...and to bring up another point, I just took a vacation to New Orleans. I took several pictures of my friends in Jackson Square, and there were plenty of random people standing around in the background. Did I somehow violate their privacy by posting my vacation pictures on Flickr?
You're getting away from the point though. Google isn't taking up-skirt pictures. They aren't using a telephoto lens. They aren't recording private conversations. And no one is walking around naked! Google is taking pictures from a normal vantage point.
Are we going to start going after the newspapers and TV stations too? After all, they take plenty of videos and pictures of places where people and standing around in the background and may not realize that they're being photographed or taped.
it's more complicated than some people are seeing
on
Who Owns Software?
·
· Score: 1
First, let me say that I disagree with the direction that Blizzard is taking this case. I see why they're doing it, but I don't think it's a good idea. However, I don't think that this situation is as simple as some of the analogies that I have seen on here. It is definitely not the same as buying a book, using it in an unconventional way, and getting sued.
There are two big differences that I see between WoW and a regular piece of software. First, even though you initially buy the software, you are playing it on an online service that is owned by Blizzard. WoW is, in some ways, more similar to your internet service than your copy of Windows. Much of the activity is taking place on their property, and they do have some say what you can and can't do. Second, what you do in WoW can directly affect Blizzard's other customers, and, if you use something like Glide, it can actually degrade the quality of Blizzard's product for other customers.
Now, IANAL, so I'm not even going to pretend to know what kind of legal remedies are available to Blizzard. However, I just wanted to point out that, while Blizzard may be taking the wrong approach, they have legitimate and understandable reasons for wanting to stop Glide.
That's exactly what I came here to say, and it seems that you already said it. This SEEMS, to me, to be a simple program. How can these guys screw it up so badly? Did they do no testing? Did they just have incompetent programmers? I think that a 100-level college programming class could write the logic involved...
"If no sexual offence is being committed it seems very odd indeed that there should be an offence for having an image of something which was not an offence.... Having engaged in it consensually would not be a crime, but to have a photograph of it in one's possession would be a crime. That does not seem to make sense to me."
It's legal for me to sleep with a 16 year old girl here in Indiana, but I can't photograph the act. I guess that could be considered a special case because it involves a minor. I just wanted to be the devil's advocate, even though I agree with the other side in this case.
This looks like a simple mistake to me. The gravel "road" appears to be named, and it goes all the way up to the family's garage door. I'm not sure whose fault that is... Google's map could be wrong, the city could have surveyed incorrectly, or the house could have just been built REALLY close to a minor, but named, road. Anyway, it doesn't look like there's a clear view of the house from the main road, so the driver probably didn't know that there was only a single house down the road in the first place. If his job was to go down all roads, it makes sense that he would have driven down there. Once he got down the road he decided to turn around in the driveway since there doesn't appear to be anywhere else to turn around. The camera takes pictures automatically, so pictures were taken while he was turning around. I don't know if Google takes any steps to verify their pictures before they post them, but the map seems to make it look like the driveway is even part of the road. Even if they verify that the GPS coordinate of a picture is actually on a road, it looks like these pictures would have showed up as being on a "road." Unless Google has actual humans verify all of their pictures, it makes perfect sense how this could have accidentally been posted.
I have been reading this story though various news outlets since yesterday. And I am going to post here the same thing I posted on Fark...
This is a non-issue. Something got mixed up when we were shipping them some batteries, and we shipped them some fuses instead. And they returned them with no problems. This story keeps on cropping up, and it's just sensationalism... especially using the word "nuclear" in the headline in this particular case. For shame.
If someone wrote a review that purposefully lied about the police officer, that person could get in trouble for libel. Otherwise, the reviewer is entitled to his or her opinion. I can stand on the street corner and bash on someone, anyone, all day as long as I don't slander. It shouldn't matter if that person is a police officer or not. Sure, many people don't like police officers. But, like you said, it's not a good job if you want to be popular.
It is sort of saying that... but it's true. They're just saying that they don't care how the results turn out, so they won't be trying to push the results one way or another.
If they're going to put health warnings about the possibility of addiction on casinos, beer and chocolate, to name a few things... or even Qdoba, my own personal demon.;) That's not even mentioning things that are physiologically addictive. Coffee anyone?
Why would the FBI have to steal nuclear secrets from anyone? If we wanted to give nuclear secrets to Pakistan or Saudi Arabia, we could just give them some of ours. And wouldn't messing with other countries and stealing secrets fall under the CIA's realm anyway?
If sex offenders are so dangerous that they aren't going to be allowed to even use the internet, maybe the government should work on passing a law that keeps them in jail longer.
Charging someone who negligently loses a laptop with personal information is understandable. I can even see charging them if they leave it in a place where it can easily be stolen, like leaving it in a car overnight. But, what if someone breaks into a person's house and steals a laptop? I envision this law becoming a convenient way of making someone into a scapegoat....
I would think that the rule of law on the space station would be the same as the rule of law on a ship in the middle of the ocean. It's kind of like saying, if a bunch of sailors of different nationalities are out in the middle of the ocean on a UN ship, whose law applies? I don't know the answer, but I'm sure that there are policies in place. Just because the people are in space instead of in the ocean doesn't really change things that much in my mind.
The bigger question in my mind is, does a single instance of hacking a network warrant getting 20 years in jail? I don't think that they got all of this jail time racked up for changing their grades. It's the breaking-in part that did them in. I suppose it could be compared to breaking into the teacher's house to change your grades in his grade-book. Changing the grades may or may not be a crime... hell, I don't know. But breaking into his house is definitely a crime. Anyway, I don't think that 20 years is an appropriate sentence for a single instance of hacking. But it's hard for me to form a good opinion when the article is only a paragraph long...
I haven't had this happen to me personally, but I have a buddy who worked for Best Buy loss prevention who told me about a similar incident. Basically, someone bought a new high-end video card, took the new card out of the box, replaced with with an old crappy video card, and returned it. The customer service girl couldn't tell the different between one video card and another, so she accepted the return. My buddy told me that things like that happened all the time, and they actually had a bunch of security camera pictures on the wall of some of the people who did this. They were supposed to call the police if any of the people came back in the store.
The point is, this is something that Best Buy should know about. What is the hard drive manufacturer supposed to do about it anyway? It's a LOT more likely that someone switched out the hard drive at Best Buy than the factory.
It depends on how you look at it. If I were to say that "I make $50,000/year," I don't mean that I make that much profit. I that I make that much before taxes and expenses. After I pay for taxes, rent, food, and other things, I end up with a lot less than $50,000 left over in my bank account. So if you look at it like that, it isn't invalid to say that Apple makes $831/iPhone.
Slashdot Mirror
...and to bring up another point, I just took a vacation to New Orleans. I took several pictures of my friends in Jackson Square, and there were plenty of random people standing around in the background. Did I somehow violate their privacy by posting my vacation pictures on Flickr?
You're getting away from the point though. Google isn't taking up-skirt pictures. They aren't using a telephoto lens. They aren't recording private conversations. And no one is walking around naked! Google is taking pictures from a normal vantage point.
Are we going to start going after the newspapers and TV stations too? After all, they take plenty of videos and pictures of places where people and standing around in the background and may not realize that they're being photographed or taped.
First, let me say that I disagree with the direction that Blizzard is taking this case. I see why they're doing it, but I don't think it's a good idea. However, I don't think that this situation is as simple as some of the analogies that I have seen on here. It is definitely not the same as buying a book, using it in an unconventional way, and getting sued.
There are two big differences that I see between WoW and a regular piece of software.
First, even though you initially buy the software, you are playing it on an online service that is owned by Blizzard. WoW is, in some ways, more similar to your internet service than your copy of Windows. Much of the activity is taking place on their property, and they do have some say what you can and can't do.
Second, what you do in WoW can directly affect Blizzard's other customers, and, if you use something like Glide, it can actually degrade the quality of Blizzard's product for other customers.
Now, IANAL, so I'm not even going to pretend to know what kind of legal remedies are available to Blizzard. However, I just wanted to point out that, while Blizzard may be taking the wrong approach, they have legitimate and understandable reasons for wanting to stop Glide.
So, could they say no fat people not wearing pants can use their software?
They sure as hell better not make a rule like that...
That's exactly what I came here to say, and it seems that you already said it. This SEEMS, to me, to be a simple program. How can these guys screw it up so badly? Did they do no testing? Did they just have incompetent programmers? I think that a 100-level college programming class could write the logic involved...
"If no sexual offence is being committed it seems very odd indeed that there should be an offence for having an image of something which was not an offence. ... Having engaged in it consensually would not be a crime, but to have a photograph of it in one's possession would be a crime. That does not seem to make sense to me."
It's legal for me to sleep with a 16 year old girl here in Indiana, but I can't photograph the act. I guess that could be considered a special case because it involves a minor. I just wanted to be the devil's advocate, even though I agree with the other side in this case.
This looks like a simple mistake to me. The gravel "road" appears to be named, and it goes all the way up to the family's garage door. I'm not sure whose fault that is... Google's map could be wrong, the city could have surveyed incorrectly, or the house could have just been built REALLY close to a minor, but named, road. Anyway, it doesn't look like there's a clear view of the house from the main road, so the driver probably didn't know that there was only a single house down the road in the first place. If his job was to go down all roads, it makes sense that he would have driven down there. Once he got down the road he decided to turn around in the driveway since there doesn't appear to be anywhere else to turn around. The camera takes pictures automatically, so pictures were taken while he was turning around. I don't know if Google takes any steps to verify their pictures before they post them, but the map seems to make it look like the driveway is even part of the road. Even if they verify that the GPS coordinate of a picture is actually on a road, it looks like these pictures would have showed up as being on a "road." Unless Google has actual humans verify all of their pictures, it makes perfect sense how this could have accidentally been posted.
Well, your point is valid... You just need to work on not sounding belligerent and racist so people will listen.
I have been reading this story though various news outlets since yesterday. And I am going to post here the same thing I posted on Fark...
This is a non-issue. Something got mixed up when we were shipping them some batteries, and we shipped them some fuses instead. And they returned them with no problems. This story keeps on cropping up, and it's just sensationalism... especially using the word "nuclear" in the headline in this particular case. For shame.
If someone wrote a review that purposefully lied about the police officer, that person could get in trouble for libel. Otherwise, the reviewer is entitled to his or her opinion. I can stand on the street corner and bash on someone, anyone, all day as long as I don't slander. It shouldn't matter if that person is a police officer or not. Sure, many people don't like police officers. But, like you said, it's not a good job if you want to be popular.
It is sort of saying that... but it's true. They're just saying that they don't care how the results turn out, so they won't be trying to push the results one way or another.
I have never had a half-chicken, half-steak! I know what I'm eating for dinner now...
I imagine that all HD-DVD exclusive titles will be released on BluRay eventually.
If they're going to put health warnings about the possibility of addiction on casinos, beer and chocolate, to name a few things... or even Qdoba, my own personal demon. ;) That's not even mentioning things that are physiologically addictive. Coffee anyone?
I have Comcast, and it costs $45 a month.
Go visit IRC. You can find all kinds of strange things on there...
Why would the FBI have to steal nuclear secrets from anyone? If we wanted to give nuclear secrets to Pakistan or Saudi Arabia, we could just give them some of ours. And wouldn't messing with other countries and stealing secrets fall under the CIA's realm anyway?
If sex offenders are so dangerous that they aren't going to be allowed to even use the internet, maybe the government should work on passing a law that keeps them in jail longer.
Charging someone who negligently loses a laptop with personal information is understandable. I can even see charging them if they leave it in a place where it can easily be stolen, like leaving it in a car overnight. But, what if someone breaks into a person's house and steals a laptop? I envision this law becoming a convenient way of making someone into a scapegoat....
I would think that the rule of law on the space station would be the same as the rule of law on a ship in the middle of the ocean. It's kind of like saying, if a bunch of sailors of different nationalities are out in the middle of the ocean on a UN ship, whose law applies? I don't know the answer, but I'm sure that there are policies in place. Just because the people are in space instead of in the ocean doesn't really change things that much in my mind.
The bigger question in my mind is, does a single instance of hacking a network warrant getting 20 years in jail? I don't think that they got all of this jail time racked up for changing their grades. It's the breaking-in part that did them in. I suppose it could be compared to breaking into the teacher's house to change your grades in his grade-book. Changing the grades may or may not be a crime... hell, I don't know. But breaking into his house is definitely a crime. Anyway, I don't think that 20 years is an appropriate sentence for a single instance of hacking. But it's hard for me to form a good opinion when the article is only a paragraph long...
I reckon that you are right. ;)
I haven't had this happen to me personally, but I have a buddy who worked for Best Buy loss prevention who told me about a similar incident. Basically, someone bought a new high-end video card, took the new card out of the box, replaced with with an old crappy video card, and returned it. The customer service girl couldn't tell the different between one video card and another, so she accepted the return. My buddy told me that things like that happened all the time, and they actually had a bunch of security camera pictures on the wall of some of the people who did this. They were supposed to call the police if any of the people came back in the store.
The point is, this is something that Best Buy should know about. What is the hard drive manufacturer supposed to do about it anyway? It's a LOT more likely that someone switched out the hard drive at Best Buy than the factory.
It depends on how you look at it. If I were to say that "I make $50,000/year," I don't mean that I make that much profit. I that I make that much before taxes and expenses. After I pay for taxes, rent, food, and other things, I end up with a lot less than $50,000 left over in my bank account. So if you look at it like that, it isn't invalid to say that Apple makes $831/iPhone.
Yes, that's a great idea! Move the pollution to other countries where we can't regulate it at all...