And the owner is denied benefit if someone else republishes it. I've published ten books. Photocopy mine, and should I find out about it, your injury to me will be salved in court.
Plagiarism is plagiarism. Newsworthyness means nothing if it's lifted wholesale and unaltered. That copyrighted works are a 'body' like a 'Vette is real.
Steal the news, steal a 'Vette, both are stealing.
You can take a picture of the 'Vette. Fine.
You can look at it. Fine.
Drive it away, and it's stealing, as its *owner* is denied its benefit, a benefit that he may have paid nothing for, or a lot of money. It matters not what the ownership was worth, rather, that he (presuming his gender; I could be wrong) the fact that he's the actual owner.
To extrapolate, the news was done by someone, and written by them. Someone picked it up and republished it in its entirety, denying the person that owns it (no matter how it came into being) benefits their original work is due them.
For the sake of argument, consider that search engines aren't perfect, and people often click based on SE captions of hits.
You're a newspaper that uses GoogleAds. You're also the original author and copyright holder of an article. Some other site with a name that suits someone better-- for whatever reason-- has the same article and that person clicks on that third party site-hosted article, instead of the 'original'. The newspaper loses the revenue associated with GoogleAds or whatever clicks that add to their advertiser demographics. They were robbed of the click. Clicks==revenue.
The other site has no license or authority to reproduce an article in whole. Fair use portions are perfectly acceptable. In the case where articles are lifted wholesale, attributed or not, in lieu of an authorization to do so, that site is misappropriating the copyrighted content.
The proof is in the dilution of money-producing clicks. Do you understand it now?
Please consider that the bill comes from an anti-civil libertarian, a war 'hawk', and a post-9/11 buddy of the bunch in Congress that gave you the Patriot Act, and so on. Yeah, hurricanes, oil spills, and Internet threats-- perfect candidates for federal government emergency work.
Capturing and doing various tricks to strip headers, reassemble payloads, and otherwise dither with wired and wireless packets in fixed and non-stationary ways has been done since before Sergi Brin was out of diapers. I'm guessing that prior art eats their expensive lunch.
Of course, the not-invented-here syndrome coupled to over-paid internal IP attorneys will argue contrarily.
You're talking extremes instead of dimensions. Life is complicated, without a doubt. Diligence and tenacity are required, because we're really inventive. That inventiveness is the natural byproduct of curiosity. Consider that the Nobel prize is the guilt-gift of the man that invented dynamite.
Almost every day, new and sometimes onerous/insidious ways of manipulating information are conjured up. Some are really cool, and others are the death-by-a-thousand-cuts that privacy invasion has become. I'd err on the side of educating civilians, but also thwarting dominant 'players' ability to do evil things. It doesn't create a "nanny-state", rather, helps people understand, express, and have their boundaries abided by.
Yet civilians still need protection from things they don't understand. We do have a choice. We can and do opt out. But even black-belt geeks that desire privacy have a hard time figuring this stuff out. It's like the 32 page credit card agreement conundrum. Simple protection of the innocent demands safety for them. We're supposed to be the 'good guys'. Good guys help protect those that can't protect themselves, not leave them to the wolves. There is evil in such trickery.
If you think about, perhaps the reasons others are chiming in here is the banal illegality of it all. It's supposed to be free, and that means the make, too. Otherwise, it's not free; it's constrained, and it's impossible to use.
Any correlation between this and the RIAA/MPAA don't meet the test of credulity. They're really really different things.
That kind of purposeful activity might make one wonder. But you're not the kind to share, right?
Your life expectancy might be a long time. But do you really want to wait for my images? I didn't think so. You really want your own convenience, I'm guessing.... and that means subverting copyrights as they exist. I'll agree they're draconian. And they need changing. But until then, I still own them.
The copyright for my stuff will expire long after I'm dead. It's otherwise owned by a trust.
Some works have been released under CL and CC. I get to choose which and what.
As far as your admonishment to "if you aren't willing to give the images to everone....", go fish. There is no trade secret; trade secrets don't apply here.
The archive mentioned in TFA isn't legally done. It's a repository of stolen goods, some not stolen goods, and some dubious goods. The very instant it's publicly accessible, it's a lawsuit looking for a spot marked X. It has been publicly accessible, and therefore is fencing, stolen goods, and not theirs-- or at least my portion. Others may have licensed things differently. I don't care what they've done, I know exactly what I've done, and what's mine in terms of copyright.
We would disagree. Sorry. I understand that you may believe that Fair Use gives you the ability to do so, but that's only provided you have legal use granted to you in the first place.
In my context, you can link to my site. That's ok. You can link to the pictures in question. You can view them, and perhaps already have without looking at the Legal link on the same page. That's ok. If you copy them and store them onto your computer directly (cache excepted) then you have stolen my copyrighted material.
You know nothing of my work, yet you accuse me of stealing. Your assumptions are wildly incorrect. You've used the reply as your basis to blather your inability to grasp professional and personal photography, models and their rights, and the role of objects in photography all in one mad dash that adds the idea of a photography tax. Good Friday for you.
That's not true. My images took work to produce, and they're for my benefit on my site. Your stuff-- you do with it how you will.
If I want my images archived, it's my responsibility and those that I delegate the responsibility to. If someone else has done this, then they've stolen my work, as in ripped me off.
Should I want to use a license that give rights to someone else, I'll do so. Until then, the decision is mine.
You're being silly. Of course it's legal tender. I transcribed it. It's money, as in cash, as in legal for debts, incurred at purchase, satisfied with the currency.
That's what transactions are. You have an object, of value. I submit my currency in exchange for the value of the object. It's really, really basic business transaction 101.
And how is this different from any supply and demand purchase?
Someone walking into a store and buying ONE is a lot different than someone walking into a store and buying TWENTY. If Apple creates such a huge frenzy, then what if the backlash is a secondary market, just like the original overhyped iPhone?
Apple has the ability to limit the number of resellers (in the US markets, by law and legal precedent). What it says on US currency is true: "THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS PUBLIC AND PRIVATE" (yes, it's in caps). That means buying an iPad, or buying a cup of coffee.
Apple can enforce certain parts of a EULA as well. But none of that's at issue. It's another privacy-robbing, credit card # surrendering demand. Limiting the number of purchases may have possible consequences in some states, too. Where I come from, ticket scalping is not only legal, but in many cases desirable. There's a monopoly on THAT, too.
But perhaps if he gets smacked around, the investors get cold feet, maybe Microsoft or Oracle or who knows buys it and makes him kind of rich. As in way-rich. The financing that he has means his share is still pretty good..... that is, until whatever comes after Facebook arrives. Facebook arrived after MySpace, which came after various GeoCities, and so on.
Facebook has immense number of users that might be happy to find a subsequent provider that does something more, like hosts as many photos as they can upload (people are obsessive about pics) or does something else, like rents them movies or something. Facebook has no monopoly, just massive success. It could evaporate in a single quarter. Apple knows this very well.
There was much early US history based on Christianity and the desire to have freedom of religion based on fleeing persecution in Europe. But there was also a mutual respect among highly diverse theologies, as well. You do your thing, we'll do ours.
There was a lot of specifically NON-Christian theology, including the native populations, who were highly subjugated. No one says that removing God and Christianity from textbooks represents the facts regarding the origins of what is now the United States. Domination in thought where domination violates the facts, however is suspect.
Removing Christian and God references hasn't really been called for, so far as I've seen. Instead, it's the bald-faced lies regarding the history, as though the US was seen as a mecca for Christianity (pardon the pun) that are criticized here.
Slashdot Mirror
Admittedly, the car analogy sucked.
And the owner is denied benefit if someone else republishes it. I've published ten books. Photocopy mine, and should I find out about it, your injury to me will be salved in court.
Plagiarism is plagiarism. Newsworthyness means nothing if it's lifted wholesale and unaltered. That copyrighted works are a 'body' like a 'Vette is real.
Steal the news, steal a 'Vette, both are stealing.
You can take a picture of the 'Vette. Fine.
You can look at it. Fine.
Drive it away, and it's stealing, as its *owner* is denied its benefit, a benefit that he may have paid nothing for, or a lot of money. It matters not what the ownership was worth, rather, that he (presuming his gender; I could be wrong) the fact that he's the actual owner.
To extrapolate, the news was done by someone, and written by them. Someone picked it up and republished it in its entirety, denying the person that owns it (no matter how it came into being) benefits their original work is due them.
For the sake of argument, consider that search engines aren't perfect, and people often click based on SE captions of hits.
You're a newspaper that uses GoogleAds. You're also the original author and copyright holder of an article. Some other site with a name that suits someone better-- for whatever reason-- has the same article and that person clicks on that third party site-hosted article, instead of the 'original'. The newspaper loses the revenue associated with GoogleAds or whatever clicks that add to their advertiser demographics. They were robbed of the click. Clicks==revenue.
The other site has no license or authority to reproduce an article in whole. Fair use portions are perfectly acceptable. In the case where articles are lifted wholesale, attributed or not, in lieu of an authorization to do so, that site is misappropriating the copyrighted content.
The proof is in the dilution of money-producing clicks. Do you understand it now?
Libertarians != civil libertarians.
LIbertarianism has yet to be really well defned.
Civil Libertarianism started in the mid 1700's.
Ad hominems started before CE.
Crafty-appearing flamebait started about 30,000 years ago.
Please consider that the bill comes from an anti-civil libertarian, a war 'hawk', and a post-9/11 buddy of the bunch in Congress that gave you the Patriot Act, and so on. Yeah, hurricanes, oil spills, and Internet threats-- perfect candidates for federal government emergency work.
Capturing and doing various tricks to strip headers, reassemble payloads, and otherwise dither with wired and wireless packets in fixed and non-stationary ways has been done since before Sergi Brin was out of diapers. I'm guessing that prior art eats their expensive lunch.
Of course, the not-invented-here syndrome coupled to over-paid internal IP attorneys will argue contrarily.
It's an interesting thought. Firewall, privacy prophylactic, etc.
Or an anonymizer that doesn't improve the position of bad guys, child pornographers, etc.
You're talking extremes instead of dimensions. Life is complicated, without a doubt. Diligence and tenacity are required, because we're really inventive. That inventiveness is the natural byproduct of curiosity. Consider that the Nobel prize is the guilt-gift of the man that invented dynamite.
Almost every day, new and sometimes onerous/insidious ways of manipulating information are conjured up. Some are really cool, and others are the death-by-a-thousand-cuts that privacy invasion has become. I'd err on the side of educating civilians, but also thwarting dominant 'players' ability to do evil things. It doesn't create a "nanny-state", rather, helps people understand, express, and have their boundaries abided by.
Nicely stated.
Yet civilians still need protection from things they don't understand. We do have a choice. We can and do opt out. But even black-belt geeks that desire privacy have a hard time figuring this stuff out. It's like the 32 page credit card agreement conundrum. Simple protection of the innocent demands safety for them. We're supposed to be the 'good guys'. Good guys help protect those that can't protect themselves, not leave them to the wolves. There is evil in such trickery.
No.
If you think about, perhaps the reasons others are chiming in here is the banal illegality of it all. It's supposed to be free, and that means the make, too. Otherwise, it's not free; it's constrained, and it's impossible to use.
Any correlation between this and the RIAA/MPAA don't meet the test of credulity. They're really really different things.
so we can vilify them, castigate them, and otherwise snark.
We disagree on these points, categorically.
That kind of purposeful activity might make one wonder. But you're not the kind to share, right?
Your life expectancy might be a long time. But do you really want to wait for my images? I didn't think so. You really want your own convenience, I'm guessing.... and that means subverting copyrights as they exist. I'll agree they're draconian. And they need changing. But until then, I still own them.
Ah, no.
The copyright for my stuff will expire long after I'm dead. It's otherwise owned by a trust.
Some works have been released under CL and CC. I get to choose which and what.
As far as your admonishment to "if you aren't willing to give the images to everone....", go fish. There is no trade secret; trade secrets don't apply here.
The archive mentioned in TFA isn't legally done. It's a repository of stolen goods, some not stolen goods, and some dubious goods. The very instant it's publicly accessible, it's a lawsuit looking for a spot marked X. It has been publicly accessible, and therefore is fencing, stolen goods, and not theirs-- or at least my portion. Others may have licensed things differently. I don't care what they've done, I know exactly what I've done, and what's mine in terms of copyright.
We would disagree. Sorry. I understand that you may believe that Fair Use gives you the ability to do so, but that's only provided you have legal use granted to you in the first place.
In my context, you can link to my site. That's ok. You can link to the pictures in question. You can view them, and perhaps already have without looking at the Legal link on the same page. That's ok. If you copy them and store them onto your computer directly (cache excepted) then you have stolen my copyrighted material.
You know nothing of my work, yet you accuse me of stealing. Your assumptions are wildly incorrect. You've used the reply as your basis to blather your inability to grasp professional and personal photography, models and their rights, and the role of objects in photography all in one mad dash that adds the idea of a photography tax. Good Friday for you.
That's not true. My images took work to produce, and they're for my benefit on my site. Your stuff-- you do with it how you will.
If I want my images archived, it's my responsibility and those that I delegate the responsibility to. If someone else has done this, then they've stolen my work, as in ripped me off.
Should I want to use a license that give rights to someone else, I'll do so. Until then, the decision is mine.
As I mention in this thread, I've been corrected.
My understanding was incorrect.
I sit corrected. Chagrined, too.
You're being silly. Of course it's legal tender. I transcribed it. It's money, as in cash, as in legal for debts, incurred at purchase, satisfied with the currency.
That's what transactions are. You have an object, of value. I submit my currency in exchange for the value of the object. It's really, really basic business transaction 101.
Some more fields to add on their database of YOU. Searches for ______ porn... and watches________.
Not necessarily good news.
And how is this different from any supply and demand purchase?
Someone walking into a store and buying ONE is a lot different than someone walking into a store and buying TWENTY. If Apple creates such a huge frenzy, then what if the backlash is a secondary market, just like the original overhyped iPhone?
Apple has the ability to limit the number of resellers (in the US markets, by law and legal precedent). What it says on US currency is true: "THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS PUBLIC AND PRIVATE" (yes, it's in caps). That means buying an iPad, or buying a cup of coffee.
Apple can enforce certain parts of a EULA as well. But none of that's at issue. It's another privacy-robbing, credit card # surrendering demand. Limiting the number of purchases may have possible consequences in some states, too. Where I come from, ticket scalping is not only legal, but in many cases desirable. There's a monopoly on THAT, too.
It's not like his investment is liquid.
But perhaps if he gets smacked around, the investors get cold feet, maybe Microsoft or Oracle or who knows buys it and makes him kind of rich. As in way-rich. The financing that he has means his share is still pretty good..... that is, until whatever comes after Facebook arrives. Facebook arrived after MySpace, which came after various GeoCities, and so on.
Facebook has immense number of users that might be happy to find a subsequent provider that does something more, like hosts as many photos as they can upload (people are obsessive about pics) or does something else, like rents them movies or something. Facebook has no monopoly, just massive success. It could evaporate in a single quarter. Apple knows this very well.
There was much early US history based on Christianity and the desire to have freedom of religion based on fleeing persecution in Europe. But there was also a mutual respect among highly diverse theologies, as well. You do your thing, we'll do ours.
There was a lot of specifically NON-Christian theology, including the native populations, who were highly subjugated. No one says that removing God and Christianity from textbooks represents the facts regarding the origins of what is now the United States. Domination in thought where domination violates the facts, however is suspect.
Removing Christian and God references hasn't really been called for, so far as I've seen. Instead, it's the bald-faced lies regarding the history, as though the US was seen as a mecca for Christianity (pardon the pun) that are criticized here.
Give me your tired, your poor.....
Nice, but this is the US Constitution you're speaking of, and TFA regards Australia, which is still a part of the British Commonweal.