Cease and desist what exactly? They aren't distributing anything other than a video. As a news item about re-purposing voting machines, fair use seems to be on their side concerning Pac-Man imagery appearing in the video.
If Namco doesn't like it they'll send the letter anyways. If if you're legally ok, is it worth hiring a lawyer to go to court and fight it? Namco (like most large companies) keeps one on staff, so sending him to court is just them using a paid for asset.
The sad truth is that in today's society, if a corporation says to stop doing something, it's usually smart to stop it. You can't afford to prove your innocence.
And nobody does anything about it. What a fucked up society.
Really? And what would you do about it? Make it illegal for a company to sue someone who is infringing on their copyrights or trademarks? Make bootleg products legal?
Why would any company invest in hiring people and spending money to develop something if they have no recourse when someone can simply set up to sell bootlegs of the finished work with no consequences?
Sure, it's fun to hate lawyers. Until it's you being ripped off.
Since a copyright lawyer SHOULD know copyright law, just make a pattern of errors in that regard be grounds for disbarment due to incompetence. If the lawyer doing it claims not to be a copyright lawyer, make it for malpractice since after the first time he should have realized he didn't know enough to practice in that area.
To *knowingly* assert a copyright violation where none exists. Often they may think there is one, and only find out later that there isn't.
IANAL, but if they haven't done due diligence, they shouldn't be willing to go to court over it, nor send threatening letters / C&D, etc.
If there is a copyright violation, and if the people have a lawyer on staff or whatever, they can afford to wait a week or two to confirm it, or do whatever else it takes to find out. Copyright violation isn't murder; there is no dangerous situation if you don't handle it immediately. The stolen copyright is not going to decide it likes the second party better and le
Trying to be happy is like trying to build a machine for which the only
specification is that it should run noiselessly.
What would Namco say? (Score:3, Interesting)
Expect a cease and desist like this one [slashdot.org] in 3, 2, 1...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Cease and desist what exactly? They aren't distributing anything other than a video. As a news item about re-purposing voting machines, fair use seems to be on their side concerning Pac-Man imagery appearing in the video.
Re:What would Namco say? (Score:5, Insightful)
If Namco doesn't like it they'll send the letter anyways. If if you're legally ok, is it worth hiring a lawyer to go to court and fight it? Namco (like most large companies) keeps one on staff, so sending him to court is just them using a paid for asset.
The sad truth is that in today's society, if a corporation says to stop doing something, it's usually smart to stop it. You can't afford to prove your innocence.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? And what would you do about it? Make it illegal for a company to sue someone who is infringing on their copyrights or trademarks? Make bootleg products legal?
Why would any company invest in hiring people and spending money to develop something if they have no recourse when someone can simply set up to sell bootlegs of the finished work with no consequences?
Sure, it's fun to hate lawyers. Until it's you being ripped off.
Re:What would Namco say? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd make it a criminal offense to assert copyright violation where none exists.
Re: (Score:2)
To *knowingly* assert a copyright violation where none exists. Often they may think there is one, and only find out later that there isn't.
Re: (Score:2)
Since a copyright lawyer SHOULD know copyright law, just make a pattern of errors in that regard be grounds for disbarment due to incompetence. If the lawyer doing it claims not to be a copyright lawyer, make it for malpractice since after the first time he should have realized he didn't know enough to practice in that area.
Re: (Score:2)
To *knowingly* assert a copyright violation where none exists. Often they may think there is one, and only find out later that there isn't.
IANAL, but if they haven't done due diligence, they shouldn't be willing to go to court over it, nor send threatening letters / C&D, etc.
If there is a copyright violation, and if the people have a lawyer on staff or whatever, they can afford to wait a week or two to confirm it, or do whatever else it takes to find out. Copyright violation isn't murder; there is no dangerous situation if you don't handle it immediately. The stolen copyright is not going to decide it likes the second party better and le