That's not even a word, but even if it were, I'm still waiting for your contradicting facts which would show it.
Your whole paragraph doesn't touch what was said in the former/. article about this same subject. Rest assured I followed the links and read the discussion on those linked pages. Including the detailed steps they took for addressing this issue. As many of the GPL folks said (and I agree with it); the steps taken were insufficient to settle the matter internally and quietly. "The person who knows best" may have another opinion of it, but I disagree, and many other (including GPL) people had similar reservations. Of course, this is a subjective measurement, others might have another opinion of it. I personally come to that conclusion after having read the steps that were taken, and the time they waited. You may disagree, but that doesn't make me uninformed.
One of the gripes I have is that some (like your guy who knows it best) would claim they were warned weeks in front. Well, yes...as a casual remark on a forum. That would be your "The message board shows they aware of the issue internally and that they are capable of responding." Yeah, right... Pretty low standards for addressing the issue, if you ask me. So the 'notification' was provided via a public forum on the defendant's website; hardly the way to go if you really want to deal (politely, yes, without legal fight, yes, but) seriously with the matter. What can be considered a proper way of notification was only done on September 11, 2007: through their counsel, Plaintiffs notified Defendant of its unlawful conduct based upon its failure to comply with the License.
They filed a lawsuit the 19th....hardly a week later!
As another poster said in the former/. article (just as I said in my heading here):
"So, plaintiffs posted an entry in the defendant's web forum, acknowledged by a support droid on 5th September and here we are on the 19th, with a lawsuit filed. Have these guys got money to burn? Has the "notification" even got past the support droids to the parts of the company that matter? Whatever happened to communication?"
I fully agree with that.
You may not. But acting as if your (and the guy who knows best) disagreement entitles you to the claim I'm uninformed is a fallacy.
They should have given it more time to begin with. The GPL folks themselves had argued that one warning and - wham - suing wasn't a good way to deal with these issues.
Since the GPL is pretty straightforward and based on the same principles as 'normal' copyright, companies really don't make much of a chance, and they know it. A little bit of pressure, and even the obnoxious ones cave in rather soon, *without* having to go to court.
As long as violations can be solved this way, there really isn't a need to go the long and tedious legal way.
It would be nice to have a (legal) conformation of the validity of the GPL, but that would only be pro forma. It has an extreme likelihood of being legally sound and valid, and companies (and everyone else, really) know that - that's why they settle so fast in the first place.
If the girl says: I use the the CC, attr. and I allow anyone to use it... why is the "likeness rights" something she has to waive extra (IF she can waive it)? If you can't use her pic under the conditions she agreed to under the CC, then, in practise, you can't use that pic under the conditions of the CC, period.
I'm not all that familiar with the legal status of the public domain, but if you released it under a licence that allowed me to use it as I see fit as long as I mention your name, I would think you're a hypocrite son of a bitch too, if you would sue me when I use it in a way you don't like. You should have set in your licence you reserve the right to revoke your licence if you don't like it, then. (And then I wouldn't have used it, so you couldn't sue).
"Similarly, if I release a bit of code as GPL, that doesn't mean that someone could then use that code to exploit a vulnerability with impunity. The GPL signifies a lifting of copyright claims, not a lifting of any claims under the sun."
True. I *already* agreed with you on that one. Am I disputing that they could do it? That it are different laws? Nope.
What I'm saying is, that, if the GPL *would* say it IS allowed to exploit a vulnerability of their code - they would be cheap wankers if they sued someone for exploiting such a vulnerability, EVEN if the other law still gives them that right. This is also the case if they would incorporate it in a broader statement. If the GPL would say: you can use our code anyway you see fit, and then the code is used for something illegal (by another law) it STILL wouldn't be up to the GPL-folks to sue the user of that code for a violation, IMHO.
I can't make it any more clear than that.
A licence may not be a contract, but you agree to use the licence nevertheless. If you waive your rights with a broad claim that anyone may use it, one shouldn't whine if they use it in a way you don't agree with. And, c'mon, that IS the case here. If she had no problems with how it was used, she wouldn't sue. So she didn't like the way it was used - well, though, she could have thought about that in front, and chosen another licence. The CC doesn't deal with other things, true. It just says it can be used as long as there is attribution. There was attribution, so logic would dictate it can be used. There are no extra conditions mentioned. Nor do I see the logic of invoking any extra conditions (from other laws) when you yourself have indicated what your conditions were when you made it public under the CC. Was there something keeping her from using a more appropriate (for her) licence?
It's all legal no doubt, but I don't think it's reasonable or fair. You set your conditions - all of them - in front, so people can choose in a clear way. You don't claim a condition for using it, and then invoke others (derived from other laws) once a person uses it. One can claim it has nothing to do with eachother, but that's just theoretical BS. In practice, it means you can't use her pic under the conditions of the CC, because you also have to adhere to her other provisions and conditions. For me, that's going against the spirit of the particular CC she agreed to release her pic under.
"It's not intended to do more, and it doesn't infringe on "the spirit of the agreement" if one later files claims on another matter."
Since it has an effect on the actual use of that CC'ed pic, I think it does, and maybe that's where we differ in opinion.
Ah well, let's agree to disagree, then. Slashdot at 1 am is tiring as it is.;-)
Let's cut the crap. All humans are fallible, and juries and judges are human... ergo, they are fallible, ergo wrongful deathpenalties will always exist.
People who are pro basically say it's worth to have a few innocent deaths if it means we can keep the death-penalty going and kill guilty ones as well. I find this argumentation absurd, and hypocrite.
If YOU were the one facing death when being innocent, would you still promote the death-penalty? I doubt it. If you can't support it when you're in the victims' place, you shouldn't support it at all. If you say it's ok if some die innocently, you should be ok if you're the one dying too. If you're saying it's not acceptable, and you agree that it's unavoidable that some will be put to death innocently, then logic dictates you should not find the death-penalty acceptable.
Furthermore, I do not share your optimism about how racism is all a thing of the past. It's less overt, yes. And you can close your eyes for it, and pretend in modern times, the USA has put all that past behind. But in reality, human nature isn't that easily converted. The black minority may believe in 2, but it's equally easy to guess what the white majority believes. And, due to different causes (higher unemployment, etc.) they are right too. But the causes of *those* is never asked. All other things being equal, who will have - generally speaking - the most chance of finding a job: a white male, or a black male? I think you know the answer. Why do - for the *same* kind of crimes - white people get consistently less jail time then black people?
It's pretty naive to assume that no lingering racism (consciously or not) remains, and that all people act with a sort of Utopian 'all are equal' mentality. That's the theory (which is strived for by new laws) - not the practice (with it's foundation in human nature/upbringing).
"Only a marketing department that didn't do its job, and a few Slashdot posters who are seemingly incapable of understanding that releasing copyright claims doesn't entail releasing all claims."
Weird. Presuming I'm considered one of those slasdot posters you mention, I'm pretty sure I gave a pretty clear indication in my above post that I was well aware that other laws exist, exept copyright.
Maybe I should use another analogy to make clear that it's not about the legalese rights and wrong I'm talking here, but about the ACTUAL meaning behind things.
In my country, we have the right of fair use, and of making copies (of entertainment media) for personal usage if we own the original. Thanks to the EU, we now also have a law that prohibits (thus, makes it illigal) to circumvent copy-protection measures. Since all modern digital media is being distributed with such a protectionmechanism, and one isn't allowed circumvent it, I say it makes the first one hollow and worth nothing.
Now, in your worldview, you would argue that the first law, who gives you that right is completely different from the last one. And you would be right, legally speaking. Nothing about not-circumventing says anything about your rights of fair use or any of our other rights. Just as the copyright of the CC doesn't say anything about the other rights, and vice versa.
What it means *in reality* however, is, that it makes the other right meaningless and the idea that one doesn't affect the other BS.
The same applies with the CC, attribution. You give the right to people to use it, as long as they put your name on it. Which Virgin did. But now she claims she has 'grief' and what not, because Vrigin used her pic in a way she doesn't like. And that's really it. She invokes *another* (as you rightfully point out) law, and thereby she makes the CC worthless, because what she is saying now is: "I granted you permission to use it as long as you attribute it, but regardless; I don't like how you used it , and I'm going to sue you for it."
Has the copyright, on itself, anything to do with your "Likeness rights"? Nope. Just like the anti-circumvention law has nothing to do with your right of fair use, etc. You still have that right, only you can't exercise it in any meaningful way anymore. Here, she gives people the right to use her pic as long as you put her name on it, only you can't use it anymore in any meaningful way, because she will sue you by using a law that has nothing to do with the CC (as you said yourself).
Now, one can look at that technically/legally, as you do, and claim there is no problem. Or, you can actually take things as they occur in reality, and then you would be a fool to claim one law makes the other useless (in *practise*). As for the a-circumvention law: I think it sucks and I didn't choose for it. She DID choose the CC, and in the spirit of the CC (and not in the legalese context where you constantly hammer on about) she gave permission to use it, as long as other people put her name on it. That was the only condition in the CC. The are other variants she could have chosen out, which would have prevented her current 'grief', but she didn't. To now sue a company because she doesn't like the way her pic was used is a direct result of her shortsightedness and lack of understanding the ways it could be used, if she is now really in all that grief and humiliation. It's utterly weak and cheap of her, EVEN if - no doubt - she has a legal right to sue.
So, granted, releasing copyright claims doesn't entail releasing all claims, but as I said earlier, in some countries, waiving all your rights even in a contract, doesn't entail releasing all (legal) rights neither. It doesn't change the fact that persons should stop whining (and especially suing) if things don't turn out like they thought it would. A person who gives permission (in a contract) to use her pic, while revoking it when it's the far-right using it - sucks. She has the right (in that country), yes, and the law it is base
As I've said in similar posts on TFA (maybe not in this specific thread); I'm well aware that there are (or at least, may be) laws (depending on the country) that protect certain aspects of use, apart from the copyright.
In fact, you have countries where, even when you sign a contract where you agree you waive all rights, and agree that they can even use it even to smear you or whatever and even when you signed 100 contracts where you give the right to do whatever they want....they STILL are able to sue (and win) against those that would use it in the manner as is said in your contract/licence/you call it. Why? Because in those countries you the right as an artist to forbid certain use of your picture, regardless of what you agreed to. And since it's the law of the country, it supersedes all other rules or contractual agreements.
I think this degree of protection for the use/distribution is unwarranted and uncalled for, or at least in this particular case, unreasonable. I could understand a law protecting minors who couldn't comprehend what the CC was saying, for instance - say for a 6 year old. But at 16 you should reasonably foresee the implications and the consequences of the licence you use.
Yes, yes, I know: it doesn't deal with the licence. But, in reality, that is BS. What she is doing, is trying to get around the licence she agreed to, by invoking other laws (of the country). If she wanted to make sure no-one would alter it in a way that would be causing 'grief', so could and should have chosen a CC, attribution, no-deriv licence - in that case, no-one could change anything to it without her permission, including putting text on it.
In essence, she's fleeing her responsibility. She might be legally entitled to flee, but it's still fleeing. Just when I would sign an agreement that says one can use my pic for whatever one wants, but then I revoke it when it is used by a far right-wing organization (an actual example, btw, that occurred with someone else; he was legally entitled to do that, as the law permitted it, but I still say she was a damn hypocrite and fleeing her agreement.) Nobody forces you to go for such a deal, but if you agree with it, you should stick to it, period.
Apparently, it's too much to ask that people uphold themselves to accept the consequences of their own actions.
"Putting something up as CC doesn't mean anyone can do anything they want with it" It *should* mean that.
I don't understand that. If I put some works available and use a 'newsbyte-licence' that says: "everyone can do with it as they please, without any restrictions" - WHAT the f- do I have the right to complain and sue if somebdy then uses my work and does what he pleases with it?
I'm well aware that there are laws that protect the artist even if he waived his copyright, but even if those laws exist, and I can use them regardless of my newsbyte-license, I *still* think that's utterly lame. And rightfully so. One should think carefully about what licence to chose from, but once you've chosen, a person should accept the consequences it brings with it. It's really that simple.
If, afterwards, I would be 'suffering' from grief and humilation because persons used it in a way I don't like, I should have thought about that *before* I used that lisence.
Laws for protecting the weaker party: I'm all for it (including a lot of consumer-rights). But it doesn't absolve a person from taking responsability for his/her own actions.
"Virgin used the photograph of a minor out of context - and in a sexual context[]"
Huh?
You're probably talking about the "legal definition" of a sexual context too, then, I presume.
That's the problem with anglo-saxon countries. The people there begin to speak in legalese to eachother, instead of normal, human talk.
Let's talk in a realistic, pragmatic way. Sixteen is old enough to have an idea about what the CC, attribution is and what it grants others. There IS, after all, a 'normal human readable' version of the CC, apart from the legalese one - which, indeed, as you indicated yourself gives strange interpretaiopns to common words. And if she didn't know, the photographer should have known. Furthermore, the "grief and humiliation" is just crap, and you know it. Sure it has a legal meaning, but it remains BS. A 16-year old churchgoing girl has grief and humiliation (or the equivalent legalese interpretation) from a textmessage that reads "from virgin to virgin" (which is actually a wordplay, since they are virgin-users, after all).
Oh my! Poor her! How awfully traumatised she must be!
If Virgin makes a deal and pays up big time, I have little doubt her grief, humiliation, pain, suffering, and what not will be gone as snow for the sun.
This is, in essence, about one thing (a thing that is becoming epidemic in anglo-saxon countries): the fleeing of one's own responsability, paired with greed towards a potential moneytreasure.
Oh, I spilled coffee on my lap! Let's sue MacDonalds! Oh, I broke a tooth when eating poultry; let's sue the restaurant! Oh, there wasn't a warning sign that you couldn't put your hand between the doors of the metro; let's sue the city!
I'm getting sick of it. I've made stuff available under the CC licence as well; when I use a CC variation that lets people use it as they see fit, I'll let them use it as they see fit. Period. If I didn't want it, I would have chosen another licence. Suing people afterwards is just lame.
Ok, she's 16, her friends 'in church' saw it and...virgin vs virgin is defamatory? Meh.
"She should be compensated though, not for being insulted, but for whatever the usual photo model gets for that sort of thing."
No she shouldn't. Not if she agreed to the CC. That's what I don't get when people use that arhgument. Look YOU choose the CC (or not). WHEN using the CC you're giving away your rights on it (with possible conditions, but if those conditions are met, that's it).
It just DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE to tell people you can freely use the pic and then demand they pay you if they do. If you *didn't* want them to use your pic without paying you, you shouldn't have chosen that CC license.
I mean, what is *so* difficult to understand about this, that many/.'ers keep coming up with how unmannered it was of Virgin not to pay her. I've placed some stuff under the CC myself, and if I say you can use it freely even for commercial use what the f- do I have to complain if people use it commercially? How can anyone say she should be payed if she said she doesn't have to be payed herself (which she did, when using the license)? It just doesn't make any sense to make such a claim.
"Hey, you want a beer free of charge?" "Sure." "Ok, here you go." "Thanks" "Hey, pay up for the beer, you greedy bastard!"
I'm not sure it's that simple. Filmstars can't use the privacy defense when a picture is taken of them, because they've made public figures of themselves. In a way, they waved their privacy. When you put your picture on flickr (a public place) under the CC (to use by the public, thus) you've actually waived your privacy away too. You can't go public and then make a claim on your privacy.
(This was the same argument a court used when upholding a complaint of the *IAA towards a guy who used P2P for d/l copyrighted material. He had argued they (illegaly) invaded his privacy. the court answered that when using a P2P system, you're opening to the public, so that part of your computer doesn't have any privacy-law-protection anymore).
I think in principle, this is sound. You can't go public with a picture and at the same time, claim your privacy is at stake. By going public, you waved your privacy-rights on it yourself.
As for the smeared reputation or defamation...that could still stick, indeed. It depends on the country (and its laws), really, and has nothing to do with the licence. I mean, in some countries, even when an adult model signed 100 contracts waving all her rights away and would agree to being smeared and what not, one STILL could sue (and win) because national law allows it and supercedes contractual rules and agreements.
But I guess, in an anglo-saxon country, she would have to prove it was defamatory and show damages.
Another possibility, seen the fact she's a minor, is that a law exists that says minors can't consent to it (and need their parents to agree too, or such). That too, depends on the specific laws of the country. All in all, if she really agreed to the CC licence, she shouldn't complain. If she didn't, it's the photographers fault. If it's truelly defamatory, it's virgins' fault.
In no way is the Creative Commons organisation involved.
When you use a CC licence you already AGREE others may use your stuff (under certain conditions).There is no use in taking the CC, if people do still have to ask for your permission. In fact, that would negate the whole reason why the CC was made in the first place.
So what is so unmannered, bad taste and cheap about it? I've put some stuff under the CC myself...do I expect people still demand me if it's ok? Heck no; *I gave permission* to use it freely! If you think that's unmannered, you shouldn't have used the CC in the first place. I just don't get this sort of reasoning. You have different variants of CC; you can choose what you want (or none at all) by which *you grant* the right to people to use it....and then it's cheap when they use it in the way you allowed it?
"but doesn't touch the kind of legal restrictions that require people's consent to use their image."
If you consent that other people can use your pick as long as they give attribution (as with thye CC (attr), then you already GAVE that consent to use their image.
The only real case I see, is where the law says a minor can't give consent to such a thing (which, depending on the age, in most countries is the case). Not, however, that, with the same reasoning, all EULA's (where minors would have klicked on (agreed to) are unvalid too, in that case.
But all in all, let's be honest here (instead of legalistic): if someone (including a 16 year old) is giving permission to use their pick, they shouldn't complain if people do. If she didn't want a text or other change on her picture, she shouldn't have chosen a licence where derivative works are allowed. (You have a non-deriv CC, after all).
Of course, some countries still have unalienable rights (for the artist). In France, for instance, a model could prohibit the use of her pic when it would go against her integrity, even if she waved all her copy&sue rights away. (For instance, when a racist organistion would have used her pic, even when they payed her/had her copyright). On itself, it wholy depends on those laws, however, and it has nothing to do with the CC - nor, necessarily, with virgin.
In TFA thet actually say two different things. One, that she didn't give consent to the CC, two, that virgin didn't attribute it, as required. Those two things seem a bit contradictory, and the party they *should* be suing depends on it.
There are actually two things on the article that pertain to the reason WHY they sued, and it makes it rather confusing. At the one hand, they say:
"A Texas family has sued Australia's Virgin Mobile phone company, claiming it caused their teenage daughter grief and humiliation by plastering her photo on billboards and website advertisements without consent."
So, here you've got the first reason. Yeah, I know; "grief and humiliation"...heh. Poor thing! Probably traumatised and what not. Let's all thinkofthechildren! Surely, trying to get money out of it has nothing to do with it. Well, anyway: 'without consent'... Well, if it WAS under the CC (att), it wouldn't NEED any extra consent, because you already give consent to use it in the manner described in the licence. If she DIDN'T give consent, then it's clearly the photographers' fault who put an unwarranted CC licence on it. So why isn't he being sued? Worse, why is HE one of the guys suing? It doesn't make any sense.
But then we read:
"The family of Alison Chang says Virgin Mobile grabbed the picture from Flickr, Yahoo Inc's popular photo-sharing website, and failed to credit the photographer by name."
So...wait, they're not denying anymore that it was CC licenced? Now they argue they (virgin) didn't follow the rules of the CC licence, and THAT'S why they sued? Well, obviously, if they didn't attribute where they should (according to that licence), virgin is in the wrong...but then it doesn't make any sense to claim there was no consent for the licence in the first place. Is their gripe with the fact it didn't mention the name and thus adher to the licence, or is it because she didn't give prermission.
Both argumentations deal with something else and pertain to different people. And in both cases, it's stupid to sue Crerative Commons itself. THEY have nothing to do with this; they just offer you the ability to use a standardised (more free) licence.
A frequently occurring debate on/. is with the question whether or not we should have space-exploration (and as a subset: human vs. robotic space exploration). This involves the "we should spend the money on other things, like combating worldhunger"-arguments, as the more subtile arguments which is better: human or robotic exploration.
I have pondered a long time about this, and this is my conclusion:
We all heard the reasoning for abolishing space-exploration (particular human-based) before, and I think the major flaw in all these 'arguments' why we shouldn't go into space is that they always set economic factors as a premise.
But, although economic viability is important to create a mass-usage of space(travel), I fail to see why it should be the only possible motive to start exploring space. It's a pretty narrow-minded, materialistic and typical capitalistic view on things. It's the same view that makes progress on medication for very rare diseases, or for diseases that are prevalent in continents that are poor, so slow: corporations can't see how they are ever going to get profit out of it, so they all turn their backs on it.
If ppl (including states) are only going to do something when they are sure of an immediate profitable return, the world has become a sad place. (And we should leave it the sooner;-)
Arguments based on such a viewpoint fail to recognize other incentives apart from economical ones.
And the reason why we shouldn't (only) rely on robots? You can explore, but you can not colonize with robots. The will to explore is deeply entrenched in the human race, but with a reason: it has survival advantages.
A species that doesn't colonize new territory and adapt, will perish. I think it's paramount that humans always keep their spirit of adventure and keep exploring and expanding, because the moment we will go "ah, let's sit back in our sofa's and let our robots/droids do it", we're basically finished, even when not being aware of it at that moment.
So, to to all the people saying we don't *need* space-exploration (human or otherwise); we don't *need* the pyramids neither, nor all those great buildings and artworks, nor any luxury, etc. The only thing we 'need' is food and shelter. Based on what we truly 'need' thus, we should go back living like cavemen. But of course, we don't, and the reason is that we, as humans, look beyond our immediate needs and have (and should have) grander visions.
So, economics (and also the ratio of costs/science output) is often less good with human space-travel then robotic ones. Contrary to some zealots, I do not dispute that. But, as I have indicated, I do not think one should measure everything in terms of economic benefits. Even if you could send a hundred, or a thousand robots for the price of one human mission, it still would not change the fact that robots can't colonize planets, and augment the survival chances of the human race (and earths' ecology) through interplanetary spreading.
I hate this kind of crap. You're a typical example of the 'he deserved it' posters that just invent or hugely exagerates the facts just so you can 'substantiate' your claim, when, in fact, there is little to no basis for it.
"He was belligerent and refused to cooperate when he was asked, REPEATEDLY, to leave."
Not true. If you REALLY would have watched the vid in an unbiased manner, you would have noted that he was asked ONCE - by the policewoman - to ask his question. Which he did. Nowhere can be seen or heard they warned him of anything afterwards. In fact, all vids from all angles from all cameras I've seen thusfar (and I watched more then once each one), show two cops came at him *without* any warning.
"He seemed to think that because he was at a mic to ask a question of Kerry, that gave him carte blanche to spew random garbage for as long as he wanted."
Untrue. As can be clearly seen in the vid, he commenced with thanking Kerry for his talk, recommended a book, and asked him his questions. while he was talking fast and in an exited way, this does not make it into 'random garbage' - which is a useless subjective interpretation anyway. I could as well say it was deep insightfull philosophy, but that would be a lie too. Fact is, he was coherent and what he said pertained to Kerry, so it was relevant at least to sopme degree, instead of random garbage, as you say.
More-over, the much used "he takes all the time" is just a lame argument. No, he didn't. One can easily count it on the vid: from the moment he starts talking, untill they arrest him, it takes exactly 1 minute, 31 seconds.Wow! What a deprivation of time! Lucky you didn't use hyperbole with the "as long as he wanted", seen the fact that the cops intervened after a minute and a half already. I'm sure you feel like he would have taken all the time of the world, but there is absolutely no basis for those wild claims. Facts are facts, and he talked for less then 2 minutes, and he already was ending his second question (of the two he said in front he was going to ask). If he would have kept at it after these two questions, maybe you would have a point - but now you're just taking your own bias and making them into facts of argumental value - which is bullocks.
"HE escalated the scene, not the police."
Untrue; by the time the mic was cut off, you see him starting to withdraw, UNTIL the cops came to him to physically restrain him. Whether he was arrested at that time or not, I don't know, and neither do you. He wasn't PROPERLY arrested, that's for sure. And maybe they weren't going to arrest him, but escort him out of the building, but even that was unwarranted, because he hadn't really done anything wrong, unless you consider being brazen in your answers and questions enough reason to be dragged out the building by a bunch of cops?
If they had just reacted to what Kerry told them when he saw them moving towards them ("It's ok, I will answer that question"), NONE of it would have happend. Mind you, I agree he was seeking attention with his shrieking and shouting when they arrested him, but by then, the police had *already* overreacted and made things escalate.
I think the problem is rather that you don't like him and his behaviour (see your 'little bitch' remark), which may be understandable, but doesn't make your arguments any less biased, nor your claimed facts more true.
I'm sure the cops didn't like his tone and attitude neither. But that doesn't give them the right to do what they did. The only ACTUAL rule he broke, was that he asked two questions instead of one...hardly something that warrants police intervention, and rather ironic since Kerry himself wanted to answer his questions.
"Both approaches have a non-zero chance of causing death."
Perhaps, but the non-zero chance is far greater with a tazer then with the possibility you just described. So, essentially, nothing of what the parent poster tried to point out has been countered by your counterargument. The tazer is still the more forceful and dangerous option, and thus it isn't the most appropiate application of force by a long shot.
Whether locking an arm has more chance of injuries, I don't know, but in most normal minds, the chance of death is deemed far worse than a chance of getting an injury.
I'm not sure what the use of your post was, exept maybe making the rather pedantic point that there is a theorethic possibility that locking an arm could break it, etc. and potentially kill a person. And yes, this IS pedantic, because one can reasonably assume most people know that any use of force could *potentially* cause somebody to die, if enough unlucky factors pile up. A policeman could even just speak to you, and you could startle to death if you have a weak heart.
EVERYTHING could lead to someone dying, if you take enough unlikely events into consideration. It hardly makes for a compelling argument.
"Just a brief answer, because I have a bunch of stuff to work on this week. Ugh."
Yeah, I know what you mean. There's just an article on/. about social life versus the web.;-p
"There are rules governing questioners at these events. Or, at least, the moderator says there is. You ask one question and sit down, the mic is not provided for protestors or ramblers. Otherwise, those people will take up all the time. Protestors are free to yell and chant at will, just outside."
He wasn't protesting, he wasn't yelling (untill they arrested him, I mean), and he wasn't chanting. In fact, he was rather supportive of Kerry. He did sort of rambled (at least in his manner of speaking), though it wasn't really incoherent what he said (contentwise). Besides, he already got the mic (AND the nod from Kerry) by then. He did ask more then one question.
Ermm...ok...now, that's not all that dramatic, is it? So he sounded a bit excited and asked a question too much. I wouldn't exactly consider that police-invoking-material.
The "takes up all the time" is an interpretation of a hypothetical possibility if a whole row of actual ramblers who yell, chant and protest would be trying to get the mic. It has no substantiation in this actual case. While he sounded a bit hyped up/excited, what he said wasn't really all incomprehensable neither, and, more importantly, he actually followed up on what he said. When the woman-cop asked him to ask his question, he did. He actually said in front he had two more questions: sure, that was maybe one too much, but there is no indication he would have kept at it and asked another one, and another one, etc., and let's face it; two questions will not take up 'all the time'.
In fact, I don't think it's all that weird. I remember (even official) press-conferences with other politicians - Bush even - who generally allowed each journalist two questions. Occasionally, only one was allowed, but sometimes a journalist would ask two anyway; I've never seen a journalist been dragged out the room for asking an extra question, though. It's not unreasonable for people to ask more then one question, after they've followed a debate or whatever for hours. Even with a rule, it sounds rather unreasonable to me to drag someone out of a building because he asked a question too much.
And well...basically, that was probably the only real rule he broke - contrary to all the claims I see in a lot of the posts saying he deserved it.
"His mic did deserve to be cut because he asked more than one question and it took prodding from a cop to get him to ask that one."
Well, the cop did prod, but I don't know if it *needed* a prod of a cop. I think it did more bad than good. When I compare it to some of the other debates and press-conferences I've seen where someone asked more then the allowed questions, then the speaker himself says something like "I'm going to answer that the short way" or "I'm only going to answer the first" or something. Normally it's left up to the speaker or his spokesman to decide how to deal with an extra question.
I mean, really; I can't remember ANY debate, meeting or pressconference where a journalist or such was escorted out of the building for asking an extra question. I do remember an instance where the mic was cut off, after someone was unwilling to leave the mic and kept shouting "you're an asshole" to the speaker. And I think that was, indeed, warranted. And thus, I come back on (the lack of) tolerance: he asks a question too much, and that warrants his mic being shut off, EVEN if the speaker himself indicated he had no problems with it? Sounds like a pretty poor judgement to me.
I would at least have waited to see if
1)he would keep himself to the 'I have two questions' he said in front 2)Gauged the reaction of Kerry and see if the speaker had any problems with it 3)Look at whether or not M was creating havoc, being violent, posing a threat, etc.
"The campus police help with events where the speaker is controversial. Especially one where the speaker receives all manner of threats."
Well, I would think they would help whereever their help is needed. But 'help' should not be overprotection, whether the speaker is controversial or not, and received threats or not. The guy himself wasn't a threat, and didn't make any threats...in fact, I had the impression he was actually PRO Kerry. And Kerry himself said to the cops it was ok and he wanted to answer the question...so I don't see how that argument really makes a difference. It's not because a speaker is controversial that you have to overreact on a guy who's a bit cocky with his questions and goes 30 seconds over his allotted time.
Normally, one could expect the police to assess the level of threat someone poses. I think you will have to admit he wasn't a threat to Kerry, and in fact, wasn't violent towards anyone at all.
"They have to deal with attendees who do not follow the rules."
And there is a rule that states you can't ask the questions he asked, or ask them in the manner he asked? Is there a rule that one can't ask anything controversial or in a controversial way? (The speaker himself was controversial, after all;-) Was there really a rule broken, about how much time a questionner was exactly allowed? And even if there was, is that reason enough to escort a person out of the building?
I have problems with such broad argumentation like "you have to follow the rules" because I doubt he broke any official rules, which means at most he potentially broke some social rules - which are highly subjective and beg the question whether those rules weren't too severly interpreted to begin with.
"Kerry wasn't able to answer Meyer's questions because Meyer kept cutting him off"
Ok, that's one I put in the same bunch as "the disturbance" he caused and the "deprivation of other peoples' right of freedom of speech". As one can see in the vidclip, those two things are minimal to non-existant. Going 30 seconds ovber your time (if there was an offcial time-limit to begin with), is hardly depriving others from their right to speak in any *real* way. "Cutting him off"...ok, where exactly did Meyer really 'cut him off'? Can you point to the exact timeframe on the vid? Because, frankly, I don't see that (and I've run it 5 times already). He doesn't listen to Kerry when he says he already has (read) the book, but that's not cutting him off. And once Meyer starts asking questions he actually doesn't interupt Kerry once, because Kerry wasn't saying anything then. (You can check it on the vid itself; M asks the questions one after another, but nowhere is the voice of Kerry to be heard, so you can't "cut off" someone who isn't speaking.
Later on, Kerry does start to answer his questions, and M doesn't listen anymore...but that's because he's getting hackled by 6 cops and being tazed. It would be a bit sadistic to call his shrieks when being tazed 'cutting off the explanation of Kerry'.
"and didn't listen to their directive to ask the question and sit down"
This isn't true neither. Look attentively at the clip. The woman-policeofficer asks hims to ask his questions, and he does. He's brazen in his answer to her, and not overly polite, true, but he isn't aggressive towards her. But he DOES comply with her request, and starts asking his questions - which were asked in a rather exited manner, true - but surely there is no rule against that too?
That's what I find the most annoying about most of the counter-claims; they are almost all exagerated to a large degree, just to try to make the case he really deserved what was comming to him. Well, he didn't. And not only about the tazing. The only thing he did was asking his questions in a controversial way - that does NOT warrant getting his mic cut off, nor getting escorted out of the building, nor getting arrested, nor getting tazed.
It's true things escalated to the tazing point - and he coul
Slashdot Mirror
"Your uninformedness is showing."
/. article about this same subject. Rest assured I followed the links and read the discussion on those linked pages. Including the detailed steps they took for addressing this issue. As many of the GPL folks said (and I agree with it); the steps taken were insufficient to settle the matter internally and quietly. "The person who knows best" may have another opinion of it, but I disagree, and many other (including GPL) people had similar reservations. Of course, this is a subjective measurement, others might have another opinion of it. I personally come to that conclusion after having read the steps that were taken, and the time they waited. You may disagree, but that doesn't make me uninformed.
/. article (just as I said in my heading here):
That's not even a word, but even if it were, I'm still waiting for your contradicting facts which would show it.
Your whole paragraph doesn't touch what was said in the former
One of the gripes I have is that some (like your guy who knows it best) would claim they were warned weeks in front. Well, yes...as a casual remark on a forum. That would be your "The message board shows they aware of the issue internally and that they are capable of responding." Yeah, right... Pretty low standards for addressing the issue, if you ask me. So the 'notification' was provided via a public forum on the defendant's website; hardly the way to go if you really want to deal (politely, yes, without legal fight, yes, but) seriously with the matter. What can be considered a proper way of notification was only done on September 11, 2007: through their counsel, Plaintiffs notified Defendant of its unlawful conduct based upon its failure to comply with the License.
They filed a lawsuit the 19th....hardly a week later!
As another poster said in the former
"So, plaintiffs posted an entry in the defendant's web forum, acknowledged by a support droid on 5th September and here we are on the 19th, with a lawsuit filed. Have these guys got money to burn? Has the "notification" even got past the support droids to the parts of the company that matter? Whatever happened to communication?"
I fully agree with that.
You may not. But acting as if your (and the guy who knows best) disagreement entitles you to the claim I'm uninformed is a fallacy.
They should have given it more time to begin with. The GPL folks themselves had argued that one warning and - wham - suing wasn't a good way to deal with these issues.
Since the GPL is pretty straightforward and based on the same principles as 'normal' copyright, companies really don't make much of a chance, and they know it. A little bit of pressure, and even the obnoxious ones cave in rather soon, *without* having to go to court.
As long as violations can be solved this way, there really isn't a need to go the long and tedious legal way.
It would be nice to have a (legal) conformation of the validity of the GPL, but that would only be pro forma. It has an extreme likelihood of being legally sound and valid, and companies (and everyone else, really) know that - that's why they settle so fast in the first place.
Do not try to understand or comprehend web 3.0. That's impossible. Instead only try to realize the truth: there is no web 3.0.
Heck, there isn't even a web 2.0.
Ok, I'll try this one more time.
;-)
If the girl says: I use the the CC, attr. and I allow anyone to use it... why is the "likeness rights" something she has to waive extra (IF she can waive it)? If you can't use her pic under the conditions she agreed to under the CC, then, in practise, you can't use that pic under the conditions of the CC, period.
I'm not all that familiar with the legal status of the public domain, but if you released it under a licence that allowed me to use it as I see fit as long as I mention your name, I would think you're a hypocrite son of a bitch too, if you would sue me when I use it in a way you don't like. You should have set in your licence you reserve the right to revoke your licence if you don't like it, then. (And then I wouldn't have used it, so you couldn't sue).
"Similarly, if I release a bit of code as GPL, that doesn't mean that someone could then use that code to exploit a vulnerability with impunity. The GPL signifies a lifting of copyright claims, not a lifting of any claims under the sun."
True. I *already* agreed with you on that one. Am I disputing that they could do it? That it are different laws? Nope.
What I'm saying is, that, if the GPL *would* say it IS allowed to exploit a vulnerability of their code - they would be cheap wankers if they sued someone for exploiting such a vulnerability, EVEN if the other law still gives them that right. This is also the case if they would incorporate it in a broader statement. If the GPL would say: you can use our code anyway you see fit, and then the code is used for something illegal (by another law) it STILL wouldn't be up to the GPL-folks to sue the user of that code for a violation, IMHO.
I can't make it any more clear than that.
A licence may not be a contract, but you agree to use the licence nevertheless. If you waive your rights with a broad claim that anyone may use it, one shouldn't whine if they use it in a way you don't agree with. And, c'mon, that IS the case here. If she had no problems with how it was used, she wouldn't sue. So she didn't like the way it was used - well, though, she could have thought about that in front, and chosen another licence. The CC doesn't deal with other things, true. It just says it can be used as long as there is attribution. There was attribution, so logic would dictate it can be used. There are no extra conditions mentioned. Nor do I see the logic of invoking any extra conditions (from other laws) when you yourself have indicated what your conditions were when you made it public under the CC. Was there something keeping her from using a more appropriate (for her) licence?
It's all legal no doubt, but I don't think it's reasonable or fair. You set your conditions - all of them - in front, so people can choose in a clear way. You don't claim a condition for using it, and then invoke others (derived from other laws) once a person uses it. One can claim it has nothing to do with eachother, but that's just theoretical BS. In practice, it means you can't use her pic under the conditions of the CC, because you also have to adhere to her other provisions and conditions. For me, that's going against the spirit of the particular CC she agreed to release her pic under.
"It's not intended to do more, and it doesn't infringe on "the spirit of the agreement" if one later files claims on another matter."
Since it has an effect on the actual use of that CC'ed pic, I think it does, and maybe that's where we differ in opinion.
Ah well, let's agree to disagree, then. Slashdot at 1 am is tiring as it is.
Let's cut the crap. All humans are fallible, and juries and judges are human... ergo, they are fallible, ergo wrongful deathpenalties will always exist.
People who are pro basically say it's worth to have a few innocent deaths if it means we can keep the death-penalty going and kill guilty ones as well. I find this argumentation absurd, and hypocrite.
If YOU were the one facing death when being innocent, would you still promote the death-penalty? I doubt it. If you can't support it when you're in the victims' place, you shouldn't support it at all. If you say it's ok if some die innocently, you should be ok if you're the one dying too. If you're saying it's not acceptable, and you agree that it's unavoidable that some will be put to death innocently, then logic dictates you should not find the death-penalty acceptable.
Furthermore, I do not share your optimism about how racism is all a thing of the past. It's less overt, yes. And you can close your eyes for it, and pretend in modern times, the USA has put all that past behind. But in reality, human nature isn't that easily converted. The black minority may believe in 2, but it's equally easy to guess what the white majority believes. And, due to different causes (higher unemployment, etc.) they are right too. But the causes of *those* is never asked. All other things being equal, who will have - generally speaking - the most chance of finding a job: a white male, or a black male? I think you know the answer. Why do - for the *same* kind of crimes - white people get consistently less jail time then black people?
It's pretty naive to assume that no lingering racism (consciously or not) remains, and that all people act with a sort of Utopian 'all are equal' mentality. That's the theory (which is strived for by new laws) - not the practice (with it's foundation in human nature/upbringing).
"a fool to claim one law makes the other useless"
must be
"a fool to claim that one law doesn't makes the other useless"
obviously
"Only a marketing department that didn't do its job, and a few Slashdot posters who are seemingly incapable of understanding that releasing copyright claims doesn't entail releasing all claims."
Weird. Presuming I'm considered one of those slasdot posters you mention, I'm pretty sure I gave a pretty clear indication in my above post that I was well aware that other laws exist, exept copyright.
Maybe I should use another analogy to make clear that it's not about the legalese rights and wrong I'm talking here, but about the ACTUAL meaning behind things.
In my country, we have the right of fair use, and of making copies (of entertainment media) for personal usage if we own the original. Thanks to the EU, we now also have a law that prohibits (thus, makes it illigal) to circumvent copy-protection measures. Since all modern digital media is being distributed with such a protectionmechanism, and one isn't allowed circumvent it, I say it makes the first one hollow and worth nothing.
Now, in your worldview, you would argue that the first law, who gives you that right is completely different from the last one. And you would be right, legally speaking. Nothing about not-circumventing says anything about your rights of fair use or any of our other rights. Just as the copyright of the CC doesn't say anything about the other rights, and vice versa.
What it means *in reality* however, is, that it makes the other right meaningless and the idea that one doesn't affect the other BS.
The same applies with the CC, attribution. You give the right to people to use it, as long as they put your name on it. Which Virgin did. But now she claims she has 'grief' and what not, because Vrigin used her pic in a way she doesn't like. And that's really it. She invokes *another* (as you rightfully point out) law, and thereby she makes the CC worthless, because what she is saying now is: "I granted you permission to use it as long as you attribute it, but regardless; I don't like how you used it , and I'm going to sue you for it."
Has the copyright, on itself, anything to do with your "Likeness rights"? Nope. Just like the anti-circumvention law has nothing to do with your right of fair use, etc. You still have that right, only you can't exercise it in any meaningful way anymore. Here, she gives people the right to use her pic as long as you put her name on it, only you can't use it anymore in any meaningful way, because she will sue you by using a law that has nothing to do with the CC (as you said yourself).
Now, one can look at that technically/legally, as you do, and claim there is no problem. Or, you can actually take things as they occur in reality, and then you would be a fool to claim one law makes the other useless (in *practise*). As for the a-circumvention law: I think it sucks and I didn't choose for it. She DID choose the CC, and in the spirit of the CC (and not in the legalese context where you constantly hammer on about) she gave permission to use it, as long as other people put her name on it. That was the only condition in the CC. The are other variants she could have chosen out, which would have prevented her current 'grief', but she didn't. To now sue a company because she doesn't like the way her pic was used is a direct result of her shortsightedness and lack of understanding the ways it could be used, if she is now really in all that grief and humiliation. It's utterly weak and cheap of her, EVEN if - no doubt - she has a legal right to sue.
So, granted, releasing copyright claims doesn't entail releasing all claims, but as I said earlier, in some countries, waiving all your rights even in a contract, doesn't entail releasing all (legal) rights neither. It doesn't change the fact that persons should stop whining (and especially suing) if things don't turn out like they thought it would. A person who gives permission (in a contract) to use her pic, while revoking it when it's the far-right using it - sucks. She has the right (in that country), yes, and the law it is base
I think you might be missing something here.
As I've said in similar posts on TFA (maybe not in this specific thread); I'm well aware that there are (or at least, may be) laws (depending on the country) that protect certain aspects of use, apart from the copyright.
In fact, you have countries where, even when you sign a contract where you agree you waive all rights, and agree that they can even use it even to smear you or whatever and even when you signed 100 contracts where you give the right to do whatever they want....they STILL are able to sue (and win) against those that would use it in the manner as is said in your contract/licence/you call it. Why? Because in those countries you the right as an artist to forbid certain use of your picture, regardless of what you agreed to. And since it's the law of the country, it supersedes all other rules or contractual agreements.
I think this degree of protection for the use/distribution is unwarranted and uncalled for, or at least in this particular case, unreasonable. I could understand a law protecting minors who couldn't comprehend what the CC was saying, for instance - say for a 6 year old. But at 16 you should reasonably foresee the implications and the consequences of the licence you use.
Yes, yes, I know: it doesn't deal with the licence. But, in reality, that is BS. What she is doing, is trying to get around the licence she agreed to, by invoking other laws (of the country). If she wanted to make sure no-one would alter it in a way that would be causing 'grief', so could and should have chosen a CC, attribution, no-deriv licence - in that case, no-one could change anything to it without her permission, including putting text on it.
In essence, she's fleeing her responsibility. She might be legally entitled to flee, but it's still fleeing. Just when I would sign an agreement that says one can use my pic for whatever one wants, but then I revoke it when it is used by a far right-wing organization (an actual example, btw, that occurred with someone else; he was legally entitled to do that, as the law permitted it, but I still say she was a damn hypocrite and fleeing her agreement.) Nobody forces you to go for such a deal, but if you agree with it, you should stick to it, period.
Apparently, it's too much to ask that people uphold themselves to accept the consequences of their own actions.
Nah. The default price is always with a 9 at end.
;-)
Lets say it's the marketing overhead for making them both free with a hefty price that gobbles up the extra buck.
"Buy a Laptop for a Child, Get Another Laptop Free"
We're getting a $100 laptop for free when we pay $399 for two?!
Luckily both weren't for free, or we would have to pay $799!
"Putting something up as CC doesn't mean anyone can do anything they want with it"
It *should* mean that.
I don't understand that. If I put some works available and use a 'newsbyte-licence' that says: "everyone can do with it as they please, without any restrictions" - WHAT the f- do I have the right to complain and sue if somebdy then uses my work and does what he pleases with it?
I'm well aware that there are laws that protect the artist even if he waived his copyright, but even if those laws exist, and I can use them regardless of my newsbyte-license, I *still* think that's utterly lame. And rightfully so. One should think carefully about what licence to chose from, but once you've chosen, a person should accept the consequences it brings with it. It's really that simple.
If, afterwards, I would be 'suffering' from grief and humilation because persons used it in a way I don't like, I should have thought about that *before* I used that lisence.
Laws for protecting the weaker party: I'm all for it (including a lot of consumer-rights). But it doesn't absolve a person from taking responsability for his/her own actions.
"Virgin used the photograph of a minor out of context - and in a sexual context[]"
Huh?
You're probably talking about the "legal definition" of a sexual context too, then, I presume.
That's the problem with anglo-saxon countries. The people there begin to speak in legalese to eachother, instead of normal, human talk.
Let's talk in a realistic, pragmatic way. Sixteen is old enough to have an idea about what the CC, attribution is and what it grants others. There IS, after all, a 'normal human readable' version of the CC, apart from the legalese one - which, indeed, as you indicated yourself gives strange interpretaiopns to common words. And if she didn't know, the photographer should have known. Furthermore, the "grief and humiliation" is just crap, and you know it. Sure it has a legal meaning, but it remains BS. A 16-year old churchgoing girl has grief and humiliation (or the equivalent legalese interpretation) from a textmessage that reads "from virgin to virgin" (which is actually a wordplay, since they are virgin-users, after all).
Oh my! Poor her! How awfully traumatised she must be!
If Virgin makes a deal and pays up big time, I have little doubt her grief, humiliation, pain, suffering, and what not will be gone as snow for the sun.
This is, in essence, about one thing (a thing that is becoming epidemic in anglo-saxon countries): the fleeing of one's own responsability, paired with greed towards a potential moneytreasure.
Oh, I spilled coffee on my lap! Let's sue MacDonalds! Oh, I broke a tooth when eating poultry; let's sue the restaurant! Oh, there wasn't a warning sign that you couldn't put your hand between the doors of the metro; let's sue the city!
I'm getting sick of it. I've made stuff available under the CC licence as well; when I use a CC variation that lets people use it as they see fit, I'll let them use it as they see fit. Period. If I didn't want it, I would have chosen another licence. Suing people afterwards is just lame.
I was thinking the same thing.
/.'ers keep coming up with how unmannered it was of Virgin not to pay her. I've placed some stuff under the CC myself, and if I say you can use it freely even for commercial use what the f- do I have to complain if people use it commercially? How can anyone say she should be payed if she said she doesn't have to be payed herself (which she did, when using the license)? It just doesn't make any sense to make such a claim.
Ok, she's 16, her friends 'in church' saw it and...virgin vs virgin is defamatory? Meh.
"She should be compensated though, not for being insulted, but for whatever the usual photo model gets for that sort of thing."
No she shouldn't. Not if she agreed to the CC. That's what I don't get when people use that arhgument. Look YOU choose the CC (or not). WHEN using the CC you're giving away your rights on it (with possible conditions, but if those conditions are met, that's it).
It just DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE to tell people you can freely use the pic and then demand they pay you if they do. If you *didn't* want them to use your pic without paying you, you shouldn't have chosen that CC license.
I mean, what is *so* difficult to understand about this, that many
"Hey, you want a beer free of charge?"
"Sure."
"Ok, here you go."
"Thanks"
"Hey, pay up for the beer, you greedy bastard!"
Meh.
I'm not sure it's that simple. Filmstars can't use the privacy defense when a picture is taken of them, because they've made public figures of themselves. In a way, they waved their privacy. When you put your picture on flickr (a public place) under the CC (to use by the public, thus) you've actually waived your privacy away too. You can't go public and then make a claim on your privacy.
(This was the same argument a court used when upholding a complaint of the *IAA towards a guy who used P2P for d/l copyrighted material. He had argued they (illegaly) invaded his privacy. the court answered that when using a P2P system, you're opening to the public, so that part of your computer doesn't have any privacy-law-protection anymore).
I think in principle, this is sound. You can't go public with a picture and at the same time, claim your privacy is at stake. By going public, you waved your privacy-rights on it yourself.
As for the smeared reputation or defamation...that could still stick, indeed. It depends on the country (and its laws), really, and has nothing to do with the licence. I mean, in some countries, even when an adult model signed 100 contracts waving all her rights away and would agree to being smeared and what not, one STILL could sue (and win) because national law allows it and supercedes contractual rules and agreements.
But I guess, in an anglo-saxon country, she would have to prove it was defamatory and show damages.
Another possibility, seen the fact she's a minor, is that a law exists that says minors can't consent to it (and need their parents to agree too, or such). That too, depends on the specific laws of the country. All in all, if she really agreed to the CC licence, she shouldn't complain. If she didn't, it's the photographers fault. If it's truelly defamatory, it's virgins' fault.
In no way is the Creative Commons organisation involved.
I actually don't agree with that.
When you use a CC licence you already AGREE others may use your stuff (under certain conditions).There is no use in taking the CC, if people do still have to ask for your permission. In fact, that would negate the whole reason why the CC was made in the first place.
So what is so unmannered, bad taste and cheap about it? I've put some stuff under the CC myself...do I expect people still demand me if it's ok? Heck no; *I gave permission* to use it freely! If you think that's unmannered, you shouldn't have used the CC in the first place. I just don't get this sort of reasoning. You have different variants of CC; you can choose what you want (or none at all) by which *you grant* the right to people to use it....and then it's cheap when they use it in the way you allowed it?
That's just insane.
"but doesn't touch the kind of legal restrictions that require people's consent to use their image."
If you consent that other people can use your pick as long as they give attribution (as with thye CC (attr), then you already GAVE that consent to use their image.
The only real case I see, is where the law says a minor can't give consent to such a thing (which, depending on the age, in most countries is the case). Not, however, that, with the same reasoning, all EULA's (where minors would have klicked on (agreed to) are unvalid too, in that case.
But all in all, let's be honest here (instead of legalistic): if someone (including a 16 year old) is giving permission to use their pick, they shouldn't complain if people do. If she didn't want a text or other change on her picture, she shouldn't have chosen a licence where derivative works are allowed. (You have a non-deriv CC, after all).
Of course, some countries still have unalienable rights (for the artist). In France, for instance, a model could prohibit the use of her pic when it would go against her integrity, even if she waved all her copy&sue rights away. (For instance, when a racist organistion would have used her pic, even when they payed her/had her copyright). On itself, it wholy depends on those laws, however, and it has nothing to do with the CC - nor, necessarily, with virgin.
In TFA thet actually say two different things. One, that she didn't give consent to the CC, two, that virgin didn't attribute it, as required. Those two things seem a bit contradictory, and the party they *should* be suing depends on it.
There are actually two things on the article that pertain to the reason WHY they sued, and it makes it rather confusing. At the one hand, they say:
"A Texas family has sued Australia's Virgin Mobile phone company, claiming it caused their teenage daughter grief and humiliation by plastering her photo on billboards and website advertisements without consent."
So, here you've got the first reason. Yeah, I know; "grief and humiliation"...heh. Poor thing! Probably traumatised and what not. Let's all thinkofthechildren! Surely, trying to get money out of it has nothing to do with it.
Well, anyway: 'without consent'... Well, if it WAS under the CC (att), it wouldn't NEED any extra consent, because you already give consent to use it in the manner described in the licence. If she DIDN'T give consent, then it's clearly the photographers' fault who put an unwarranted CC licence on it. So why isn't he being sued? Worse, why is HE one of the guys suing? It doesn't make any sense.
But then we read:
"The family of Alison Chang says Virgin Mobile grabbed the picture from Flickr, Yahoo Inc's popular photo-sharing website, and failed to credit the photographer by name."
So...wait, they're not denying anymore that it was CC licenced? Now they argue they (virgin) didn't follow the rules of the CC licence, and THAT'S why they sued? Well, obviously, if they didn't attribute where they should (according to that licence), virgin is in the wrong...but then it doesn't make any sense to claim there was no consent for the licence in the first place. Is their gripe with the fact it didn't mention the name and thus adher to the licence, or is it because she didn't give prermission.
Both argumentations deal with something else and pertain to different people. And in both cases, it's stupid to sue Crerative Commons itself. THEY have nothing to do with this; they just offer you the ability to use a standardised (more free) licence.
Well, I just joined the thread, so that'll be 251! ;-)
A frequently occurring debate on /. is with the question whether or not we should have space-exploration (and as a subset: human vs. robotic space exploration). This involves the "we should spend the money on other things, like combating worldhunger"-arguments, as the more subtile arguments which is better: human or robotic exploration.
;-)
I have pondered a long time about this, and this is my conclusion:
We all heard the reasoning for abolishing space-exploration (particular human-based) before, and I think the major flaw in all these 'arguments' why we shouldn't go into space is that they always set economic factors as a premise.
But, although economic viability is important to create a mass-usage of space(travel), I fail to see why it should be the only possible motive to start exploring space. It's a pretty narrow-minded, materialistic and typical capitalistic view on things. It's the same view that makes progress on medication for very rare diseases, or for diseases that are prevalent in continents that are poor, so slow: corporations can't see how they are ever going to get profit out of it, so they all turn their backs on it.
If ppl (including states) are only going to do something when they are sure of an immediate profitable return, the world has become a sad place. (And we should leave it the sooner
Arguments based on such a viewpoint fail to recognize other incentives apart from economical ones.
And the reason why we shouldn't (only) rely on robots? You can explore, but you can not colonize with robots. The will to explore is deeply entrenched in the human race, but with a reason: it has survival advantages.
A species that doesn't colonize new territory and adapt, will perish. I think it's paramount that humans always keep their spirit of adventure and keep exploring and expanding, because the moment we will go "ah, let's sit back in our sofa's and let our robots/droids do it", we're basically finished, even when not being aware of it at that moment.
So, to to all the people saying we don't *need* space-exploration (human or otherwise); we don't *need* the pyramids neither, nor all those great buildings and artworks, nor any luxury, etc. The only thing we 'need' is food and shelter. Based on what we truly 'need' thus, we should go back living like cavemen. But of course, we don't, and the reason is that we, as humans, look beyond our immediate needs and have (and should have) grander visions.
So, economics (and also the ratio of costs/science output) is often less good with human space-travel then robotic ones. Contrary to some zealots, I do not dispute that. But, as I have indicated, I do not think one should measure everything in terms of economic benefits. Even if you could send a hundred, or a thousand robots for the price of one human mission, it still would not change the fact that robots can't colonize planets, and augment the survival chances of the human race (and earths' ecology) through interplanetary spreading.
I hate this kind of crap. You're a typical example of the 'he deserved it' posters that just invent or hugely exagerates the facts just so you can 'substantiate' your claim, when, in fact, there is little to no basis for it.
"He was belligerent and refused to cooperate when he was asked, REPEATEDLY, to leave."
Not true. If you REALLY would have watched the vid in an unbiased manner, you would have noted that he was asked ONCE - by the policewoman - to ask his question. Which he did. Nowhere can be seen or heard they warned him of anything afterwards. In fact, all vids from all angles from all cameras I've seen thusfar (and I watched more then once each one), show two cops came at him *without* any warning.
"He seemed to think that because he was at a mic to ask a question of Kerry, that gave him carte blanche to spew random garbage for as long as he wanted."
Untrue. As can be clearly seen in the vid, he commenced with thanking Kerry for his talk, recommended a book, and asked him his questions. while he was talking fast and in an exited way, this does not make it into 'random garbage' - which is a useless subjective interpretation anyway. I could as well say it was deep insightfull philosophy, but that would be a lie too. Fact is, he was coherent and what he said pertained to Kerry, so it was relevant at least to sopme degree, instead of random garbage, as you say.
More-over, the much used "he takes all the time" is just a lame argument. No, he didn't. One can easily count it on the vid: from the moment he starts talking, untill they arrest him, it takes exactly 1 minute, 31 seconds.Wow! What a deprivation of time! Lucky you didn't use hyperbole with the "as long as he wanted", seen the fact that the cops intervened after a minute and a half already. I'm sure you feel like he would have taken all the time of the world, but there is absolutely no basis for those wild claims. Facts are facts, and he talked for less then 2 minutes, and he already was ending his second question (of the two he said in front he was going to ask). If he would have kept at it after these two questions, maybe you would have a point - but now you're just taking your own bias and making them into facts of argumental value - which is bullocks.
"HE escalated the scene, not the police."
Untrue; by the time the mic was cut off, you see him starting to withdraw, UNTIL the cops came to him to physically restrain him. Whether he was arrested at that time or not, I don't know, and neither do you. He wasn't PROPERLY arrested, that's for sure. And maybe they weren't going to arrest him, but escort him out of the building, but even that was unwarranted, because he hadn't really done anything wrong, unless you consider being brazen in your answers and questions enough reason to be dragged out the building by a bunch of cops?
If they had just reacted to what Kerry told them when he saw them moving towards them ("It's ok, I will answer that question"), NONE of it would have happend. Mind you, I agree he was seeking attention with his shrieking and shouting when they arrested him, but by then, the police had *already* overreacted and made things escalate.
I think the problem is rather that you don't like him and his behaviour (see your 'little bitch' remark), which may be understandable, but doesn't make your arguments any less biased, nor your claimed facts more true.
I'm sure the cops didn't like his tone and attitude neither. But that doesn't give them the right to do what they did. The only ACTUAL rule he broke, was that he asked two questions instead of one...hardly something that warrants police intervention, and rather ironic since Kerry himself wanted to answer his questions.
"Both approaches have a non-zero chance of causing death."
Perhaps, but the non-zero chance is far greater with a tazer then with the possibility you just described. So, essentially, nothing of what the parent poster tried to point out has been countered by your counterargument. The tazer is still the more forceful and dangerous option, and thus it isn't the most appropiate application of force by a long shot.
Whether locking an arm has more chance of injuries, I don't know, but in most normal minds, the chance of death is deemed far worse than a chance of getting an injury.
I'm not sure what the use of your post was, exept maybe making the rather pedantic point that there is a theorethic possibility that locking an arm could break it, etc. and potentially kill a person. And yes, this IS pedantic, because one can reasonably assume most people know that any use of force could *potentially* cause somebody to die, if enough unlucky factors pile up. A policeman could even just speak to you, and you could startle to death if you have a weak heart.
EVERYTHING could lead to someone dying, if you take enough unlikely events into consideration. It hardly makes for a compelling argument.
"Just a brief answer, because I have a bunch of stuff to work on this week. Ugh."
/. about social life versus the web. ;-p
Yeah, I know what you mean. There's just an article on
"There are rules governing questioners at these events. Or, at least, the moderator says there is. You ask one question and sit down, the mic is not provided for protestors or ramblers. Otherwise, those people will take up all the time. Protestors are free to yell and chant at will, just outside."
He wasn't protesting, he wasn't yelling (untill they arrested him, I mean), and he wasn't chanting. In fact, he was rather supportive of Kerry. He did sort of rambled (at least in his manner of speaking), though it wasn't really incoherent what he said (contentwise). Besides, he already got the mic (AND the nod from Kerry) by then. He did ask more then one question.
Ermm...ok...now, that's not all that dramatic, is it? So he sounded a bit excited and asked a question too much. I wouldn't exactly consider that police-invoking-material.
The "takes up all the time" is an interpretation of a hypothetical possibility if a whole row of actual ramblers who yell, chant and protest would be trying to get the mic. It has no substantiation in this actual case. While he sounded a bit hyped up/excited, what he said wasn't really all incomprehensable neither, and, more importantly, he actually followed up on what he said. When the woman-cop asked him to ask his question, he did. He actually said in front he had two more questions: sure, that was maybe one too much, but there is no indication he would have kept at it and asked another one, and another one, etc., and let's face it; two questions will not take up 'all the time'.
In fact, I don't think it's all that weird. I remember (even official) press-conferences with other politicians - Bush even - who generally allowed each journalist two questions. Occasionally, only one was allowed, but sometimes a journalist would ask two anyway; I've never seen a journalist been dragged out the room for asking an extra question, though. It's not unreasonable for people to ask more then one question, after they've followed a debate or whatever for hours. Even with a rule, it sounds rather unreasonable to me to drag someone out of a building because he asked a question too much.
And well...basically, that was probably the only real rule he broke - contrary to all the claims I see in a lot of the posts saying he deserved it.
"His mic did deserve to be cut because he asked more than one question and it took prodding from a cop to get him to ask that one."
Well, the cop did prod, but I don't know if it *needed* a prod of a cop. I think it did more bad than good. When I compare it to some of the other debates and press-conferences I've seen where someone asked more then the allowed questions, then the speaker himself says something like "I'm going to answer that the short way" or "I'm only going to answer the first" or something. Normally it's left up to the speaker or his spokesman to decide how to deal with an extra question.
I mean, really; I can't remember ANY debate, meeting or pressconference where a journalist or such was escorted out of the building for asking an extra question. I do remember an instance where the mic was cut off, after someone was unwilling to leave the mic and kept shouting "you're an asshole" to the speaker. And I think that was, indeed, warranted. And thus, I come back on (the lack of) tolerance: he asks a question too much, and that warrants his mic being shut off, EVEN if the speaker himself indicated he had no problems with it? Sounds like a pretty poor judgement to me.
I would at least have waited to see if
1)he would keep himself to the 'I have two questions' he said in front
2)Gauged the reaction of Kerry and see if the speaker had any problems with it
3)Look at whether or not M was creating havoc, being violent, posing a threat, etc.
THOSE are reasonable things to loo
Now, if they also will give up invading countries and waging illegal wars for the Web, I'm all for it!
"And if we want to be honest, since I work from home, I would not give up sex for the Web"
Attention!
Your geek/nerd/slashdot licence has just been revoked!
"The campus police help with events where the speaker is controversial. Especially one where the speaker receives all manner of threats."
;-) Was there really a rule broken, about how much time a questionner was exactly allowed? And even if there was, is that reason enough to escort a person out of the building?
Well, I would think they would help whereever their help is needed. But 'help' should not be overprotection, whether the speaker is controversial or not, and received threats or not. The guy himself wasn't a threat, and didn't make any threats...in fact, I had the impression he was actually PRO Kerry. And Kerry himself said to the cops it was ok and he wanted to answer the question...so I don't see how that argument really makes a difference. It's not because a speaker is controversial that you have to overreact on a guy who's a bit cocky with his questions and goes 30 seconds over his allotted time.
Normally, one could expect the police to assess the level of threat someone poses. I think you will have to admit he wasn't a threat to Kerry, and in fact, wasn't violent towards anyone at all.
"They have to deal with attendees who do not follow the rules."
And there is a rule that states you can't ask the questions he asked, or ask them in the manner he asked? Is there a rule that one can't ask anything controversial or in a controversial way? (The speaker himself was controversial, after all
I have problems with such broad argumentation like "you have to follow the rules" because I doubt he broke any official rules, which means at most he potentially broke some social rules - which are highly subjective and beg the question whether those rules weren't too severly interpreted to begin with.
"Kerry wasn't able to answer Meyer's questions because Meyer kept cutting him off"
Ok, that's one I put in the same bunch as "the disturbance" he caused and the "deprivation of other peoples' right of freedom of speech". As one can see in the vidclip, those two things are minimal to non-existant. Going 30 seconds ovber your time (if there was an offcial time-limit to begin with), is hardly depriving others from their right to speak in any *real* way. "Cutting him off"...ok, where exactly did Meyer really 'cut him off'? Can you point to the exact timeframe on the vid? Because, frankly, I don't see that (and I've run it 5 times already). He doesn't listen to Kerry when he says he already has (read) the book, but that's not cutting him off. And once Meyer starts asking questions he actually doesn't interupt Kerry once, because Kerry wasn't saying anything then. (You can check it on the vid itself; M asks the questions one after another, but nowhere is the voice of Kerry to be heard, so you can't "cut off" someone who isn't speaking.
Later on, Kerry does start to answer his questions, and M doesn't listen anymore...but that's because he's getting hackled by 6 cops and being tazed. It would be a bit sadistic to call his shrieks when being tazed 'cutting off the explanation of Kerry'.
"and didn't listen to their directive to ask the question and sit down"
This isn't true neither. Look attentively at the clip. The woman-policeofficer asks hims to ask his questions, and he does. He's brazen in his answer to her, and not overly polite, true, but he isn't aggressive towards her. But he DOES comply with her request, and starts asking his questions - which were asked in a rather exited manner, true - but surely there is no rule against that too?
That's what I find the most annoying about most of the counter-claims; they are almost all exagerated to a large degree, just to try to make the case he really deserved what was comming to him. Well, he didn't. And not only about the tazing. The only thing he did was asking his questions in a controversial way - that does NOT warrant getting his mic cut off, nor getting escorted out of the building, nor getting arrested, nor getting tazed.
It's true things escalated to the tazing point - and he coul