Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Todd Andrews

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

290 Excellent

About Todd Andrews

  • Rank

Previous Fields

  • Favorite NFL Team
    Washington Redskins

Recent Profile Visitors

9,036 profile views
  1. We do Bethany because it is so family friendly, but we always rent a one family house. There are some pretty big ones, though. When we used to go to Outer Banks, it was always multiple families and they seem more set up with the bigger houses. I think Rehobeth and Dewey are your best bets for larger homes to rent. Good luck.
  2. Ladies and gentlemen, I’ll be brief. The issue here is not whether we broke a few rules, or took a few liberties with our female party guests – we did.
  3. I ran with a bunch of Tulane DKEs--crazy crazy guys.
  4. Worked behind bars in New Orleans all through college and law school. Too many to recall. Got stomped by the LSU baseball team once for a while before our door crew got a handle on the situation. I had one buddy who worked at the door of our place who liked to brawl. One time we walk into a new bar after a day of drinking and he immediately finds the biggest roughest guy in the place, walks up to him, says "I love to fight, and I can see you do, too, so let's just go outside and get this over with now, so we can get on with the drinking." Long pause as the guy looks at him, then he laughs and we all become drinking buddies. New Orleans in the 80s/90s was a crazy world and being in the bar scene meant I usually didnt pay for drinks, couldnt get arrested if I tried, and had backup in every joint. Lucky I made it out alive, to be honest.
  5. I think its possible with an uptick in efficiency and passes in ppr.
  6. If the line improves and he has an uptick in passes because Hunter Henry is out for the season, he could be great PPR value at the back of round 1. I think a few hundred more yards from scrimmage, 20 more receptions and a couple more TDs is very possible this year.
  7. Pretty much. Ive represented bars against ASCAP, BMI, the music publishers, etc. They dont fool around. They will send undercover folks in to record the songs being played in a bar on an unlicensed karaoke night, for example, and then if they cant arrive at a settlement for damages and past licensing fees they will sue in federal court and seek dozens of thousands of dollars per song. Copyright infringement is a strict liability tort, so it gets pretty ugly when there are statutory damages and attorney's fees at issue.
  8. It can be an issue in the fair use analysis. Specifically, whether the allegedly infringing use of the pre-existing copyrighted work is commercial or not, and the nature of that purpose. Some artistic allegedly infringing uses can be "transformative" and change the nature of the work so much that it is a fair use.
  9. Those types of questions are addressed in the fair use analysis, if there is one. The purpose of the work, commercial use/purpose versus non-commercial, etc., are part of the elements of a fair use defense to infringement and it is very fact intensive analysis.
  10. Crazy judgment collection story: Won a judgment in federal court against a vexatious lawyer representing himself pro se: $1 million in damages and $500,000 in attorneys fees. He was disbarred during the litigation, by the way. Had him declared a vexatious litigant by the court after a bunch of shenanigans: he actually sued me personally in the state court where we were litigating (a state far from where I live). Having someone declared a vexatious litigant and imposing filing restrictions, etc., on them is rare in federal court. A few months after the judgment he dies (details are too crazy to go into) and now I am dealing with his estate to collect. Of course, the estate conveniently left my client and the judgment out of the list of creditors. Sometimes it isnt enough just to win.
  11. Copyright and art and entertainment lawyer and law professor here. The idea that something can be changed enough to stop being infringing is a myth, in that the copyright law grants the exclusive right to create derivative works to the copyright owner. But it is a very prevalent myth, particularly in the graphic design industry. When I teach BFA/MFA art students instead of law students, I always teach that exclusive right and then ask the students what percentage they have to change a work to avoid liability. The answers range from 1% to 99.2 % and everything in between, and then I remind them that it is a trick question because the right to make a derivative work is exclusively owned by the copyright owner. So the answer is only 0% or 100%. It is a monopoly granted to the copyright owner by our law. Of course, that legal absolutism doesnt take into account how art is actually learned or created, and the incredibly subjective fair use standards are the way around it.