:1orglaugh

yeah, all politics

What news agency is going to be talking about Hotel Heiress or posting images?

You obviously aren't.

Playboy did. Do you feel they shouldn't have either?

I can't remember Evan and I agreeing on much of anything. I haven't been a fan of some of his business, umm, "concepts" in the past, so we aren't exactly on the same page.

To an extent, the idea of legal action in this particular case is good. Exclusivity of license is an important issue, and rights holders need to agressively and jealously protect those rights.

However, specifically in the case of Mr Skin, well, I am not seeing the same application here. Mostly for the reasons that all of Mr Skin's content is lifted from other sources, and from companies with MUCH deeper pockets and stars to protect. However, judging from the specific lack of action on the behlf of the studios to get their copyrighted material removed suggests to me that there is a reason, maybe a legal angle that protects them.

I think all of the others look pretty cut and dry, if Xpays is the only license holder, and they have not granted a license to anyone else (or have granted limited license that doesn't allow redistribution) than I think they are pretty much good to go.

Of course, they might also want to try to sue the usenet and every ISP and company that distributes it, because the hilton video is "out there".

I forgot how you just post questions or make blanket statements (with no substance to them) without actually saying anything intelligent in attempt to stir up some shit...

Freedom of speech typically trumps copyright... Of course it depends on the application etc.

Looks like I jumped the gun. I said yes but that is only if they were actually selling the video. I see MrSkin says they just did a review and if they are getting sued for that it's pathetic.

pot calling the kettle????????

funny coming from one of the wanna be spammers on this board :1orglaugh

i vote yes 50 times

50 bitches hehe

Damnit I hate you busterbunny

bump...............

bump...............

I support.

I support any company to enforce their rights to content they own or have licensed. If they obtained it legally that means they should have a signed model release and 2257 info from not only the guy in it but Paris as well right? If so, what was with the fuss she threw about it when it was released - was she just doing it for publicity?

The GFY lawyer in me is on vacation..

But would the time line of when Xpays became the license holder come into effect here? If I'm not mistaken, wasn't the video released to the net by "whom ever" then xpays worked the deal out for the rights to it?

If so how could they obtain the rights to the video if it was already publicly released? Once it's released I'd think it become news worthy to an extent.

I'm not against people being able to protect their content, but I just wonder if they can actually enforce this.

It would be like someone trying to buy the rights to the Star Wars kid video after it was released to the net then going after all the sites whom had posted it. At least that's the way I look at it.