I think the biggest difference is that calling the Nazis Nazis was not hyperbole.
Criticism of things such as the way refugees are being handled is legitimate. In fact it's very important. But I think it's better to criticise it on the basis of fundamental wrongness and not assume it's only wrong because of Hitler parallels.
Seriously, even the threat will have Google doing anything to accommodate. They have a business model based entirely on a search monopoly. They'll put a lot of effort into keeping it.
This is something people don't seem to realise about twitter. It's publishing. Posting something on twitter is no different from the NYT posting something on their website's front page. The reach may be smaller, but you are publishing an opinion online, and on a forum which explicitly invites feedback.
If you don't want strangers responding, then post it on facebook, or something where you have to explicitly be accepted (I think even twitter allows this).
Gender doesn't enter into the discussion, once it starts. But how did it start? Would it have started if the person who tweeted wasn't a woman?
Probably. I mean people are talking about this and arguing with each other here, and there's very little clue about gender. People weigh in about stuff they have no idea about all the time!
So, a person - presumably a customer - posts his opinion on a subject.
A developer, with a huge following immediately publicly shames him, and retweets, using their large public following to embarrass the person who deigned to weigh in on a subject that apparently only developers know about.
The publisher then sacks the employee for bringing the company into disrepute.
Sacking seems a little heavy handed here, but I don't think the employee was in the right.
Surely there will always be x, x*2, x*3 and so on as possible solutions. I guess when you get enough of these achievements, the odds of all of them having the same multiple becomes less likely, but there are also a lot of games, so at least some will have these anomalies.
I think they simply don't care. People like Ms. Campion probably see it as a benefit that they can't make a living this way, or at the very least, a small price to pay for her personal pet project.
CCTV cameras are all over the place everywhere. Even been into a bank? Never seen a security camera in a shop? Those are the cameras that the much hyped report all those years ago was talking about.
The parallels to Netflix don't work. The money that they're spending is used on an asset - content that can be used again and again. Moviepass is spending its money on tickets. That gets burned as soon as it's used once.
Not that many people are going to substantially increase their spending to get the pass. They apparently pay the cinemas full price for tickets and I can't see how that will change. Targeted marketing might help a little, but studios aren't going to pay people to watch their movies.
It works out for the MoviePass holders. Even at the cost of spam increase, they do well. But investors are throwing money at this. I don't get it! How do they think they'll make a profit?
Nowhere in Copyright Law does it differentiate between commercial and non-commercial use.
This is part of the "purpose and character of the use" in the four factor test. I think this is more legal precedent than explicit law.
The C&D DMCA takedown resulted in a successful takedown (and therefore compliance).
That's not how DMCA takedowns work. This only protects the host. Not the infringer. The intent of the law is the host has no need to confirm copyright status of every upload, but that the copyright holder can still claim damages from the person who uploaded. .
Advertising a commercial event is surely commercial.
The Use was "in Good Faith"
Isn't this more about mitigation of damages rather than a fair use claim? Anyway, if another photographer passed it off as their own, I could see this. It seems very presumptuous to assume that this was not taken by a professional or a skilled amateur, with desires to become a professional. Removing it as soon as the photographer complained I guess shows good faith but that's all.
The Use was of a âoeFactualâ Photo
Hogwash. Time lapse in this case was entirely an artistic effect. If the photographer wanted a purely documentary photo of this street, he would have taken it during the day when there's light.
The Use was of a Previously Published Photo
Really, I'd have thought this would add strength to the photographer's case. It clearly has commercial value.
The Use was Only a Crop Rather Than the Whole
It was cropped... It did, however, include a substantial part of the original image, and the most prominent part.
The Use Didnâ(TM)t Hurt the Potential Market
Possibly one of the more compelling arguments. Not totally sure I agree.
I could perhaps see an argument that this was not fair use but the damages were small because of the limited nature of the use, but saying this is fair use seems like an unreasonably broad interpretation.
People are people. They can not stay focussed on a boring task for a long time. Failing to account for this when planning the test is a failure on the part of the designers.
Just going into the grid and replacing coal, oil and gas might have the same benefit.
Hydrogen does have better energy density than batteries though, and refill time is way better than recharge time. The infrastructure can be retrofitted to existing gas stations. That said, some sort of alcohol based fuel cell would probably be better in terms of energy density per volume
Laws are useful for punishing people after the act. In this case though, we want to prevent the act in the first place. Making it clear that this is dangerous behaviour will work in most cases, where the operator is simply not considering the potential dangers.
Encouraging drone bloggers to make a big deal about this sort of thing would probably be a lot more effective.
I think a running commentary should probably work. The Advanced Driving test in the UK has this as part of the requirement. Example here. Would need to be adapted for the nature of self driving cars, and would require some training of the operators but nether of those are barriers. Would certainly keep the safety driven engaged, which is the key point. Would also allow comparison with what the car sees and what the driver sees.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the biggest difference is that calling the Nazis Nazis was not hyperbole.
Criticism of things such as the way refugees are being handled is legitimate. In fact it's very important. But I think it's better to criticise it on the basis of fundamental wrongness and not assume it's only wrong because of Hitler parallels.
No.
So not "every" new home then.
A lot of the new homes being built here in Manchester seem to be multi story blocks of flats.Not sure how useful it will be on the 20th floor.
Seriously, even the threat will have Google doing anything to accommodate. They have a business model based entirely on a search monopoly. They'll put a lot of effort into keeping it.
This is something people don't seem to realise about twitter. It's publishing. Posting something on twitter is no different from the NYT posting something on their website's front page. The reach may be smaller, but you are publishing an opinion online, and on a forum which explicitly invites feedback.
If you don't want strangers responding, then post it on facebook, or something where you have to explicitly be accepted (I think even twitter allows this).
She really should have just blocked the guy rather than threatening to do so, or treating it as a punishment.
Probably. I mean people are talking about this and arguing with each other here, and there's very little clue about gender. People weigh in about stuff they have no idea about all the time!
So, a person - presumably a customer - posts his opinion on a subject.
A developer, with a huge following immediately publicly shames him, and retweets, using their large public following to embarrass the person who deigned to weigh in on a subject that apparently only developers know about.
The publisher then sacks the employee for bringing the company into disrepute.
Sacking seems a little heavy handed here, but I don't think the employee was in the right.
Surely the point of the keymap is that you touch type.
Surely there will always be x, x*2, x*3 and so on as possible solutions. I guess when you get enough of these achievements, the odds of all of them having the same multiple becomes less likely, but there are also a lot of games, so at least some will have these anomalies.
I think they simply don't care. People like Ms. Campion probably see it as a benefit that they can't make a living this way, or at the very least, a small price to pay for her personal pet project.
CCTV cameras are all over the place everywhere. Even been into a bank? Never seen a security camera in a shop? Those are the cameras that the much hyped report all those years ago was talking about.
When I saw the headline, I assumed that was the number of people who didn't even bother to delete everything.
I can see how some people could make that mistake, but this company must be losing millions every month. Where are they finding that many investors?
I even googled it, and it still doesn't make sense.
The parallels to Netflix don't work. The money that they're spending is used on an asset - content that can be used again and again. Moviepass is spending its money on tickets. That gets burned as soon as it's used once.
Not that many people are going to substantially increase their spending to get the pass. They apparently pay the cinemas full price for tickets and I can't see how that will change. Targeted marketing might help a little, but studios aren't going to pay people to watch their movies.
It works out for the MoviePass holders. Even at the cost of spam increase, they do well. But investors are throwing money at this. I don't get it! How do they think they'll make a profit?
"Some plugs (i.e. those with built in chargers) are so big they cover neighbouring sockets. This is annoying"
Hoep this summary helps.
Yes. That is a much stronger fair use claim though. You are adding commentary that is directly relevant to the work in question.
This is part of the "purpose and character of the use" in the four factor test. I think this is more legal precedent than explicit law.
That's not how DMCA takedowns work. This only protects the host. Not the infringer. The intent of the law is the host has no need to confirm copyright status of every upload, but that the copyright holder can still claim damages from the person who uploaded. .
Advertising a commercial event is surely commercial.
Isn't this more about mitigation of damages rather than a fair use claim? Anyway, if another photographer passed it off as their own, I could see this. It seems very presumptuous to assume that this was not taken by a professional or a skilled amateur, with desires to become a professional. Removing it as soon as the photographer complained I guess shows good faith but that's all.
Hogwash. Time lapse in this case was entirely an artistic effect. If the photographer wanted a purely documentary photo of this street, he would have taken it during the day when there's light.
Really, I'd have thought this would add strength to the photographer's case. It clearly has commercial value.
It was cropped... It did, however, include a substantial part of the original image, and the most prominent part.
Possibly one of the more compelling arguments. Not totally sure I agree.
I could perhaps see an argument that this was not fair use but the damages were small because of the limited nature of the use, but saying this is fair use seems like an unreasonably broad interpretation.
People are people. They can not stay focussed on a boring task for a long time. Failing to account for this when planning the test is a failure on the part of the designers.
Just going into the grid and replacing coal, oil and gas might have the same benefit.
Hydrogen does have better energy density than batteries though, and refill time is way better than recharge time. The infrastructure can be retrofitted to existing gas stations. That said, some sort of alcohol based fuel cell would probably be better in terms of energy density per volume
Laws are useful for punishing people after the act. In this case though, we want to prevent the act in the first place. Making it clear that this is dangerous behaviour will work in most cases, where the operator is simply not considering the potential dangers.
Encouraging drone bloggers to make a big deal about this sort of thing would probably be a lot more effective.
I think a running commentary should probably work. The Advanced Driving test in the UK has this as part of the requirement. Example here. Would need to be adapted for the nature of self driving cars, and would require some training of the operators but nether of those are barriers. Would certainly keep the safety driven engaged, which is the key point. Would also allow comparison with what the car sees and what the driver sees.
Does the car use visual sensors for driving, or was the camera just there for test purposes? If the latter, it doesn't need to be all that good.
Well, a patent is a monopoly by intent. I think that's the main difference.