Your maths works out, if you assume that there's no cost involved with obtaining camera footage, searching it, and producing compelling and admissible evidence. If you don't get that last bit, I'll spell it out for you: English courts are lucky to have a VCR in them, let alone a DVD player, which would be a problem if the police had the resources to make DVDs. "Luckily", they don't - most forces can barely manage a crappy VCR transfer, and the costs (in time) are prohibitive for all but the most high profile cases.
Oh, and you're also assuming that the crimes that were "solved" by CCTV footage wouldn't have been solved without it. Why's that?
There's another possibility: that criminals are idiots, commit their crimes in front of cameras, and still don't get caught. From reading UK police blogs, I conclude that this is the closest approximation to the truth. The difficulty of finding the camera evidence and getting it into court in a form that the court will accept prohibits their use for all but the most high profile crimes.
The debate (such as it is) should be: is it worth having all those cameras to catch a few murderers? Anything else is a strawman.
Insults are not defamation. They are matters of opinion.
"Rick, I think you're a retard," is opinion. "Hey everyone, Rick is a retard," is slander/libel/defamation (dependent on mode of delivery and jurisdiction). M'kay?
Oh, great idea. Given that actual humans can't "target" armed bad guys, we'll end up throwing handfuls of exploding spider-bots mostly into wedding receptions and funeral processions for the people killed by spider-bots at the last wedding.
So is having pointless arguments with random morons on intartubes sites. You'll be one of those "Everyone else should turn off their computers!" hippies then?
Can't that "non-fossil-fuel-based electric power" alone propel the car? Why do we need to make more fuel, resulting in more emissions, and poor energy conversion efficiency?
What part of "works with existing cars and existing refueling stations" is confusing you hippes?
There's only recently been an announcement of a standard plug for electric cars. Note that an "announcement" is not manufacturing, or even a commitment to manufacturing. We've still got the inevitable patent wrangles, the embrace-extend debacles, breakaway standards, and the litigation and class action suits to go before we'll have a standard plug, and then we have to build the charging infrastructure, on top of a creaking already over-strained electrical grid.
Sorry, I put far too much thought into that. Try to read it really slowly.
It's much more like when you've gatecrashed a party full of drunken horny half naked cheerleaders, when suddenly all the hot ones disappear, and the fugly ones turn into whores.
Seriously, if we can't get whore-based analogies right, then we're no better than animals, or Belgians.
You want to call a lady a "skanky ho," try to damage her reputation, and then hide like a coward, you are a Cad.
Being a cad isn't illegal.
No, but asserting that a lady is a "skanky ho" (also, "psychotic") is illegal, if untrue. It's called defamation. Do you want me to Google that for you?
There's a difference between calling them a name, and asserting to an audience that they are what you say that they are. The latter is what happened here. It's called defamation - the clue is in the summary - and the law predates the Constitution, let alone the First Amendment. I'd thought you may have heard of it.
After all, you can't very well use your opponent's topless photos against her if she can just counter with photos of you doing keg stands in college.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
What you can do is to buy more screen space and time for your opponent's topless photos, accompanied by even more sinister music, and distribute bumper sticks and shirts that say "T is for Topless. T is for Terrorist." and "I'll be sober in the morning - virtue is lost forever"
Tell you what, why don't I come round and kick you in the balls, then lecture you on why you should forgive me? Look, other people who I haven't kicked in the balls forgive me: why are you being so bombastic?
While I'm punting your nads up into your intestines, I'll be asking you what part of your post explains why anyone would want to pay to play AoC over WoW. Have notes handy.
So, according to your theory, by publishing in a format that requires duplication, you lose the rights to your creations? Fine, then I claim ownership of the following text:
Having read the article, it's clear that the designer has no idea how virtual worlds and especially Second Life (SL) and its many clones like Opensim work. He's making up a legal theory about virtual property and artist rights in virtual worlds that simply doesn't exist, yet. It's wishful thinking.
If he created something in the physical world, the law provides him with some default protections, for good or for bad, and he still has those protections now. If he wanted permanence of his works, he should have held onto his own copies, not given away his backups --- that's his own negligence, nobody else's.
The following is how virtual worlds of the Second Life type work, condensed: If you make some object privately, nobody can see it. When you place your object into the virtual world, in order for others to see it the world has to make copies of it and send those copies to everyone in the region, so that everyone present can see your object rendered in their clients. Everybody gets a copy of your object: copying and distribution is an inherent part of the implementation.
Under such an architecture, real-life artist's restrictive expectations and control-freakism over distribution of their creations just doesn't work. This artist didn't understand the nature of the medium for which he was creating. And while he'll probably try to bring lawyers and the DMCA into it, that whole area is a complete unknown in the context of virtual worlds at present. Judges don't know and can't know how it works either (they're still catching up with how the Internet works anyway), and past legal precedent is largely inapplicable as it would break the worlds.
What's more, all of this is changing continually and at an increasing pace too, and nobody knows where it's going --- the 3D metaverse is still an extremely fuzzy evolving concept. The only thing that's very clear already is that virtual goods do not obey the same rules as physical goods, and so applying current real-world laws to the virtual situation is (i) broken by design, (ii) obsolete before it even starts, and (iii) not enforceable.
In addition, both the clients and the Opensim SL-lookalike world are open sourced, which is one reason why the pace of development is so huge, yet it also means that the guarantees are even fewer. It's important to understand this if you're going to work in the area. The artist is making up a case out of ignorance here.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, if you expect it, then I guess it must be so.
And as if by magic...
Your maths works out, if you assume that there's no cost involved with obtaining camera footage, searching it, and producing compelling and admissible evidence. If you don't get that last bit, I'll spell it out for you: English courts are lucky to have a VCR in them, let alone a DVD player, which would be a problem if the police had the resources to make DVDs. "Luckily", they don't - most forces can barely manage a crappy VCR transfer, and the costs (in time) are prohibitive for all but the most high profile cases.
Oh, and you're also assuming that the crimes that were "solved" by CCTV footage wouldn't have been solved without it. Why's that?
There's another possibility: that criminals are idiots, commit their crimes in front of cameras, and still don't get caught. From reading UK police blogs, I conclude that this is the closest approximation to the truth. The difficulty of finding the camera evidence and getting it into court in a form that the court will accept prohibits their use for all but the most high profile crimes.
The debate (such as it is) should be: is it worth having all those cameras to catch a few murderers? Anything else is a strawman.
"Rick, I think you're a retard," is opinion. "Hey everyone, Rick is a retard," is slander/libel/defamation (dependent on mode of delivery and jurisdiction). M'kay?
Yes, that's exactly the progression that we've seen on GNU/Linux systems.
In Bizarro World.
That would have been more persuasive if I couldn't hear you typing "starcraft II pre orders" into a Google tab.
Followup: since every nerd who's currently pissing and moaning about LAN play is going to buy Starcraft II anyway, why would you care?
Fair point. If my car had a plug, I could plug it in and charge it, if any charging stations existed.
Something's wrong with the intartubes. Can someone switch the Dichotomy Filter back on please?
Oh, great idea. Given that actual humans can't "target" armed bad guys, we'll end up throwing handfuls of exploding spider-bots mostly into wedding receptions and funeral processions for the people killed by spider-bots at the last wedding.
Winning hearts and minds, one gib at a time.
no 1 can f00l teh l33t XpertZ just bi change D way D write stuff kekeke stupit fags
So is having pointless arguments with random morons on intartubes sites. You'll be one of those "Everyone else should turn off their computers!" hippies then?
Carrier based jets have very easy access to seawater. Once.
What part of "works with existing cars and existing refueling stations" is confusing you hippes?
There's only recently been an announcement of a standard plug for electric cars. Note that an "announcement" is not manufacturing, or even a commitment to manufacturing. We've still got the inevitable patent wrangles, the embrace-extend debacles, breakaway standards, and the litigation and class action suits to go before we'll have a standard plug, and then we have to build the charging infrastructure, on top of a creaking already over-strained electrical grid.
Sorry, I put far too much thought into that. Try to read it really slowly.
But... but... which version of Pidgin has just been released? So hard to remember... must... concentrate, dammit!
That's a ridiculous analogy.
It's much more like when you've gatecrashed a party full of drunken horny half naked cheerleaders, when suddenly all the hot ones disappear, and the fugly ones turn into whores.
Seriously, if we can't get whore-based analogies right, then we're no better than animals, or Belgians.
No, but asserting that a lady is a "skanky ho" (also, "psychotic") is illegal, if untrue. It's called defamation. Do you want me to Google that for you?
There's a difference between calling them a name, and asserting to an audience that they are what you say that they are. The latter is what happened here. It's called defamation - the clue is in the summary - and the law predates the Constitution, let alone the First Amendment. I'd thought you may have heard of it.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
What you can do is to buy more screen space and time for your opponent's topless photos, accompanied by even more sinister music, and distribute bumper sticks and shirts that say "T is for Topless. T is for Terrorist." and "I'll be sober in the morning - virtue is lost forever"
We're just heading for the gutter faster.
Tell you what, why don't I come round and kick you in the balls, then lecture you on why you should forgive me? Look, other people who I haven't kicked in the balls forgive me: why are you being so bombastic?
While I'm punting your nads up into your intestines, I'll be asking you what part of your post explains why anyone would want to pay to play AoC over WoW. Have notes handy.
Paging Harlan Ellison, Harlan Ellison to the controversy please.
So, basically you only want career politicians (or students or similar worthless types) to get into office?
In your scheme, how does someone who's currently working in an actual job find the time to knock on enough doors?
Deriding by using the same language that's used by opponents of socialised / single payer health care. It's OK, the smart readers understood it.
So, according to your theory, by publishing in a format that requires duplication, you lose the rights to your creations? Fine, then I claim ownership of the following text:
MINE, ALL MINE.