To be fair, companies need to be granted a worldwide license to "host, store, reproduce" your content otherwise you could upload some copyrighted material and sue them for hosting/publishing it. The "modify/create derivative works" is likely for items such as producing thumbnail images or loading them into an online editor. The troubling bit in the Instagram TOS was that they were claiming the right to transfer this license to other parties, sell the images for ads to anyone they wanted, and not share any of the revenue. So far, to my knowledge, Google hasn't changed their TOS to claim that right.
What if I post a photo and it is legal to post it online but not profit from it. (e.g User was in a public location.) Now, Instagram changes their TOS and sells that photo (published BEFORE the TOS change) for commercial use. Am I held liable for uploading it when it was legal to? Am I liable for not taking down the photo when the TOS changed? (If I can take it down at all, that is.) Is Instagram liable for using the photo without a model release?
Between ditching Twitpic (who pulled a similar stunt) and using Instagram (I know, didn't learn my lesson), I posted photos directly on an area of my Wordpress blog. Now that I have a smartphone, this should be even easier. With Twitter integration, I can have a link to the photo appear automatically in my Twitter stream.
I use Instagram and like the instant "take a photo, post it, get social feedback" nature of it. (I don't use the filters at all. Never saw a use for them.) However, when I'm posting my photo there, the expectation has been I'm granting Instagram a license to use my photo for purposes of displaying it, not for selling it without my permission to some company without my approval and without sharing the profit.
I'm exploring Instagram alternatives (mostly that rely on my self-hosted Wordpress blog).
Wil Wheaton posted about this. Suppose he or another celebrity is spotted shopping somewhere. He's spotted and a photo is posted on Instagram. So far, so good. He's in a public place and thus has no expectation of privacy. If that user's photo is sold by Instagram for the store and used in an ad campaign implying that Wil Wheaton (or the other celebrity) endorses that store, they could be in for a serious lawsuit. Same for any other individual who hasn't signed a model release, but a celebrity would make for a more high profile case.
You obviously haven't had your Teleco Sponsored Brainwashing. Don't you know that Google and other content providers freeload off the poor, innocent telecos and must be required to pay for access to the telecos' customers (while, at the same time, the customers are charged for access to Google, etc.).
On the other hand, let's just be glad they didn't go the "shoe bomber reaction" route when the underwear bomber struck. Though requiring everyone strip naked to get through the line *would* be a quick way to get the TSA's requirements looked at closely.
Worth so much? You've got me. However, I do use Instagram and like their service. I don't waste my time with the filters, but Instagram is an easy way to upload photos and get quick feedback from people ("likes" and/or comments) on those photos. However, the TOS change is likely going to drive me off the service. By uploading my photos, I give them permission to host them, not sell them. I sometimes post photos of my kids and, if they want to sell the photo, they'd better get my permission (which will entail giving me a cut of the sales).
I get that they want to monetize the photos. That's fine in general. The service needs to earn money to pay for itself. However, the way to do this would be to give people the option to opt-in to a monetization service. Then, give companies who want to buy photos an easy way to look through the "for sale" pictures. If a company likes a photo, they can make an offer to the user, the user can counter or accept, and then company can pay the user through Instagram. Instagram would take a cut and both the user and Instagram would profit.
A system like this would mean no user photos would be sold without the user's permission and Instagram could still make money. But if they persist with the "we're going to sell your photos no matter your preference", then "my preference" will be to delete my Instagram account and post my photos on my blog (self hosted Wordpress). There might even be some Wordpress apps that help me make my posted photos "more social."
What is the purpose behind a semi-automatic weapon with a clip of 100 bullets? What is the legal use for this?
I wouldn't support a ban on all guns. That would never work and there are instances where guns should be required (provided background checks, etc). However, what legal reason does someone need to possess a weapon like this? (No, simply saying "I'd like to have it" doesn't cut it. I'd like to have a nuclear reactor, but if I went shopping for uranium, I'd run into some difficulties.)
I'm wondering just what purpose a semi-automatic assault weapon with a clip of 100 rounds serves. Do you go shooting deer and are so bad a shot that you need to spray a wide area with bullets? (If so, just go to the store to buy your venison.) Self-defense? (Man breaks into your house and you spray 50 bullets in his general direction?)
Actually, I'd hope that they would do everything possible to reconstruct the lost data. No, he can't be prosecuted, but perhaps a clear picture of what drove him to do this could lead to policies that prevent future tragedies. Otherwise we're left with picking semi-random "things to blame" (guns, untreated mental illness, video games, etc), assigning them to him regardless of any evidence, and trying to "fix" it without knowing just what "fixing it" would entail.
So your suggestion would be that my 9 year old son go to a bar and talk to the bartender, presumably while drinking? Somehow, I don't think that will help him one iota.
Aspergers has ZERO to do with the killer's rampage. I have a son with Asperger's (yes, diagnosed by a doctor and, no, it wasn't an easy process to figure out what was going on with him) and I can tell you that the nature of Asperger's is completely counter to something like this.
First of all, people think Asperger's means a lack of empathy. It doesn't, though. It's a lack of an ability to pick up on social cues. My son can't tell if his endless story about the video game he's playing is boring you or if you are riveted. Communication is 20% words and 80% non-verbal. Aspies have trouble deciphering the latter 80%. Imagine trying to read Slashdot posts/comments with only 1 out of every 5 letters in place. C____ __u ____y __ _n_ __ ___m? O_ _____d ___ __t___a_ __o_ ___ __n____a___n? (i.e. Could you reply to any of them? Or would you withdraw from the conversation?) Aspies might withdraw simply because they don't understand how to respond/interact, but they *WANT* to participate.
In addition, Aspies tend to be over-sensitive to the emotions of others once they are told about them. If you tell an Aspie they they offended you with somthing they did, the Aspie will likely feel awful. They might not know how to "make it better", and might withdraw more for fear of making more mistakes, but don't mistake withdrawal for lack of empathy.
Finally, I've found that Aspies (like my son) tend to be sticklers for the rules. They find comfort in rules and get upset when people violate them. So an Aspie isn't likely to plan something that completely "violates the rules" to the degree that a mass shooting does. (They might not get subtle social cues, but they understand that hurting people is wrong.)
Anyone who tries to link mass shootings (including this one) to Asperger's/Autism is just displaying a vast lack of understanding of what Asperger's/Autism is.
The government can't restrict WBC's speech just because it's ugly and (highly, highly) unpopular.
Other people, however, can work to make sure that the WBC's message isn't heard. There are "angel" groups who counter-protest at WBC protests while dressed in angel outfits. When the WBC starts shouting their horrid message, the "angels" turn their backs and the large, white wings they wear blocks the WBC from being seen from the funeral (or other venue the WBC is protesting). Then there was the ComicCon counter-protest which vastly outnumbered the WBC's tiny numbers with humorous messages or the Hell's Angels motorcycle groups who organize at WBC protests and rev their engines to drown out the WBC..
All these are legal because while the WBC has the right to speak, the rest of us have the right to ignore them and/or drown out their speech with other speech. (If drowning out someone's speech was illegal, then modding someone -1 would be an arrestable offence.)
The shooter wasn't a parent from what I've read. His mother was a teacher. He shot his brother at home, went to his mother's kindergarten class and shot her (as well as a bunch of other people). There aren't words vile enough to describe this guy.
All I know is that I'm hugging my 2 boys (one of whom is in kindergarten) a few extra times tonight.
From what I hear, the gunman is dead. (Not sure if he killed himself or was shot by someone else.)
Now, I'm not normally a vindictive person, but I would have rather had him taken alive, tried, and put in jail for life. No "easy out" death sentence for him. Stick him in a jail full of murderers and rapists and tell them all about how he gunned down innocent children. From what I've heard, people like him are considered scum by even these folks. Then, give him some especially slippery soap and turn the prison population loose on him. Death is too quick for people like this.
I don't think guns should be banned outright, but proper training should be a requirement before you own a firearm. This isn't an issue with this case, but more of an issue with the all-too-common Parent Leaves Loaded Gun In Drawer And Kid Shoots Someone stories. Owning a gun is a big responsibility and people shouldn't take it lightly.
And my response to those who say "Well, if all of the teachers were armed they would have shot the gunman before he killed anyone" is 1) The gunman has the element of surprise. Nobody's expecting Random Person to suddenly burst into the room spraying bullets anywhere. He could kill a bunch of people before anyone even drew their gun. 2) How do you handle a "heat of the moment" situation where you see Person A shoot Person B. Whip out your gun and shoot Person A? What if Person A had noticed Person B drawing their gun to shoot? What if Person C now sees your aiming your gun at Person A? How do you keep "shoot the gunman" into turning into "everyone firing at each other"?
Re:Uh...it's still there, you know
on
The Web We Lost
·
· Score: 1
Actually, his description of how links "used" to work sounds dangerous to me.
Ten years ago, you could allow people to post links on your site, or to show a list of links which were driving inbound traffic to your site
I don't want to just give anyone the ability to post links to any website they choose (without moderation/spam control) on my site. If you do this, then you'll get a few valid links and tons of spam links.
Re:Uh...it's still there, you know
on
The Web We Lost
·
· Score: 1
What mobile provider are you using that blocks weather sites? I use Verizon Wireless and just checked Weather.com, Weather.gov, and WUnderground.com. All three work fine as does the weather app I installed from AccuWeather.com.
It probably wasn't that set a process at first. They might have used the stomach as a food storage pouch and kept some milk in there. It "went bad", but the person decided to consume it anyway. That's when they ate the first "proto-cheese." Over time, they refined how to turn milk into cheese, but the first cheese was likely an accident.
Interesting. When my oldest son was very young, he was allergic to milk. If we fed him it, he'd break out in a rash and eventually began having breathing problems. He could eat cheese, yogurt, etc all day with no problems, however. I wonder if he had a lactose allergy at the time. (We stopped giving him milk for a few months and the allergy went away on its own.)
As far as I understand it, downloading (without permission of the copyright holder) is illegal, but hard to prosecute. If you rip a CD and put those songs online, it's easy to prove. Just browse to your listing and perhaps download one or two to verify. However, if you download a copyrighted song, the RIAA would need to access server or ISP logs to prove this. Getting to those logs would require court orders which is more difficult. In addition, the RIAA wouldn't know offhand what IP address downloaded the copyrighted files without the log files. So it becomes a chicken-egg scenario. They need the logs to find the IP address, but they need the IP address (at minimum) to request the logs. No court is going to order an ISP to give up all of their logs so the RIAA can fish through them and find copyright violators.
This is where AllOfMP3.com fell. The RIAA could have decided to sue AllOfMP3's customers, but first they would have needed AllOfMP3's logs to figure out who downloaded songs and where they were located. Finding that out would take a lot of time and effort. It was easier to just shut down AllOfMP3. (IIRC, they went after the payment processors because AllOfMP3 was kind of legal in the country it resided in at the time. So they got the payment processors to block it while they re-wrote that country's copyright law.)
BitTorrent is a bit of a quirk as you tend to upload while you're downloading. So you might think you're just downloading Latest_Greatest_Song.mp3, but you're actually uploading bits of it as well. That upload can be seen and you could be sued over it.
Slashdot Mirror
To be fair, companies need to be granted a worldwide license to "host, store, reproduce" your content otherwise you could upload some copyrighted material and sue them for hosting/publishing it. The "modify/create derivative works" is likely for items such as producing thumbnail images or loading them into an online editor. The troubling bit in the Instagram TOS was that they were claiming the right to transfer this license to other parties, sell the images for ads to anyone they wanted, and not share any of the revenue. So far, to my knowledge, Google hasn't changed their TOS to claim that right.
What if I post a photo and it is legal to post it online but not profit from it. (e.g User was in a public location.) Now, Instagram changes their TOS and sells that photo (published BEFORE the TOS change) for commercial use. Am I held liable for uploading it when it was legal to? Am I liable for not taking down the photo when the TOS changed? (If I can take it down at all, that is.) Is Instagram liable for using the photo without a model release?
Between ditching Twitpic (who pulled a similar stunt) and using Instagram (I know, didn't learn my lesson), I posted photos directly on an area of my Wordpress blog. Now that I have a smartphone, this should be even easier. With Twitter integration, I can have a link to the photo appear automatically in my Twitter stream.
Just like Calvinball!
I use Instagram and like the instant "take a photo, post it, get social feedback" nature of it. (I don't use the filters at all. Never saw a use for them.) However, when I'm posting my photo there, the expectation has been I'm granting Instagram a license to use my photo for purposes of displaying it, not for selling it without my permission to some company without my approval and without sharing the profit.
I'm exploring Instagram alternatives (mostly that rely on my self-hosted Wordpress blog).
Wil Wheaton posted about this. Suppose he or another celebrity is spotted shopping somewhere. He's spotted and a photo is posted on Instagram. So far, so good. He's in a public place and thus has no expectation of privacy. If that user's photo is sold by Instagram for the store and used in an ad campaign implying that Wil Wheaton (or the other celebrity) endorses that store, they could be in for a serious lawsuit. Same for any other individual who hasn't signed a model release, but a celebrity would make for a more high profile case.
You obviously haven't had your Teleco Sponsored Brainwashing. Don't you know that Google and other content providers freeload off the poor, innocent telecos and must be required to pay for access to the telecos' customers (while, at the same time, the customers are charged for access to Google, etc.).
Guns don't kill people, shoes kill people?
On the other hand, let's just be glad they didn't go the "shoe bomber reaction" route when the underwear bomber struck. Though requiring everyone strip naked to get through the line *would* be a quick way to get the TSA's requirements looked at closely.
Wait... The TSA is using gamma rays now? Cool! *books a flight and buys a pair of very loose fitting purple pants*
Worth so much? You've got me. However, I do use Instagram and like their service. I don't waste my time with the filters, but Instagram is an easy way to upload photos and get quick feedback from people ("likes" and/or comments) on those photos. However, the TOS change is likely going to drive me off the service. By uploading my photos, I give them permission to host them, not sell them. I sometimes post photos of my kids and, if they want to sell the photo, they'd better get my permission (which will entail giving me a cut of the sales).
I get that they want to monetize the photos. That's fine in general. The service needs to earn money to pay for itself. However, the way to do this would be to give people the option to opt-in to a monetization service. Then, give companies who want to buy photos an easy way to look through the "for sale" pictures. If a company likes a photo, they can make an offer to the user, the user can counter or accept, and then company can pay the user through Instagram. Instagram would take a cut and both the user and Instagram would profit.
A system like this would mean no user photos would be sold without the user's permission and Instagram could still make money. But if they persist with the "we're going to sell your photos no matter your preference", then "my preference" will be to delete my Instagram account and post my photos on my blog (self hosted Wordpress). There might even be some Wordpress apps that help me make my posted photos "more social."
What is the purpose behind a semi-automatic weapon with a clip of 100 bullets? What is the legal use for this?
I wouldn't support a ban on all guns. That would never work and there are instances where guns should be required (provided background checks, etc). However, what legal reason does someone need to possess a weapon like this? (No, simply saying "I'd like to have it" doesn't cut it. I'd like to have a nuclear reactor, but if I went shopping for uranium, I'd run into some difficulties.)
I'm wondering just what purpose a semi-automatic assault weapon with a clip of 100 rounds serves. Do you go shooting deer and are so bad a shot that you need to spray a wide area with bullets? (If so, just go to the store to buy your venison.) Self-defense? (Man breaks into your house and you spray 50 bullets in his general direction?)
Actually, I'd hope that they would do everything possible to reconstruct the lost data. No, he can't be prosecuted, but perhaps a clear picture of what drove him to do this could lead to policies that prevent future tragedies. Otherwise we're left with picking semi-random "things to blame" (guns, untreated mental illness, video games, etc), assigning them to him regardless of any evidence, and trying to "fix" it without knowing just what "fixing it" would entail.
So your suggestion would be that my 9 year old son go to a bar and talk to the bartender, presumably while drinking? Somehow, I don't think that will help him one iota.
Aspergers has ZERO to do with the killer's rampage. I have a son with Asperger's (yes, diagnosed by a doctor and, no, it wasn't an easy process to figure out what was going on with him) and I can tell you that the nature of Asperger's is completely counter to something like this.
First of all, people think Asperger's means a lack of empathy. It doesn't, though. It's a lack of an ability to pick up on social cues. My son can't tell if his endless story about the video game he's playing is boring you or if you are riveted. Communication is 20% words and 80% non-verbal. Aspies have trouble deciphering the latter 80%. Imagine trying to read Slashdot posts/comments with only 1 out of every 5 letters in place. C____ __u ____y __ _n_ __ ___m? O_ _____d ___ __t___a_ __o_ ___ __n____a___n? (i.e. Could you reply to any of them? Or would you withdraw from the conversation?) Aspies might withdraw simply because they don't understand how to respond/interact, but they *WANT* to participate.
In addition, Aspies tend to be over-sensitive to the emotions of others once they are told about them. If you tell an Aspie they they offended you with somthing they did, the Aspie will likely feel awful. They might not know how to "make it better", and might withdraw more for fear of making more mistakes, but don't mistake withdrawal for lack of empathy.
Finally, I've found that Aspies (like my son) tend to be sticklers for the rules. They find comfort in rules and get upset when people violate them. So an Aspie isn't likely to plan something that completely "violates the rules" to the degree that a mass shooting does. (They might not get subtle social cues, but they understand that hurting people is wrong.)
Anyone who tries to link mass shootings (including this one) to Asperger's/Autism is just displaying a vast lack of understanding of what Asperger's/Autism is.
The government can't restrict WBC's speech just because it's ugly and (highly, highly) unpopular.
Other people, however, can work to make sure that the WBC's message isn't heard. There are "angel" groups who counter-protest at WBC protests while dressed in angel outfits. When the WBC starts shouting their horrid message, the "angels" turn their backs and the large, white wings they wear blocks the WBC from being seen from the funeral (or other venue the WBC is protesting). Then there was the ComicCon counter-protest which vastly outnumbered the WBC's tiny numbers with humorous messages or the Hell's Angels motorcycle groups who organize at WBC protests and rev their engines to drown out the WBC..
All these are legal because while the WBC has the right to speak, the rest of us have the right to ignore them and/or drown out their speech with other speech. (If drowning out someone's speech was illegal, then modding someone -1 would be an arrestable offence.)
The shooter wasn't a parent from what I've read. His mother was a teacher. He shot his brother at home, went to his mother's kindergarten class and shot her (as well as a bunch of other people). There aren't words vile enough to describe this guy.
All I know is that I'm hugging my 2 boys (one of whom is in kindergarten) a few extra times tonight.
From what I hear, the gunman is dead. (Not sure if he killed himself or was shot by someone else.)
Now, I'm not normally a vindictive person, but I would have rather had him taken alive, tried, and put in jail for life. No "easy out" death sentence for him. Stick him in a jail full of murderers and rapists and tell them all about how he gunned down innocent children. From what I've heard, people like him are considered scum by even these folks. Then, give him some especially slippery soap and turn the prison population loose on him. Death is too quick for people like this.
I don't think guns should be banned outright, but proper training should be a requirement before you own a firearm. This isn't an issue with this case, but more of an issue with the all-too-common Parent Leaves Loaded Gun In Drawer And Kid Shoots Someone stories. Owning a gun is a big responsibility and people shouldn't take it lightly.
And my response to those who say "Well, if all of the teachers were armed they would have shot the gunman before he killed anyone" is 1) The gunman has the element of surprise. Nobody's expecting Random Person to suddenly burst into the room spraying bullets anywhere. He could kill a bunch of people before anyone even drew their gun. 2) How do you handle a "heat of the moment" situation where you see Person A shoot Person B. Whip out your gun and shoot Person A? What if Person A had noticed Person B drawing their gun to shoot? What if Person C now sees your aiming your gun at Person A? How do you keep "shoot the gunman" into turning into "everyone firing at each other"?
Actually, his description of how links "used" to work sounds dangerous to me.
I don't want to just give anyone the ability to post links to any website they choose (without moderation/spam control) on my site. If you do this, then you'll get a few valid links and tons of spam links.
What mobile provider are you using that blocks weather sites? I use Verizon Wireless and just checked Weather.com, Weather.gov, and WUnderground.com. All three work fine as does the weather app I installed from AccuWeather.com.
It probably wasn't that set a process at first. They might have used the stomach as a food storage pouch and kept some milk in there. It "went bad", but the person decided to consume it anyway. That's when they ate the first "proto-cheese." Over time, they refined how to turn milk into cheese, but the first cheese was likely an accident.
Interesting. When my oldest son was very young, he was allergic to milk. If we fed him it, he'd break out in a rash and eventually began having breathing problems. He could eat cheese, yogurt, etc all day with no problems, however. I wonder if he had a lactose allergy at the time. (We stopped giving him milk for a few months and the allergy went away on its own.)
As far as I understand it, downloading (without permission of the copyright holder) is illegal, but hard to prosecute. If you rip a CD and put those songs online, it's easy to prove. Just browse to your listing and perhaps download one or two to verify. However, if you download a copyrighted song, the RIAA would need to access server or ISP logs to prove this. Getting to those logs would require court orders which is more difficult. In addition, the RIAA wouldn't know offhand what IP address downloaded the copyrighted files without the log files. So it becomes a chicken-egg scenario. They need the logs to find the IP address, but they need the IP address (at minimum) to request the logs. No court is going to order an ISP to give up all of their logs so the RIAA can fish through them and find copyright violators.
This is where AllOfMP3.com fell. The RIAA could have decided to sue AllOfMP3's customers, but first they would have needed AllOfMP3's logs to figure out who downloaded songs and where they were located. Finding that out would take a lot of time and effort. It was easier to just shut down AllOfMP3. (IIRC, they went after the payment processors because AllOfMP3 was kind of legal in the country it resided in at the time. So they got the payment processors to block it while they re-wrote that country's copyright law.)
BitTorrent is a bit of a quirk as you tend to upload while you're downloading. So you might think you're just downloading Latest_Greatest_Song.mp3, but you're actually uploading bits of it as well. That upload can be seen and you could be sued over it.