vorigito
Rank #10432 on Comments
Level 212 Comments: Comedic Genius Offline
Send mail to vorigito Block vorigito Invite vorigito to be your friend flag avatar
| Last status update: | -
|
| | |
| Personal Info | |
| Date Signed Up: | 4/24/2012 |
| FunnyJunk Career Stats | |
| Comment Ranking: | #10432 |
| Highest Content Rank: | #6559 |
| Highest Comment Rank: | #5908 |
| Content Thumbs: | 747 total,
806 ,
59 |
| Comment Thumbs: | 1317 total,
1756 ,
439 |
| Content Level Progress: | 80% (8/10) Level 74 Content: FJ Cultist → Level 75 Content: FJ Cultist |
| Comment Level Progress: | 52% (52/100) Level 212 Comments: Comedic Genius → Level 213 Comments: Comedic Genius |
| Subscribers: | 0 |
| Content Views: | 45935 |
| Total Comments Made: | 2259 |
| FJ Points: | 262 |
user favorites
Breaking the 4th...
Making New...
Comedy Gold
The Truth All Men...
All my fetishes
25 Killer...
26 foods you...
Some sandwich...
How to get 6-pack...
Shut up and take...latest user's comments
| #165 - **vorigito used "*roll picture*"** **vorigito rolled image ** | 01/12/2016 on Gus n' Al | 0 |
| #560 - Picture | 01/11/2016 on *roll* for admin's new... | 0 |
| #1382 - **vorigito used "*roll picture*"** **vorigito rolled image ** [+] (2 new replies) | 01/09/2016 on MEMES falling from the sky! | -2 |
| | ||
| #58 - **vorigito used "*roll picture*"** **vorigito rolled image ** | 01/02/2016 on Bomango - 19 | +1 |
| #34 - Current wallpaper | 12/31/2015 on Dope Wallpapers #1 | 0 |
| #150 - **vorigito used "*roll picture*"** **vorigito rolled image ** | 12/26/2015 on Golden Roll | +1 |
| #141 - TRAITOR | 12/26/2015 on StarWars TR-8R Strikes... | 0 |
| #143 - **vorigito used "*roll picture*"** **vorigito rolled image ** [+] (1 new reply) | 12/16/2015 on *roll* for admin's new... | 0 |
| #9 - If you look at the picture it says "cannot be commerciall… [+] (38 new replies) | 12/11/2015 on Wu tang clan | +48 |
| #53 -
verifiedcorn (12/11/2015) [-]  #15 -
anon (12/11/2015) [-] Copyright =/= contract as far as I can tell this music is not copyrighted.  If copyright expires, the album becomes public property, smartass. Yeah, in practicality it doesn't matter, but my point is just the 2103 in the clause is stupid as the clause would only be valid until 2085 anyway. You're missing my point. Putting in the date of 2103 into the clause at all has no effect whatsoever versus just forbidding the actions completely, since the clause will no longer be in effect after 2085 Because they no longer own the rights to the music anymore after 70 years, so they cannot restrict the distribution of it after that point. Because they don't have the right to contractually bind someone in that matter. The contract will technically still be active, but (unless the laws change severely by that point), any magistrate's court could nullify it. #59 -
anon (12/11/2015) [-] Are you retarded? How could it possibly be this difficult for someone to understand this? #43 -
anon (12/11/2015) [-] *Ahem* having studied copyright law.... Contracts can and often do overwrite copyright law. For instance, if you work for a music production studio and make music for them (Columbia Records, etc), then you likely don't own the rights to your music anymore. Columbia Records does. The stipulation in the contract is that you get a percentage of the money Columbia Records makes from your produced material, which they now own. So what Wu Tang could easily do to ensure this album stays hidden until 2103 is to make a contract with one of the terms being that sale of the songs not occur until 2103. To do otherwise is a breach of the contract and could be legally acted upon by whoever the contract is written to pass to in the event of the deaths of the parties, regardless of copyright law. As a side note, the idea that the length of time it takes for copyright to lapse isn't going to increase forever is a foolhardy one. Mickey Mouse should have passed into public domain decades ago, but every time he starts to be threatened with that again, Disney mobilizes themselves and a bunch of other lobbying groups to extend it. And since no one in the public gives a shit, they have been successful every time thus far. So the copyrights to these songs will last until aboit 50 years after Mickey Mouse becomes public domain. (ie, sometime after the sun burns out, at this rate.) #24 -
mayoroftownsville (12/11/2015) [-] You're fucking retarded, you can commercially exploit things which are no longer copyrighted. Don't believe me? Go to your local book store and see if they're selling any Mark Twain. It just means you can't sue anybody else who also wants to do the same. Are you fucking retarded? You're arguing with me by saying the exact same fucking thing I am. THE FUCKING COPYRIGHT EXPIRING MEANS THE CLAUSE IS NO LONGER VALID. #28 -
mayoroftownsville (12/11/2015) [-] The clause is valid. He can't commercially exploit it, he is bound by contract not to. The contract doesn't magically expire when the copyright does. Ok, yeah, it doesn't technically expire, but it can very easily be nullified by any magistrate's court, because they never had the right to bind him past that date. #32 -
mayoroftownsville (12/11/2015) [-] Yes they did. They sold him a physical copy of the album, not the rights to it. If they had sold him the rights to it, then you would be correct, but they didn't - they sold him a CD and the contract is stipulating what he can and cannot do with that CD independent of copyright law. He can also nullify, or get the restriction reduced, easily enough, if he proves that the restriction is not all of the following: reasonable necessary to protect legitimate business interests; and of a duration no longer than is necessary to protect those interests What is retarded about the comment you replied to? The only thing I said that was wrong was about the period of copyrighting (which I admit was a stupid mistake). Or do you really think contracts are 100% binding and courts have no power over changing unfair contracts? #44 -
mayoroftownsville (12/11/2015) [-] Reply limit hit Point me to an American source saying those requirements must be met and that a judge can change a contract if they aren't. I'm not a lawyer, but I've never heard of anything like that. You mentioned a magistrate's court, and we don't have anything called that in America. In all likelihood you are talking about things that are true in the UK or Australia or wherever, but aren't true here in America where the contract was signed. #37 -
mayoroftownsville (12/11/2015) [-] I assume you don't live in America because none of those things apply here. Contracts don't have to be for a legitimate purpose, they just can't be illegal (for instance, the heist clause is clearly invalid and they would certainly be arrested). That said, a contract can restrict people from doing things they would normally be allowed to do under the law, like in an NDA. In this case Shkreli is being restricted from monetizing the album where under normal conditions he would be allowed to. That's perfectly legal, and he signed it. Yes, the contract is valid, but if the requirements above are not met, courts still have the ability to change the contract. Note that the requirements say they can only lessen or nullify the restriction if it does not affect the other party in the contract negatively. | ||
| #205 - **vorigito used "*roll 1, 00-99*"** **vorigito rolls 16** | 12/10/2015 on BEST FJ UPDATE EVER | 0 |
