Haven Tattoos |
Apr 14, 2011 at 03:29 PM
New Wave music is so passe! New Wave music was a pop art form, that existed from the years 1978 to 1984. The most important New Wave artists included Talking Heads, Brian Eno, U2, Killing Joke, Gang of Four, Kraftwerk, Orchestral Maneuvers in the Dark, Devo, Bow Wow Wow, and so on. Any person who uses music from that era is to be commended for reminded us of a form of pop music that is clever and unique, and is to be condemned for trying to hang on to something that is passe.
Tom Brody |
Apr 19, 2011 at 09:01 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
Jason Rantanen, Associate ProfessorUniversity of IowaCollege of LawSSRN Articles
Occasional guest posts by IP practitioners and academics