Slashdot Mirror

Well,

olympus makes the stylus 770 sw...

not perfect but:

SHOCKPROOF (5FT).
WATERPROOF (33FT).
FREEZEPROOF (-10C/14F).
CRUSHPROOF (220LBF).
2.5" HYPERCRYSTAL LCD.
DIGITAL IMAGE STABILIZATION.
MANOMETER.
Resolution: 7.10 Megapixels
ISO: 80-1600
Shutter: 4-1/1000
Max Aperture: 3.5
Lens: 3.00x zoom (38-114mm eff)

The thing I like the best is the waterproof.

http://openphoto.net/gallery/index.html?user_id=178

And not just for underwater. It makes for a nice experience walking around shooting pics on a day when the weather is iffy. You do not have to be paranoid if it starts to rain.

I have not found that shooting in bright light works well though. I wouldn't mind a viewfinder for those situations.

all the best,

drew

"Presumably all this means is that Microsoft won't be going after developers, but it may still be going after anyone who makes use of those developers' efforts."

Probably including those same developers but in their role as users and not as developers.

Itch scratching and all that.

all the best,

drew

http://openphoto.net/gallery/index.html?user_id=178
Underwater Fun and more...

"How would you feel if distribution were prohibited for every open source application that didn't provide and maintain comprehensive, correct documentation on all their interfaces and protocols?"

Simple solution to that problem, in place of said documentation, you can, at your option, provide the source code under a Free license instead. Problem solved.

all the best,

drew

http://openphoto.net/gallery/index.html?user_id=178

"but gave up on that after we (US taxpayers) were forced to bail them out after 9/11."

One thiong that would help fix wise in these sorts of situations (to my off the top thinking at least) is to give the bail out money to the customers and not to the businesses...

Thoughts...???

all the best,

drew

http://openphoto.net/gallery/index.html?user_id=178

"Which would you be more livid about?"

That's not really the point. The point is more who should bear the costs of implementing a country's laws... Entities in other countries? Or entities in the same country? One who may have some influence in getting the laws changed if the costs are too high.

Who do you think should shoulder the burden? And should you choose those in your situation A... should it only apply in cases of copyright law and no other laws?

all the best,

drew

http://openphoto.net/gallery/index.html?user_id=178

"If you read their letter, they didn't ask him to shut down, they asked him to filter his IP addresses to prohibit accesses from regions where their copyright is still in force. That seems like a reasonable request to me."

Would it not be more reasonable to ask for the filtering to be done closer to home? Ask ISPs in their jurisdictions where their laws apply to filter his IP addresses.

(Not that I think either is all that reasonable mind you. I am making no claims as to that.)

all the best,

drew

http://openphoto.net/gallery/index.html?user_id=178
Underwater Fun and more...

"Sorry about the rant, but comments like this (and people who mod them up) drive me up the wall! Its amazing how many people simply don't this whole liberty business."

I like the liberty business just fine, but I often find calls for government intervention come in areas where the free market is already distorted.

Does the NFL get and "special" treatments? Lots of other businesses in our supposedly free market seem to.

all the best,

drew

http://openphoto.net/gallery/index.html?user_id=178

OK, so here is an idea for the next time someone tries this.

Seed you own torrents for the file. Have an option on the payment site:

I am paying $_____ but I already got the thing from the torrents or I will be doing so to save you bandwidth.

Perhaps an option something like:

My buddies and I got _____ copies with bittorrent and we are paying $______ to cover all of them.

Give people the option of paying without downloading from you if they choose. Give them the option of paying later when traffic dies down. If you are letting them choose a price of $0, what can it hurt?

If anyone decides to use this business plan and it makes them bundles of cash, it would be nice of them to send some honest percentage my way. At least those who are using non-Free copyright licenses for their works...

~;-)

all the best,

drew

http://openphoto.net/gallery/index.html?user_id=178
Underwater Fun and more....

"Are you joking?"

Of course they were joking.

"And a local affair?"

The humour is in the understatement...

Just in case YOU weren't joking... If you were:

"Surely you must have heard the name Boston Tea Party?"

Isn't that the one that Alice went to in that oddball Greek Tragedy by some greek fellow by the last name of Louis?

all the best,

drew

http://openphoto.net/gallery/index.html?user_id=178

"The article poster is about to discover a harsh reality of the open source model: if you give your software away, profit-making businesses aren't going to pay for it unless there's something else in there to sweeten the deal and the software is just a means to that end."

I would not bet on this. If a piece of software is central to a business, they will want reliable support before commiting to that software. A smart business might just hold off until professional contracted support is available.

"If you're expecting to make money just by developing and supplying open source POS software, you've got the wrong business model..."

Right, unless you go into the bespoke and paid up front angle.

I also still feel that there is hugh untapped potential in Association funding.

National Retail Merchants Association? Local Chamber of Commerce? National Locksmiths Association? How much could they benefit their members if they charged $5 extra for membership and used that to fund Free Copyleft (GPL) programs that would benefit their members / industry?

There is money to be saved with this idea and the old saying of "a penny saved is a penny earned" still makes sense.

all the best,

drew

http://openphoto.net/gallery/index.html?user_id=178
Underwater Fun

"Because there are other licenses that disallow commercial use that the photographer could have chosen."

What other CC licenses would allow a photographer to give commercial rights to others insofar as his rights are concerned?

I like to use BY-SA. I only want to license out to others the rights I have. I do not want to do their work for them for no charge and obtain the other rights they may need to make commercial use of my copyrighted work in ways that may be unknown to me and in places with laws I may not know either.

You can use my copyrights for commercial purposes, if you need other rights to be cleared from other parties (or even from me) depending on your intended use, clear them.

Are you saying such a license should not be possible?

all the best,

drew

http://openphoto.net/gallery/image.html?image_id=18170&hints=bahamas_sea

"The CC clause doesn't release the photographer from their duty of care. By using a licence that allowed commercial use when they clearly did not possess those rights may be deemed fraudulent and deceptive behaviour."

Some may try to take it that way, but they shouldn't.

You take a picture of a street scene and put it up on the net. You put it under a "copyright" license that allows others to make use of your copyrights in the photo without payment, etc. so long as they give you attribution.

Why should you have to get release forms from eveyone in the scene when many of the uses possible, some perhaps which could be considered commercial, would not require releases? Shouldn't it be up to the person making the use which needs the realease to be sure they have it?

Shouldn't there be some way for you to license your copyrights this way?

all the best,

drew

http://openphoto.net/gallery/index.html?user_id=178

"IMHO Virgin would be in the clear. They didnt break any law.
They obeyed the licence."

See, they may not have violated the terms of the copyright license to the picture which would be rights the photographer gave. (The claim sees to be that they violated even that though as the claim is they did not give the Attribution required by the Attribution (BY) license.

There are other rights that need to be cleared to use a photo of a person like they did though - or so it seems. Whereas if the photo was of a wave breaking on a public beach, or a seagull on the same beach...

One reason I tend to put very few pics of people up though.

all the best,

drew

http://openphoto.net/gallery/index.html?user_id=178

"All rights reserved.

Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:

        * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
        * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution."

Without modification, I would definately agree. With modification is not so clear. Could you not retain the notice and the rest but add you own different copyright notice for the overall work / modified work (while pointing to the original or even including an unmodified copy of the original with the original license?)

Or is the BSD really a copyleft license when it comes to source but one which allows non-Free and non-copyleft use if you like? If that is really the case, I am confused as to the BSD guys problems with the GPL insisting on only the GPL for derivatives. They would be insisting on the same except if you go non-Free.

Hmmm. Perhaps I am wrong here. How does MS treat the famous, alleged, BSD bits in Windows when it somes to their sharing of their source with those that they share it with? Anyone know?

all the best,

drew

http://openphoto.net/gallery/index.html?user_id=178
Underwater Fun.

Well, the write up says that wikia is a commercial entity. According to the generally accepted thought about the NC option (from what I gather) a for profit corporation cannot avail themselves of any NC based licenses whatsoever.

By definition, it is said, everything they do is primarily for profit.

Personally, I don't like seeing non-Free licenses called copyleft, but that is a different argument. "Copyleft - all rights reversed" just doesn't work well in that case.

all the best,

drew

http://openphoto.net/gallery/index.html?user_id=178
Underwater Joy

as I posted recently here on /.

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=256957&cid=20023125

Put the presidential and congressional races on one ballot, the rest on another if you like.

You could even have, national, state, local, and special ballots.

all the best,

drew

http://openphoto.net/gallery/index.html?user_id=178
Underwater Musings

"That doesn't seem true at all. Plenty of OSS programs out there release a GPL version for non-commercial uses, and a pay version under a proprietary and for-pay licensing scheme."

What sort of definition of commercial are you using here? I know of no one doing this for my take on commercial. I think I know what you are getting at, but if someone releases a program under the GPL, they cannot tell you that you can only make non-commercial use of that program. You can use it in a commercial setting, you can use it to make as much money as you can, you can even sell copies for as much as you can... all so long as you follow the GPL.

all the best,

drew

http://openphoto.net/gallery/index.html?user_id=17 8
Underwater stuff...

"I wish Cory would cut the writers some slack and admit that the copyright system, however flawed, is really pretty fair."

I don't know about Cory, but I think the system is far from fair. Very far from fair. In many, many ways.

all the best,

drew

http://openphoto.net/gallery/index.html?user_id=17 8
Some CC BY-SA photos for your enjoyment...

I wouldn't say that...

There are plenty of people who offer dual licenses, one Free and one not Free.

Just because you give away Free licensed work for free, does not mean that you do not want to make money selling licenses to those who are unwilling to deal with the Free license.

Plus, do statutory damages only apply to music?

all the best,

drew

http://openphoto.net/gallery/index.html?user_id=17 8

"Downloading's a bit different in that you don't need to have the original to download an MP3. The vast majority of downloaders don't have the originals. Ergo, lost profits."

Not having the original does not equate to not having purchased the original and not having the legal right to that purchase. There are many things that can cause one to not be in possession of the original which one purchased.

Furthermore, you may be in possession of an original that is not suitable for ripping for any number of reasons.

And have they ever said that ripping is OK in their eyes in any case?

That said, my recommendation on how to deal with the whole issue is to seek out and support artists who use Free licenses for their work, preferably copyleft ones.

all the best,

drew

http://openphoto.net/gallery/index.html?user_id=17 8

"When society goes back to a patron of the arts model, piracy won't be an issue. We gotta get there first. The problem is that the masses won't want to fund it, they'll want someone else to do it. So we go from one large company investing to... someone else rich investing."

Nope, unless the boys with money get laws passed to prevent it, I think we are going to see the same thing in the arts as we are seeing in software. When I can get 10,000 songs under a CC BY-SA license that I like listening to, soneone is going to have to do a lot to convince me to give them money for DRM protected all rights reserved music.

This is what the big boys are afraid of. The competition from those who create for love and hopefully living money, not for the love of money.

all the best,

drew

http://zotz.openphoto.net/

Okay, fair enough... except that I don't agree that "half to fund artists making copyleft works." -- I'm not convinced that art which can't pay for its own keep should be funded by the gov't"

Not exactly being funded by the government, but by the copyright holder that has dropped out of sight. Right?

Good point. Tho what if said invisible-copyright-holder disagrees with the concept, or with what his taxes are being used for? Also, he's been effectively taxed without representation.

But I do agree, the gov't should not be the major beneficiary, nor begin viewing this as a means to acquire "free money" -- because the next step after that is emminent domain at the least excuse. (Which might be all well and good to put a screeching halt to galloping copyright-foreverness, but it's not really fair to go abroad for a couple years and return to find a freeway where your house used to be. :)

I'll see your http://zotz.openphoto.net/, and raise you one http://www.longplain.com/ :)

"[eyeing smiley] Your hair is on fire!!"

That's a feather in my cap... ~;-) and I am winking...

"Okay, fair enough... except that I don't agree that "half to fund artists making copyleft works." -- I'm not convinced that art which can't pay for its own keep should be funded by the gov't"

Not exactly being funded by the government, but by the copyright holder that has dropped out of sight. Right?

Notice, I have not stated any method of determining who should receive this funding or in what amounts. That would be another discussion. Perhaps, instead, it could be used to buy the copyrights to older works and copyleft them. Perhaps fund after school education in the area that the copyright represents. (Think of the children!) Just don't let the government keep it all.

http://zotz.openphoto.net/

all the best,

drew

"I take pictures. I release them under a the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial 2.0 license. If people want to use them to create art, they're welcome to do so (and many have.)"

I am doing something similar... They will be released here:

http://zotz.openphoto.net/

Only one up so far.

My thinking is I will put up 1024x768 as CC BY-SA and sell rights to higher resolutions. If I ever reach predetermined (variable) income on a particular shot, a higher resolution copy will go up CC BY-SA. And so on.

If non-commercial only prevented selling, I would not be so leery of it, there are just too many things that could be considered commercial and get you sued that have no commercial intentions and no profit potential that I intend to stay clear of NC works as ones to build on.

all the best,

drew

http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A %22drew%20Roberts%22

"Firstly, at this point in time, everything you make that is copyrightable is copyrighted automatically by the law. You are not in fact choosing to do it for a particular reason."

Yes, but I am not talking of my works which I place no notice on, but rather those works I place a notice on. These days, ti is GPL and CC BY-SA for me. Check:

http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A %22drew%20Roberts%22
http://zotz.openphoto.net/
https://sourceforge.net/projects/zbcw/
https://sourceforge.net/projects/nanoppix/
http://security.royans.net/projects/dydns/

"Secondly, I think you're confusing something. If you are creating works without any expectation of getting anything at all in return, then you appear to not be encouraged to create those works by the availability of copyright, and therefore shouldn't get a copyright since it is superfluous."

You are missing what motivates me with respect to copyright and also trying to reduce all motivations to economic ones. I think you are mistaken as to what motivates me. Perhaps it is that way with you, I cannot read your mind, but I have some inkling of my own.

"To be honest, I'm dubious. Your posts in this thread are copyrighted. Would you not post on /. if you had to register them in order to protect them? I don't think so. I think that you post here because you enjoy the debate, and the copyright status of the posts is irrelevant."

With the example you chose, which is my posting on slashdot, you are more than likely right. But you chose a wrong example. Check this link:

http://www.nanowrimo.org/userinfo.php?uid=47354

I wrote a novel in November 2004 as part of a contest. If I sort out some issues with my lawyer with respect to short quotes from songs of the era sprinkled here and there in the novel, I intend to publish it under some Creative Commons or similar license.

After all that work, I would not put it in the public domain, but would be happy to release as CC BY-SA. I will be quite happy, even if I do not receive a dime as a result of sales. This brings up a key issue with reguards to motivation. That is that we have a continumm from demotivation to total absence of motivation to motivation. You are speaking like there is only motivation and the absence of motivation.

While I am quite happy to share my work for no monetary reward, I find it demotivating to think others will make a derivative of my work and copyright it all rights reserved and not pay me. I am cool with them copylefting a derivative and not paying me. Perhaps this will remove the need to be dubious.

"Given that the system I describe is more or less how we did things from 1710-1977 and that we had a pretty thriving public domain, and that the number of copyrightable works didn't seem to shoot up upon the effective date of the 1976 Act, or the 1989 amendments, I think that those expansions of the law were not really justified."

I can easily agree that the expansions of the law were not justified. However, if one of the acts/amendments you cite was the one that made all works automatically copyrighted once comitted to a fixed medium, you are seriously mistaken in your claim that the number of copyrighted works did not shoot up (I realise you said copyrightable works, if there is a fine point to the difference, please enlighten.) I take it you meant works where the copyright was registered did not shoot up in number.

"One year statutory bar to filing, probably from publication, where that's significantly expanded from what it means now (e.g. inclusive of public performance). Five year terms from pu

also see http://openphoto.net/, http://morguefile.com/ . the former is creative commons licensed ..

I was hoping from the article name that this was going to be about a great Open Content digital photo archive, like PDPhoto, OpenPhoto, or all the great stuff at the Internet Archive or Common Content.

Instead it's about somebody else's photos I can't use. Zzzzzzzzzzzz.

Free Media

Both links found at Creative Commons

I hope these will help. They're just collections of photos licensed under creative commons licesnses which will probably allow you to use them freely.

Also check out the wikipedia page on photography

And check out ibiblio while you're at it. If you don't recognize the name, you may have known them as Sunsite or Metalab.