The answers to the quiz!
Mar. 2nd, 2009 05:54 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
theweaselkingRecently, I asked about copyrights.
Question 1:"If you fail to defend against an infringement of a copyrighted work, you lose copyright and it becomes public domain"
One and only one person said "Yes". That single person is completely, absolutely, 100% dead wrong!
Under the Berne Convention, copyright is granted automatically as soon as the work is complete, and can be removed only by:
A) you transferring the copyright to another person
B) your death (at which point it immediately and automatically transfers to your estate)
C) your deliberately and explicitly releasing the work into the public domain.
UNDER NO OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES DO YOU LOSE COPYRIGHT. EVER.
(EDIT: I'm not counting estates, here. Yes, eventually, long after the death of the creator, the estate *will* lose the copyright because it will expire. However, I wasn't counting that in a discussion of how the creator could lose control of his own copyrights, since it's not him, but his estate, that loses the right based on time. If you live forever, your copyrights stick around forever, too.)
10 people said you lose some rights. They are also wrong! Nothing about allowing an infringement can or does cost you any rights. They are less wrong, however, because this was a trick answer.
39 people said it makes the work harder to defend in the future. Wrong! Absolutely nothing about my failing to stop Joe, Bob, and Bill from using my work says ANYTHING about my ability to stop Disney from using my work! The fact that Warren Ellis not only didn't complain but started linking people to the![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
scans_daily post of the full issue of Transmetropolitan did *nothing* to his ability to, say, sue Fox for making it into a movie without paying him. It doesn't even stop him from going after me for posting the same issue to my own livejournal - his copyright[2] gives him the ability to choose who can reproduce his work and when, no matter what.
25 people said "No, that's trademarks. You lose nothing." They are MOSTLY correct. Entirely correct, if you consider "implicit permission" to be "permission", but many people who have this opinion are surprised by the implicit permission part.
68 people said "No, that's trademarks. You lose nothing except, possibly, the right to obtain damages for that specific instance of infringement." <- See that? THAT is correct. Although, I really should have said "ability", not "right", since the colloquial use of "right" here confuses matters unnecessarily. If you are *aware* of an infringement, AND you choose to do nothing about it *after it is brought to your attention*, you are *sometimes* considered to be giving implicit permission for that infringement to continue. This means that you can't turn around and sue for damages *for the same instance of infringement* later. As long as the infringer can prove (and it IS their burden to prove it) that you knew about the infringement and did nothing about it in any reasonable length of time, they can claim you gave tacit permission and, at most, you can make them stop but not claim damages. And that is a *tough* argument to make in court.
So, 93 people mostly to completely correct, 49 people partially to severely incorrect, 1 person absolutely without a doubt completely wrong in every way.
Question 2: The MOST CORRECT doesn't really have a right answer - while "link without images" is safest, "hotlink" is very hard to fight as a case of infringement, and could, with the right judge and jury, be ruled noninfringing. Rehosting is CLEARLY an infringement, but it's also usually the accepted method, leading us right back into implicit permission again.
Question 3: ""Fair use" means:"
29 people: "As long as I'm not profiting, and I maintain attribution and credit/link the source, I can do whatever I want"
NO! WRONG! GAH! Were none of you even paying attention to the Great Comics Kerfluffle Of Last Week? No? How about "Napster", does that mean anything to you? How about "DRM" or, for the Americans, "DMCA Takedown Notice"?
If that were the case, there would be *no possible objection* to sharing music or movies or video games online. And if THAT were the case, do you think any of the court cases would have gotten as far as they did?
61 people: "For personal private use, I can do anything I want."
Yes! While an argument can (and HAS) been made that licensing agreements limit your rights and that you are giving up these rights when you agree to the license, a separate argument can (and has) been made that anything you can do with a book you should be able to do with a DVD as well, because you bought the goddamn thing. In practice, the limit on what you do with your media for *your own personal private use* in most countries is technological, not legal. There's a reason you can buy "DVD backup" programs off the shelf in every Business Depot in the world.[1] This is "Fair Use".
111 people: "For the purpose of review or criticism, I can quote part of the protected work."
Yes! Absolutely correct. This is one of the several things that "Fair Use" can mean.
17 people: ".... and that part is limited to 30% total, regardless."
5 people: "25%"
7 people: "20%"
8 people: "15%
20 people: "10%"
4 people: "5%"
13 people: "300 words"
20 people: "300 words, except in New York, where it is 600 words."
All of you are wrong!
The exact amount you can quote in a review or criticism is *not set*. While there are several useful "rules of thumb" to guide you, and the 300 word limit was, at one point a gentleman's agreement among New York publishing houses with regards to each other's work, the correct distinction is that you can quote as much or as little as you want of a work, up to and including 100% of it, provided you quote *only* what is *necessary* for your review or criticism. The actual test is along the lines of "does your work supplant the original", and while you'd probably have trouble defending your inclusion of 95% of a novel in your critique, you could theoretically do so and still win an infringement lawsuit.
Question 4: The following are affirmative defenses against an accusation of copyright infringement:
133 people: Parody
131 people: Fair Use
First really nasty trick question here, especially given the options I left off of Question 3. Parody *is* a form of Fair Use. Although both of these are correct, I put them this way to see how many people would say one but not the other.
21 people: First Sale
YES! "First Sale" is the doctrine that, if I purchase a work legitimately, I am *not* violating your copyright by reselling it or giving it away.
16 people: Idea Expression
YES! Copyright protects a specific expression. People can rewrite JRR Tolkien to their little heart's content, changing the names of the characters every time, and until they use *the same words*, they're not violating Tolkien's copyright. Of course, how different does it have to be to count? Hey, look, another legal argument. But, the point is, you cannot copyright an idea, only a specific expression of one. D&D is copyrighted. High fantasy RPGs are not, not even if they're pretty clearly intended to be D&D ripoffs, until they start using D&D's mechanics, too.
11 people: Parallel Importation
NO! Just because Bali does not recognise American copyrights does not mean that you can import Balinese DVDs of Hollywood movies and sell them. Importing something *from a place where it is legal* does not inherently make it legal where you are.
58 people: Independent Creation
Only 58 people? OF COURSE this is a valid defense. You need to prove it, of course, like all affirmative defenses, but if you and I came up with the same idea without ever having any contact with each other, then you can't sue me for using it.
4 people: "Information Wants To Be Free"
I need to slap 4 people. The desires of information, no matter how antropomorphised, are generally considered to be inadmissable as evidence for the defence in court.
Question 5: "What does "affirmative defense" mean?"
39 people: Wrong!
88 people: Right!
An "affirmative defense" is one that the defendent must prove. Like duress ("I had to rob the bank or he was going to shoot my child") or truth ("You can't sue me for libel, since I have these photos that show you REALLY DO play World Of Warcraft while naked and covered in mayonaisse"), affirmative defenses assert that while you *did* perform the acts in question, your acts were not actually illegal or tort-worthy for reasons you will explain. The defendent must show that their use of copyrighted material was not infringing.
Questions 6, 7, 8: There's no right or wrong answer to those.
[1]: Most of which, of course, are just branded plagiarised freeware. Paying for most media-related software is *dumb*, people.
[2]: Warren Ellis may not, in fact, hold the copyright to Transmet. I don't know. Assume for the sake of argument here that he does.
Question 1:"If you fail to defend against an infringement of a copyrighted work, you lose copyright and it becomes public domain"
One and only one person said "Yes". That single person is completely, absolutely, 100% dead wrong!
Under the Berne Convention, copyright is granted automatically as soon as the work is complete, and can be removed only by:
A) you transferring the copyright to another person
B) your death (at which point it immediately and automatically transfers to your estate)
C) your deliberately and explicitly releasing the work into the public domain.
UNDER NO OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES DO YOU LOSE COPYRIGHT. EVER.
(EDIT: I'm not counting estates, here. Yes, eventually, long after the death of the creator, the estate *will* lose the copyright because it will expire. However, I wasn't counting that in a discussion of how the creator could lose control of his own copyrights, since it's not him, but his estate, that loses the right based on time. If you live forever, your copyrights stick around forever, too.)
10 people said you lose some rights. They are also wrong! Nothing about allowing an infringement can or does cost you any rights. They are less wrong, however, because this was a trick answer.
39 people said it makes the work harder to defend in the future. Wrong! Absolutely nothing about my failing to stop Joe, Bob, and Bill from using my work says ANYTHING about my ability to stop Disney from using my work! The fact that Warren Ellis not only didn't complain but started linking people to the
scans_daily post of the full issue of Transmetropolitan did *nothing* to his ability to, say, sue Fox for making it into a movie without paying him. It doesn't even stop him from going after me for posting the same issue to my own livejournal - his copyright[2] gives him the ability to choose who can reproduce his work and when, no matter what.25 people said "No, that's trademarks. You lose nothing." They are MOSTLY correct. Entirely correct, if you consider "implicit permission" to be "permission", but many people who have this opinion are surprised by the implicit permission part.
68 people said "No, that's trademarks. You lose nothing except, possibly, the right to obtain damages for that specific instance of infringement." <- See that? THAT is correct. Although, I really should have said "ability", not "right", since the colloquial use of "right" here confuses matters unnecessarily. If you are *aware* of an infringement, AND you choose to do nothing about it *after it is brought to your attention*, you are *sometimes* considered to be giving implicit permission for that infringement to continue. This means that you can't turn around and sue for damages *for the same instance of infringement* later. As long as the infringer can prove (and it IS their burden to prove it) that you knew about the infringement and did nothing about it in any reasonable length of time, they can claim you gave tacit permission and, at most, you can make them stop but not claim damages. And that is a *tough* argument to make in court.
So, 93 people mostly to completely correct, 49 people partially to severely incorrect, 1 person absolutely without a doubt completely wrong in every way.
Question 2: The MOST CORRECT doesn't really have a right answer - while "link without images" is safest, "hotlink" is very hard to fight as a case of infringement, and could, with the right judge and jury, be ruled noninfringing. Rehosting is CLEARLY an infringement, but it's also usually the accepted method, leading us right back into implicit permission again.
Question 3: ""Fair use" means:"
29 people: "As long as I'm not profiting, and I maintain attribution and credit/link the source, I can do whatever I want"
NO! WRONG! GAH! Were none of you even paying attention to the Great Comics Kerfluffle Of Last Week? No? How about "Napster", does that mean anything to you? How about "DRM" or, for the Americans, "DMCA Takedown Notice"?
If that were the case, there would be *no possible objection* to sharing music or movies or video games online. And if THAT were the case, do you think any of the court cases would have gotten as far as they did?
61 people: "For personal private use, I can do anything I want."
Yes! While an argument can (and HAS) been made that licensing agreements limit your rights and that you are giving up these rights when you agree to the license, a separate argument can (and has) been made that anything you can do with a book you should be able to do with a DVD as well, because you bought the goddamn thing. In practice, the limit on what you do with your media for *your own personal private use* in most countries is technological, not legal. There's a reason you can buy "DVD backup" programs off the shelf in every Business Depot in the world.[1] This is "Fair Use".
111 people: "For the purpose of review or criticism, I can quote part of the protected work."
Yes! Absolutely correct. This is one of the several things that "Fair Use" can mean.
17 people: ".... and that part is limited to 30% total, regardless."
5 people: "25%"
7 people: "20%"
8 people: "15%
20 people: "10%"
4 people: "5%"
13 people: "300 words"
20 people: "300 words, except in New York, where it is 600 words."
All of you are wrong!
The exact amount you can quote in a review or criticism is *not set*. While there are several useful "rules of thumb" to guide you, and the 300 word limit was, at one point a gentleman's agreement among New York publishing houses with regards to each other's work, the correct distinction is that you can quote as much or as little as you want of a work, up to and including 100% of it, provided you quote *only* what is *necessary* for your review or criticism. The actual test is along the lines of "does your work supplant the original", and while you'd probably have trouble defending your inclusion of 95% of a novel in your critique, you could theoretically do so and still win an infringement lawsuit.
Question 4: The following are affirmative defenses against an accusation of copyright infringement:
133 people: Parody
131 people: Fair Use
First really nasty trick question here, especially given the options I left off of Question 3. Parody *is* a form of Fair Use. Although both of these are correct, I put them this way to see how many people would say one but not the other.
21 people: First Sale
YES! "First Sale" is the doctrine that, if I purchase a work legitimately, I am *not* violating your copyright by reselling it or giving it away.
16 people: Idea Expression
YES! Copyright protects a specific expression. People can rewrite JRR Tolkien to their little heart's content, changing the names of the characters every time, and until they use *the same words*, they're not violating Tolkien's copyright. Of course, how different does it have to be to count? Hey, look, another legal argument. But, the point is, you cannot copyright an idea, only a specific expression of one. D&D is copyrighted. High fantasy RPGs are not, not even if they're pretty clearly intended to be D&D ripoffs, until they start using D&D's mechanics, too.
11 people: Parallel Importation
NO! Just because Bali does not recognise American copyrights does not mean that you can import Balinese DVDs of Hollywood movies and sell them. Importing something *from a place where it is legal* does not inherently make it legal where you are.
58 people: Independent Creation
Only 58 people? OF COURSE this is a valid defense. You need to prove it, of course, like all affirmative defenses, but if you and I came up with the same idea without ever having any contact with each other, then you can't sue me for using it.
4 people: "Information Wants To Be Free"
I need to slap 4 people. The desires of information, no matter how antropomorphised, are generally considered to be inadmissable as evidence for the defence in court.
Question 5: "What does "affirmative defense" mean?"
39 people: Wrong!
88 people: Right!
An "affirmative defense" is one that the defendent must prove. Like duress ("I had to rob the bank or he was going to shoot my child") or truth ("You can't sue me for libel, since I have these photos that show you REALLY DO play World Of Warcraft while naked and covered in mayonaisse"), affirmative defenses assert that while you *did* perform the acts in question, your acts were not actually illegal or tort-worthy for reasons you will explain. The defendent must show that their use of copyrighted material was not infringing.
Questions 6, 7, 8: There's no right or wrong answer to those.
[1]: Most of which, of course, are just branded plagiarised freeware. Paying for most media-related software is *dumb*, people.
[2]: Warren Ellis may not, in fact, hold the copyright to Transmet. I don't know. Assume for the sake of argument here that he does.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-02 11:31 pm (UTC)YES! "First Sale" is the doctrine that, if I purchase a work legitimately, I am *not* violating your copyright by reselling it or giving it away.
Blarghle, I wasn't really sure what First Sale was by its proper term, or I woulda checked that one.
11 people: Parallel Importation
NO! Just because Bali does not recognise American copyrights does not mean that you can import Balinese DVDs of Hollywood movies and sell them. Importing something *from a place where it is legal* does not inherently make it legal where you are.
And here, I dunno what I was thinking. I saw the "parallel" and immediately thought of two people both coming up with the same idea "in parallel" at the same time... which is covered just below in Idea Expression. Blah.
"You can't sue me for libel, since I have these photos that show you REALLY DO play World Of Warcraft while naked and covered in mayonaisse"
I thought I burned those...
(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-02 11:41 pm (UTC)Actually, that's Independent Creation, not Idea Expression.
Idea Expression is that Tolkien can't sue me for writing epic fantasy in which nobodies are tasked with saving the world by exposing the Dark Lord to his one weakness, nor can Arnold Schwarzenegger sue me for making a movie in which an improbably buff renegade law officer/military guy/ninja violates the laws of physics while having lots of explosions and saving the day.
Independent creation is when Newton and Liebniz come up with calculus at the same time, two countries apart.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-03 12:01 am (UTC)My problem is that I know a lot of the concepts involved in copyright debates, just not the One True Term that denotes each of them, for some odd reason.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-02 11:59 pm (UTC)Wizards made the D20 system OGL such that anyone COULD use it. So using the game mechanics of D&D isn't infringement. Everything prior to 3.0, however, you'd be spot on.
Also with idea expression.. where does the line get drawn between fanfic and infringement? Is it the point where someone wants to get something published? My guess is yes. I ask b/c there's honestly someone on my friends list who wants to write a "Babysitters Club" fanfic book and thinks she could get it published. I've been telling her she's risking copyright infringement.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-03 12:22 am (UTC)And, you're citing a case where the publisher has granted permission to use some of their IP.
Also with idea expression.. where does the line get drawn between fanfic and infringement?
All fanfic is copyright infringement, because *those characters* and *that setting* are copyright. Your friend could create a novel in a setting *very much like* the Babysitters Club, and use characters who are very much like the ones in the book, but as soon as she takes that specific setting and those specific characters, or ones that are basically indistinguishable from them, she's in trouble.
The change doesn't even have to be very big, depending on the depth of your pockets to defend it. At the extreme, you get White Wolf versus Sony Pictures, where Sony took a Nancy Collins short story, set in White Wolf's world, swapped the genders of the protagonists, renamed *a few* of the Clans and powers, and then successfully defended it by virtue of having more money to spend than a short-fiction author and a game company.
(If you've read the story and seen the movie, you should know what I'm talking about. For bonus points, the cases in which Collins' story violated the rules of the RPG? Appear in the movie. Almost verbatim.)
But yeah. Filing off the serial numbers and remixing = legal. Fanfic = infringement. Degree of filing+remixing required depends on how willing you are to fight a lawsuit.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-03 12:31 am (UTC)Yeah, that's what I thought I was saying. You can use the d20 system (obviously you have to follow the license, but it's still there for everyone), but not D&D. The line between the two can seem vague, but it's distinct. A good example is to read the Castles & Crusades handbook.
If fanfic is an infringement, why isn't anything done about the fanfic websites? I had thought it was infringement, but you never hear about publishers cracking down on fanfic writers (or at least not that I've heard).
Is that the Underworld movies? I haven't watched them but what I've heard just reminds me of WW's RPG with the vampires and werewolves and such. I had wondered if it was related.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-03 12:48 am (UTC)The point is, that's a LICENSED PRODUCT.
Take Cory Doctorow's novels. Doctorow still owns the copyright to them, even though he's released them all under Creative Commons. The fact that he's assigned them the CC license means that you have, in writing, a statement from Doctorow that you're allowed to use his property in all kinds of ways, and that, should he sue you for doing something the license allows, you could simply point out the license and he'd have no case - he specifically TOLD YOU you could do what you did with it.
The D20 SRD is similar. WotC has given *everyone* a list of things that they're allowed to do with the property. WotC maintains copyright, but they've also allowed other people to play with their toys, within limits.
This is similar to a contract with specific people. JK Rowling owns Harry Potter, and doesn't own a movie studio, so a studio paid her for the rights to make movies based on her work. She's *given them permission* to make movies, so she can't sue them for copyright infringement over it. However, the fact that she's let ONE studio make movies of her work doesn't let anyone ELSE make movies from her work. She has the right to pick and choose who's allowed to use her product, because she owns the copyright.
If fanfic is an infringement, why isn't anything done about the fanfic websites?
Because the most important part of the word "fanfic" is "fan". Suing your fans for wanting to continue being fans of your work is generally pretty stupid, and, since NO RIGHTS ARE LOST WHEN YOU FAIL TO DEFEND A COPYRIGHT, there's no incentive to go after them. The only incentive is to maintain plausible deniability about the existence of the infringement, so that you can *choose* to go after *specific* infringements at a later date, if you want to.
Take JK Rowling, again, and the guy who wanted to publish an encyclopedia of everything Potter. Rowling had absolutely *no* concern about losing her rights to Potter while he made the encyclopedia, and, since she didn't object to his free online encyclopedia, she linked it and mentioned that she used it herself to keep track of things.
As soon as he sold it to a publisher and tried to make money by publishing a book of *her material* taken from *her world*, she issued a C+D and then sued him to stop, rightfully. She'd given permission for him to make an online encyclopedia available for free, but printing and selling a physical books is a completely different kettle of badly-named wizards. The fact that she'd allowed the encyclopedia did not, in any way, prevent her from stopping the new and different infringement, and it didn't cause her to lose *any* of her rights with regards to Harry Potter.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-03 01:01 am (UTC)Also, I didn't find anything in your journal for the last couple weeks. Please tell me what that was about? PLEAAAAAAASE!!! *puppy eyes and pout*
(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-03 01:17 am (UTC)The specific argument that prompted the poll started over in Randy Milholland's journal.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-03 01:24 am (UTC)Thank you!!
VIVE LE ROI!
(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-03 07:25 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-03 07:21 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-03 02:27 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-03 04:06 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-03 12:03 am (UTC)Shouldn't there be a
"D) the copyright expires"
too? That's how you can freely get Charles Dickens' stories off the internet. I don't think he or his estate expressly released his works into the public domain, they're just old enough that copyrights expired.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-03 12:04 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-03 12:09 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-03 12:13 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-03 05:12 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-03 05:13 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-03 03:46 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-03 05:13 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-03 12:09 am (UTC)I wasn't counting estates, here. I'll add a note to that effect.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-03 12:10 am (UTC)-- Steve hates, with a burning passion, the concept of perpetual copyright; it's as odious as a permanent patent would be.
PS: I also hate, with a burning passion, the current definition of estoppel in wikipedia; it's clogged with jargon, poorly organised, and frankly unclear to anyone who doesn't already know what the term means. My understanding of the term, as it was taught to me at work, is that if you offer a service to someone, and they accept, there's no take-backs afterward. (Grossly oversimplified, and I hope it doesn't distort the meaning.)
My results:
Date: 2009-03-03 12:14 am (UTC)I knew that you don't lose your copyright, but I don't know the rule about trademarks. Since there wasn't a "You don't lose your copyright" option I just took a guess between the last two.
2. "Link without images."
Actually, I typically hotlink AND link to the comic. Only because I don't want to rehost the image and because I don't have many who read my journal. But this was the answer that I considered most honest to what would be probably the "right" way.
3: "As long as I'm not profiting, and I maintain attribution and credit/link the source, I can do whatever I want; For personal private use, I can do anything I want.; For the purpose of review or criticism, I can quote part of the protected work."
I answered the first two b/c that's what I do and because most people I ask only want credit if I share. The third one I know is right. Also, I consider "personal private use" to mean it does not get shared with anyone. However if I copy my CDs onto my hard drive so I can listen to all of them together and upload them to my iPod.. might not be completely legal, but I'm still not sharing the purchase with others.
4: "Parody, Fair Use, Idea Expression, Independent Creation, Hey, this list is in order of length!"
I thought that was kinda obvious.
5: "The burden of proof lies on the defendant, not the prosecution or plaintiff, while using this defense"
I thought about it, considering I hadn't heard of the term. However this made the most sense. Normally the burden of proof would be the prosecution, but in this case it would be the defendent going "No, no! I was doing it right! Look look!"
I think I passed!
Anyway, what's the comic fiasco that was going on? I missed it... I'm going to go through your posts, but if you didn't bring it up then I'm not sure I know what you're talking about.
Re: My results:
Date: 2009-03-03 12:28 am (UTC)That's correct and, by standard IP law, what you're doing is entirely 100% legal.
The modern argument is that the company is not selling you a CD, they are selling you a license to listen to the songs from a CD, and also providing you a CD - but all you paid for was the right to listen from that one specific CD, so copying the music off the CD or to your iPod is not allowed, you didn't pay for that.
This modern argument has been fairly consistently dismissed as complete bullshit in court. DRM is the effort to enforce mechanically what they can't get legally.
(I note, for the record, that NOBODY went after George Bush for the "copyright violation" he admitted to with reference to his iPod - he said he had The Beatles on there, and Apple Music has *never* offered The Beatles for sale in electronic form, therefore he must have downloaded the music or ripped from CDs, cassettes, or LPs. Which is, according to some of his campaign donors, TOTALLY THEFT. And yet, nobody ever sued *him* over it. This makes me laugh.)
Re: My results:
Date: 2009-03-03 12:33 am (UTC)!!
LOL I hadn't heard about that! When did that happen?
(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-03 01:25 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-03 05:02 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-03 03:13 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-03 03:48 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-03 05:09 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-03 11:14 am (UTC)(Also, am I ever glad I didn't go into IP law. Oy.)
(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-03 04:54 pm (UTC)And of course I won't tell her. Then she'd want to share
(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-04 09:17 am (UTC)