You say that, as a criticism of the gp, and you're correct - using the service to edit your photos does not give Adobe carte blanche over your images, but just how many people using photoshop express will think it's also neat to be able to share their content with their friends - a one stop shop - upload and edit and then use adobe's 2gigs of 'free' space to share their images?
A fair number, I imagine. It'd be so convenient. And that's the idea. And in so doing, they'd fall right into the trap Adobe has set them: use the free webspace and Adobe gets to profit from or to bastardise or do anything else they so please to your images.
This is not Flickr, it's a copyright grab under the guise of offering a service. And it's not explicitly stated, in BOLD, upfront. It's tucked away in the terms - and not the first page of terms - you have to click through them to find it.
You use the Photoshop Express free webspace and you fall into Adobe's trap and Adobe gets copyright dibs, irrevocably, to sell your images to advertisers and anyone else and make profit which you won't see a penny of.
I believe that stinks and that Adobe are being grasping bastards here.
I've only skimmed the summary, but from what I can tell it's something bad that you can get from the tubes like a malicious 'IM file' or a dodgy 'virus bug' that you might get from a pirated CD or something.
Whenever I download updates through Windows Update (Vista) - at least ones that patch IE7 I think - Microsoft installs the IE7 icon in my quickstart menu - despite me having deleted everything Internet Explorer off my desktop (purposefully and with malice:) ).
>>"Airport executives claim that the data will be stored for no longer than 24 hours, and will not be shared with law enforcement."
>"Then why are you doing it?"
It's a way of gently easing the metaphorical butt-cheeks of the British public apart. It's what they did with Traffic cameras. First it was just about license plate data for the congestion charge, and we were all assured that it wouldn't capture images of faces or be used by the police... Fast Forward a year or two, and faces are captured and the police have full unfettered access - to fight terrorism and organised crime... and petty crime... and political dissenters...
They want to have their own way with you, so they open you up with a finger, apply a little lurication and allow you to fully relax before they bring out the truncheon.
Give it a year or so and our collective sphincters will have unclenched and our glorious overlords will tell us they need the data to protect us (coz they really love us) and it'll all be added into our permanent files.
"The only CDs I've paid for in the last couple of years were from places like CDBaby who state exactly how much the artist will receive for each CD sold."
We have the Fair Trade mark so that so that a consumer will know that the coffee, cocoa, sugar that they're buying will ensure that the producers of these commodities get a fair price for their wares - prices which will guarantee them and their families and communities a living wage and the ability to put their children through school and so on.
Perhaps, given the abuses of artists by labels, it's about time we had a music industry equivalent of the Fair Trade mark so music fans can trust that the people in the bands are being treated fairly by any record company/distributor they're working with?
>There is such a thing as free speech, and americans, including this guy, expect it.
You forgot the corporate route-around the constitution - it doesn't matter if the constitution says this or that, if the people with the power to grant, or take away, your livelihood don't have to abide by it.
It's the same in the EU - people with power - corporations (et al,) aren't restricted by the (pitiful and inefective, but let's not get into that) restrictions of the constitutions/rights charters, etc. Only the government is (ok... supposedly... like I said, let's not get into that). As far as Corporations exist, with their power over people, and do so outside... let me charecterise it as - reasonable restraints - then this sit will continue to happen and we will be not so much under a dictatorship as under a defacto dictatorship.
Governments could say - corportations shouldn't wield this sort of power - this sort of discrimination - and it would be stopped, but people need to tell their governments that they need to curb corporate power first.
I love this bit: "Also, athletes cannot use their blogs for commercial gain."
Never mind that the modern Olympics has become rife with corporate sponsorship and bribery allegations. Just as long as the people who are supposed to count in all this - the athletes - don't make any money! Blech.
The thing that really gets me, though, is that althletes are not allowed to make political statements in the stadium - a stadium which is a political statement in itself: 'Hey guys! China's really quite nice! Never mind us raping Tibet, killing our own people and all that - look: Shiny Olympics! We're part of the civilized world! See!'
"By posting User Content to any part of the Site, you automatically grant [...] to the Company an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license..."
"If you choose to remove your User Content, the license granted above will automatically expire..."
So which is it? Irrevocable or expirable? Perpetual or... not? It can't be both.
I tried Opera again just recently and would have continued to use it but for the extremely annoying way it handles tabs. If only it did tabs like Firefox, or you could configure it to act that way, then I'd use it: specifically - so that when you close a tab, it jumps to the next one in the chain, rather than to the last one opened. Infuriating.
It's a noble sentiment you speak, but the government here in Britain, is as corporate, as corrupt, as oligarchical and as authoritarian as the government in the USA at the moment - if not more so. Seems to be the way of democracies of late.
How we can turn things round, fuck knows, but here's hoping we start addressing why things become so autoritatrian and design copper-bottomed protections against such things once we do chuck out the latest bunch of tin-pot dictators and their acolytes.
The image is clicked to open. The circle thing swirls a while. Then nothing happens. Then the cirle swirls some more and 15 seconds later, the image opens. Batch processing is a fucking nightmare, naturally.
The cause? The print spooler. Photoshop on Vista (not XP) is consulting with the print spooler before allowing the image to open. FFS. The solution: kill the spooler; the images open instantly.
I don't know which is worse, Vista or Adobe's stuff - their updater is a real turd. Either way, it seems like they're racing each other to the bottom in terms of bloat and poor performance.
Why is this moderated flamebait? Corruption is endemic in a number of African countries. It's one of the main things that is holding those countires back.
Meanwhile we've lost; or are, at least, in the process of losing.
Whilst we haven't had our Western society(/societies) converted into an islamic fascist fundemetalist nation, we have, or are in the process of having our nations converted into non-islamic fascist societies (please forgive my use of shorthand terminology).
The 'Jihadists' want Islamic authoritarianism. The Neocons (et al,) want secular (or 'Christian') authoritarianism. In the US and the UK at least, this secular/'christian' authoritarianism is winning - surveillance states filled with suspects rather than citizens, watched over like livestock by governments who pay lip service to liberty and use democracy as a fig leaf for their dark and controlling desires.
Whether it's the Islamic or the secular/'Christian' flavour of authoritarianism that holds sway, we, the vast majority of the people, lose.
Of course, that's to be expected, sice we're not really fighting!:-/
This all appears similar to the midset of the movie execs who were first shown the new video tape techinology.
They were horrified by the prospect of someone walking into the room where the video was playing to persons who had rented the tape, and sitting down and watching it without paying up.
Their mindset was still in the movie theatre and hadn't shifted to the new, perhaps counter-intuitive model of entertainment dissemination. It seem like this collecting agency still thinks we all listen to music at ticketed venues.
Is there some sort of propensity that copyright agencies have for emulating organised crime and shaking people down for moneys any which way they can? Perhaps it's part of the nature of the monopoly situation that is copyright.
> You have no right, nor obligation, to make a decision based on the spirit of the law- such would entirely undermine how the law works.
Who makes the law? A bunch of corrupt, self-serving politicians. Tug your forelock and doff your cap to the law and you're deferring to those untrustworthy scumbags.
Maybe in a world where the land is ruled and goverened by wise men, we can uphold the law as it's written, but... frankly... even then... we should surely think for ourselves and do what we feel is right (doing it with an open and honest mind is helpful of course).
In short: fuck the law, instead try and be just since (unfortunately) the law and justice are not always aligned. We are, after all, supposed to be free, free-thinking people, not rubber stamps for the will of shady people who crave power.
> This is in the UK [...] there[']s no law against self incrimination.
Yes there is - it was established by the European Court of Human Rights that the right to silence and the right to not incriminate oneself were intrinsic aspects of a fair trial.
http://rechten.uvt.nl/koops/casi-faq.htm#2.
As far as I can see, and I'm not a lawyer, this new section of RIPA breaches the right to silence and against self-incrimination - which have been judged in the courts to be intrinsic aspects of a 'fair trial'. This is in addition to reversing the burden of proof.
It seems to me that anyone banged up for 'forgetting' their pass phrase would have excellent grounds for appeal, and overturning the law. And let's face it, this morally corrupt, authoritarian Labour government has had it's nefarious laws overturned before.
Any of the 'sponsored' links Google serve up on a search results page are a damn sight easier to discern from the normal results than those 'advertisement features' that appear in magazines - which try as hard as they can to emulate the look and feel of legitimate features, with the only concession to those who value the truth being a small 'advertisemnt feature' tag placed as discretely as possible somewhere on the page.
I think I'm pretty astute at recognising that sort of deceptive practice, but these things have caught me out more than once.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, it won't work on sociopaths. You have to have a conscience about your lies in order to get nervous about telling them.
A fair number, I imagine. It'd be so convenient. And that's the idea. And in so doing, they'd fall right into the trap Adobe has set them: use the free webspace and Adobe gets to profit from or to bastardise or do anything else they so please to your images.
This is not Flickr, it's a copyright grab under the guise of offering a service. And it's not explicitly stated, in BOLD, upfront. It's tucked away in the terms - and not the first page of terms - you have to click through them to find it.
You use the Photoshop Express free webspace and you fall into Adobe's trap and Adobe gets copyright dibs, irrevocably, to sell your images to advertisers and anyone else and make profit which you won't see a penny of.
I believe that stinks and that Adobe are being grasping bastards here.
Not at small apertures (high F-stops).
Doesn't make sense.
I've only skimmed the summary, but from what I can tell it's something bad that you can get from the tubes like a malicious 'IM file' or a dodgy 'virus bug' that you might get from a pirated CD or something.
Whenever I download updates through Windows Update (Vista) - at least ones that patch IE7 I think - Microsoft installs the IE7 icon in my quickstart menu - despite me having deleted everything Internet Explorer off my desktop (purposefully and with malice :) ).
>"Then why are you doing it?"
It's a way of gently easing the metaphorical butt-cheeks of the British public apart. It's what they did with Traffic cameras. First it was just about license plate data for the congestion charge, and we were all assured that it wouldn't capture images of faces or be used by the police ... Fast Forward a year or two, and faces are captured and the police have full unfettered access - to fight terrorism and organised crime ... and petty crime ... and political dissenters ...
They want to have their own way with you, so they open you up with a finger, apply a little lurication and allow you to fully relax before they bring out the truncheon.
Give it a year or so and our collective sphincters will have unclenched and our glorious overlords will tell us they need the data to protect us (coz they really love us) and it'll all be added into our permanent files.
We have the Fair Trade mark so that so that a consumer will know that the coffee, cocoa, sugar that they're buying will ensure that the producers of these commodities get a fair price for their wares - prices which will guarantee them and their families and communities a living wage and the ability to put their children through school and so on.
Perhaps, given the abuses of artists by labels, it's about time we had a music industry equivalent of the Fair Trade mark so music fans can trust that the people in the bands are being treated fairly by any record company/distributor they're working with?
You forgot the corporate route-around the constitution - it doesn't matter if the constitution says this or that, if the people with the power to grant, or take away, your livelihood don't have to abide by it.
It's the same in the EU - people with power - corporations (et al,) aren't restricted by the (pitiful and inefective, but let's not get into that) restrictions of the constitutions/rights charters, etc. Only the government is (ok ... supposedly ... like I said, let's not get into that). As far as Corporations exist, with their power over people, and do so outside ... let me charecterise it as - reasonable restraints - then this sit will continue to happen and we will be not so much under a dictatorship as under a defacto dictatorship.
Governments could say - corportations shouldn't wield this sort of power - this sort of discrimination - and it would be stopped, but people need to tell their governments that they need to curb corporate power first.
Never mind that the modern Olympics has become rife with corporate sponsorship and bribery allegations. Just as long as the people who are supposed to count in all this - the athletes - don't make any money! Blech.
The thing that really gets me, though, is that althletes are not allowed to make political statements in the stadium - a stadium which is a political statement in itself: 'Hey guys! China's really quite nice! Never mind us raping Tibet, killing our own people and all that - look: Shiny Olympics! We're part of the civilized world! See!'
"By posting User Content to any part of the Site, you automatically grant [...] to the Company an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license ..."
"If you choose to remove your User Content, the license granted above will automatically expire ..."
So which is it? Irrevocable or expirable? Perpetual or ... not? It can't be both.
I tried Opera again just recently and would have continued to use it but for the extremely annoying way it handles tabs. If only it did tabs like Firefox, or you could configure it to act that way, then I'd use it: specifically - so that when you close a tab, it jumps to the next one in the chain, rather than to the last one opened. Infuriating.
It's a noble sentiment you speak, but the government here in Britain, is as corporate, as corrupt, as oligarchical and as authoritarian as the government in the USA at the moment - if not more so. Seems to be the way of democracies of late. How we can turn things round, fuck knows, but here's hoping we start addressing why things become so autoritatrian and design copper-bottomed protections against such things once we do chuck out the latest bunch of tin-pot dictators and their acolytes.
Vista Home Premium running Photoshop CS3 Extended:
Opening an image takes nearly 15 seconds. Opening multiple images takes 15 seconds EACH.
The image is clicked to open. The circle thing swirls a while. Then nothing happens. Then the cirle swirls some more and 15 seconds later, the image opens. Batch processing is a fucking nightmare, naturally.
The cause? The print spooler. Photoshop on Vista (not XP) is consulting with the print spooler before allowing the image to open. FFS. The solution: kill the spooler; the images open instantly.
I don't know which is worse, Vista or Adobe's stuff - their updater is a real turd. Either way, it seems like they're racing each other to the bottom in terms of bloat and poor performance.
Why is this moderated flamebait? Corruption is endemic in a number of African countries. It's one of the main things that is holding those countires back.
No. They haven't won.
:-/
Meanwhile we've lost; or are, at least, in the process of losing.
Whilst we haven't had our Western society(/societies) converted into an islamic fascist fundemetalist nation, we have, or are in the process of having our nations converted into non-islamic fascist societies (please forgive my use of shorthand terminology).
The 'Jihadists' want Islamic authoritarianism. The Neocons (et al,) want secular (or 'Christian') authoritarianism. In the US and the UK at least, this secular/'christian' authoritarianism is winning - surveillance states filled with suspects rather than citizens, watched over like livestock by governments who pay lip service to liberty and use democracy as a fig leaf for their dark and controlling desires.
Whether it's the Islamic or the secular/'Christian' flavour of authoritarianism that holds sway, we, the vast majority of the people, lose.
Of course, that's to be expected, sice we're not really fighting!
They were horrified by the prospect of someone walking into the room where the video was playing to persons who had rented the tape, and sitting down and watching it without paying up.
Their mindset was still in the movie theatre and hadn't shifted to the new, perhaps counter-intuitive model of entertainment dissemination. It seem like this collecting agency still thinks we all listen to music at ticketed venues.
Is there some sort of propensity that copyright agencies have for emulating organised crime and shaking people down for moneys any which way they can? Perhaps it's part of the nature of the monopoly situation that is copyright.
Who makes the law? A bunch of corrupt, self-serving politicians. Tug your forelock and doff your cap to the law and you're deferring to those untrustworthy scumbags.
Maybe in a world where the land is ruled and goverened by wise men, we can uphold the law as it's written, but ... frankly ... even then ... we should surely think for ourselves and do what we feel is right (doing it with an open and honest mind is helpful of course).
In short: fuck the law, instead try and be just since (unfortunately) the law and justice are not always aligned. We are, after all, supposed to be free, free-thinking people, not rubber stamps for the will of shady people who crave power.
Yes there is - it was established by the European Court of Human Rights that the right to silence and the right to not incriminate oneself were intrinsic aspects of a fair trial. http://rechten.uvt.nl/koops/casi-faq.htm#2.
It seems to me that anyone banged up for 'forgetting' their pass phrase would have excellent grounds for appeal, and overturning the law. And let's face it, this morally corrupt, authoritarian Labour government has had it's nefarious laws overturned before.
IT Crowd FTW!
For the Record Companies.
Tom Cruise, is that you?
LMAO. Classic. :-)
I think I'm pretty astute at recognising that sort of deceptive practice, but these things have caught me out more than once.
You got modded flamebait unfairly (so what's new on /.?!)