Slashdot Mirror
Posting Photos of Olympics Could Land You In Court
hypnosec writes "With London's summer 2012 games due to take place in the very near future, you'd think that organizers would make more of an effort and persuade people to show more of an interest — yet it appears the complete opposite has happened, with strict guidelines banning athletes from posting photos of themselves on Twitter with products that aren't official Olympics sponsors, as well as prohibiting videos or photos to be taken from the athlete's village. Oh and just for good measure, fans could find themselves barred from sharing videos and photos on Facebook and YouTube of themselves delighting in said Olympics action."
Some of your coworkers disagree.
Your honesty is appreciated, but a simple google search reveals a new baggage handler theft ring busted at some airport every few months. So yes, it does happen, and has happened to both me and a friend. It is why I will never check bags again and always carry-on, and in turn directly leads to TSA rage because they take stuff out of my bag and throw it away and berate me for not paying attention to the size of my toiletries.
It's in TFA:
"Britain already has a range of legal protections for brands and copyright holders, but the Olympic Games demand their own rules. Since the Sydney Games in 2000, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has required bidding governments to commit to introducing bespoke legislation to offer a further layer of legal sanction.
In 2006, accordingly, parliament passed the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act, which, together with the Olympic Symbol (Protection) Act of 1995, offers a special level of protection to the Games and their sponsors over and above that already promised by existing copyright or contract law. A breach of these acts will not only give rise to a civil grievance, but is a criminal offence."
So far as I can see from a brief glipse at the law in question, it basically amounts to giving police powers to directly enforce whatever rules IOC comes up to. This, in particular, looks like it allows the police to arrest you on the spot if you're wearing a T-shirt with a wrong logo or anything like that.
So far, my favorite comment on that topic is that the years 1 through 524 also didn't exist in our Western calendar. The numbering we use, usually called "A.D." (for Anno Domini" was devised in the year 525, and wasn't used before that time. Actually, it was hardly used by anyone except a few monks for several centuries after that.
What difference does it make if it wasn't used back then? It is used now.
If you're 5 months old, it's your first year on Earth. If you're 1 year and 3 months old, it's your second year on Earth. Year 2000 is the 2000th year. In order for us to say that two millennia have passed the year must end, thus the new millennium starts in 2001. There's no year 0, because it would mean the 0th year of Christ on Earth. Which means he did not exist, ergo BC.
My other favorite comment on the topic is that today is also the start of a century - the century that starts today and ends 19 April 2112. Every day is the start of a century. So arguing against a popular "start of century" year is basically silly.
We are talking about Gregorian calendar here. The year doesn't start at April 19. You are free to create whatever system you like, it wouldn't change the Gregorian calendar though. Therefore, it's a silly argument.
"It would be wrong to refuse to face the fact that everything is fundamentally sick and sad."