Kevin,

You are mistaking one of the core tenants of Trademark law (you must protect your mark every time or risk loosing it) versus copyright law, which has no such "mandatory defense" argument.

My thoughts on Warner Brothers actions are this: They are overreaching, not legally but culturally. Yes, she is probably using WB copyrighted material in her party (that she will be profiting off of), to that I say "So What!" As a marketing issue, a party like this is much more effective in creating and maintaining fan interest than in corporate sponsored events. They should be happy that people like her are keeping Harry Potter popular prior to the distribution of the last two movies. It's doubly important to do that now that the last book is out and anyone who is interested can find out how the whole thing ends. If she profits off of it a little, who cares.

I believe that content creators should have intellectual property protection for a limited time so that they can profit from their work and continuing making more, but I think the field has tilted to far in giving the IP owners too many rights at the expense of the free expression of our culture.

I was torn whether to write a comment in regards to the "Movies I Won't See" series. See, I'm one of those people that the majority of commenters here would probably call an "asshole". I think the series "Movies I Won't See" is disturbing and I really have to question the editorial control of the series when one of the first articles is about Schindler's List.

Now, let me give a reason why I find the series disturbing. For me, movies aren't just "entertainment", for me they are art. I hold movies in esteem. Especially highly acclaimed films that tend to be more creative, original, or have some other redeeming quality that lifts above its peers. I always want to see these highly acclaimed "good" movies, even if they are of a genre that I don't like, or from a director or writer or producer I don't like, or even if it will elicit a negative emotional response from me. Why? Because they are good. Because exploring new emotions through cinema is a good thing. That exposing ourselves to new experiences through film is a good thing.

When a film is good, a professional film critic/writer/reviewer refuses to see it, I ask myself why the hell that person is a critic/writer/reviewer? And then I ask myself why do I want to read a person who limits themselves to the drek just because a highly acclaimed film has some single element that the reviewer doesn't like. What is the point of watching movies if you limit yourself from watching the good ones? And then, what is the point of reading a reviewer if they don't take their profession seriously?

And all of this is not to say that I don't want to see negative reviews. I think negative reviews are important for several reasons (the least of which is to help viewers avoid the uncreative, the unoriginal, and the poorly implemented). I love a lively debate, but only when the two sides are represented by people who take the time to educate themselves about the subject they are debating. If a reviewer doesn't have the time to watch a film before giving it a negative review, then I don't have the time to read that reviewer. If this series is few and far between, then fine, I can skip over an article here or there pretty easily. However, if this becomes a cornerstone article for the website, then I probably stop visiting.

Sherlock Holmes was very much a person who lived in his mind. I don't care if a character/film/story is reimagined or reinvented as long as it sticks with the core of the characters and/or story. That said, the Sherlock Holmes in this trailer very much doesn't appear to live in his mind.

I suppose if I want a modern, accurate, interpretation of Holmes, I'll just go watch House, M.D. I'll go see this movie because I like Robert Downey Jr.'s work.

I agree with comment #3. The Board clearly isn't operating with the best interests of the shareholders in mind. AIG sought and received Government help. That should give the Government (specifically AG Cuomo) the right to review and revoke past actions of the board that are clearly contrary to the shareholders' interests.

I hope that the hyper-greedy/aggressive corporate mentality that was lionized in the 80s as "Greed is Good" is coming to an end. I want rational and moderate corporate governance to become the standard. That includes reasonable wages for corporate executives that fall in line with furthering shareholders interests. That means giving corporate executives salaries and benefits that will attract the best and brightest to run the companies, but isn't so high as to force Corporate Boards to continue putting good money in after bad as these over-compensated corporate execs make decisions that further their own interests instead of the stockholders.

I've got TVMax cable. It is the worst cable provider I've ever had, and their partner for broadband, Ygnition, is the worst broadband provider I've ever had. I can only hope that this switchover improves service, but somehow I don't think it will.

Executive Orders don't have anything to do with business, but instead are directives issued by the President of the United States. We are currently in the 12000s, so if this movie refers to number six, then I image it has something to do with hiding the existence of aliens from very early in American history.

The Printer companies are playing the same game as the game console companies: Sell the printer/console at a loss and make up for it in ink/games sales. However, when you do something like that, you get these wretched situations where games/ink have outrageous prices and the manufacturers do everything they can to protect game/ink sales. I don't know who thought up this whole twisted way of doing business, instead they should just sell electronics for their true price instead of creating weird market situations where you have to lie and manipulate your consumers to protect your consumables sales.

The Brody character wasn't "bumbling" in the first movie. They only made him that way in Last Crusade.

Same with Salah.

You people dismissing Dvorak absolutely don't know how to read his columns. It's not his conclusion that is important (he totally pulls those out of his ass just to rile up the fanboys), it is his supporting premises that you want to read. And there, he makes good points: Apple will have a tough time breaking into the already saturated cellphone market. Apple did win big with iPod because that market was completely unfocused. Cell phone margins are completely thin. Apple probably will need a few design variations on hand to start to sell within a few months.

I don't agree with Dvorak's conclusions, but the facts he presents are true and are important, and I think that when he writes articles like this, it is more about bringing focus on those facts to the market than trying to push an idea like abandoning a product line that Apple has spent at least two years developing. I don't think that Apple will fail with the iPhone. Neither do I think (contrary to some Apple fanboys) that it will completely change the cellphone marketplace. I think it will have a lot of impact on the design of high end phones, and I think it will have an overall impact on cellphone UI design (which is the single reason I've been longing for Apple to enter the market, myself).

So in short: Read Dvorak for his supporting facts, not his conclusions, and don't expect the Entire World to change when the iPhones hit the market.

Pretty good list. I too fear that Indiana Jones 4 will be bad. Raiders was the best Indy movie, followed by Temple of Doom, and then Last Crusade. There is a trend here, and it is this: Each new Indy movie will be worse than the last one.

Raiders was remarkable and inventive and good. Lucas wrote a great script that came out of his love of movie serials from his youth. Spielberg directed a serious drama with lighthearted moments.

Then Temple came out. And it too was good, but not as good as the first. It continued with the global trotting movie serial hero mystique. The story was a bit cumbersome, but generally good. Of course, it didn't do as well as Raiders.

So when they had the opportunity to do Last Crusade, they went back to the formula: Indiana Jones, Nazis, Christian Artifacts. It was a rehash of the first movie. Except, this time instead of Spielberg directing a drama with lighthearted moments, he directed an action comedy. It was a decent movie, but it was nowhere near the inventiveness of the first or had any of the subtlty of the second. For instance, Salah went from having genuinely ominous lines "Bad dates." to idiothood "That car belonged to my brother-in-law. I must replace it with camels!"