What do you mean? Pick from the list or add your own choice:
the relation with your girl-friend will become "look, gesture, waive...(whatever)... but don't touch, you filthy animal!"
do occasionally slap your girl-friend when frustrated. (this will happen when the gesture-enabled UI becoming unresponsive. And hey, being a mechanical shock, this may actually work on ultrasonic interfaces!)
you're simultaneously going to have people waving their arms around like they are conducting a symphony.
Yep, cubicleville is going to get even weirder than it already is.
What's wrong with this? The Italians are doing it already for ages, should be already a relief for their programmers that needed to restrain themselves during work hours!
What stops them to buy an eReader and ask the magazine be delivered in electronic format, with all the multimedia ads they want?
In a lot of parts of the world, an internet connection
Internet is not the only method of delivery of binary content. An USB stick (even CD-ROM) is still less expensive that a video advert embedded on dead-tree page.
I object to giving you any control, which is really government-enforced limits on others
As it will be with any law or justice decision, yes.
There's the violence you didn't want to see above though. Your "right" to control a photo is only enforceable because you want police to lock up people who don't agree.
Hmmm... seems to me that you are confusing some notions here: like law enforcement and extortion. Based on this, there would be no difference between a mobster and a policeman: both of them use violence or threat of violence, isn't it?
Almost for certain, if you find a photo of yourself on the Internet, even when taken in public places, and you don't like the purpose on which it is used, you can ask to be taken down.
You could ask. But you have absolutely no power to compel such a thing.
Nor should you, that's news. "This guy was doing this." Any way you'd force the removal of an embarrassing photo could be used by a criminal to force newspapers to redact their stories.
Editing/cropping a photo to exclude the context so that the subject will seem/look like doing something nasty: is this a desirable outcome to you? Where's the balance in this?
Censoring photos for privacy wouldn't provide it. I could still say "John's house is at XYZ, and looks just like this other house."
Ok, that's a solution good enough for me. I might accept it.
As for misrepresentation, no, that's not. If I have a photo of your house all messy it's not misrepresenting it. That's what it looked like when I saw it.
The moment in which Google StreetView (or any other publisher) will affix a note: "This is how the house looked at: -datetime-", you may be right and I might agree with it (depending on the context in which the photo is published). Please note that, would other safe-guards in publishing a photo be in place, I may not be that radical in what I' asking.
I've got photos of flowers that are now dead - is the photo misrepresenting the true nature of the flower?
Yes. And I can afford to be sure of that only because you used true nature of the flower: cannot be captured by a simple shot. You may consider that you captured what you believe is the true nature, but other can disagree (ask a bio-chemist, a biologist and a physicist what they believe is the true nature of anything and you will obtain different answers).
If I lie and say "and his house always looks like that", it may be actionable, but not the documentary photo.
Besides, you keep trying to ban the instrument (the photo) rather than the action (harassment). That's like banning knives to prevent murder - totalitarian, harmful to society in general, and ultimately totally ineffective.
Mate, I'm tried already of repeating: should the owner of a house be able to control the publishing of a photo of the home.
And you keep falling into the "taking the photo" action or the photo itself. I didn't ask to ban cameras, I didn't ask the cameras to have safety pins, all I'm asking is the publishing of the photo to benefit of some control from the owner of the house. Publishing is still an action in your understanding, is it not?
Also you haven't shown any reason why you'd be given rights to these photos of mine in the first place. Why should this house-image right exist?
I don't object of you taking photos of my house. I don't object to use them for personal purposes. I object to your right to do absolutely everything you want/imagine with the photo during publishing.
If you would say: the owner's right to control the publishing should be somehow counter-balanced and limited by safe-guards, I might agree and we can explore the ways to limit my potential abuses. If you insist that I have absolutely no right to control the publishing of photos of my home, then we might as well stop here and agree to disagree.
I've been saying it for some time now, but farmers have pretty much always been on the cutting edge of technology. [...]
Strikes me as extremely stupid, then. What stops them to buy an eReader and ask the magazine be delivered in electronic format, with all the multimedia ads they want?
Cost-wise, long term, would worth better if the magazine offers an eBook reader to subscribers for 1 year subscription
As the prices are falling fast (e.g. Kobo - under $150), it would not take long for niche magazines to be distributed in electronic format only, with all the multimedia ads they want.
They were violating UN sanctions against Iran. So it should be unlawful in any civilized country.
Except all (read the introduction) the UN sanctions against Iran are related with its nuclear program. That's a bit of a distance from interception/monitoring technology (besides I really wouldn't expect Nokia or Siemens to conduct unlawful businesses, at least not unlawful under the Germany, Finland or Iran legislation)
No, you can also conclude that some isotopes decay rates are affected by some external factors i.e. that decay rate is not a fixed constant for all materials.
This is an earthshattering discovery stop being so boring about it.
Ah, yes. Like we didn't know it already that some thermal neutrons thrown at U235 will cause a faster decay. An, indeed, quite earth-shattering if you allow the reaction go super-critical. Except that I wouldn't call this discovery as something very new; would you?
So, I think my conclusion still stands: more research is necessary to discover what causes the variation of decay rate in this particular case. And, as any research, it can be boring for some, exciting for others.
Since 1971, 24 leap seconds have been added on to UTC in order to reconcile UTC and Universal Time.
In the revised ITU plan, the divergence between UTC and UT will be allowed to grow over the next few hundred years, and could be reconciled by a single leap hour at some point.
Hmmm... let's say: 40 years for 24 leap seconds... yeah... it would be allowed to grow over the next 60 hundreds years... quite a few indeed (some would even argue that's the age of the world).
more expensive, publicly funded research is necessary.
Of course is necessary!!!
Do you want another Three Miles Island to happen because of seasonal variations in radioactive decay rate takes us by surprise? Wouldn't you want to see some safe nuclear fuel, impervious to sun's flares, being developed? Is it not enough we have to deal with global warming?
(warning: the above post is intended humorous only, under no circumstances the words below represent the author's opinions on real issues! In plain word: c'mon, mods, it is a joke!)
Cassini also has the advantage of little if any other material around it to have an adverse effect on measurement, measured decay could be affected by surroundings.
Even more than this.
What is the precision one can trust for Cassini's measurements? How small is the seasonal variation in Earth conditions? How the two compares?
really nice find - that wrecks their thesis at the bottom.
Huh? Why?
Assuming the explanation is "Seasonal variation in neutrino flux", because 2 radioactive elements (silicon-32 and radium-) seems to show a neutrino capture cross-section higher than another one (Pu238)? Would this be so unusual?
long-term observation of the decay rate of silicon-32 and radium-226 show a small seasonal variation (on Earth conditions? With lab equipment that can be subject to other seasonal variation?)
radioactive decay of the Pu-238 isotope is insensitive (within the experimental precision) to distance to the Sun
What valid conclusion can one derive from the above facts? In my opinion, exactly one, which is more research is necessary.
Microsoft is only "dabbling" in open source at this point, argues Matt Asay, [...]Microsoft "needs to go deep on Linux," not by replacing Windows with Linux but by "acquiring Novell's SUSE Linux business and focusing it completely on mobile," Asay argue (though perhaps he simply wants Microsoft to take out one of his competitors).
Hmmmm... what? Another Zune/Kin, this time using Linux? If they didn't make it with their own OS, what are the chances they'll succeeds with something else?
Whether Microsoft dives deeper into open source is an open question, but one prominent voice in software says the war between Microsoft and open source is a thing of the past, in part because Microsoft could not destroy open source even if it wanted to.
That rings quite true. So buying SUSE wouldn't do a thing on the destruction line.
Microsoft has an opportunity to boost its reputation among open source proponents in part because of public relations mistakes by Oracle, which as noted earlier is ending the OpenSolaris project and suing Google over use of Java.[...]The Oracle moves do make Microsoft look good by comparison, Lyman says.
Yes, now I see: it is just a very good moment for MS to declare love, now that the girl got black-eyed by another contender - it is only compassionate to do so.
Which, I'd argue, is a huge step forward from the position: as long as it runs only on Windows.
And now, confusion kicks in, in regards with run on Windows and MS care about. The way I understood, as long as something runs on Windows, MS doesn't care. But the set of examples doesn't support this idea.
Google Docs is seen are more of a threat than OpenOffice ever was.
And GoogleDocs runs on Windows the last time I checked.
PHP, Perl, Python, Ruby... They run on Windows so they are all good with that.
The same way GoogleDocs runs on Windows, as well as on other OS-es.
Firefox? Better than Chrome and it runs on Windows.
And Chrome does as well. So, is MS concerned about Firefox? Is MS concerned about Chrome?
Do you say that, if I believe I own the image of my home, I'm sort of a mobster?
Extortion doesn't require violence or a mob,
To me, it does - directly or a threat of violence thereof. But anyway, it is clearer what meaning you give to the term and that's good enough for me (this being sort-of a private discussion already).
Yes.
However it's not the issue of a monetary fee, or which limited uses you'd restrict. I object to giving you any control, which is really government-enforced limits on others, over images of anything you do in/near public.
As it will be with any law or justice decision, yes. However, who will enforce them is irrelevant to the problem: does this right exist or not.
The outside of your house is public - you're putting it in the public's domain.
Now, that is a compelling argument, let's look into it further.
For you to own its image, such that you could forbid someone's use of it (in any way) is to have power to enforce a hole in a panoramic photo.
No, not necessarily. Let me try another example: when strolling in a busy city centre, you can be photographed (by a tourist, let's say) as a part of the crowd. If, however, the said tourist wants a picture with you as the special subject, I'd expect the photographer to come and ask your permission. Which may or may not be granted. Almost for certain, if you find a photo of yourself on the Internet, even when taken in public places, and you don't like the purpose on which it is used, you can ask to be taken down.
In the case of homes, in my mind this translates: as long as you take a panoramic photo and, further, presented to the public as such, you don't have to ask permission (the same as a photo of a person in a crowd). When you capture the image of individual homes, I think that you should ask for permission, and the owner of the home has equally the right to issue a take down notice if the photo is used for purposes she/he doesn't agree (no matter the reasons for disagreement).
If you've created a work of art and you don't want it demoted to "domicile covering",
That's not the only reason I can imagine for a person not agreeing with the photo being made public. Here are some other examples:
privacy - and I'm including the geo coordinates of the home, not only what can/cannot be seen. Granted, even without StreetView, the geo position is not a secret, but neither widely/readily available for anyone
misrepresentation - pertains to the context in which the photo is presented (like, taking a photo when the home is in shambles and inferring that it is how it looks now. Sort of slander in regards with the image of the home)
don't place it in public view.
I did say above it is a compelling argument, didn't I? (just checking. Yes, I did. Good...). What I'm arguing is a final balance between the public/private ownership in regards with the image of a home (in some fine-grain details which I wanted to explore) and I'm on the opinion that the image of a home is not automatically in the public domain, even when visible from the public places (the same it is with an image of a person).
Anyway, thanks a lot, I feel it is (was, if you choose so) a good conversation
But not being able to check if the person is doing the work they get payed to do, is just stupid.
While "employees doing the work they get paid" is a legitimate problem, spying on them is not necessarily the only solution.
Alternate solution: checking that you get the work (results - including the time/scope/budget) that you paid for?
In other words, they are now let go with a "We don't need you [anymore]."
This exists with or without the right (or not) to spy the employees.
Except if one invokes this, a normal workplace law would say: "If you don't need that person anymore, this is to be interpreted you don't need the position anymore. Thus you cannot hire anyone as a replacement" (if it is redundancy, then it must be treated as redundancy).
People would be capable of duplicating the image of the house without your help, but would be forbidden to by a law specifically written to give you money - as a useless permission granting middle-man.
How come? Just when/where did I say "people, to duplicate the image of my home, you need to give me money?"
I don't see how you can't see the extortion in that.
Extortion - is a criminal offense which occurs when a person unlawfully obtains either money, property or services from a person, entity, or institution, through coercion. Refraining from doing harm is sometimes euphemistically called protection.
Do you say that, if I believe I own the image of my home, I'm sort of a mobster?
All it would do is enable you to censor people (someone who was trying to use a photo of your house for any reason, such as a landmark, evidence in a court case, warning people about bad Halloween-candy, etc.)...
The same way I'm censoring people to use the software I write in open-source. Is that extortion as well?
.. and demand fees to duplicate it.
If your argumentation is based on "You want to ask fees for it", your argument is pointless, because I don't (granted, others may).
I, however, resent the use of photos of my home for commercial advantage by third parties, after I worked/paid a lot to make it look the way it looks. Is it clearer now why I'm on the opinion that people should ask my permission to use an image of my home for commercial purposes?
I paid for these attributes to my architect, I invested in landscaping and such. I think how my home looks - good or bad - is also owned by me, is it not?
You got a house and a nice yard to look at. Isn't that good enough? Why do you need an extortion racket as well?
First at all, extortion racket? Will you please check the meaning of the term, because to me it doesn't sound as extortion.
Second, if the image of my home, along with the home itself, is my property, then I don't need to explain why I want to control how the image is used in public. Pretty much as an image having me as the subject, as long as I'm not part of a crowd, why it should be different?
No you dont have a right or are you like the Fake Plods (PCS Officers) who arested a phtographer in the UK for "being to tall"
I'd classify your post as Flamebite, on the grounds that you infer I was suggesting the arrest of some people.
In my opinion, a "Take down" notice would just be sufficient for photos of a home made public on the internet without the consent of the home owner. And yes, the burden of finding alleged "offending" photos and sending the "Please take down" notes should be the burden of the owner: as anything that has a relation with the protection of a property. Sounds reasonable?
I'm not sure really how I feel about that, surely locals have the right to request their homes not be broadcast to the entire world? Is there some greater public good I'm not considering?
Even more: would a "greater public good" trump the right of a certain local community? Think twice before answering: (with the risk of someone modding this as a flamebite) sure there are some mineral deposits somewhere in Afghanistan that can be put to a "greater good" use by US.
Slashdot Mirror
How would you propose to turn it on then?
Ctrl-Alt-Del... for a change.
you're simultaneously going to have people waving their arms around like they are conducting a symphony.
Yep, cubicleville is going to get even weirder than it already is.
What's wrong with this? The Italians are doing it already for ages, should be already a relief for their programmers that needed to restrain themselves during work hours!
What stops them to buy an eReader and ask the magazine be delivered in electronic format, with all the multimedia ads they want?
In a lot of parts of the world, an internet connection
Internet is not the only method of delivery of binary content. An USB stick (even CD-ROM) is still less expensive that a video advert embedded on dead-tree page.
I object to giving you any control, which is really government-enforced limits on others
As it will be with any law or justice decision, yes.
There's the violence you didn't want to see above though. Your "right" to control a photo is only enforceable because you want police to lock up people who don't agree.
Hmmm... seems to me that you are confusing some notions here: like law enforcement and extortion. Based on this, there would be no difference between a mobster and a policeman: both of them use violence or threat of violence, isn't it?
Almost for certain, if you find a photo of yourself on the Internet, even when taken in public places, and you don't like the purpose on which it is used, you can ask to be taken down.
You could ask. But you have absolutely no power to compel such a thing.
Nor should you, that's news. "This guy was doing this." Any way you'd force the removal of an embarrassing photo could be used by a criminal to force newspapers to redact their stories.
Editing/cropping a photo to exclude the context so that the subject will seem/look like doing something nasty: is this a desirable outcome to you? Where's the balance in this?
Censoring photos for privacy wouldn't provide it. I could still say "John's house is at XYZ, and looks just like this other house."
Ok, that's a solution good enough for me. I might accept it.
As for misrepresentation, no, that's not. If I have a photo of your house all messy it's not misrepresenting it. That's what it looked like when I saw it.
The moment in which Google StreetView (or any other publisher) will affix a note: "This is how the house looked at: -datetime-", you may be right and I might agree with it (depending on the context in which the photo is published). Please note that, would other safe-guards in publishing a photo be in place, I may not be that radical in what I' asking.
I've got photos of flowers that are now dead - is the photo misrepresenting the true nature of the flower?
Yes. And I can afford to be sure of that only because you used true nature of the flower: cannot be captured by a simple shot. You may consider that you captured what you believe is the true nature, but other can disagree (ask a bio-chemist, a biologist and a physicist what they believe is the true nature of anything and you will obtain different answers).
If I lie and say "and his house always looks like that", it may be actionable, but not the documentary photo.
Besides, you keep trying to ban the instrument (the photo) rather than the action (harassment). That's like banning knives to prevent murder - totalitarian, harmful to society in general, and ultimately totally ineffective.
Mate, I'm tried already of repeating: should the owner of a house be able to control the publishing of a photo of the home.
And you keep falling into the "taking the photo" action or the photo itself.
I didn't ask to ban cameras, I didn't ask the cameras to have safety pins, all I'm asking is the publishing of the photo to benefit of some control from the owner of the house. Publishing is still an action in your understanding, is it not?
Also you haven't shown any reason why you'd be given rights to these photos of mine in the first place. Why should this house-image right exist?
I don't object of you taking photos of my house. I don't object to use them for personal purposes. I object to your right to do absolutely everything you want/imagine with the photo during publishing.
If you would say: the owner's right to control the publishing should be somehow counter-balanced and limited by safe-guards, I might agree and we can explore the ways to limit my potential abuses. If you insist that I have absolutely no right to control the publishing of photos of my home, then we might as well stop here and agree to disagree.
I've been saying it for some time now, but farmers have pretty much always been on the cutting edge of technology. [...]
Strikes me as extremely stupid, then. What stops them to buy an eReader and ask the magazine be delivered in electronic format, with all the multimedia ads they want?
Cost-wise, long term, would worth better if the magazine offers an eBook reader to subscribers for 1 year subscription
As the prices are falling fast (e.g. Kobo - under $150), it would not take long for niche magazines to be distributed in electronic format only, with all the multimedia ads they want.
They were violating UN sanctions against Iran. So it should be unlawful in any civilized country.
Except all (read the introduction) the UN sanctions against Iran are related with its nuclear program. That's a bit of a distance from interception/monitoring technology
(besides I really wouldn't expect Nokia or Siemens to conduct unlawful businesses, at least not unlawful under the Germany, Finland or Iran legislation)
No, you can also conclude that some isotopes decay rates are affected by some external factors i.e. that decay rate is not a fixed constant for all materials.
This is an earthshattering discovery stop being so boring about it.
Ah, yes. Like we didn't know it already that some thermal neutrons thrown at U235 will cause a faster decay. An, indeed, quite earth-shattering if you allow the reaction go super-critical. Except that I wouldn't call this discovery as something very new; would you?
So, I think my conclusion still stands: more research is necessary to discover what causes the variation of decay rate in this particular case. And, as any research, it can be boring for some, exciting for others.
I'm so confused.
Relax, cool down. Nokia-Siemens sold them because every government asks them to; and providing what your customers want is good for business:
"Western governments, including the UK, don't allow you to build networks without having this functionality."
Since 1971, 24 leap seconds have been added on to UTC in order to reconcile UTC and Universal Time.
In the revised ITU plan, the divergence between UTC and UT will be allowed to grow over the next few hundred years, and could be reconciled by a single leap hour at some point.
Hmmm... let's say: 40 years for 24 leap seconds... yeah... it would be allowed to grow over the next 60 hundreds years... quite a few indeed (some would even argue that's the age of the world).
more expensive, publicly funded research is necessary.
Of course is necessary!!!
Do you want another Three Miles Island to happen because of seasonal variations in radioactive decay rate takes us by surprise? Wouldn't you want to see some safe nuclear fuel, impervious to sun's flares, being developed? Is it not enough we have to deal with global warming?
(warning: the above post is intended humorous only, under no circumstances the words below represent the author's opinions on real issues! In plain word: c'mon, mods, it is a joke!)
Cassini also has the advantage of little if any other material around it to have an adverse effect on measurement, measured decay could be affected by surroundings.
Even more than this.
What is the precision one can trust for Cassini's measurements? How small is the seasonal variation in Earth conditions? How the two compares?
really nice find - that wrecks their thesis at the bottom.
Huh? Why?
Assuming the explanation is "Seasonal variation in neutrino flux", because 2 radioactive elements (silicon-32 and radium-) seems to show a neutrino capture cross-section higher than another one (Pu238)? Would this be so unusual?
What valid conclusion can one derive from the above facts? In my opinion, exactly one, which is more research is necessary.
Microsoft is only "dabbling" in open source at this point, argues Matt Asay, [...]Microsoft "needs to go deep on Linux," not by replacing Windows with Linux but by "acquiring Novell's SUSE Linux business and focusing it completely on mobile," Asay argue (though perhaps he simply wants Microsoft to take out one of his competitors).
Hmmmm... what? Another Zune/Kin, this time using Linux? If they didn't make it with their own OS, what are the chances they'll succeeds with something else?
Whether Microsoft dives deeper into open source is an open question, but one prominent voice in software says the war between Microsoft and open source is a thing of the past, in part because Microsoft could not destroy open source even if it wanted to.
That rings quite true. So buying SUSE wouldn't do a thing on the destruction line.
Microsoft has an opportunity to boost its reputation among open source proponents in part because of public relations mistakes by Oracle, which as noted earlier is ending the OpenSolaris project and suing Google over use of Java.[...]The Oracle moves do make Microsoft look good by comparison, Lyman says.
Yes, now I see: it is just a very good moment for MS to declare love, now that the girl got black-eyed by another contender - it is only compassionate to do so.
As long as it runs on Windows they don't care.
Which, I'd argue, is a huge step forward from the position: as long as it runs only on Windows.
And now, confusion kicks in, in regards with run on Windows and MS care about. The way I understood, as long as something runs on Windows, MS doesn't care. But the set of examples doesn't support this idea.
Google Docs is seen are more of a threat than OpenOffice ever was.
And GoogleDocs runs on Windows the last time I checked.
PHP, Perl, Python, Ruby... They run on Windows so they are all good with that.
The same way GoogleDocs runs on Windows, as well as on other OS-es.
Firefox? Better than Chrome and it runs on Windows.
And Chrome does as well. So, is MS concerned about Firefox? Is MS concerned about Chrome?
Do you say that, if I believe I own the image of my home, I'm sort of a mobster?
Extortion doesn't require violence or a mob,
To me, it does - directly or a threat of violence thereof. But anyway, it is clearer what meaning you give to the term and that's good enough for me (this being sort-of a private discussion already).
Yes.
However it's not the issue of a monetary fee, or which limited uses you'd restrict. I object to giving you any control, which is really government-enforced limits on others, over images of anything you do in/near public.
As it will be with any law or justice decision, yes. However, who will enforce them is irrelevant to the problem: does this right exist or not.
The outside of your house is public - you're putting it in the public's domain.
Now, that is a compelling argument, let's look into it further.
For you to own its image, such that you could forbid someone's use of it (in any way) is to have power to enforce a hole in a panoramic photo.
No, not necessarily. Let me try another example: when strolling in a busy city centre, you can be photographed (by a tourist, let's say) as a part of the crowd.
If, however, the said tourist wants a picture with you as the special subject, I'd expect the photographer to come and ask your permission. Which may or may not be granted. Almost for certain, if you find a photo of yourself on the Internet, even when taken in public places, and you don't like the purpose on which it is used, you can ask to be taken down.
In the case of homes, in my mind this translates: as long as you take a panoramic photo and, further, presented to the public as such, you don't have to ask permission (the same as a photo of a person in a crowd). When you capture the image of individual homes, I think that you should ask for permission, and the owner of the home has equally the right to issue a take down notice if the photo is used for purposes she/he doesn't agree (no matter the reasons for disagreement).
If you've created a work of art and you don't want it demoted to "domicile covering",
That's not the only reason I can imagine for a person not agreeing with the photo being made public. Here are some other examples:
don't place it in public view.
I did say above it is a compelling argument, didn't I? (just checking. Yes, I did. Good...). What I'm arguing is a final balance between the public/private ownership in regards with the image of a home (in some fine-grain details which I wanted to explore) and I'm on the opinion that the image of a home is not automatically in the public domain, even when visible from the public places (the same it is with an image of a person).
Anyway, thanks a lot, I feel it is (was, if you choose so) a good conversation
But not being able to check if the person is doing the work they get payed to do, is just stupid.
While "employees doing the work they get paid" is a legitimate problem, spying on them is not necessarily the only solution. Alternate solution: checking that you get the work (results - including the time/scope/budget) that you paid for?
In other words, they are now let go with a "We don't need you [anymore]."
This exists with or without the right (or not) to spy the employees.
Except if one invokes this, a normal workplace law would say: "If you don't need that person anymore, this is to be interpreted you don't need the position anymore. Thus you cannot hire anyone as a replacement" (if it is redundancy, then it must be treated as redundancy).
not realy take a look at the stories about the UK police aresting phtographers left right and centre.
I'm aware of that, and it is not the reason I resented your inference:
are you like the Fake Plods (PCS Officers) who arested a phtographer in the UK for "being to tall"
because in no post of mine I suggested the people publishing on internet an image of my home should be arrested.
Information isn't like that.
I realize that: I'm writing open-source.
People would be capable of duplicating the image of the house without your help, but would be forbidden to by a law specifically written to give you money - as a useless permission granting middle-man.
How come? Just when/where did I say "people, to duplicate the image of my home, you need to give me money?"
I don't see how you can't see the extortion in that.
FYI:
Extortion - is a criminal offense which occurs when a person unlawfully obtains either money, property or services from a person, entity, or institution, through coercion. Refraining from doing harm is sometimes euphemistically called protection.
Do you say that, if I believe I own the image of my home, I'm sort of a mobster?
All it would do is enable you to censor people (someone who was trying to use a photo of your house for any reason, such as a landmark, evidence in a court case, warning people about bad Halloween-candy, etc.)...
The same way I'm censoring people to use the software I write in open-source. Is that extortion as well?
.. and demand fees to duplicate it.
If your argumentation is based on "You want to ask fees for it", your argument is pointless, because I don't (granted, others may).
I, however, resent the use of photos of my home for commercial advantage by third parties, after I worked/paid a lot to make it look the way it looks. Is it clearer now why I'm on the opinion that people should ask my permission to use an image of my home for commercial purposes?
I paid for these attributes to my architect, I invested in landscaping and such. I think how my home looks - good or bad - is also owned by me, is it not?
You got a house and a nice yard to look at. Isn't that good enough? Why do you need an extortion racket as well?
First at all, extortion racket? Will you please check the meaning of the term, because to me it doesn't sound as extortion.
Second, if the image of my home, along with the home itself, is my property, then I don't need to explain why I want to control how the image is used in public. Pretty much as an image having me as the subject, as long as I'm not part of a crowd, why it should be different?
No you dont have a right or are you like the Fake Plods (PCS Officers) who arested a phtographer in the UK for "being to tall"
I'd classify your post as Flamebite, on the grounds that you infer I was suggesting the arrest of some people.
In my opinion, a "Take down" notice would just be sufficient for photos of a home made public on the internet without the consent of the home owner. And yes, the burden of finding alleged "offending" photos and sending the "Please take down" notes should be the burden of the owner: as anything that has a relation with the protection of a property.
Sounds reasonable?
I'm not sure really how I feel about that, surely locals have the right to request their homes not be broadcast to the entire world? Is there some greater public good I'm not considering?
Even more: would a "greater public good" trump the right of a certain local community?
Think twice before answering: (with the risk of someone modding this as a flamebite) sure there are some mineral deposits somewhere in Afghanistan that can be put to a "greater good" use by US.