I don't think so either. The owner of the pictures would be constrained to civil court. (See my other post in this thread; damages would probably be constrained to $30,000 plus fees.)
It's quite clear these are just holiday snaps and not the work of a professional photographer who would sell his work.
"It isn't any more legal or morally justified to steal a CF card and publish the pictures than it is to steal a wallet and use the cash to buy yourself stuff."
Well... yes it is, at least in this case since the photographer is obviously not a professional.
Goes back to the 'if you take his wallet and buy stuff with his cash you're depriving him of it, whereas if you post pictures he doesn't lose out' argument.
Depends on jurisdiction. For instance, there was an example from 1993 in Mass where a couple found a $10,000 lottery ticket in a parking lot. Mass had a law that obligated people who find property worth over $3 to turn it in to the local police. (If not claimed in a year, the finder can claim it.)
It was only a decision by the local DA that the case wasn't worth pursuing that kept it out of the courts.
"Criminal offenses for copyright infringement don't occur until the infringer has caused a significant amount of financial damage (a few hundred thousand dollars IIRC)."
The taking of the card itself is theft. If you find something on the sidewalk, in a cab, etc that does not belong to you, you do not have the right to take and keep it. It is still property of the orignal owner. To keep it is theft, pure and simple.
Objection to this argument: maybe the person who found it did what was legally required. Could have just copied off the photos and then turned it in. I don't see anything on the site about it. Furthermore, I don't know what is required in NY for this to be theft; it's possible that you would simply need to make it available in the form of the Taxi company's lost and found or whatever. So as long as he doesn't take it and use it for himself, or sell it, or otherwise convert it for his own use, he could be okay.
"However this is also a case of copyright infringement. Works are automatically copyright to you upon creation, no registration is required. So these photos are the copyright of whomever shot them. To post them on the Internet without their permission is infringement."
It'd be really hard to argue damages though. It's quite clear from looking at the photo album that the person is not a professinal photographer, so they wouldn't have been able to sell anything.
The MAXIMUM he'd have to pay would be statuatory damages of $150,000 plus costs and attorney's fee, assuming he isn't making money off of this. This is pretty unlikely however, and the maximum he would likely have to pay is $30,000.
Then there's things that could make it less... probably the court wouldn't award that much, the plaintiff would be willing to settle for even less than the expected award, etc.
It's not pocket change, but it probably isn't a life-destroying judgement either.
"People who take issue with the use of Black American English (I refuse to use the idiotic term "ebonics")"
From what I've seen, it appears the term ebonics isn't really disrespectful at all. We talked about this in my linguistics class and the regular prof, a substitute prof, and a guest speaker, as well as lots of authors of papers we read, used Ebonics (I dunno if I should capitolize it...) to refer to it. (And if you want to be really formal, go with "African American Vernacular English" or AAVE.) So I don't think you should worry about it unless you want to avoid the stigma that has come attached to it.
"You want another example, the use of "youse" and "y'all" in various dialects of English (most notably northeastern urban and southern United States, respectively). Since "you" no longer performs its traditional function of second-person plural and "thou" has largely passed out of use except in some dialects in England, the second-person plural has regenerated in those forms, simply because sometimes it's useful to make a distinction between "you" and "y'all"."
What about taking a picture of something in the northern sky? The Hubble can swing around and take a picture of nearly everything, at least "AFAI can reason", but one mounted at the South Pole would only be able to take a picture of the southern sky. I mean, plenty of stuff going on down there, but seems like most of the research has been in the north.
(Which has it's ups and downs... more likely to discover something new, but can't follow up observations made up north.)
First, ebonics is entirely different. Again, the people who are forming it have exposure to other language. The kids in Nicaragua didn't. The couldn't hear, and no one knew any signing.
Second, I just wanna comment on Ebonics a little, since it is so often derided (I can't tell if you mean it like that here). It makes more sense that it appears. "Ask" being pronounced as "ax" isn't too far fetched; we truncate consonant clusters all the time.
Read the following aloud: first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth. Now, when you read "fifth", did you actually say fif-th, or did you pronounce it "fith". "fth" is virtually NEVER said in its entirety.
Second, the "he be" example is actually something I wish was in common use. It is NOT simply a drop in replacement for "he is". It's called the "habitual be", and means that the statement is true over a much wider range than "is" entails.
For instance, "he is down at the park" in standard and common English means that right now, his location coincides with the location of the park. "He be down at the park" by contrast means that not only is he at the park now, but that he tends to hang out there a lot.
Know what they said "Reports of a possible explosion in North Korea. The State Department cannot confirm this." And that was it. 30 minutes of news (minus commercials) and only two sentences on a possible nuclear explosion in one of the three countries of the "Axis of Evil."
With all due respect, I think that this shows responsibility on their part. What did you want them to do? Speculate wildly on what it might be?
Granted, they could have said "News outlets in South Korea report an explosion North Korea", but if all the information you have is "so-and-so says there was an explosion" and "the State Dep't can't confirm", that's all you can report...
Somewhat at least. They filmed Saurman scenes to go at the beginning of RotK, but decided they killed the pace of the movie before it even got started and thus they didn't work. They will be back though for the EE cut.
Scouring of course won't be, so who knows how they will wrap up the Saurman line.
Actually, if you read over other comments, it appears that it is not just a quick way to get to the 'I'm Feeling Lucky' link, it only takes you to that page if it matches really well or something, as it sometimes goes to the actual Google search.
Freedom of speech does not mean an absolute right to say whatever you want.
This is why there are libel laws. And slander. And disparagement.
This is why there are perjury laws.
This is why there are laws against speech that is intended and does result in violence.
This is why there are laws against fraud, and deceit.
This is why there are invasion of privacy laws.
And this is why there are laws against false advertising.
(To clarify, so no one tries to jump on me, almost all of these are civil rather than criminal wrongs, but the fact that they were established mostly through common law rather than legislative statutes does not diminish the fact that they are laws.)
On the other hand, there are a hell of a lot of options in the about:config area. Exposing every one of them to the user in the preferences window would be quite burdensome. Apparently the designers felt that turning off animated GIFs was not important to make it to the limited space of the preferences dialog.
(Though maybe they should add an 'advanced' button that would expose more)
Um, I don't know about you, but I don't want to recompile for a security patch. I didn't even compile my system in the first place, it's just binaries.
a) Yes, some months if I remember right b) Because you go other places besides a plane? Or because you read the product description when it comes back up that says you can take the USB drive off of the knife part, stow the knife in your checked luggage, and take the USB part with you.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think so either. The owner of the pictures would be constrained to civil court. (See my other post in this thread; damages would probably be constrained to $30,000 plus fees.)
It's quite clear these are just holiday snaps and not the work of a professional photographer who would sell his work.
"It isn't any more legal or morally justified to steal a CF card and publish the pictures than it is to steal a wallet and use the cash to buy yourself stuff."
Well... yes it is, at least in this case since the photographer is obviously not a professional.
Goes back to the 'if you take his wallet and buy stuff with his cash you're depriving him of it, whereas if you post pictures he doesn't lose out' argument.
Defense would, probably successfully, argue that the blog constitutes a compilation, which means that it's one infringement.
Depends on jurisdiction. For instance, there was an example from 1993 in Mass where a couple found a $10,000 lottery ticket in a parking lot. Mass had a law that obligated people who find property worth over $3 to turn it in to the local police. (If not claimed in a year, the finder can claim it.)
It was only a decision by the local DA that the case wasn't worth pursuing that kept it out of the courts.
"Criminal offenses for copyright infringement don't occur until the infringer has caused a significant amount of financial damage (a few hundred thousand dollars IIRC)."
Criminal offenses start at $1000. Quite scary...
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/506.html
The taking of the card itself is theft. If you find something on the sidewalk, in a cab, etc that does not belong to you, you do not have the right to take and keep it. It is still property of the orignal owner. To keep it is theft, pure and simple.
Objection to this argument: maybe the person who found it did what was legally required. Could have just copied off the photos and then turned it in. I don't see anything on the site about it. Furthermore, I don't know what is required in NY for this to be theft; it's possible that you would simply need to make it available in the form of the Taxi company's lost and found or whatever. So as long as he doesn't take it and use it for himself, or sell it, or otherwise convert it for his own use, he could be okay.
"However this is also a case of copyright infringement. Works are automatically copyright to you upon creation, no registration is required. So these photos are the copyright of whomever shot them. To post them on the Internet without their permission is infringement."
It'd be really hard to argue damages though. It's quite clear from looking at the photo album that the person is not a professinal photographer, so they wouldn't have been able to sell anything.
The MAXIMUM he'd have to pay would be statuatory damages of $150,000 plus costs and attorney's fee, assuming he isn't making money off of this. This is pretty unlikely however, and the maximum he would likely have to pay is $30,000.
Then there's things that could make it less... probably the court wouldn't award that much, the plaintiff would be willing to settle for even less than the expected award, etc.
It's not pocket change, but it probably isn't a life-destroying judgement either.
I think it's actually dryer than the Sahara.
Though you might have a problem with snow blowing onto the lens, I think you're right in that falling snow probably won't be a worry.
"People who take issue with the use of Black American English (I refuse to use the idiotic term "ebonics")"
:-p
From what I've seen, it appears the term ebonics isn't really disrespectful at all. We talked about this in my linguistics class and the regular prof, a substitute prof, and a guest speaker, as well as lots of authors of papers we read, used Ebonics (I dunno if I should capitolize it...) to refer to it. (And if you want to be really formal, go with "African American Vernacular English" or AAVE.) So I don't think you should worry about it unless you want to avoid the stigma that has come attached to it.
"You want another example, the use of "youse" and "y'all" in various dialects of English (most notably northeastern urban and southern United States, respectively). Since "you" no longer performs its traditional function of second-person plural and "thou" has largely passed out of use except in some dialects in England, the second-person plural has regenerated in those forms, simply because sometimes it's useful to make a distinction between "you" and "y'all"."
It's "y'ins"
What about taking a picture of something in the northern sky? The Hubble can swing around and take a picture of nearly everything, at least "AFAI can reason", but one mounted at the South Pole would only be able to take a picture of the southern sky. I mean, plenty of stuff going on down there, but seems like most of the research has been in the north.
(Which has it's ups and downs... more likely to discover something new, but can't follow up observations made up north.)
First, ebonics is entirely different. Again, the people who are forming it have exposure to other language. The kids in Nicaragua didn't. The couldn't hear, and no one knew any signing.
Second, I just wanna comment on Ebonics a little, since it is so often derided (I can't tell if you mean it like that here). It makes more sense that it appears. "Ask" being pronounced as "ax" isn't too far fetched; we truncate consonant clusters all the time.
Read the following aloud: first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth. Now, when you read "fifth", did you actually say fif-th, or did you pronounce it "fith". "fth" is virtually NEVER said in its entirety.
Second, the "he be" example is actually something I wish was in common use. It is NOT simply a drop in replacement for "he is". It's called the "habitual be", and means that the statement is true over a much wider range than "is" entails.
For instance, "he is down at the park" in standard and common English means that right now, his location coincides with the location of the park. "He be down at the park" by contrast means that not only is he at the park now, but that he tends to hang out there a lot.
Start up times under Windows:
MS Word - 10 sec
OO Writer - 12 sec
Sad? Yes. But specific to OO.org? No.
Agreed, but I'd like something like that just for the coolness factor.
Know what they said "Reports of a possible explosion in North Korea. The State Department cannot confirm this." And that was it. 30 minutes of news (minus commercials) and only two sentences on a possible nuclear explosion in one of the three countries of the "Axis of Evil."
With all due respect, I think that this shows responsibility on their part. What did you want them to do? Speculate wildly on what it might be?
Granted, they could have said "News outlets in South Korea report an explosion North Korea", but if all the information you have is "so-and-so says there was an explosion" and "the State Dep't can't confirm", that's all you can report...
Actually, interestingly, the Fox News version of the article is the most alarmist I've seen.
CNN's is a calming "North Korea cloud 'not nuke blast'"
AP/Reuters is a neutral "Blast, Mushroom Cloud Reported in N. Korea"
Fox's is a worrysome "North Korea Might Have Tested Nuke"
It would suck, but it would only destroy two countries, not the entire world.
Yeah, it'd only be 150 million people dead if those two countries are leveled; just your average day. Not a doomsday scenario at all...
Sorry for the shouting there, but you really should have marked that as having spoilers.
Somewhat at least. They filmed Saurman scenes to go at the beginning of RotK, but decided they killed the pace of the movie before it even got started and thus they didn't work. They will be back though for the EE cut.
Scouring of course won't be, so who knows how they will wrap up the Saurman line.
Heathan! Google doesn't go down!
(And yes, I know Google has gone down, but let's not let reality interefere with a good joke, shall we?)
Actually, if you read over other comments, it appears that it is not just a quick way to get to the 'I'm Feeling Lucky' link, it only takes you to that page if it matches really well or something, as it sometimes goes to the actual Google search.
Okay, how 'bout this?
You add (in addition to the moat) a field of land mines. There is a path through the minefield.
Are you saying that this provides no security over just the moat?
Freedom of speech does not mean an absolute right to say whatever you want.
This is why there are libel laws. And slander. And disparagement.
This is why there are perjury laws.
This is why there are laws against speech that is intended and does result in violence.
This is why there are laws against fraud, and deceit.
This is why there are invasion of privacy laws.
And this is why there are laws against false advertising.
(To clarify, so no one tries to jump on me, almost all of these are civil rather than criminal wrongs, but the fact that they were established mostly through common law rather than legislative statutes does not diminish the fact that they are laws.)
On the other hand, there are a hell of a lot of options in the about:config area. Exposing every one of them to the user in the preferences window would be quite burdensome. Apparently the designers felt that turning off animated GIFs was not important to make it to the limited space of the preferences dialog.
(Though maybe they should add an 'advanced' button that would expose more)
Um, I don't know about you, but I don't want to recompile for a security patch. I didn't even compile my system in the first place, it's just binaries.
I like the "If you can read this, I can slam on my brakes and sue you" bumper sticker type deals...
(Even though that isn't entirely true, unfortunately)
a) Yes, some months if I remember right
b) Because you go other places besides a plane? Or because you read the product description when it comes back up that says you can take the USB drive off of the knife part, stow the knife in your checked luggage, and take the USB part with you.