Folks in Massachusetts: you already have this in your schools. They are called EARS and telephones that call 911! Unless this is being installed where there is a chance that everyone in the school is completely deaf, it is a complete waste of money!
While you're at it, you'd better install a $100,000 rain detector there too. We'd better protect our children from the risks of getting wet from walking outside without their raincoats. (After all, no one wants to rely upon a visual inspection of the sky through a window.)
Somebody is laughing their ass off as they count their money from these stupid school administrators...
There's nothing ornamental about code (at least in the coding circles I've seen.) If you want to craft a sculpture in your code, print it and hang it on your wall, be my guest...
A copyright originates with an API because it is a work of authorship: someone created it in a mode of expression. There's nothing more complicated about it than that. There's nothing in the law that says functional expressions are excluded as non-copyrightable subject matter. The reason these copyrights on publicly-released APIs are not enforceable is because (for about the third or forth time I said here) there's fair uses and implied licenses.
I don't understand what you are trying to say. An API defines and/or references the objects in a library or other code object; it isn't really factual in the common sense.
You are correct that copyrights don't attach to recipes (the information that makes the dish possible to make), but they do attach to the expression of that information. Recipes are usually short and functional, so there's not much in the expression to protect. If you printed the recipe on a card with a picture or artwork, then that expression would be protected by copyright.
I think you've got a reasonably correct sense of the concepts. We may be arguing over definitions and language...
That's not correct. Design patents protect ornamental designs, not functional ones. They're typically filed to distinguish how a physical product looks, not how it works.
Why do you think an API is copyrightable only one way?
I don't understand what you're asking; I don't understand what you mean by the term "copyrightable".
If it's fair use to write a program that calls functions in an API, why is it not fair use to write a program that is called through an API?
I think you misunderstood what I said. I said that one can't make a direct copy of the code that underlies the API, but one can certainly write his own original code that implements the same functionality, and even uses anything copyrighted in the API if that is a fair use (names of functions and objects, as your library wouldn't be compatible/interchangeable unless the same names were used.)
What bothers me about copyrightability is that APIs are functional. If I'm going to write a program, I have to use the API as written. I can't make up my own.
And that's an argument in favor that your use of the API is fair. If you didn't need to use the API as written, then it might not be.
AFAIK, fair use in the textual world means things like quoting limited excerpts for discussion in other writings, use in satire, etc. Writing a new application with arbitrary and unlimited dependency on the API (which is the desired use of the API, after all,) is not clearly "fair use;" it's use for which the API "owner" could reasonably expect payment. The economic value to the API user is well-understood.
I think Google wins this one: the nature of the copyrighted work here is a specification that has been released to the public, so as to make the underlying libraries or other code usable.
An API "owner" could claim that the API was published for technical evaluation only, but to use the implementation, or even to create one's own fresh implementation, requires permission under the copyright. It would be calamitous for the industry, but the argument seems to align with the law.
Except that it is well-established that the API was published so the corresponding libraries/code could be used by outside entities writing Java applications. (It was Java, right?) Once the API has been released for public use, it is a standard and fair use to copy the portions that are required for use of that standard. It's also permitted by the license of the copyright implied by the release of the API as a standard.
The earlier films aren't "prior art" in the legal sense. (That term applies to patents, but not copyrights.) That's what I was explaining to readin.
It can be difficult to know what is in the public domain and what isn't (the date of authorship of a work can be unknown, and works can be dedicated to the public or for certain public use). But, if one's work is entirely original (as in doesn't contain any copied material except from sources that are proven to be in the prior art), then one can be safe. If one day you start whistling and come up with a tune that happens to be the same as the latest pop hit, and make yourself an original recording, then you haven't violated anyone's copyright (because you haven't copied anything). Just attaching "(c)" to your work doesn't give you the right to exclude everyone else from coming up with the same thing (but it might make it hard for them to prove their originality in court).
Oh, that old case (1879). Yes, the author (Selden) attempted to argue that copyright protected his method of bookkeeping (like a patent), and failed. Selden still had copyrights in his book, just not the methods described therein. Here's a quote out of that case for proof: "It may be conceded that Baker makes and uses account books arranged on substantially the same system, but the proof fails to show that he has violated the copyright of Selden's book, regarding the latter merely as an explanatory work, or that he has infringed Selden's right in any way, unless the latter became entitled to an exclusive right in the system."
Similarly, the author of an API has copyrights in that expression, too. What is at issue in this case is how far those rights extend.
The case you refer to is Feist v. Rural. Feist had copied the information contained with in the phone book published by Rural to make its own phone book. Rural had put some false entries in its phone book to prove the copying of its published information. Rural didn't invent or try to patent anything: phone books had been around for a long time. The Supreme Court ruled that Rural didn't have any copyrights in the information in published.
You're confusing copyrights with patent rights. They are two entirely different things.
EFF may or may not have made that argument (I'm too lazy to look), but that is not the best one by far. The information in a work of authorship is not protected by copyright, but the work itself still is. You could type up an alphabetical list of planets on your word processor, and that list would carry with it a copyright. Could someone copy the information in your list? Indeed they could. Could they even put your planets in the same arrangement? The answer is, yes, because there isn't any authorship involved in alphabetical listings. Could someone print your list and make a photocopy? Not without your permission: your list (in its entirety) would be a work of authorship, albeit a simple one.
An API is a work of authorship. Some software developer carefully thought out what it should look like; it is not a mere arrangement of facts or information. The reason Google will be permitted to use these APIs is because the use will be a fair use and because the owner of the copyright has impliedly granted a license for others to copy the API by making it a standard in the industry.
An API (or any other creation of a person) could be subject to both patent and copyright protection. APIs are not ordinarily patented because of the problems of (1) subject matter, (2) obviousness and (3) lack of meaningful protection (in that someone else can invent their own API and design around any narrow patent you might get to yours).
A derivative work still carries the benefits of copyright protection for those changes the author makes from the source material. The smallest improvement can be patented if it can be shown to be novel, be non-obvious, be patentable subject matter (which can be difficult for software), and if the inventor or owner of the rights chooses to undergo the expense to obtain the patent. This article doesn't reveal whether patents are involved here: the litigation concerned copyrights.
As the old analogy goes, property is a bundle of rights associated with a piece of land or other thing. Those rights ordinarily include the right to possess, to sell, to lend, to use, to copy outside of a fair use (for copyright law), to make (for patents), etc. When you buy something on the free market, you aren't buying all of the rights. The person/entity that you buy from may not even have all of the rights. If you buy a home, you'll buy it subject to the utility company's rights to its easement to enter and maintain the pipes, wires, etc. that are located in/on your property. When you buy a book from a bookstore, the bookstore doesn't have the copyrights: it has the rights only in the possession and sale of that copy of the book that it purchased from the publisher. It's been that way for centuries in english/american law.
Rights held by a person or entity (to land, works of authorship, or anything else) will either be enforced by the state (through civil courts) or at the point of a sword or a gun. There really isn't a better alternative to what we have (or at least no one has found it.)
Your solution would immediately bankrupt all software companies. I can't say that I like it...
and as far as I was aware, the U.S. Government doesn't bother to punish piracy except for the very worst offenders. (You wouldn't be one of those, would you?)
Prior art is relevant to patents, but not copyrights. You can take anything in the public domain, add the smallest amount of authorship, and have a copyright. (You'd have difficulty showing that to be valuable, though...)
Assume the API is a separate file like headers in C. I think the question here is can I use your header file for my program but have the interface point toward the code I created? That is a bit tougher.
Not really. In that case all you've done is copied the names of the objects from the header file (created by Oracle here) and written your own functional code that meets the specification of the API. I think that's the key here: Oracle intended that the API set a standard in the industry. How can Oracle argue that it is not a fair use to copy bits of it that were intended to be used by the public? How can Oracle argue that it didn't grant an implied license that makes the copying of the API a fair use?
The issue of crediting the author is something entirely different. The fact that someone's name doesn't appear in a published work doesn't enter it into the public domain: the holder of the copyright might be more difficult to prove, but theoretically the author still has it until he transfers it (such as under an employee agreement.)
Not all written works are copyrightable in the U.S. See the Feist v. Rural Supreme Court decision. A phone book is not eligible for copyright in so much as it's a mechanical collection of facts. Copyright law in the U.S. requires there be some minimal original "creativity" in the work in order for it to be copyrightable.
Agreed... and my short comment doesn't consider that. But, I don't think you'd disagree with me that the fashioning of an API requires creativity and is a work of authorship.
I believe that's Google and the EFF's argument. To their viewpoint, the API proper is a description of facts: "This library exposes this function, with these parameters in this order.". Moreover, there isn't an creativity in expressing those facts in the form they're in (the format of the header files and the like), because the form is either dictated mechanically by the need to interact with the compiler/interpreter, or is the "obvious" representation.
If the language itself requires a particular format, then the use of that format is not (in and of itself) authorship. The names of the functions, the arrangement of paragraphs/spacing in the code, the comments left by the author, etc. that are not specified by the language are.
Obviousness is for patent law, but need not be considered for copyright law. My 3-year-old can finger-paint with his dinner on the table, and that is an original work of authorship...
That said, I'm not sure how well that argument will fly. There seems to me to be a large amount of wiggle room in claiming "creative" contributions in the API. There's also an issue that the factual nature of the API is dependant on the creative choices in library implementation. (e.g. You could list facts about the characters and events in a copyrighted novel. These are facts, but if you list enough of them, you've basically replicated the novel.) You may be right in that API usage would better hang on fair use that copyrightability, but I think you're oversimplifying things by (condecendingly) saying "it's simple if you understand the law". (Especially as the ruling by the original Judge was that APIs weren't copyrightable.)
For your novel example: remakes of the storylines of books, movies, etc. have been made over and over. You can replicate the story of a book without infringing a copyright, and you can list as many facts about it as you like. You can find in reviews all the important facts of virtually any popular copyrighted work. You would not have replicated the novel: the authorship in the novel is in the presentation of the story in the particular words and pages used, not in the selection of names and events that happen in it. (Would you want to read a collection of facts rather than the book itself?) Trying to use the yardstick of whether it is more than a collection of facts to determine copyrightable subject matter isn't correct: use the yardstick of authorship instead. I can't really develop the concept in the space of a Slashdot reply, but I think that's pretty close.
Federal judges often have difficulty applying intellectual property law. They're often people that have a background in criminal or contract matters that don't really grasp the concepts. I think I get to be condescending... and I'll be so one more time in saying that it does seem as though Oracle is trying to get out of copyright law what it couldn't out of patent law. (I'm recalling that this issue has arisen before in the caselaw but I don't remember where at the moment.)
BTW, fair use isn't really being argued here because the original trial didn't hinge on fair use (given that the Judge concluded that there wasn't any copyright to have a fair use exception to). In fact, the appellate court mentions that there are findings of fact still outstanding on
Is an API copyrightable? Of course it is. It's a work of authorship like any other written work.
What escapes most people is that a copyright is not an absolute, exclusive right to keep others from copying the work. Function calls using an API would be a "fair use" of the work, and would be excepted under existing U.S. copyright law. (I'll leave it to you to google the term yourselves.) Copying the code behind the functioning of the library of the API would not be a fair use. Does one have to include the name of the functions and objects referenced in the API to use it? Of course. How could it not be a fair use of the API, if that API had been released for public use of the library?
But, since that legal principal seems to have escaped the EFF (as it isn't prominent in their brief and probably wasn't raised at trial), they're probably going to lose. That's what happens when you sacrifice competency for stinginess...
Yes, because the IPCC publishes a "new" report every few months summarizing the same old data, basically so they can stay in the news and maintain their vanity.
Imagine Bozo the clown shouting fire every thirty minutes in a theater empty, except for the global warming alarmists who rush about inside with each honk of his little horn. That's pretty much what we have here.
I was wondering when you'd make your over-generalization here, Itzly. Don't forget to report what you see in your tarot cards here as scientific research too: I'd love to make a comment on that as well.
Why would anyone turn to a drone to collect that kind of data? Isn't it available in satellite images? Wouldn't that yield a wider, regular and more reliable source of data?
Oh, I see from the article... this creates a "bridge" between the satellite data and his collected data... which we didn't apparently need in the first place. Mr. Box has his calculations independent of his drone-collected data to reach his "alarming" conclusions.
FTA: Mr. Box is of the opinion that "if humans release a fraction of Arctic methane “we’re fucked”". Wow: that sounds like persuasive "science" to me...
Please, folks: can we have some true science here, and not some reporting of someone's hobby as science?
It's not a verifiable reference if I can't reasonably get to it. Besides, you've already admitted that even if he did say it, it doesn't bear upon the original question that I answered.
Slashdot Mirror
Folks in Massachusetts: you already have this in your schools. They are called EARS and telephones that call 911! Unless this is being installed where there is a chance that everyone in the school is completely deaf, it is a complete waste of money!
While you're at it, you'd better install a $100,000 rain detector there too. We'd better protect our children from the risks of getting wet from walking outside without their raincoats. (After all, no one wants to rely upon a visual inspection of the sky through a window.)
Somebody is laughing their ass off as they count their money from these stupid school administrators...
There's nothing ornamental about code (at least in the coding circles I've seen.) If you want to craft a sculpture in your code, print it and hang it on your wall, be my guest...
A copyright originates with an API because it is a work of authorship: someone created it in a mode of expression. There's nothing more complicated about it than that. There's nothing in the law that says functional expressions are excluded as non-copyrightable subject matter. The reason these copyrights on publicly-released APIs are not enforceable is because (for about the third or forth time I said here) there's fair uses and implied licenses.
I don't understand what you are trying to say. An API defines and/or references the objects in a library or other code object; it isn't really factual in the common sense.
You are correct that copyrights don't attach to recipes (the information that makes the dish possible to make), but they do attach to the expression of that information. Recipes are usually short and functional, so there's not much in the expression to protect. If you printed the recipe on a card with a picture or artwork, then that expression would be protected by copyright.
I think you've got a reasonably correct sense of the concepts. We may be arguing over definitions and language...
That's not correct. Design patents protect ornamental designs, not functional ones. They're typically filed to distinguish how a physical product looks, not how it works.
Why do you think an API is copyrightable only one way?
I don't understand what you're asking; I don't understand what you mean by the term "copyrightable".
If it's fair use to write a program that calls functions in an API, why is it not fair use to write a program that is called through an API?
I think you misunderstood what I said. I said that one can't make a direct copy of the code that underlies the API, but one can certainly write his own original code that implements the same functionality, and even uses anything copyrighted in the API if that is a fair use (names of functions and objects, as your library wouldn't be compatible/interchangeable unless the same names were used.)
What bothers me about copyrightability is that APIs are functional. If I'm going to write a program, I have to use the API as written. I can't make up my own.
And that's an argument in favor that your use of the API is fair. If you didn't need to use the API as written, then it might not be.
AFAIK, fair use in the textual world means things like quoting limited excerpts for discussion in other writings, use in satire, etc. Writing a new application with arbitrary and unlimited dependency on the API (which is the desired use of the API, after all,) is not clearly "fair use;" it's use for which the API "owner" could reasonably expect payment. The economic value to the API user is well-understood.
I don't agree with you there. What is a fair use is described here: http://www.copyright.gov/fls/f...
I think Google wins this one: the nature of the copyrighted work here is a specification that has been released to the public, so as to make the underlying libraries or other code usable.
An API "owner" could claim that the API was published for technical evaluation only, but to use the implementation, or even to create one's own fresh implementation, requires permission under the copyright. It would be calamitous for the industry, but the argument seems to align with the law.
Except that it is well-established that the API was published so the corresponding libraries/code could be used by outside entities writing Java applications. (It was Java, right?) Once the API has been released for public use, it is a standard and fair use to copy the portions that are required for use of that standard. It's also permitted by the license of the copyright implied by the release of the API as a standard.
That still does not prohibit a copyright from attaching to the API. That's where fair use and implied license fix the problem.
The earlier films aren't "prior art" in the legal sense. (That term applies to patents, but not copyrights.) That's what I was explaining to readin.
It can be difficult to know what is in the public domain and what isn't (the date of authorship of a work can be unknown, and works can be dedicated to the public or for certain public use). But, if one's work is entirely original (as in doesn't contain any copied material except from sources that are proven to be in the prior art), then one can be safe. If one day you start whistling and come up with a tune that happens to be the same as the latest pop hit, and make yourself an original recording, then you haven't violated anyone's copyright (because you haven't copied anything). Just attaching "(c)" to your work doesn't give you the right to exclude everyone else from coming up with the same thing (but it might make it hard for them to prove their originality in court).
Oh, that old case (1879). Yes, the author (Selden) attempted to argue that copyright protected his method of bookkeeping (like a patent), and failed. Selden still had copyrights in his book, just not the methods described therein. Here's a quote out of that case for proof: "It may be conceded that Baker makes and uses account books arranged on substantially the same system, but the proof fails to show that he has violated the copyright of Selden's book, regarding the latter merely as an explanatory work, or that he has infringed Selden's right in any way, unless the latter became entitled to an exclusive right in the system."
Similarly, the author of an API has copyrights in that expression, too. What is at issue in this case is how far those rights extend.
The case you refer to is Feist v. Rural. Feist had copied the information contained with in the phone book published by Rural to make its own phone book. Rural had put some false entries in its phone book to prove the copying of its published information. Rural didn't invent or try to patent anything: phone books had been around for a long time. The Supreme Court ruled that Rural didn't have any copyrights in the information in published.
You're confusing copyrights with patent rights. They are two entirely different things.
EFF may or may not have made that argument (I'm too lazy to look), but that is not the best one by far. The information in a work of authorship is not protected by copyright, but the work itself still is. You could type up an alphabetical list of planets on your word processor, and that list would carry with it a copyright. Could someone copy the information in your list? Indeed they could. Could they even put your planets in the same arrangement? The answer is, yes, because there isn't any authorship involved in alphabetical listings. Could someone print your list and make a photocopy? Not without your permission: your list (in its entirety) would be a work of authorship, albeit a simple one.
An API is a work of authorship. Some software developer carefully thought out what it should look like; it is not a mere arrangement of facts or information. The reason Google will be permitted to use these APIs is because the use will be a fair use and because the owner of the copyright has impliedly granted a license for others to copy the API by making it a standard in the industry.
An API (or any other creation of a person) could be subject to both patent and copyright protection. APIs are not ordinarily patented because of the problems of (1) subject matter, (2) obviousness and (3) lack of meaningful protection (in that someone else can invent their own API and design around any narrow patent you might get to yours).
A derivative work still carries the benefits of copyright protection for those changes the author makes from the source material. The smallest improvement can be patented if it can be shown to be novel, be non-obvious, be patentable subject matter (which can be difficult for software), and if the inventor or owner of the rights chooses to undergo the expense to obtain the patent. This article doesn't reveal whether patents are involved here: the litigation concerned copyrights.
As the old analogy goes, property is a bundle of rights associated with a piece of land or other thing. Those rights ordinarily include the right to possess, to sell, to lend, to use, to copy outside of a fair use (for copyright law), to make (for patents), etc. When you buy something on the free market, you aren't buying all of the rights. The person/entity that you buy from may not even have all of the rights. If you buy a home, you'll buy it subject to the utility company's rights to its easement to enter and maintain the pipes, wires, etc. that are located in/on your property. When you buy a book from a bookstore, the bookstore doesn't have the copyrights: it has the rights only in the possession and sale of that copy of the book that it purchased from the publisher. It's been that way for centuries in english/american law.
Rights held by a person or entity (to land, works of authorship, or anything else) will either be enforced by the state (through civil courts) or at the point of a sword or a gun. There really isn't a better alternative to what we have (or at least no one has found it.)
You can't have a free market if no one has any property rights. Did that escape you?
Your solution would immediately bankrupt all software companies. I can't say that I like it...
and as far as I was aware, the U.S. Government doesn't bother to punish piracy except for the very worst offenders. (You wouldn't be one of those, would you?)
Prior art is relevant to patents, but not copyrights. You can take anything in the public domain, add the smallest amount of authorship, and have a copyright. (You'd have difficulty showing that to be valuable, though...)
Assume the API is a separate file like headers in C. I think the question here is can I use your header file for my program but have the interface point toward the code I created? That is a bit tougher.
Not really. In that case all you've done is copied the names of the objects from the header file (created by Oracle here) and written your own functional code that meets the specification of the API. I think that's the key here: Oracle intended that the API set a standard in the industry. How can Oracle argue that it is not a fair use to copy bits of it that were intended to be used by the public? How can Oracle argue that it didn't grant an implied license that makes the copying of the API a fair use?
The issue of crediting the author is something entirely different. The fact that someone's name doesn't appear in a published work doesn't enter it into the public domain: the holder of the copyright might be more difficult to prove, but theoretically the author still has it until he transfers it (such as under an employee agreement.)
Not all written works are copyrightable in the U.S. See the Feist v. Rural Supreme Court decision. A phone book is not eligible for copyright in so much as it's a mechanical collection of facts. Copyright law in the U.S. requires there be some minimal original "creativity" in the work in order for it to be copyrightable.
Agreed ... and my short comment doesn't consider that. But, I don't think you'd disagree with me that the fashioning of an API requires creativity and is a work of authorship.
I believe that's Google and the EFF's argument. To their viewpoint, the API proper is a description of facts: "This library exposes this function, with these parameters in this order.". Moreover, there isn't an creativity in expressing those facts in the form they're in (the format of the header files and the like), because the form is either dictated mechanically by the need to interact with the compiler/interpreter, or is the "obvious" representation.
If the language itself requires a particular format, then the use of that format is not (in and of itself) authorship. The names of the functions, the arrangement of paragraphs/spacing in the code, the comments left by the author, etc. that are not specified by the language are.
Obviousness is for patent law, but need not be considered for copyright law. My 3-year-old can finger-paint with his dinner on the table, and that is an original work of authorship...
That said, I'm not sure how well that argument will fly. There seems to me to be a large amount of wiggle room in claiming "creative" contributions in the API. There's also an issue that the factual nature of the API is dependant on the creative choices in library implementation. (e.g. You could list facts about the characters and events in a copyrighted novel. These are facts, but if you list enough of them, you've basically replicated the novel.) You may be right in that API usage would better hang on fair use that copyrightability, but I think you're oversimplifying things by (condecendingly) saying "it's simple if you understand the law". (Especially as the ruling by the original Judge was that APIs weren't copyrightable.)
For your novel example: remakes of the storylines of books, movies, etc. have been made over and over. You can replicate the story of a book without infringing a copyright, and you can list as many facts about it as you like. You can find in reviews all the important facts of virtually any popular copyrighted work. You would not have replicated the novel: the authorship in the novel is in the presentation of the story in the particular words and pages used, not in the selection of names and events that happen in it. (Would you want to read a collection of facts rather than the book itself?) Trying to use the yardstick of whether it is more than a collection of facts to determine copyrightable subject matter isn't correct: use the yardstick of authorship instead. I can't really develop the concept in the space of a Slashdot reply, but I think that's pretty close.
Federal judges often have difficulty applying intellectual property law. They're often people that have a background in criminal or contract matters that don't really grasp the concepts. I think I get to be condescending ... and I'll be so one more time in saying that it does seem as though Oracle is trying to get out of copyright law what it couldn't out of patent law. (I'm recalling that this issue has arisen before in the caselaw but I don't remember where at the moment.)
BTW, fair use isn't really being argued here because the original trial didn't hinge on fair use (given that the Judge concluded that there wasn't any copyright to have a fair use exception to). In fact, the appellate court mentions that there are findings of fact still outstanding on
Is an API copyrightable? Of course it is. It's a work of authorship like any other written work.
What escapes most people is that a copyright is not an absolute, exclusive right to keep others from copying the work. Function calls using an API would be a "fair use" of the work, and would be excepted under existing U.S. copyright law. (I'll leave it to you to google the term yourselves.) Copying the code behind the functioning of the library of the API would not be a fair use. Does one have to include the name of the functions and objects referenced in the API to use it? Of course. How could it not be a fair use of the API, if that API had been released for public use of the library?
But, since that legal principal seems to have escaped the EFF (as it isn't prominent in their brief and probably wasn't raised at trial), they're probably going to lose. That's what happens when you sacrifice competency for stinginess...
Yes, because the IPCC publishes a "new" report every few months summarizing the same old data, basically so they can stay in the news and maintain their vanity.
Imagine Bozo the clown shouting fire every thirty minutes in a theater empty, except for the global warming alarmists who rush about inside with each honk of his little horn. That's pretty much what we have here.
This report is going to cause Rush Limbaugh to have diarrhea.
Actually, it will give Mr. Limbaugh two more weeks of material to make money out of. I assure you that he loves the IPCC...
...they reach the conclusions they are paid to reach by finding published literature that supports those conclusions
Ah, finally! A rational viewpoint here...
I was wondering when you'd make your over-generalization here, Itzly. Don't forget to report what you see in your tarot cards here as scientific research too: I'd love to make a comment on that as well.
Why would anyone turn to a drone to collect that kind of data? Isn't it available in satellite images? Wouldn't that yield a wider, regular and more reliable source of data?
Oh, I see from the article ... this creates a "bridge" between the satellite data and his collected data ... which we didn't apparently need in the first place. Mr. Box has his calculations independent of his drone-collected data to reach his "alarming" conclusions.
FTA: Mr. Box is of the opinion that "if humans release a fraction of Arctic methane “we’re fucked”". Wow: that sounds like persuasive "science" to me...
Please, folks: can we have some true science here, and not some reporting of someone's hobby as science?
It's not a verifiable reference if I can't reasonably get to it. Besides, you've already admitted that even if he did say it, it doesn't bear upon the original question that I answered.