jlw at April 30th, 2014 14:54 — #1
kpkpkp at April 30th, 2014 15:12 — #3
Xerox has used "trademark awareness" advertisements to prevent the brand from becoming a generic noun or verb, including such statements as "You can't make a Xerox." However, it is used in India and Russia as a generic word for 'photocopy'. In Brazilian Portuguese, xerocar, or less frequently xerocopiar, is a common verb for "to make a photocopy".
jlw at April 30th, 2014 15:18 — #4
When I was a kid Xerox was a verb. It meant to make copies. Mimeograph, telecopier, thermal printed -- it didn't matter. People said Xerox. Stopped in the mid to late 90s.
roomwithaview at April 30th, 2014 15:19 — #5
More like a sad statement on the quality of our education system.
lafave at April 30th, 2014 15:21 — #6
The deponent had to be playing games trying not to answer a clearly asked question. I highly doubt it was because he only knew the photocopy machine as a xerox machine.
noahdjango at April 30th, 2014 15:33 — #7
it's definitely one of those "not sure if trolling or stupid" situations, especially given how the actor/director presented it (which I liked.) But IRL? oh yeah, I bet he was trolling.
thecorrectline at April 30th, 2014 15:36 — #8
But that's the great thing about depositions, it's hard to actually prove another persons knowledge. "I did not have sex with her." and "I have no memory of the events you describe" are more famous examples that leap to mind.
squidfood at April 30th, 2014 15:41 — #9
Legal Context (from Lowering the Bar):
County is allowed by law charge "$2/photocopy" for copying records. County translates "per photocopy" to "per file" for computer records and charges $100K for burning a CD. Suit is brought. Lawyer is trying to get county guy to admit that he knows darn well that a computer isn't what the law, or any common language, means when it refers to a "photocopy" machine.
redesigned at April 30th, 2014 15:45 — #10
While I'm remiss to ever underestimate the power of stupid...i got the feeling that he was coached by his council to not answer to or use the specific term "photocopier", and he was at a loss as to how to answer such a direct question without doing so.
Of course, it is always possible that this is just awesome stupid rearing its head, I imagine proving the difference would be difficult and frustrating.
redesigned at April 30th, 2014 15:52 — #11
also, on a more relevant note...
would the photocopier be legal if invented today? likely not. it is a device that enables "pirates" to easily "steal" copyrighted works, by copying the pages of books and magazines. That is how out of perspective the political lobbies of the media corporations have managed to push things.
likewise when cassette tapes and vcr's were invented they were created so that you could make and own a copy of any audio or video. all modern devices of a similar nature are very careful to couch their intended purpose in delayed viewing, they are time delay viewing mechanisms.
quite sad really.
theloverspeaks at April 30th, 2014 15:54 — #12
I used to do legal transcriptions for a living. I have a real strong suspicion that this guy isn't pig-ignorant or trolling for fun. He's playing a legal game, probably on the advice of his lawyer. I've heard shorter and far less awesome examples of this kind of bizarre behavior first-hand, and I've transcribed entire cassettes full of nothing but people discussing, say, what exactly constitutes a "curb stomping".
nashrambler at April 30th, 2014 15:56 — #13
Great seeing John Ennis again, loved him on Mr. Show. Nobody does "irate" in a business suit better. Nobody.
redesigned at April 30th, 2014 16:02 — #14
Wouldn't an entire CD be 1 copy? (a disc is akin to a page that you can fit lots and lots and lots of words on) I bet they hit the copy or burn button only once, unless that CD has more burn sessions then allowed by the Red Book standard. Either way, whomever received the CD could check the number of burn sessions and determine how many distinct times data was copied to the disc.
mister44 at April 30th, 2014 16:03 — #15
That probably makes Xerox lawyers cringe. IIRC they fought for awhile to make their brand name remain a brand name, and not turn into the generic term for photocopying.
doctormatt at April 30th, 2014 16:12 — #16
So check this out. In 2011, Boing Boing posted about the deposition this is based on.
I saw that post, and told my wife. She thought it would make great theatre.
Three years later, she directed a short piece based on this deposition, using the text verbatim except for changing the gender of one of the characters, and one or two other tiny things. It was performed just a few weeks ago (March 28/29/30 in Freehold Theatre's Studio Series (see THE DEPOSITION OF LAWRENCE PATTERSON here)). It was great!
Barely one month later, this film comes out. Weird.
redesigned at April 30th, 2014 16:22 — #17
that is awesome! (I liked so much a mere like would not suffice!)
maggiekb at April 30th, 2014 16:39 — #18
This is delightfully well acted.
lvdata at April 30th, 2014 16:43 — #19
Actually it IS a somewhat undefined term, as most "photocopiers" are no longer a "Copier" but a scanner and printer linked. The software can and will change the document on the fly, and are not a true copy, but a reinterpretation.
The link above is a accidental change, but given the Snowden information, I wonder not if, but how many "copiers" are infected by NSA and disseminated bad documents and/or sending them to NSA Headquarters.
chaz_larson at April 30th, 2014 17:07 — #20
I think you've discovered the reason for the lawsuit.
thompson at April 30th, 2014 17:13 — #21
Actually, it's even worse. It wasn't $2 per file, but rather $2 per page. So if a single PDF had forty pages, they would charge $80 for it.
Hence the lawsuit.
next page →