Because if he was the photographer, he owns the copyright to the photos. Therefore he was well within his legal rights to post them.
Only if he had a release signed by the model.
From the article (you did read it, right?), I am guessing she isn't suing Yahoo for letting him post them, but rather for Yahoo refusing to remove them for at least three months.
Frankly, I'm not sure $3 million is enough, given the threat to her safety, and the safety of her coworkers, that this caused. To be honest, if I were her, I'd be pushing for criminal charges for the ex and Yahoo's abuse desk.
Title 17 defines criminal violations of copyright. Title 17, Section 506 says that any infringement for more than $1,000, commercial or not, (and any commercial infringement, regardless of value) is a criminal offense.
So, whether you see it or not, what is alleged is clearly criminal in scope.
I think it's probably because people who know anything about Linux are not the sort to waste their time on surveys. I'm pretty sure I've hung up on several such surveys, for instance.
As soon as you use a graphic interface, the advantages of Linux on old hardware pretty much disappear, in my experience.
Where Linux shines on old hardware is server or firewall functions where you don't need anything more than a command line. I run eleven firewalls, almost all of them on P-133s with 32MB of memory, one of them with ten VPN tunnels. Works beautifully. No Windows product could possibly do that.
Man, Forbes must be desperate for readers to jump on the Star Wars bandwagon now. Lightsabers are not lasers or simply light, they are directed concentrated energy fields that can cut better than a Ginsu knife.
Er, dude, no, they're not. They're a special effect. How they work is irrelevant, unless you're willing to shell out more money for a technical manual written by someone who hasn't seen the movie.
Maybe there's a perfect mirror that travels out from the handle on a mono-filament wire, held in place by some sort of force field. Explains the limited length, and why they can't pass through each other.
It's always illegal in the United States. It's generally criminal.
Don't even bother talkign to the asshole. If he does steal from you, file a complaint with your Labor Relations Board. If you can't take the risk of lost pay, get out immediately, and file that complaint as soon as you're out the door. Threatening to withhold a paycheck is illegal, and generally criminal, as well.
. . . when colleges are going to start automatically putting freshmen from Kansas high schools in to remedial classes, since they simply have not been taught how the world, or science, works.
But I'd bet this was one of the expedited subpeonas the DMCA allows - the ones that are complete and utter bullshit, and are routinely struck down by courts.
If the RIAA were to actually file John Doe lawsuits, they could get a real subpeona, and this wouldn't be an issue at all.
But filing a real lawsuit costs more than filling in the boxes on a form.
(a) Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression
The spoken word is not a tangible medium of expression.
When it is recorded, the recording can qualify for copyright protection (if it's original enough, and meets all the other requirements), but that copyright belongs to the person making the recording, not the person being recorded.
There can be other issues regarding the use of someone's voice, but those are not copyright issues.
The professors quoted in this article desperately need a remedial course in copyright law.
I handle this situation by working for people who know what they're doing. And who don't know what I do (else why would they employe me), but know they don't know, and leave me alone.
Seriously, if your boss trusts some outsider consultant more than his own IT people, either you have the wrong boss, or he has the wrong IT people. Or both.
The only people who use the phrase "double opt-in" are spammers. And they generally mean "we've opted your email address on to our list twice, instead of just once."
Legitimate mass mailers talk about "confirmed opt-in."
There are good black lists out there. MAPS isn't one of them.
From their perspective (and other RBL folks who block more than the sending IP), there are no innocent bystanders. If you're giving money to a spam-friendly co-lo or ISP, you're a spam supporter, and should be punished until you change providers.
There's some merit, I suppose, to that thinking. But many RBL folks take it rather too far, IMO.
MAPS, on the other hand, are yahoos. I've never noted that they can tell their ass from a hole in the ground.
This survey is hopelessly flawed. If you want to collect real data, you have to track how many times users actually go into their browser settings and manually clear the cookies, and you have to also ask them why they are doing it.
Yeah, but that will require being able to track them individually.
All business people try to address the needs of their customers.
Marketing people's customers are not consumers. Their customers are advertisers. Consumers are an obstacle to be overcome in the pursuit of their real customers' needs.
While you have a point, I'm sure the MIT team were entirely aware of the scoring categories, and how they'd be judged. They were in it to build a robot, rather than compete in the contest. That's their call, but they have nothing to complain about.
Slashdot Mirror
Because if he was the photographer, he owns the copyright to the photos. Therefore he was well within his legal rights to post them.
Only if he had a release signed by the model.
From the article (you did read it, right?), I am guessing she isn't suing Yahoo for letting him post them, but rather for Yahoo refusing to remove them for at least three months.
Frankly, I'm not sure $3 million is enough, given the threat to her safety, and the safety of her coworkers, that this caused. To be honest, if I were her, I'd be pushing for criminal charges for the ex and Yahoo's abuse desk.
Title 17 defines criminal violations of copyright. Title 17, Section 506 says that any infringement for more than $1,000, commercial or not, (and any commercial infringement, regardless of value) is a criminal offense.
So, whether you see it or not, what is alleged is clearly criminal in scope.
I think it's probably because people who know anything about Linux are not the sort to waste their time on surveys. I'm pretty sure I've hung up on several such surveys, for instance.
. . . that sales of gummi candy will see a significant increase in that town.
r s_defeat_fingerprint_sensors/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/05/16/gummi_bea
As soon as you use a graphic interface, the advantages of Linux on old hardware pretty much disappear, in my experience.
Where Linux shines on old hardware is server or firewall functions where you don't need anything more than a command line. I run eleven firewalls, almost all of them on P-133s with 32MB of memory, one of them with ten VPN tunnels. Works beautifully. No Windows product could possibly do that.
I'd send myself a bunch of spam complaints, mark them as spam, and see if the abuse desk at my ISP was using this filter system.
Man, Forbes must be desperate for readers to jump on the Star Wars bandwagon now.
Lightsabers are not lasers or simply light, they are directed concentrated energy fields that can cut better than a Ginsu knife.
Er, dude, no, they're not. They're a special effect. How they work is irrelevant, unless you're willing to shell out more money for a technical manual written by someone who hasn't seen the movie.
Maybe there's a perfect mirror that travels out from the handle on a mono-filament wire, held in place by some sort of force field. Explains the limited length, and why they can't pass through each other.
Stationary waves don't work the same (and generally not at all) with energy waves.
Tesla spent his entire fortune, and the latter years of his life, proving this (though he never believed it himself) quite conclusively.
Just doesn't work.
In fact, it is illegal. Unlikely to be prosecuted, since the victims are illegals, but illegal just the same.
You work for criminals.
You seem comfortable with that.
It's always illegal in the United States. It's generally criminal.
Don't even bother talkign to the asshole. If he does steal from you, file a complaint with your Labor Relations Board. If you can't take the risk of lost pay, get out immediately, and file that complaint as soon as you're out the door. Threatening to withhold a paycheck is illegal, and generally criminal, as well.
. . . when colleges are going to start automatically putting freshmen from Kansas high schools in to remedial classes, since they simply have not been taught how the world, or science, works.
But I'd bet this was one of the expedited subpeonas the DMCA allows - the ones that are complete and utter bullshit, and are routinely struck down by courts.
If the RIAA were to actually file John Doe lawsuits, they could get a real subpeona, and this wouldn't be an issue at all.
But filing a real lawsuit costs more than filling in the boxes on a form.
Like he's never done that before.
There are no copyright issues whatsoever in recording someone speaking. The spoken word does not qualify for copyright protection. Period.
Title 17, 102(1):
(a) Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression
The spoken word is not a tangible medium of expression.
When it is recorded, the recording can qualify for copyright protection (if it's original enough, and meets all the other requirements), but that copyright belongs to the person making the recording, not the person being recorded.
There can be other issues regarding the use of someone's voice, but those are not copyright issues.
The professors quoted in this article desperately need a remedial course in copyright law.
. . . since Microsoft doesn't bother to patch IE, there's no reason to go looking for new holes.
I handle this situation by working for people who know what they're doing. And who don't know what I do (else why would they employe me), but know they don't know, and leave me alone.
Seriously, if your boss trusts some outsider consultant more than his own IT people, either you have the wrong boss, or he has the wrong IT people. Or both.
The only people who use the phrase "double opt-in" are spammers. And they generally mean "we've opted your email address on to our list twice, instead of just once."
Legitimate mass mailers talk about "confirmed opt-in."
There are good black lists out there. MAPS isn't one of them.
3. MAPS refuses to unban innocent bystander.
From their perspective (and other RBL folks who block more than the sending IP), there are no innocent bystanders. If you're giving money to a spam-friendly co-lo or ISP, you're a spam supporter, and should be punished until you change providers.
There's some merit, I suppose, to that thinking. But many RBL folks take it rather too far, IMO.
MAPS, on the other hand, are yahoos. I've never noted that they can tell their ass from a hole in the ground.
This survey is hopelessly flawed. If you want to collect real data, you have to track how many times users actually go into their browser settings and manually clear the cookies, and you have to also ask them why they are doing it.
Yeah, but that will require being able to track them individually.
All business people try to address the needs of their customers.
Marketing people's customers are not consumers. Their customers are advertisers. Consumers are an obstacle to be overcome in the pursuit of their real customers' needs.
Frankly, I don't think you're as smart as these kids.
While you have a point, I'm sure the MIT team were entirely aware of the scoring categories, and how they'd be judged. They were in it to build a robot, rather than compete in the contest. That's their call, but they have nothing to complain about.
Because political dissent isn't genetic, dufus.
Could someone more familiar with Slashdot moderation please enlighten me as to how this is possible?
No. No one can. If you can't figure it out on your own, it's too complicated for you.
Trust me on this. I'm much smarter than you. After all, I got modded up to 5. And you didn't. Neener, neener, neneer.