and that makes it not open source... the nc bit, not the sa bit. by-sa or by would do the trick for them in most people's minds from what i see.
was this then a mistake or a planned ploy to benefit from the good will of open source without actually making the work open source? Or just bad reporting?
"Nonetheless, it's quite a progressive thing to do, so good for Radiohead."
That may be, but people want the caché and benefits one being Open Source or associated with Open Source but don't want to play the game all the way. That is not a good thing and we should certainly not contribute to the confusion. Call it what it is. People can decide for themselves if they like the reality or not.
And, for instance, I may have been more positively inclined to their actual play, but with the mistake / deception, it reduces my thoughts of the play.
Creative Commons is not a license. They put out a range of licenses, not all of which would be considered Open Source licenses. So, do you know which Creative Commons license(s) is/are being used?
If it is not BY (think BSD) or BY-SA (think GPL) then the analogy is wrong...
BY-ND? No derivatives?
BY-NC, BY-NC-SA, BY-NC-ND? Cant use for commercial purposes... not close to what Free Software or Open Source Software is all about. I looked for an indication of the license but could not find one.
Odd that. I will look some more. Has anyone found what I have not?
"So Viacom thinks that if they can show that Google employees knowing posted copyrighted materials to YouTube, then Google won't be covered by the Safe Harbor defense."
I wonder what would happen if Google can show that Viacom employees posted:
1. Materials which Viacom claims violate Viacom's copyrights.
2. Materials which other entities claim violate their own copyrights.
Mind you, this whole thing is nasty and I think the judge went way overboard and that this shows up google's mistake in keeping this info around in the first place.
There is a difference surely between someone getting hurt by something dangerous on my property and someone on my property without my knowledge doing something to harm another (who is probably not on my property.)
"If you're deliberately running an open network then you are effectively acting as an ISP for all and sundry."
Hmmm. What if you own some wooded acreage that is unfenced and unposted? Are you acting as a landlord or host for all and sundry? What should be your obligations and liabilities? (And what are they in your neck of the woods so to speak?)
I don't think it is that exactly... I think it is more like, we blew it, we think this should have been illegal but it isn't. Quick, what can we use to pin something on this person to to punish them.
Perhaps if you squint one way this makes sense and if you wink the other it is totally bogus. (Well, except for this should not be a felony and this should not be the vehicle. Perhaps and IRS audit ala Capone would be in order? All of this gets really hairy quickly.)
And why can they? Because there is no Free market in operation here huh? But if someone suggests that their pricing should be regulated, they will spout about letting the market sort things out...
Slashdot Mirror
"Eh you can get more creative than that. Download a few thousand pictures of puppies and kittens off the internet and encrypt them all ;)"
Sure, just hope there is nothing hidden in them with steganography that might get you in trouble... ~;-)
all the best,
drew
I do remember that. I just hope someone someday gets it and goes for it and succeeds. That, or new artists who get it rise to the top.
all the best,
drew
Just to be clear, I listed three things:
was this
1. a mistake or
2. a planned ploy to benefit from the good will of open source without actually making the work open source?
3. Or just bad reporting?
Your answer says 1 but seems to indicate 2. Clarification of your thoughts if you would be so kind.
all the best,
drew
"it's shared under nc-sa"
and that makes it not open source... the nc bit, not the sa bit. by-sa or by would do the trick for them in most people's minds from what i see.
was this then a mistake or a planned ploy to benefit from the good will of open source without actually making the work open source? Or just bad reporting?
all the best,
drew
"Nonetheless, it's quite a progressive thing to do, so good for Radiohead."
That may be, but people want the caché and benefits one being Open Source or associated with Open Source but don't want to play the game all the way. That is not a good thing and we should certainly not contribute to the confusion. Call it what it is. People can decide for themselves if they like the reality or not.
And, for instance, I may have been more positively inclined to their actual play, but with the mistake / deception, it reduces my thoughts of the play.
all the best,
drew
What do you like about what they are doing?
all the best,
drew
Creative Commons is not a license. They put out a range of licenses, not all of which would be considered Open Source licenses. So, do you know which Creative Commons license(s) is/are being used?
all the best,
drew
Not for commercial uses.... this is BY-NC-SA iirc. at least the music part of the music video...
all the best,
drew
Found this:
"The CSV data files are released as follows:
* Copyright 2008 Radiohead.
* Some Rights Reserved: Data used to produce the House of Cards music video
* is made available under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 License"
Not open Source folks... at least not like the open source according to the OSD.
all the best,
drew
If it is not BY (think BSD) or BY-SA (think GPL) then the analogy is wrong...
BY-ND? No derivatives?
BY-NC, BY-NC-SA, BY-NC-ND? Cant use for commercial purposes... not close to what Free Software or Open Source Software is all about. I looked for an indication of the license but could not find one.
Odd that. I will look some more. Has anyone found what I have not?
all the best,
drew
"#1 I think Viacom can upload their own material to YouTube if they want... even if it is a rogue employee."
Sure, but not if they are numbering that clip as amoung the infringing....
all the best,
drew
"So Viacom thinks that if they can show that Google employees knowing posted copyrighted materials to YouTube, then Google won't be covered by the Safe Harbor defense."
I wonder what would happen if Google can show that Viacom employees posted:
1. Materials which Viacom claims violate Viacom's copyrights.
2. Materials which other entities claim violate their own copyrights.
Mind you, this whole thing is nasty and I think the judge went way overboard and that this shows up google's mistake in keeping this info around in the first place.
all the best,
drew
"some people might like them to be"
Oh, no doubt some people ant this...
There is a difference surely between someone getting hurt by something dangerous on my property and someone on my property without my knowledge doing something to harm another (who is probably not on my property.)
all the best,
drew
Only if I heard you and understood what you were saying.
I mean, if you told me in russian and I don't understand that language...
all the best,
drew
"If you're deliberately running an open network then you are effectively acting as an ISP for all and sundry."
Hmmm. What if you own some wooded acreage that is unfenced and unposted? Are you acting as a landlord or host for all and sundry? What should be your obligations and liabilities? (And what are they in your neck of the woods so to speak?)
all the best,
drew
Please.
drew
Is this whole post flamebait?
1. I don't imagine all GPL users view things the same way, but this is written as if they do.
2. Let's assume they do.
3. Which individual user's view would most likely align with this group think? Hint, he wrote the thing... 10 seconds... RMS! Yes!
4. His assertions of the GPL man's views don't seem to match with what I gather from RMS.
5. For instance, RMS states that in his view, non-Free code is... wait for it... oh, you know... IMMORAL!
6. RMS plainly states that the GPL is an attempt to set copyright on its ear.
7. Does it not make more sense to see the issue as one of not wanting to participate in or have one's works contribute to immoral things?
8. Do we still want to assert that all that prefer the GPL to BSD see things this way?
all the best,
drew
How are you going to get you inner ear to cooperate?
drew
I don't think it is that exactly... I think it is more like, we blew it, we think this should have been illegal but it isn't. Quick, what can we use to pin something on this person to to punish them.
Perhaps if you squint one way this makes sense and if you wink the other it is totally bogus. (Well, except for this should not be a felony and this should not be the vehicle. Perhaps and IRS audit ala Capone would be in order? All of this gets really hairy quickly.)
drew
Yeah, but what about motion sickness?
That's gonna suck...
drew
"The thing that sucks is having a felony on your record, and explaining your stupidity when asked about it for the rest of your life."
And then if he lives in a state that doesn't let felons vote...
all the best,
drew
"Now, if you want to keep your handgun in a holster and under a jacket, and step outside, then you need a concealed carry permit."
And is that easier or harder to get than a PI license in Texas? Take longer or shorter? Etc.
all the best,
drew
"Because they can, concludes Reardon."
And why can they? Because there is no Free market in operation here huh? But if someone suggests that their pricing should be regulated, they will spout about letting the market sort things out...
all the best,
drew
[It's so that they can carry a gun before telling you: "I reformatted your harddrive, you have a backup, don't you?"]
This is about Texas. I don't think they need a PI license to tote there. Texans?
all the best,
drew
So, here is a counter list:
http://zotzbro.blogspot.com/2007/04/some-thoughts-on-copyright-offensive.html
How about them apples?
all the best,
drew