It's not like they're going to care if you send messages to your lover behind your wife/husband's back.
Unless your lover happens to be the wife of an FBI agent. Don't forget these are real human beings -- if they could tap any phone they like, certainly they'd have a personal interest in some people's lives.
but I don't personally think as a photographer that I would make any attempt to locate every copyright holder whose work might appear in a photograph I took
I can tell you're not a professional photographer!:P
Yes, they really do go to that extent -- even though they don't necessarily have to. It depends on their (and their clients') exposure. No one uses a painting in the background of a movie without permission, but using it in the background
of a photo on page 3 of the local paper won't raise an eyebrow.
Most people have never really had to deal with copyright law before the internet, so I think that's why a lot of it is surprising in how much protection it gives creators.
I don't have to GPL my article-- that's Fair Use
You answered your own general question with this statement at the end, though -- all of your illustrations were of fair use.
Taking a photo of JUST a painting is not fair use, but having one in the background is a gray area where multiple factors of intent, commercialization, etc come into play. I was deliberately making an example where there is no question -- of a photograph that is intended only to reproduce a painting. Sorry that i wasn't clear on that!...
No, it doesn't work like that -- copyright is cumulative and granular.
If you take a photograph of one of my paintings, you own the copyright for the photograph. But I still own the copyright for the painting. So if Time Magazine wants to use your photograph on the cover of their next issue they have to get permission from you (to use your photo) AND from me (to use my painting in the photo).
Sony can license their own modifications separately, but they cannot make changes to the license of work they didn't create...
I'm not out for "protecting" anyone from themselves. I'm a Libertarian, check my.sig
I know you're a Libertarian, and so is every other person complaining about the AMT, for some reason.
The AMT wasn't invented this year. It's been around. Libertarians are the ones who say that people should be held accountable for their actions, that they should hold up their end of a deal/contract, because they knew going in the terms. Well, stock options and the AMT are nowhere near as complex as people seem to be making them out to be (certainly no more complex than any other rules Libertarians defend corporations enforcing on customers).
You don't just get $1 million in stock for a few hundred dollars and expect that there will be no financial effects. Call an accountant and find out what they are.
Geez, what's the world coming to when even Libertarians don't want people to take responsibility for their actions!?
Why? You were just given $100 a share of profit, as far as I can tell. If you are too short-sighted/greedy to capture some of that profit to offset your tax liability, then you're risking the value will go down and you're left holding the bag.
Should we protect people who short stocks from the possibility it will go up in value? Should we stop margin calls because some people don't keep enough in their accounts to cover the margin and have a forced sale of their stock to cover the margin?
This is playing the market, and if you don't want to play, then don't play. No one was complaining about the rules when they were exercising the options and getting hundreds of millions of dollars for free. Sometimes the market goes down -- should we all pay more taxes to cover these people who are too greedy to accomidate this fact?
New phones have this -- as others have pointed out, the Nokias do.
The samsung (maybe 3500, I know my 8500) can have distinctive rings for individuals, groups, pages vs calls, text messages, emails, etc. It's really pretty out of hand IMHO. There should be one global override available (you can set "all calls" and "all pages", which is close) so you can easily switch from rings to vibrate...
ok, well that does not mean that leaking information, or obtaining it through break and enter is alright, and they have evey right to find out who did that
That's right, they can investigate all they want to find out who leaked the documents, that's their job. But that ability to investigate DOES NOT extend to the ability to force the Times to reveal anonymous sources (again, depending on the actual information and its value to the public versus its importance to the state).
As well, if classified information was published leading to the death of an american, the times would be walking through very dangerous legal ground
What, like the PDF file with names "blacked out" that they published, only to find out later that you could easily turn off the annotations and find out the names of active US spies? No one got in trouble (fortunately no one got hurt either -- that the Govt has admitted, anyways).
Yes it is, the first amendment is apparently more expansive than you believe it to be.
It is the government's responsibility to keep secrets secret. If the new york times gets classified information that is of interest to the public, it is completely within their rights to publish it (and they have numerous times, and have won before the supreme court).
If this wasn't so, the government could simply label everything "classified" and *poof* instant state-controlled media.
And why nearly all of you run around with this ugly analog cell Phones (with this pull-out Antennas *shudder*) while analog cell Phone systems got shut down in Europe years ago, and everyone got gsm
what decade are you referring to? In 2001, most people in the US use digital phones (or dual).
Lets please try to keep in mind that building coverage for any country in Europe is about the same as covering one STATE in the US. It has nothing to do with technological superiority, but the fact that:
1) We have good, always-on, flat-rate land lines
2) it's a lot harder to build cells to cover our land mass. Any metropolis in the US has as good coverage with modern digital tech as any metropolis in Europe. Its only on the 5 hour drive between one city and another that you'll drop service (of course in 5 hours you could drive across 3+ countries in Europe)
The key here is just like radio: Local, Local, Local. Local folks presenting local issues concerning the local area. This is awfully hard to do with big media.
Most radio stations in the US are owned by a few (two?) companies (thanks to the wonderful "deregulation" of radio. Yipee for Ayn Rand -- i hope she likes listening to the same 5 songs from coast to coast).
If they were allowed to build a transmitter powerful enough to blanket the entire country, they wouldn't be wasting any more money on this "local" stuff. The internet can be "broadcast" from anywhere, so we'll see in the future exactly what we see now -- the top 10 sites having 75% of the web traffic (or whatver the statistic is).
We'll have local stuff on the net only because it's part of the power of customization and demographic targetting -- if they could get away with mass-produced content for everyone, they would. Its no less expensive to make local content, and you can only sell it one place!...
What was the logic behind creating a whitespace-based syntax rule? And why do you feel it is good, please refrain from the readability answer because that is all I get from those people I know who know Python.
Well, that's the answer, i'm not sure why it isn't acceptable. One of the main stated goals with Python is that they didn't want a language that had completely different formatting depending on who wrote it, so they made formatting part of the language. This makes it much easier for non-programmers (like me) and beginning programmers to pick it up.
I find, because of my background, it is much easier to read code that uses braces
but someone with no programming backgound wouldn't have that bias, so if you're inventing a new language, why feel hindered by older syntactic conventions?
It does try to appear to be, with all the links into MS,
No, this site is part of the marketing campaign for Windows XP. Unbelieveably enough, most MS employees are nice people with senses of humor, and they hate MS Bob and Clippy as much (or more) than your typical user...
Oh, and don't forget the power that the Chinese now have over the AEgis destroyer arms deal with Taiwan
What, the power to make sure we give Taiwan a 2-for-1 discount?
If our plane had landed, and they immediately said "here is your crew, here is your plane, aren't we being peaceful neighbors?" it would have gone a long way towards the US being willing to listen about how they wouldn't possibly do anything to Taiwan.
As it stands, they've only confirmed our worst fears that ehy have no hesitation in escalating what is essentially a non-incident into a full-scale international crisis. There is no way Congress will refuse to sell anything to taiwan now -- and I wouldn't be surprised to see that 2-for-1 coupon in the mail:)
Umm, china would completely turn the US into a pile of jell-o almost instantly. in a ground war, they can just give the army hammers and they would wipe out our army in a second or two.
I hope the average chinese infantryman is a damn good swimmer, 'cause that's a long way to go without a strong navy.
I spend hundereds a year on my car insurance. And I have never used it. Maybe it's time for a small accident?
The scary thing is I know people who actually DO that kind of stupid shit!:) "hell, I'm paying for insurance, I might as well leave the doors unlocked in this ghetto and see if I can't get a new car!"
Imagine you're driving down the road and some jerk zooms up behind you. Now if you hit your brakes, you've actually CAUSED the ensuing accident.
In every state of the USA, the person in back is responsible for keeping a safe distance. In your scenario, would the person in front still "cause" the accident if he hit his brakes because a child was in the road?
Slashdot Mirror
It's not like they're going to care if you send messages to your lover behind your wife/husband's back.
Unless your lover happens to be the wife of an FBI agent. Don't forget these are real human beings -- if they could tap any phone they like, certainly they'd have a personal interest in some people's lives.
---------------------------------------------
You're exactly right, if the presence is wholly incidental it's almost certainly fair use, especially in a news/documentary situation.
---------------------------------------------
but I don't personally think as a photographer that I would make any attempt to locate every copyright holder whose work might appear in a photograph I took
:P
I can tell you're not a professional photographer!
Yes, they really do go to that extent -- even though they don't necessarily have to. It depends on their (and their clients') exposure. No one uses a painting in the background of a movie without permission, but using it in the background
of a photo on page 3 of the local paper won't raise an eyebrow.
Most people have never really had to deal with copyright law before the internet, so I think that's why a lot of it is surprising in how much protection it gives creators.
I don't have to GPL my article-- that's Fair Use
You answered your own general question with this statement at the end, though -- all of your illustrations were of fair use.
Taking a photo of JUST a painting is not fair use, but having one in the background is a gray area where multiple factors of intent, commercialization, etc come into play. I was deliberately making an example where there is no question -- of a photograph that is intended only to reproduce a painting. Sorry that i wasn't clear on that!...
---------------------------------------------
No, it doesn't work like that -- copyright is cumulative and granular.
If you take a photograph of one of my paintings, you own the copyright for the photograph. But I still own the copyright for the painting. So if Time Magazine wants to use your photograph on the cover of their next issue they have to get permission from you (to use your photo) AND from me (to use my painting in the photo).
Sony can license their own modifications separately, but they cannot make changes to the license of work they didn't create...
---------------------------------------------
I think it is unjust that I can't shoot someone who cuts me off on the freeway. Does that make me right?
Only if you can convince enough other people that you are.
---------------------------------------------
I'm not out for "protecting" anyone from themselves. I'm a Libertarian, check my .sig
I know you're a Libertarian, and so is every other person complaining about the AMT, for some reason.
The AMT wasn't invented this year. It's been around. Libertarians are the ones who say that people should be held accountable for their actions, that they should hold up their end of a deal/contract, because they knew going in the terms. Well, stock options and the AMT are nowhere near as complex as people seem to be making them out to be (certainly no more complex than any other rules Libertarians defend corporations enforcing on customers).
You don't just get $1 million in stock for a few hundred dollars and expect that there will be no financial effects. Call an accountant and find out what they are.
Geez, what's the world coming to when even Libertarians don't want people to take responsibility for their actions!?
---------------------------------------------
This is part of the tax code that MUST be changed
Why? You were just given $100 a share of profit, as far as I can tell. If you are too short-sighted/greedy to capture some of that profit to offset your tax liability, then you're risking the value will go down and you're left holding the bag.
Should we protect people who short stocks from the possibility it will go up in value? Should we stop margin calls because some people don't keep enough in their accounts to cover the margin and have a forced sale of their stock to cover the margin?
This is playing the market, and if you don't want to play, then don't play. No one was complaining about the rules when they were exercising the options and getting hundreds of millions of dollars for free. Sometimes the market goes down -- should we all pay more taxes to cover these people who are too greedy to accomidate this fact?
---------------------------------------------
. It is OK to love your spouse, OK to love your kids, yet, for those with neither, it should be OK to love you job equally
But can your job love you back?
That may, in the end, be the moral that we all need to learn...
---------------------------------------------
so many people around you you can barely move, when you hear the sound of a cell phone ringing--loud.
If you set it to vibrate, the worst that would happen is the lady next to you might fall in love (but you'd know it was YOUR phone ringing)...
---------------------------------------------
New phones have this -- as others have pointed out, the Nokias do.
The samsung (maybe 3500, I know my 8500) can have distinctive rings for individuals, groups, pages vs calls, text messages, emails, etc. It's really pretty out of hand IMHO. There should be one global override available (you can set "all calls" and "all pages", which is close) so you can easily switch from rings to vibrate...
---------------------------------------------
ok, well that does not mean that leaking information, or obtaining it through break and enter is alright, and they have evey right to find out who did that
That's right, they can investigate all they want to find out who leaked the documents, that's their job. But that ability to investigate DOES NOT extend to the ability to force the Times to reveal anonymous sources (again, depending on the actual information and its value to the public versus its importance to the state).
As well, if classified information was published leading to the death of an american, the times would be walking through very dangerous legal ground
What, like the PDF file with names "blacked out" that they published, only to find out later that you could easily turn off the annotations and find out the names of active US spies? No one got in trouble (fortunately no one got hurt either -- that the Govt has admitted, anyways).
---------------------------------------------
publishing classified material is not protected
Yes it is, the first amendment is apparently more expansive than you believe it to be.
It is the government's responsibility to keep secrets secret. If the new york times gets classified information that is of interest to the public, it is completely within their rights to publish it (and they have numerous times, and have won before the supreme court).
If this wasn't so, the government could simply label everything "classified" and *poof* instant state-controlled media.
---------------------------------------------
And why nearly all of you run around with this ugly analog cell Phones (with this pull-out Antennas *shudder*) while analog cell Phone systems got shut down in Europe years ago, and everyone got gsm
what decade are you referring to? In 2001, most people in the US use digital phones (or dual).
Lets please try to keep in mind that building coverage for any country in Europe is about the same as covering one STATE in the US. It has nothing to do with technological superiority, but the fact that:
1) We have good, always-on, flat-rate land lines
2) it's a lot harder to build cells to cover our land mass. Any metropolis in the US has as good coverage with modern digital tech as any metropolis in Europe. Its only on the 5 hour drive between one city and another that you'll drop service (of course in 5 hours you could drive across 3+ countries in Europe)
---------------------------------------------
Zeros! If only! We haven't gotten arabic numerals yet, and have no concept of "0".
Sheesh, these spoiled kids!...
---------------------------------------------
I wonder if $3000 from IBM would help the company? We've found a new profit model!
---------------------------------------------
well, you could still write the code! It just wouldn't do much...
---------------------------------------------
The key here is just like radio: Local, Local, Local. Local folks presenting local issues concerning the local area. This is awfully hard to do with big media.
Most radio stations in the US are owned by a few (two?) companies (thanks to the wonderful "deregulation" of radio. Yipee for Ayn Rand -- i hope she likes listening to the same 5 songs from coast to coast).
If they were allowed to build a transmitter powerful enough to blanket the entire country, they wouldn't be wasting any more money on this "local" stuff. The internet can be "broadcast" from anywhere, so we'll see in the future exactly what we see now -- the top 10 sites having 75% of the web traffic (or whatver the statistic is).
We'll have local stuff on the net only because it's part of the power of customization and demographic targetting -- if they could get away with mass-produced content for everyone, they would. Its no less expensive to make local content, and you can only sell it one place!...
---------------------------------------------
What was the logic behind creating a whitespace-based syntax rule? And why do you feel it is good, please refrain from the readability answer because that is all I get from those people I know who know Python.
Well, that's the answer, i'm not sure why it isn't acceptable. One of the main stated goals with Python is that they didn't want a language that had completely different formatting depending on who wrote it, so they made formatting part of the language. This makes it much easier for non-programmers (like me) and beginning programmers to pick it up.
I find, because of my background, it is much easier to read code that uses braces
but someone with no programming backgound wouldn't have that bias, so if you're inventing a new language, why feel hindered by older syntactic conventions?
---------------------------------------------
It does try to appear to be, with all the links into MS,
No, this site is part of the marketing campaign for Windows XP. Unbelieveably enough, most MS employees are nice people with senses of humor, and they hate MS Bob and Clippy as much (or more) than your typical user...
---------------------------------------------
Oh, and don't forget the power that the Chinese now have over the AEgis destroyer arms deal with Taiwan
:)
What, the power to make sure we give Taiwan a 2-for-1 discount?
If our plane had landed, and they immediately said "here is your crew, here is your plane, aren't we being peaceful neighbors?" it would have gone a long way towards the US being willing to listen about how they wouldn't possibly do anything to Taiwan.
As it stands, they've only confirmed our worst fears that ehy have no hesitation in escalating what is essentially a non-incident into a full-scale international crisis. There is no way Congress will refuse to sell anything to taiwan now -- and I wouldn't be surprised to see that 2-for-1 coupon in the mail
---------------------------------------------
Umm, china would completely turn the US into a pile of jell-o almost instantly. in a ground war, they can just give the army hammers and they would wipe out our army in a second or two.
I hope the average chinese infantryman is a damn good swimmer, 'cause that's a long way to go without a strong navy.
---------------------------------------------
I spend hundereds a year on my car insurance. And I have never used it. Maybe it's time for a small accident?
:) "hell, I'm paying for insurance, I might as well leave the doors unlocked in this ghetto and see if I can't get a new car!"
The scary thing is I know people who actually DO that kind of stupid shit!
---------------------------------------------
Imagine you're driving down the road and some jerk zooms up behind you. Now if you hit your brakes, you've actually CAUSED the ensuing accident.
In every state of the USA, the person in back is responsible for keeping a safe distance. In your scenario, would the person in front still "cause" the accident if he hit his brakes because a child was in the road?
---------------------------------------------
You should read some taiwan news report that it is the trick of US spy plane to turn sharply.
Is that like the trick where the guy leans his face into someone else's fist?
---------------------------------------------
and the US doesn't?
:)
not as quickly
---------------------------------------------