I'm pretty sure the article said he was sitting in the parking lot, and that is most definitely NOT public property.
If that's the case, then this makes it even more ridiculous. The shop sets up a wireless network for people on their property to use, and then someone is arrested because they didn't buy anything.
The shop have the right to tell him to leave their property, and if he refuses that would be trespass. Did they do this? It is not a crime to be on a shop's property that is open to the public, and to use their service which they make open to these people, just because I don't abide with whatever rules they have set.
Also, the article didn't say anything about whether or not the coffee shop had a TOS for their internet service. To say one doesn't exist is ridiculous. The person who owns the wireless hub and pays for the signal dictates what the rules are.
They get to dictate the TOS, they don't get to dictate the law.
If someone breaks the TOS, you ask them to leave. Breaking a TOS is not a crime.
What the hell are you talking about? No one is infiltrating any freedoms here. If you own the hub, you can set up any rules you want to who uses it. You have no constitutional right to open Wi-Fi signals provided by private businesses.
I think being arrested involves a loss of freedom. And yes, he may have no right to those signals, but the shop provided them to him. The shop has every right to not provide them if they wish.
By this logic, it would be okay for any shop to arrest any customer for trespass without asking them to leave first "because they have no constitutional right to enter an open shop".
Indeed, by this logic, all sorts of things would be illegal. You have no "constitutional right" to post on a private website such as Slashdot - do you say it's okay for you to be arrested if Slashdot wishes that?
Who cares what corporations do? Wikipedia isn't a corporation - it's a non profit foundation
I think the term "anyone but" includes corporations (and you yourself included Google as an example, so evidentely you do care about corporations too).
As you say - rubbish. With each post you find excuses to explain why such a vast mismatch isn't a problem. You won't look at the issues full on. (See your words above - where you cheerfully compare apples to oranges rather than think through the implications.)
My original post and the post I was replying to had nothing about any "mismatch", so clearly I couldn't have "handwaved" that away. Indeed, *I* was the one who stated that "quoting "1 million articles" is a useless statistic". You are the one who has now argued about a "mismatch". Well yeah, I agree that it's a "useless statistic" as I've said several times now. But I don't really care - I'm addressing Wikipedia as an encylopedia, and not the issue of whether it's okay for organisations (not just Wikipedia) to quote "useless" statistics for hype.
A mistmatch so large that if anyone but Wikipedia or Google tried to get away with it, the slashdot hivemind and the geek community would treat it rightful scorn.
Rubbish, it's commonplace for companies to advertise with hype and figures, far more so than Wikipedia (or Google), as rightly or wrongly, that's what grabs attention from the average person.
Instead, as you did, problems are simply handwaved away.
Nowhere did I "handwave" this away - indeed, I agree that quoting "1,000,000 articles", whilst perhaps interesting, isn't necessarily that useful. What I handwaved away was the idea that having many stub articles somehow detracted from the 10s of 1,000s of full articles. It doesn't, and even as a "work in progress", Wikipedia is a significant and useful freely available encyclopedia.
Extremely small? Hardly. I've seen all sorts of vandalism on Wikipedia. The one case I remember specifically is visiting the page of [can't remember his name], the tallest man on record. It had a bunch of nonsense about the man's penis size, obviously inserted by a bored teenager. It wasn't like I had caught a one-in-a-million shot, either, it had been there awhile. I don't know if it's still there (I doubt it); I didn't care enough at the time to fix it.
That would be useful advice - if even as much as 5% of the articles on the Wikipedia had references. Of the Wikipedia's 1 million odd entries - only a minority are properly fact checked, referenced, well written, and encyclopedic. That majority of the articles are stubs and works in progress (last change 6 June 2004).
I don't know if the figure is as low as 5% (heh, do you have a source?) Even if it was, that minority is still 50,000 articles with references, better than any other free resource.
Yes there are a lot of stub articles which are currently not worth much, but that doesn't detract from the other articles, all it means is that quoting "1 million articles" is a useless statistic.
Also remember that Wikipedia is a work in progress. So because there may "only" be 10s of 1,000s of articles and the rest are not yet finished means we should abandon it altogther? By that logic nothing would ever be worth starting.
The only problem here is the (extremely small) probability of viewing a page whilst it has "fuck" on it - this could perhaps be solved by having a "stable" version, or a warning for pages which have been recently edited, or are receiving many edits.
But this has nothing to do with your claim that it "should _not_ be called an encyclopedia, rather it should be a "collection of facts contributed by anyone from around the world"." Will "fuck" remain on the page? No. "Will someone catch it?" you ask? Yes, they will. A fact is only as good as it's source, so if you are worried, you can check the reference. This applies to Britannica just as much as Wikipedia.
explains how, what, where, and when. Religion explains who and why.
I never understand why people say this. I'd say the science explains why things happen, e.g., providing answers to "Why did this apple fall?" or "Why did this person die?" Religion explains nothing here.
The only thing I can think of is that you mean "Why" on some more abstract level - e.g., if someone asks "Why did he have to die", they are probably not after a scientific explanation of what caused his death. They may be questioning human actions which led to his death, or they may be assuming there is some deeper meaning (such as fate, karma, or an interventionist God). I'm not sure how religion helps with the former, and as for the latter, there is no evidence of any deeper meaning. All religion does here is make up some answers, but that doesn't mean it's explained.
This is one thing I still don't quite understand. Why must the concepts of "creationism" and "evolution" be mutually exclusive? Who's to say that life wasn't created by some greater power, then that greater power sat back and said, "Okay, let's see what happens now."
Sure, that works. But "creationism" is often used to specifically mean "Life as we see it today was created by an intelligent designer" - that's the meaning that millions of Americans believe, and what's meant when you hear about creationism being taught in schools, and this belief is incompatible with evolution.
Society does. That's how the world works. The school only gets involved if there is a complaint (and I would imagine a number of complaints or a significant complaint). Hence, *society* external to the school decides on what is offensive. The school mediates.
So it's perfectly fine to interfere with and mess up a student's education, if someone irrelevant to both the school and the student decides it's "offensive", and makes a complaint?
but more serious issues like physical threats or mental abuse.
Well that still comes under "illegal", and should be handled appropriately. The question here is those things which are legal, but fall under "inappropriate". Can you give me some valid examples?
Like it or not, these kids are minors, and will be treated like minors.
But this logic only makes sense so far as contributing to society. E.g., we decide that kids need an education, so they are forced to even if they don't want to. But this doesn't include enforcing a random person's moral beliefs on other children - if it's not on school time, then that's up to the parents. And it certainly doesn't include that when it does so at the expense of a child's education!
They should be following a path better than just what is legal.
And who decides that path? It's all very well saying "society", but there is no single entity called "society" with a sinle opinion, and these decisions are not made by "society". Your claim it is "society" is highly misleading.
The descisions are made by the school, or by the interfering strangers who decide to complain, because they seem to think they have a say in what another person's child does in their own time. That's not society. Even if you believe that what a child can do should be decided by mob rule (which is pretty absurd), you're still getting a biased representation, as people who believe otherwise aren't going to be making complaints.
First point, teaching the sinfulness of homosexual practices is NOT always accompanied by contempt for the people that engage in them. In fact, almost every time that I've happened to hear homosexuality condemmed from a Christian pulpit, the teacher has also been very careful to teach that people with this problem should not be feared or hated.
Perhaps, but if they say that the act is sinful, that's still prejudice, and it's still encouraging contempt. Furthermore, it's not just the preachers - there are Christians who are homophobic, and base this on "what the Bible says".
Of course, not all Christians are like this - and in fact, that was the point of my post. I was just pointing out that it isn't just muslims and Islam which are like this. Or is there some way that Islam is far worse in what it teaches than what Christianity says on the matter?
Second point, the word homophobia is so charged, through etymology and common usage, with the conotation of fear that it is practically usless in a rational discussion. In other words, I still don't think it fit when you used it in the GGP.
I apologise for using words according to their dictionary definition.
I presume the reason why companies can place restrictions when you use things like compilers or libraries is because you need to distribute some of their code (whether it's headers, libraries or whatever). However, just because I use someone's product to develop software (without releasing it), there's no way they have any rights to my source code. If I take my source and compile it with another compiler, that's up to me.
Actually, I've often wondered about things like compilers/IDEs where they have a "not for writing commercial software" version - would it be legal to use it to develop/test your software, but then do a final build with say GCC?
Either "Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men.", or "prejudice against (fear or dislike of) homosexual people and homosexuality". I think it's reasonable to say that declaring homosexuality as a sin is in itself prejudice, and encourages contempt.
What does in the end mean? You haven't responded to his point - namely that a person is not letting 10,000 people download a file, as the earlier poster claimed. Yes, maybe 10,000 people overall may copy a file from somewhere or another, but then I'm sure 10,000 people were copying tapes from people.
If you are leftwing you are probably for gay rights. So how do you defend being pro-muslim then a religion that is very anti-gay rights? How come so many leftwingers defend right wing muslims when they would never ever defend a right wing christian?
Since when does being left wing mean pro-muslim?
Hatred because of someone's religion is very bad
Which is exactly the stance which such people would have. Not hating doesn't mean they are "pro", or they love the religion.
It's quite simple - the issue here is being anti-gay, not muslim. Not all muslims are anti-gay, and not all anti-gay people are muslims. I'll criticise a religion which promotes homophobia (which includes Christianity by the way - I don't know why you focus on Islam), but that doesn't mean I'll hate everyone belonging to that religion. If they keep their beliefs to themselves, that's fine.
Besides which, I am in FULL COMPLIANCE with your conditions. You publicly told the world that I can redistribute the software if I met certain conditions, and I HAVE met those conditions.
It appears you are completely missing the point.
No one is claiming that if someone meets the GPL conditions, it should be okay to sue them. Obviously that would be absurd!
But that's got nothing to do with the claim that the GPL is unenforceable. Enforcing the GPL obviously doesn't involve suing people who abide by the rules (!), it obviously involves suing those people who don't. Indeed, the post your replied to earlier explicitly said "whoever was breaking the GPL".
Okay, so they're a portable music player company. That's still not Macintosh hardware.
Re:It should be a lot cheaper than in the 60s.
on
Back to the Moon
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Under currently mainstream economic theories, those things add to the economy. Rebuilding a house, needing medical care, repairing a car - that's consumption, which means production, which means a higher GDP!
This sounds like the Broken Window Fallacy. Clearly, the economy is poorer by one house - the fallacy is in ignoring what else the money would have been spent on.
Which also relates back to the idea of getting research out of NASA - it ignores the possibility of spending money on research directly (it's kind of like when people say wars are good for the economy because they create jobs and encourage research - although obviously I'd rather have space travel than wars).
Okay, what if I camp outside your house, and film you every time you leave and return? And whilst I'm at it, maybe I'll follow you everywhere you go in public, take photos. And post them online. Is that okay?
There is a lot to talk about on this subject but people being caught on camera during a blooper moment ain't one of them. Do you want to ban people taking photograps on the street because they might catch you picking your nose?
Not relevant - I can look around and see if there's a person watching me, if I don't like people seeing me pick my nose or whatever. CCTV cameras tend to be far less noticeable.
Furthermore, whilst there may be not general law against taking a photo, you can bet that if someone decided to continually film outside my home, or where I go, I'd be treating that as stalking or harrassment.
Lastly, there is the scale and intent of this. If someone suggested sending out a large number of cameramen who would hide and film people without them knowing, and broadcast it on TV, I'd say that was a bad thing too.
I'm a British citizen and I say extradite him. I don't see why my tax money should be wasted on trying this nutjob when the Americans are willing to do it at their expense. He dug his own grave, he can't expect us to dig him out of it.
Just to be clear - if you are ever accused of a crime, you are happy to be extradited to another country, where you basically have no rights, and receive no help from the Government you pay taxes to, just to save the rest of us a little money?
That's actually a slippery slope. For example if you're in someone's holiday snap of a landmark should you be allowed to restrict that person's ability to publish it? What if it's not you or your family but your a photograph of your property?
I'm not sure what you're saying here - if someone else took the photo, then you won't own the copyright.
I would rather the publisher be forced to give you a portion of any sales (not profits! sales) of the photo.
There won't be any if they use it for something like an advertising campaign.
We do need to compensate artists and inventors but not through the restriction of the use of their creations.
But we also need an additional way to account for cases where it's reasonable that someone may want to restrict distribution - e.g., a company using your family photo collection is a nationwide ad ncampaign, or someone publishing your diary. Currently, copyright seems to be the only tool for protecting privacy of someone's work.
For those of you on/. who've said "Copyright and Patent are bad, but Trademark is good" here's a perfect example of why it's so damn broken. People and companies try to claim ownership of the stupidest things.
They key word being "try". We should perhaps wait until the outcome, before we conclude Trademark is bad?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm pretty sure the article said he was sitting in the parking lot, and that is most definitely NOT public property.
If that's the case, then this makes it even more ridiculous. The shop sets up a wireless network for people on their property to use, and then someone is arrested because they didn't buy anything.
The shop have the right to tell him to leave their property, and if he refuses that would be trespass. Did they do this? It is not a crime to be on a shop's property that is open to the public, and to use their service which they make open to these people, just because I don't abide with whatever rules they have set.
Also, the article didn't say anything about whether or not the coffee shop had a TOS for their internet service. To say one doesn't exist is ridiculous. The person who owns the wireless hub and pays for the signal dictates what the rules are.
They get to dictate the TOS, they don't get to dictate the law.
If someone breaks the TOS, you ask them to leave. Breaking a TOS is not a crime.
What the hell are you talking about? No one is infiltrating any freedoms here. If you own the hub, you can set up any rules you want to who uses it. You have no constitutional right to open Wi-Fi signals provided by private businesses.
I think being arrested involves a loss of freedom. And yes, he may have no right to those signals, but the shop provided them to him. The shop has every right to not provide them if they wish.
By this logic, it would be okay for any shop to arrest any customer for trespass without asking them to leave first "because they have no constitutional right to enter an open shop".
Indeed, by this logic, all sorts of things would be illegal. You have no "constitutional right" to post on a private website such as Slashdot - do you say it's okay for you to be arrested if Slashdot wishes that?
Who cares what corporations do? Wikipedia isn't a corporation - it's a non profit foundation
I think the term "anyone but" includes corporations (and you yourself included Google as an example, so evidentely you do care about corporations too).
As you say - rubbish. With each post you find excuses to explain why such a vast mismatch isn't a problem. You won't look at the issues full on. (See your words above - where you cheerfully compare apples to oranges rather than think through the implications.)
My original post and the post I was replying to had nothing about any "mismatch", so clearly I couldn't have "handwaved" that away. Indeed, *I* was the one who stated that "quoting "1 million articles" is a useless statistic". You are the one who has now argued about a "mismatch". Well yeah, I agree that it's a "useless statistic" as I've said several times now. But I don't really care - I'm addressing Wikipedia as an encylopedia, and not the issue of whether it's okay for organisations (not just Wikipedia) to quote "useless" statistics for hype.
A mistmatch so large that if anyone but Wikipedia or Google tried to get away with it, the slashdot hivemind and the geek community would treat it rightful scorn.
Rubbish, it's commonplace for companies to advertise with hype and figures, far more so than Wikipedia (or Google), as rightly or wrongly, that's what grabs attention from the average person.
Instead, as you did, problems are simply handwaved away.
Nowhere did I "handwave" this away - indeed, I agree that quoting "1,000,000 articles", whilst perhaps interesting, isn't necessarily that useful. What I handwaved away was the idea that having many stub articles somehow detracted from the 10s of 1,000s of full articles. It doesn't, and even as a "work in progress", Wikipedia is a significant and useful freely available encyclopedia.
Extremely small? Hardly. I've seen all sorts of vandalism on Wikipedia. The one case I remember specifically is visiting the page of [can't remember his name], the tallest man on record. It had a bunch of nonsense about the man's penis size, obviously inserted by a bored teenager. It wasn't like I had caught a one-in-a-million shot, either, it had been there awhile. I don't know if it's still there (I doubt it); I didn't care enough at the time to fix it.
o w
This guy?: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Pershing_Wadl
Out of interest, can you remember when it was, or find it in the history?
That would be useful advice - if even as much as 5% of the articles on the Wikipedia had references. Of the Wikipedia's 1 million odd entries - only a minority are properly fact checked, referenced, well written, and encyclopedic. That majority of the articles are stubs and works in progress (last change 6 June 2004).
I don't know if the figure is as low as 5% (heh, do you have a source?) Even if it was, that minority is still 50,000 articles with references, better than any other free resource.
Yes there are a lot of stub articles which are currently not worth much, but that doesn't detract from the other articles, all it means is that quoting "1 million articles" is a useless statistic.
Also remember that Wikipedia is a work in progress. So because there may "only" be 10s of 1,000s of articles and the rest are not yet finished means we should abandon it altogther? By that logic nothing would ever be worth starting.
The only problem here is the (extremely small) probability of viewing a page whilst it has "fuck" on it - this could perhaps be solved by having a "stable" version, or a warning for pages which have been recently edited, or are receiving many edits.
But this has nothing to do with your claim that it "should _not_ be called an encyclopedia, rather it should be a "collection of facts contributed by anyone from around the world"." Will "fuck" remain on the page? No. "Will someone catch it?" you ask? Yes, they will. A fact is only as good as it's source, so if you are worried, you can check the reference. This applies to Britannica just as much as Wikipedia.
How would this work? Do you mean that individual edits would be "moderated", or that users themselves could be moderated as "vandals"?
Until Wikipedia adopts basic high-school level academic standards of requiring a reference for all factual claims, it will remain a sea of vomit.
Where is your reference for this claim?
explains how, what, where, and when. Religion explains who and why.
I never understand why people say this. I'd say the science explains why things happen, e.g., providing answers to "Why did this apple fall?" or "Why did this person die?" Religion explains nothing here.
The only thing I can think of is that you mean "Why" on some more abstract level - e.g., if someone asks "Why did he have to die", they are probably not after a scientific explanation of what caused his death. They may be questioning human actions which led to his death, or they may be assuming there is some deeper meaning (such as fate, karma, or an interventionist God). I'm not sure how religion helps with the former, and as for the latter, there is no evidence of any deeper meaning. All religion does here is make up some answers, but that doesn't mean it's explained.
This is one thing I still don't quite understand. Why must the concepts of "creationism" and "evolution" be mutually exclusive? Who's to say that life wasn't created by some greater power, then that greater power sat back and said, "Okay, let's see what happens now."
Sure, that works. But "creationism" is often used to specifically mean "Life as we see it today was created by an intelligent designer" - that's the meaning that millions of Americans believe, and what's meant when you hear about creationism being taught in schools, and this belief is incompatible with evolution.
Society does. That's how the world works. The school only gets involved if there is a complaint (and I would imagine a number of complaints or a significant complaint). Hence, *society* external to the school decides on what is offensive. The school mediates.
So it's perfectly fine to interfere with and mess up a student's education, if someone irrelevant to both the school and the student decides it's "offensive", and makes a complaint?
but more serious issues like physical threats or mental abuse.
Well that still comes under "illegal", and should be handled appropriately. The question here is those things which are legal, but fall under "inappropriate". Can you give me some valid examples?
Like it or not, these kids are minors, and will be treated like minors.
But this logic only makes sense so far as contributing to society. E.g., we decide that kids need an education, so they are forced to even if they don't want to. But this doesn't include enforcing a random person's moral beliefs on other children - if it's not on school time, then that's up to the parents. And it certainly doesn't include that when it does so at the expense of a child's education!
They should be following a path better than just what is legal.
And who decides that path? It's all very well saying "society", but there is no single entity called "society" with a sinle opinion, and these decisions are not made by "society". Your claim it is "society" is highly misleading.
The descisions are made by the school, or by the interfering strangers who decide to complain, because they seem to think they have a say in what another person's child does in their own time. That's not society. Even if you believe that what a child can do should be decided by mob rule (which is pretty absurd), you're still getting a biased representation, as people who believe otherwise aren't going to be making complaints.
First point, teaching the sinfulness of homosexual practices is NOT always accompanied by contempt for the people that engage in them. In fact, almost every time that I've happened to hear homosexuality condemmed from a Christian pulpit, the teacher has also been very careful to teach that people with this problem should not be feared or hated.
Perhaps, but if they say that the act is sinful, that's still prejudice, and it's still encouraging contempt. Furthermore, it's not just the preachers - there are Christians who are homophobic, and base this on "what the Bible says".
Of course, not all Christians are like this - and in fact, that was the point of my post. I was just pointing out that it isn't just muslims and Islam which are like this. Or is there some way that Islam is far worse in what it teaches than what Christianity says on the matter?
Second point, the word homophobia is so charged, through etymology and common usage, with the conotation of fear that it is practically usless in a rational discussion. In other words, I still don't think it fit when you used it in the GGP.
I apologise for using words according to their dictionary definition.
I don't see how that could be enforced legally.
I presume the reason why companies can place restrictions when you use things like compilers or libraries is because you need to distribute some of their code (whether it's headers, libraries or whatever). However, just because I use someone's product to develop software (without releasing it), there's no way they have any rights to my source code. If I take my source and compile it with another compiler, that's up to me.
Actually, I've often wondered about things like compilers/IDEs where they have a "not for writing commercial software" version - would it be legal to use it to develop/test your software, but then do a final build with say GCC?
Either "Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men.", or "prejudice against (fear or dislike of) homosexual people and homosexuality". I think it's reasonable to say that declaring homosexuality as a sin is in itself prejudice, and encourages contempt.
What definition are you using?
in the end
What does in the end mean? You haven't responded to his point - namely that a person is not letting 10,000 people download a file, as the earlier poster claimed. Yes, maybe 10,000 people overall may copy a file from somewhere or another, but then I'm sure 10,000 people were copying tapes from people.
If you are leftwing you are probably for gay rights. So how do you defend being pro-muslim then a religion that is very anti-gay rights? How come so many leftwingers defend right wing muslims when they would never ever defend a right wing christian?
Since when does being left wing mean pro-muslim?
Hatred because of someone's religion is very bad
Which is exactly the stance which such people would have. Not hating doesn't mean they are "pro", or they love the religion.
It's quite simple - the issue here is being anti-gay, not muslim. Not all muslims are anti-gay, and not all anti-gay people are muslims. I'll criticise a religion which promotes homophobia (which includes Christianity by the way - I don't know why you focus on Islam), but that doesn't mean I'll hate everyone belonging to that religion. If they keep their beliefs to themselves, that's fine.
Besides which, I am in FULL COMPLIANCE with your conditions. You publicly told the world that I can redistribute the software if I met certain conditions, and I HAVE met those conditions.
It appears you are completely missing the point.
No one is claiming that if someone meets the GPL conditions, it should be okay to sue them. Obviously that would be absurd!
But that's got nothing to do with the claim that the GPL is unenforceable. Enforcing the GPL obviously doesn't involve suing people who abide by the rules (!), it obviously involves suing those people who don't. Indeed, the post your replied to earlier explicitly said "whoever was breaking the GPL ".
Okay, so they're a portable music player company. That's still not Macintosh hardware.
Under currently mainstream economic theories, those things add to the economy. Rebuilding a house, needing medical care, repairing a car - that's consumption, which means production, which means a higher GDP!
This sounds like the Broken Window Fallacy. Clearly, the economy is poorer by one house - the fallacy is in ignoring what else the money would have been spent on.
Which also relates back to the idea of getting research out of NASA - it ignores the possibility of spending money on research directly (it's kind of like when people say wars are good for the economy because they create jobs and encourage research - although obviously I'd rather have space travel than wars).
Okay, what if I camp outside your house, and film you every time you leave and return? And whilst I'm at it, maybe I'll follow you everywhere you go in public, take photos. And post them online. Is that okay?
There is a lot to talk about on this subject but people being caught on camera during a blooper moment ain't one of them. Do you want to ban people taking photograps on the street because they might catch you picking your nose?
Not relevant - I can look around and see if there's a person watching me, if I don't like people seeing me pick my nose or whatever. CCTV cameras tend to be far less noticeable.
Furthermore, whilst there may be not general law against taking a photo, you can bet that if someone decided to continually film outside my home, or where I go, I'd be treating that as stalking or harrassment.
Lastly, there is the scale and intent of this. If someone suggested sending out a large number of cameramen who would hide and film people without them knowing, and broadcast it on TV, I'd say that was a bad thing too.
Say a really serious crime has been commited...
And is littering a really serious crime? What about the non-serious crimes?
I'm a British citizen and I say extradite him. I don't see why my tax money should be wasted on trying this nutjob when the Americans are willing to do it at their expense. He dug his own grave, he can't expect us to dig him out of it.
Just to be clear - if you are ever accused of a crime, you are happy to be extradited to another country, where you basically have no rights, and receive no help from the Government you pay taxes to, just to save the rest of us a little money?
That's actually a slippery slope. For example if you're in someone's holiday snap of a landmark should you be allowed to restrict that person's ability to publish it? What if it's not you or your family but your a photograph of your property?
I'm not sure what you're saying here - if someone else took the photo, then you won't own the copyright.
I would rather the publisher be forced to give you a portion of any sales (not profits! sales) of the photo.
There won't be any if they use it for something like an advertising campaign.
We do need to compensate artists and inventors but not through the restriction of the use of their creations.
/. who've said "Copyright and Patent are bad, but Trademark is good" here's a perfect example of why it's so damn broken. People and companies try to claim ownership of the stupidest things.
But we also need an additional way to account for cases where it's reasonable that someone may want to restrict distribution - e.g., a company using your family photo collection is a nationwide ad ncampaign, or someone publishing your diary. Currently, copyright seems to be the only tool for protecting privacy of someone's work.
For those of you on
They key word being "try". We should perhaps wait until the outcome, before we conclude Trademark is bad?