The developer should make the user aware that he's sharing metadata as well as the picture itself, and let him choose how (or whether) to do so. Only at that point he's disclaimed the responsibility.
I'm pretty sure when he posted the results of using his gadget in a publicly accessible place, that is when he disclaimed the responsibility.
Some people like the idea that they are depended on. By creating more laws people are more dependent on the government, legislators
Many legislators come from a law school background. So with their law hammer, everything looks like a nail.
People learned as children, don't bite the hand that feeds you. Lobbies get people elected, and offer as many legally allowable bribes they can.
Some strive to control where they can, because they feel powerless in other areas of their lives. The many stories of drug abusing, closet homosexuals, adulterous politicians comes to mind. They can't control their urges, so they want to control other people's.
They have a personal interest in a particular law. What if their nephew was a popular musician? DMCA seems reasonable. What if their place of employment before/after serving their term is a construction company? No-bid contracts to fix building your laws/actions destroyed seems reasonable.
Would you (not PP, more general) be so quick to give up your well paid job, with very nice fringe benefits? More control equates to job security for these people. No first world nation is going to revolt against politicians or government when the local riot squad has weaponry and defenses that are illegal for civilians.
I own my home and the ground its on so I can do what I damn well please.
Not if your country has an eminent domain law/policy in place. Also, zoning ordinances or equivalent prevent you from performing certain acts on your property (not to mention the laws of your area, I doubt you could grow marijuana for instance).
If these don't apply to your property then I believe the freedom loving/. crowd would love to hear of such a promised land.
I agree, we lose people to preventable suicide that could become great, healthy, contributors to society. And we all know that some of those bullies grow up to be in a position of power and do things we hate. There are Hitlers, and there are Ghandis.
Now I don't know exactly what happend or how the condition is called (it's not a nice thing to avidly ask them for details),...
Here is a contributing reason why people continue to be so sensitive (which bullies just eat up). If someone has a medical condition, one that is so obvious that it causes physical defects, why is not nice to ask what condition they have? We all have our inadequacies, and trying to pretend they don't exist does nothing to help us cope with life in public. Hiding behind secrecy only makes the "coming out" more of an issue. Kids love to uncover and spread secrets.
Here's a clue: if everybody in China did get rich, they would be earning more than $6000, and the average for USA+China would be higher.
Not if most of China's riches come from USA. Then the average he posted simply would not change much. Which is the point I believe the GP was trying to make.
Unfortunately every router, every switch, and just about every jack that has a wire in it is technically making a copy. A brand new set of bits is created and sent out that is a copy of the bits that were sent in. Sure, the previous copy may be destroyed, but it is still technically copying.
Weather or not this represents a copy that infringes the copyrights of the rights holder is a different matter. The analogy would be if McGraw Hill could sue Kinkos because I made a handout for a presentation that contained some material from one of their textbooks. Is it Kinkos job to ensure that all their customers own the copyrights to the material they bring in?
If there is enough of it for everyone to have one for damn near free (and there most certainly is), then why should we pay for it?
Seriously. What if light bulbs were everywhere? You just go outside hold out your hand and *poof* you have a new light bulb. And if you think hard enough you get just the one you're looking for. Why would anyone continue to pay for light bulbs?
While your use of self-depreciation throughout your comment grants you some sympathy, thinking in helpless terms like that encourages people to take advantage of you. This includes entities like the fashion industry that depend on insecurities. Even this post is because I view you as weak but with the potential to overcome.
I'm not saying it's your fault, but it is your responsibility to change it. We all experience set-backs, unexpected circumstances, and even direct attacks. Claiming that others are responsible for our insecurities gives them control over them. Do you really want a profit-seeking corporation to have control over your self-image? Do you want that abusive asshole to control the lock & key to your self-esteem?
As an adult, if someone damages my property, physically hurts me or verbally threatens me it constitutes a crime that I can go to the police with. That is an option available to Adults. How is denying this option to children "preparing them for adulthood"?
They have all those options without this new hand-holding option. If someone is causing violence against you, call 911. 911 isn't some adults only emergency line. It can even be used in schools (a most effective statement if the administrators allow the violence to continue).
As for never having to see them again. A restraining order could achieve that. If the child's parents refuse to help their child, then child services might be interested in the situation.
You have every right to defend yourself and using violence is ok if that's what you're doing.
Exactly. This idea that provoking an animal, that is in the higher ranks of the food chain, comes with no consequences is just dumb.
As much as civilization affords us, we must be ever vigilant to protect ourselves. First it's the school bully, then its your boss that needs you to work some free overtime. Next comes your 'best friend' sleeping with your wife, now it's the government needing more of your resources (income) to pay for some bad decisions.
If you can't defend your own sovereignty, and natural rights, then you are no longer free.
I can change the current laws to suit my needs. Not often single-handedly (although sometimes), but it can be done.
I'm not against the changing of laws, but I am against laws that unbalance the power of its citizens.
Since copyrights are already protected, what you're asking for is nothing more than complete control of something owned by another person. The customer own the copies they buy from you.
Incidentally, I was asking to hear from business owners. What sort of property do you have to protect?
Actually, you said,
Any other corporate owners around here to debate this from another perspective? Someone who actually has intellectual property to protect?
I do own stock, and I write software. So I believe I qualify to respond to your question.
I appreciate your candor, but my $DIETY the selfishness you just expressed has just jaded the rest of my day.
If I'm not particularly interesting in having them used in school work, I don't think they should be.
Then don't distribute your works. If you want complete control over what people do with things available to them, then move to a country with a dictator. I agree that copyright infingement is unlawful, but it obviously happens. You knew that when you started producing copywritten material. If you didn't, then you didn't research your business plan.
Assuming you have evidence of an infringement, you are welcome to sue the persons responsible. Until then, stop assuming that everyone is out to ruin your business by stealing all your IP.
You say that it is sustainable, please elaborate. Because unless you're ignoring the presence of interest rates, the money owed will always exceed money existing. This ends with people or businesses going bankrupt unless there is perpetual growth, which is also unsustainable.
Of course, something like this could only be possible with DRM and e-book reader support for that DRM, which despite what you hear on Slashdot, can be useful when implemented properly.
Useful economically perhaps. Useful to the distribution of knowledge, not so much.
Oh nevermind. I was going to type out a response of how you obviously just want to be a 1 man island and provide for yourself with absolutely no help from anyone else unless you can "afford" it. But then I saw your sig, so you're just trolling and may or may not believe in what you're saying.
You drive your car in public though, my house is private. So you've moved to completely different slope, commonly called a non-sequitor. Considering you already have government requiring an issued license to drive on public roads, they have every reason to demand new technologies be in place if you wish to drive your car on public roads.
To be honest, I mostly welcome stricter restrictions on licenses. Driving is one of the more dangerous and expensive things people are required to do in their daily lives. Being in a university city with a dense population I'm constantly on alert for those who are either drunk, distracted, or trying get me to rear end them for an insurance check. Luckily I live near enough to where I work that driving isn't something I must do everyday but it is for many people. And getting dangerous people off the road is something the community could benefit from.
By putting in measures that will effectively require a person to be a better driver or get off the road, insurance costs should decrease, fatalities & injuries related to driving would decrease, pollution would decrease, and the demand for public transportation would increase, creating local jobs. I'm not an economist and I'm sure the car lobby would throw a shit fit if the government lowered demand for cars. But personally I put human health and safety above job safety.
As hopeless as it seems to go head to head against our government, those in Iraq and Afghanistan seem to be holding out well. And this despite the complete dehumanization of those "muslim-extremists" our government's propaganda has instilled into our soldier's and public.
I have the hope that should a resistance ever build up, an enlisted man would refuse the order to launch unmanned planes armed with dirty bombs against some American citizens on American private property.
If replacing it meant more and hotter water, with an attachment to add some kool-aid for my drinking taps. And the last time I bought a water heater was 40 years ago, I'd start looking for new water heaters yeah.
Damn, my mod points expire while I'm reading this post. Well said.
Every law is a trade off, I'm not allowed to kill people that annoy but in return other people aren't allowed to kill me if I annoy them. When the general populous gets nothing in return for a law, they won't honor this "contract".
I completely agree. There will always be those unwilling to pay for games. Either they don't buy it and don't play it or they don't buy but do play it. I know piracy is a crime, it has been for hundreds of years. Yet people still do it. Get over it and cater your products for paying customers.
Just because Ubisoft made Tom Clancy's Ice Cream Shop 4 doesn't mean it will sell twice as many copies as TCICS 2. Despite what thier marketing department told them about 4 being twice as much as 2. A 50% drop in sales just means your product line is 30~40% worse this time of year, while your competitor's offerings are better. I didn't bother to RTFA, but the two reasons in the summary indicate that Ubisoft thinks their drop in sales has to do with everyone but Ubisoft.
Slashdot Mirror
The developer should make the user aware that he's sharing metadata as well as the picture itself, and let him choose how (or whether) to do so. Only at that point he's disclaimed the responsibility.
I'm pretty sure when he posted the results of using his gadget in a publicly accessible place, that is when he disclaimed the responsibility.
Some people like the idea that they are depended on. By creating more laws people are more dependent on the government, legislators
Many legislators come from a law school background. So with their law hammer, everything looks like a nail.
People learned as children, don't bite the hand that feeds you. Lobbies get people elected, and offer as many legally allowable bribes they can.
Some strive to control where they can, because they feel powerless in other areas of their lives. The many stories of drug abusing, closet homosexuals, adulterous politicians comes to mind. They can't control their urges, so they want to control other people's.
They have a personal interest in a particular law. What if their nephew was a popular musician? DMCA seems reasonable. What if their place of employment before/after serving their term is a construction company? No-bid contracts to fix building your laws/actions destroyed seems reasonable.
Would you (not PP, more general) be so quick to give up your well paid job, with very nice fringe benefits? More control equates to job security for these people. No first world nation is going to revolt against politicians or government when the local riot squad has weaponry and defenses that are illegal for civilians.
I hope that helps answer the "why".
I own my home and the ground its on so I can do what I damn well please.
Not if your country has an eminent domain law/policy in place. Also, zoning ordinances or equivalent prevent you from performing certain acts on your property (not to mention the laws of your area, I doubt you could grow marijuana for instance).
If these don't apply to your property then I believe the freedom loving /. crowd would love to hear of such a promised land.
I agree, we lose people to preventable suicide that could become great, healthy, contributors to society. And we all know that some of those bullies grow up to be in a position of power and do things we hate. There are Hitlers, and there are Ghandis.
Now I don't know exactly what happend or how the condition is called (it's not a nice thing to avidly ask them for details), ...
Here is a contributing reason why people continue to be so sensitive (which bullies just eat up). If someone has a medical condition, one that is so obvious that it causes physical defects, why is not nice to ask what condition they have? We all have our inadequacies, and trying to pretend they don't exist does nothing to help us cope with life in public. Hiding behind secrecy only makes the "coming out" more of an issue. Kids love to uncover and spread secrets.
Here's a clue: if everybody in China did get rich, they would be earning more than $6000, and the average for USA+China would be higher.
Not if most of China's riches come from USA. Then the average he posted simply would not change much. Which is the point I believe the GP was trying to make.
Unfortunately every router, every switch, and just about every jack that has a wire in it is technically making a copy. A brand new set of bits is created and sent out that is a copy of the bits that were sent in. Sure, the previous copy may be destroyed, but it is still technically copying.
Weather or not this represents a copy that infringes the copyrights of the rights holder is a different matter. The analogy would be if McGraw Hill could sue Kinkos because I made a handout for a presentation that contained some material from one of their textbooks. Is it Kinkos job to ensure that all their customers own the copyrights to the material they bring in?
If there is enough of it for everyone to have one for damn near free (and there most certainly is), then why should we pay for it?
Seriously. What if light bulbs were everywhere? You just go outside hold out your hand and *poof* you have a new light bulb. And if you think hard enough you get just the one you're looking for. Why would anyone continue to pay for light bulbs?
While your use of self-depreciation throughout your comment grants you some sympathy, thinking in helpless terms like that encourages people to take advantage of you. This includes entities like the fashion industry that depend on insecurities. Even this post is because I view you as weak but with the potential to overcome.
I'm not saying it's your fault, but it is your responsibility to change it. We all experience set-backs, unexpected circumstances, and even direct attacks. Claiming that others are responsible for our insecurities gives them control over them. Do you really want a profit-seeking corporation to have control over your self-image? Do you want that abusive asshole to control the lock & key to your self-esteem?
As an adult, if someone damages my property, physically hurts me or verbally threatens me it constitutes a crime that I can go to the police with. That is an option available to Adults. How is denying this option to children "preparing them for adulthood"?
They have all those options without this new hand-holding option. If someone is causing violence against you, call 911. 911 isn't some adults only emergency line. It can even be used in schools (a most effective statement if the administrators allow the violence to continue).
As for never having to see them again. A restraining order could achieve that. If the child's parents refuse to help their child, then child services might be interested in the situation.
You have every right to defend yourself and using violence is ok if that's what you're doing.
Exactly. This idea that provoking an animal, that is in the higher ranks of the food chain, comes with no consequences is just dumb.
As much as civilization affords us, we must be ever vigilant to protect ourselves. First it's the school bully, then its your boss that needs you to work some free overtime. Next comes your 'best friend' sleeping with your wife, now it's the government needing more of your resources (income) to pay for some bad decisions.
If you can't defend your own sovereignty, and natural rights, then you are no longer free.
Or, do we really WANT go groom them to live in a police state?
The police (and other agencies involved) would love for you to do just that. Talk about job security!
I can change the current laws to suit my needs. Not often single-handedly (although sometimes), but it can be done.
I'm not against the changing of laws, but I am against laws that unbalance the power of its citizens.
Since copyrights are already protected, what you're asking for is nothing more than complete control of something owned by another person. The customer own the copies they buy from you.
Incidentally, I was asking to hear from business owners. What sort of property do you have to protect?
Actually, you said,
Any other corporate owners around here to debate this from another perspective? Someone who actually has intellectual property to protect?
I do own stock, and I write software. So I believe I qualify to respond to your question.
I appreciate your candor, but my $DIETY the selfishness you just expressed has just jaded the rest of my day.
If I'm not particularly interesting in having them used in school work, I don't think they should be.
Then don't distribute your works. If you want complete control over what people do with things available to them, then move to a country with a dictator. I agree that copyright infingement is unlawful, but it obviously happens. You knew that when you started producing copywritten material. If you didn't, then you didn't research your business plan.
Assuming you have evidence of an infringement, you are welcome to sue the persons responsible. Until then, stop assuming that everyone is out to ruin your business by stealing all your IP.
Thank you for the interesting reply.
You say that it is sustainable, please elaborate. Because unless you're ignoring the presence of interest rates, the money owed will always exceed money existing. This ends with people or businesses going bankrupt unless there is perpetual growth, which is also unsustainable.
Of course, something like this could only be possible with DRM and e-book reader support for that DRM, which despite what you hear on Slashdot, can be useful when implemented properly.
Useful economically perhaps. Useful to the distribution of knowledge, not so much.
Addition Pylons (I mean mirrors) Required.
What. The. Fuck.
Oh nevermind. I was going to type out a response of how you obviously just want to be a 1 man island and provide for yourself with absolutely no help from anyone else unless you can "afford" it. But then I saw your sig, so you're just trolling and may or may not believe in what you're saying.
You drive your car in public though, my house is private. So you've moved to completely different slope, commonly called a non-sequitor. Considering you already have government requiring an issued license to drive on public roads, they have every reason to demand new technologies be in place if you wish to drive your car on public roads.
To be honest, I mostly welcome stricter restrictions on licenses. Driving is one of the more dangerous and expensive things people are required to do in their daily lives. Being in a university city with a dense population I'm constantly on alert for those who are either drunk, distracted, or trying get me to rear end them for an insurance check. Luckily I live near enough to where I work that driving isn't something I must do everyday but it is for many people. And getting dangerous people off the road is something the community could benefit from.
By putting in measures that will effectively require a person to be a better driver or get off the road, insurance costs should decrease, fatalities & injuries related to driving would decrease, pollution would decrease, and the demand for public transportation would increase, creating local jobs. I'm not an economist and I'm sure the car lobby would throw a shit fit if the government lowered demand for cars. But personally I put human health and safety above job safety.
As hopeless as it seems to go head to head against our government, those in Iraq and Afghanistan seem to be holding out well. And this despite the complete dehumanization of those "muslim-extremists" our government's propaganda has instilled into our soldier's and public.
I have the hope that should a resistance ever build up, an enlisted man would refuse the order to launch unmanned planes armed with dirty bombs against some American citizens on American private property.
is so small as to be insignificant to their MP come re-election time that they don't care.
If replacing it meant more and hotter water, with an attachment to add some kool-aid for my drinking taps. And the last time I bought a water heater was 40 years ago, I'd start looking for new water heaters yeah.
Damn, my mod points expire while I'm reading this post. Well said.
Every law is a trade off, I'm not allowed to kill people that annoy but in return other people aren't allowed to kill me if I annoy them. When the general populous gets nothing in return for a law, they won't honor this "contract".
Big difference from 'first-edition' books and the n-th re-release of Snow White on DVD/Blu-ray.
I completely agree. There will always be those unwilling to pay for games. Either they don't buy it and don't play it or they don't buy but do play it. I know piracy is a crime, it has been for hundreds of years. Yet people still do it. Get over it and cater your products for paying customers.
Just because Ubisoft made Tom Clancy's Ice Cream Shop 4 doesn't mean it will sell twice as many copies as TCICS 2. Despite what thier marketing department told them about 4 being twice as much as 2. A 50% drop in sales just means your product line is 30~40% worse this time of year, while your competitor's offerings are better. I didn't bother to RTFA, but the two reasons in the summary indicate that Ubisoft thinks their drop in sales has to do with everyone but Ubisoft.