There were several other options with lower tolls or no tolls between my start and destination. But that didn't come into play because Google Maps DOESN'T recognize the GW or T-Zee are toll bridges. Plot a route for yourself and check it out.
NYC wasn't one of my destinations, it was just "on the way" between Northwestern CT and NJ. I had to find them myself on an atlas that actually shows toll roads and bridges because Google kept trying to route me across GW Bridge, which is nearly the most expensive route you can take. Tappan Zee is significantly cheaper without driving any farther.
By going a bit farther north you can find routes with even lower tolls, or no tolls, but they're about 30mi longer so you spend some of that on fuel and it costs time, making any savings questionable.
In fact, the problem seems to be with the NavTec map data because my GPS also uses data from NavTec and has the same issue.
She doesn't have a fair use claim, but petapixel has a very clear fair use claim for the thumbnail screen shots of the original photo, and her infringing usage of it. That appears to be the photo she's claiming a DMCA violation on, and she has no valid claim because of 17 USC 107. Also, the fact that she doesn't own the copyright to the image in question means she may have committed perjury when she filed the DMCA takedown notice.
I'm only a layman, and my conclusions are not legal advice. But I have read the copyright law many times, and that's how interpret it. YMMV.
I should have included this in my original post, but for anyone too lazy to follow the link, 17 USC 107 states (in part):
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright....
In short, it appears to be an explicit and clear cut example of fair use.
I guess if people don't bother reading past the summary at Slashdot, you would be absolutely right. Of course if they had, they would have found the same tidbit that the following comment quoted 10 minutes after the story was posted: http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2789489&cid=39699579 ( It was approved on the 17th )
I looked before I commented, but I missed it. Seems Firefox was doing a case-sensitive search so searching for "kick" found no matches. Oops.
I keep posting it because you don't seem to be getting the message. The OP's analogy is flawed beyond repair, yet you keep trying to defend it. Clearly I'm not trolling, my post is rated higher than the OP, I haven't attacked anyone, and I haven't replied with anything more than clarifications and additional details of my original post.
The question is why to you keep posting trying to make the OP/AC's point for him when clearly he's coming from a flawed premise?
As a naturalized Texan, (I wasn't born there, but I have spent most of my life there), I apologize. We have been trying to eliminate the envirowackos, but they're like kudzu, they just keep spouting up. We have a healthy enviro-conservation group, but the invasive envirowackos just keep coming no matter what we do.
If they're not smarter, better, or more civilized than we are, why would we want to meet them? Dealing with all the idiots here is more than enough, I don't want to have to deal with alien idiots too.
A copyright does not prevent anyone from using the same idea, process, or technology, it only prevents copying a specific expression of it. Failure to commercialize copyright has ABSOLUTELY no impact on anyone other than the copyright holder.
Patents exclude anyone from using the patented material without a license for the duration of the patent. Failing to commercialize a patent affects EVERYONE who could benefit from that patent.
Copyright and patent are fundamentally different, the rules are different, the rights are different, and the effects are different. His analogy is flawed. His failure to commercialize his copyrightable material has absolutely no relationship to patents.
Or, to make it simple for you. The OP described how he deals with his own COPYRIGHTED material, using rules that apply to copyrights, not patents. Then, without making any attempt to apply that logic to patent rights, says "I don't see why patents... are any different."
They're different because the rules are different, exactly as I described my in my reply to him. His analogy is based upon rules that are specific to copyright and it doesn't address patent rights at all. Therefore, the analogy is flawed. Nothing you say can change that in the least.
...so to can other companies solve the multipath Wi-Fi problem using a technology other than the one the patent provided.
Which is exactly why a comparison to copyright is flawed. It's different (from his examples) because it IS different (rights).
No, I didn't miss the point of the OP. I addressed his statement. Him not commercializing his copyrighted material doesn't limit anyone else. If he had a patent and didn't commercialize it, he CAN prevent others from doing it. Different rules, invalid comparison.
By comparing copyright to patent. His analogy of his photographs and software is completely unrelated to patents. He doesn't own the ideas embodied by his pictures or code, he only owns the specific pictures and code, and he controls the right to copy them (thus the name copyright). Anyone can go take materially the same photo, or write a program to do that same things and it has no relationship to his copyright. They can even sell their photos and programs. That isn't true of patents. The attempt to compare his rights under copyright to the rights of patent holders is the flaw. Specifically, his comment "I don't see why patents... are any different" is the flaw.
Well, specifically, it took me across the GW Bridge when I told it to avoid tolls, and I was not happy to find out it's a $12 toll. It also tried to take me across the Tappan Zee bridge without indicating it's a toll.
It doesn't recognize (most?) toll bridges/tunnels as toll roads. It will happily take you across toll bridges/tunnels without telling you there are tolls involved, even if you use the "avoid toll roads" option.
Copyright and patent are very different. Patents give you exclusive rights to an idea, process, or method. Copyrights only cover making copies of a specific implementation. Comparisons between the two will always result in a flawed analogy.
Yes, but for what advantages? You only want to change standards when there are benefits that significantly outweigh the costs of breaking compatibility. So far, I've not heard any compelling advantage to Nokia's proposal, it appears to be changing the standard for the sake of changing the standard (or more cynically, for the purpose of establishing a new patent pool with which the IP owners can extract more money for a longer period).
"An eye that has no refractive error when viewing distant objects is said to have emmetropia or be emmetropic meaning the eye is in a state in which it can focus parallel rays of light (light from distant objects) on the retina, without using any accommodation."
"...average visual acuity of healthy eyes is 20/16 to 20/12" excludes all of the unhealthy eyes, which means it excludes all the "unhealthy" eyes. Depending upon which source you use, 66%-75% of adults in the US use some sort of vision correction.
As for 3" being a comfortable width to hold, I'm sure it is for some. But I'm average sized for a US male, and even 4.3" phones are too wide to be held comfortably. While not everyone is the same, that means that >50% of the US male population will probably find it uncomfortable, and an even higher percentage of US women will find it uncomfortable. And since most of the world's population is on average shorter/smaller than the US population, the percentage worldwide is also higher. Then, only about 1/3-1/4 of those have sufficient visual acuity to see the difference between this display and existing displays. That doesn't mean there is no market, but it's less than 15% of the potential market.
All of which supports my initial statement "as a practical matter, I see few uses for this display."
I can also make out 1-pixel movements at 97ppi from 6 feet away. At 12 inches, that's the equivalent of over 580ppi. At 9 inches it's nearly 780ppi.
Detecting movement is not the same as angular resolution. 1 arc minute of visual acuity (the standard for 20/20 "nominal" vision) is 327 dpi at 12". Sub-pixel rendering allows for positioning/movement in one dimention at 3x the resolution.
And as I stated in my original post "most people start to have difficulty focusing closer than 12 inches". Yes, younger people can often focus closer, but that doesn't change the fact that 12"+ is a typical viewing distance.
And 3"x5" is not too big at all. I've had wallets bigger than that.
You don't typically hold your wallet for 5-60 minutes, and don't try to hold it up to your ear. Irrelevant comparison.
Slashdot Mirror
There were several other options with lower tolls or no tolls between my start and destination. But that didn't come into play because Google Maps DOESN'T recognize the GW or T-Zee are toll bridges. Plot a route for yourself and check it out.
NYC wasn't one of my destinations, it was just "on the way" between Northwestern CT and NJ. I had to find them myself on an atlas that actually shows toll roads and bridges because Google kept trying to route me across GW Bridge, which is nearly the most expensive route you can take. Tappan Zee is significantly cheaper without driving any farther.
By going a bit farther north you can find routes with even lower tolls, or no tolls, but they're about 30mi longer so you spend some of that on fuel and it costs time, making any savings questionable.
In fact, the problem seems to be with the NavTec map data because my GPS also uses data from NavTec and has the same issue.
She doesn't have a fair use claim, but petapixel has a very clear fair use claim for the thumbnail screen shots of the original photo, and her infringing usage of it. That appears to be the photo she's claiming a DMCA violation on, and she has no valid claim because of 17 USC 107. Also, the fact that she doesn't own the copyright to the image in question means she may have committed perjury when she filed the DMCA takedown notice.
I'm only a layman, and my conclusions are not legal advice. But I have read the copyright law many times, and that's how interpret it. YMMV.
I should have included this in my original post, but for anyone too lazy to follow the link, 17 USC 107 states (in part):
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright....
In short, it appears to be an explicit and clear cut example of fair use.
IANAL
She needs to look up "fair use". In case she's reading, I refer her to 17 USC 107
Thanks for the clarifications.
I guess if people don't bother reading past the summary at Slashdot, you would be absolutely right.
Of course if they had, they would have found the same tidbit that the following comment quoted 10 minutes after the story was posted:
http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2789489&cid=39699579
( It was approved on the 17th )
I looked before I commented, but I missed it. Seems Firefox was doing a case-sensitive search so searching for "kick" found no matches. Oops.
That's why we have to look for them. Duh. Think these things through. :)
...can burn out some CCDs, or at least temporarily "blind" them.
And now I'm expecting a visit from DHS for disseminating easily available info. It's been nice not knowing you.
Neither of your statements in bold are false, but your conclusion is flawed for the reasons I've sited in several of my previous posts.
I keep posting it because you don't seem to be getting the message. The OP's analogy is flawed beyond repair, yet you keep trying to defend it. Clearly I'm not trolling, my post is rated higher than the OP, I haven't attacked anyone, and I haven't replied with anything more than clarifications and additional details of my original post.
The question is why to you keep posting trying to make the OP/AC's point for him when clearly he's coming from a flawed premise?
As a naturalized Texan, (I wasn't born there, but I have spent most of my life there), I apologize. We have been trying to eliminate the envirowackos, but they're like kudzu, they just keep spouting up. We have a healthy enviro-conservation group, but the invasive envirowackos just keep coming no matter what we do.
If they're not smarter, better, or more civilized than we are, why would we want to meet them? Dealing with all the idiots here is more than enough, I don't want to have to deal with alien idiots too.
A copyright does not prevent anyone from using the same idea, process, or technology, it only prevents copying a specific expression of it. Failure to commercialize copyright has ABSOLUTELY no impact on anyone other than the copyright holder.
Patents exclude anyone from using the patented material without a license for the duration of the patent. Failing to commercialize a patent affects EVERYONE who could benefit from that patent.
Copyright and patent are fundamentally different, the rules are different, the rights are different, and the effects are different. His analogy is flawed. His failure to commercialize his copyrightable material has absolutely no relationship to patents.
ummmm, If you bother to look at the previous slashdot article, when it was covered before, it wasn't a kickstarter project.
By the way, why can't I fund a closed (but funded) Kickstarter project past the deadline?
Sometimes you can - just not on KickStarter.
So, your response is that you can, except that you can't?
It's useful to actually read the post your responding and to check your facts before posting.
Or, to make it simple for you. The OP described how he deals with his own COPYRIGHTED material, using rules that apply to copyrights, not patents. Then, without making any attempt to apply that logic to patent rights, says "I don't see why patents ... are any different."
They're different because the rules are different, exactly as I described my in my reply to him. His analogy is based upon rules that are specific to copyright and it doesn't address patent rights at all. Therefore, the analogy is flawed. Nothing you say can change that in the least.
I suggest you re-read the thread and try to understand what was actually said.
...so to can other companies solve the multipath Wi-Fi problem using a technology other than the one the patent provided.
Which is exactly why a comparison to copyright is flawed. It's different (from his examples) because it IS different (rights).
No, I didn't miss the point of the OP. I addressed his statement. Him not commercializing his copyrighted material doesn't limit anyone else. If he had a patent and didn't commercialize it, he CAN prevent others from doing it. Different rules, invalid comparison.
By comparing copyright to patent. His analogy of his photographs and software is completely unrelated to patents. He doesn't own the ideas embodied by his pictures or code, he only owns the specific pictures and code, and he controls the right to copy them (thus the name copyright). Anyone can go take materially the same photo, or write a program to do that same things and it has no relationship to his copyright. They can even sell their photos and programs. That isn't true of patents. The attempt to compare his rights under copyright to the rights of patent holders is the flaw. Specifically, his comment "I don't see why patents ... are any different" is the flaw.
Well, specifically, it took me across the GW Bridge when I told it to avoid tolls, and I was not happy to find out it's a $12 toll. It also tried to take me across the Tappan Zee bridge without indicating it's a toll.
It doesn't recognize (most?) toll bridges/tunnels as toll roads. It will happily take you across toll bridges/tunnels without telling you there are tolls involved, even if you use the "avoid toll roads" option.
Copyright and patent are very different. Patents give you exclusive rights to an idea, process, or method. Copyrights only cover making copies of a specific implementation. Comparisons between the two will always result in a flawed analogy.
And identify toll bridges and tunnels, which it apparently doesn't even recognize as toll routes currently.
Yes, but for what advantages? You only want to change standards when there are benefits that significantly outweigh the costs of breaking compatibility. So far, I've not heard any compelling advantage to Nokia's proposal, it appears to be changing the standard for the sake of changing the standard (or more cynically, for the purpose of establishing a new patent pool with which the IP owners can extract more money for a longer period).
You should read more carefully. From the wikipedia link:
"In humans, the maximum acuity of a healthy, emmetropic eye (and even ametropic eyes with correctors) is approximately 20/16 to 20/12.">
Emmetropic means a nearly flawless eye.
"An eye that has no refractive error when viewing distant objects is said to have emmetropia or be emmetropic meaning the eye is in a state in which it can focus parallel rays of light (light from distant objects) on the retina, without using any accommodation."
"...average visual acuity of healthy eyes is 20/16 to 20/12" excludes all of the unhealthy eyes, which means it excludes all the "unhealthy" eyes. Depending upon which source you use, 66%-75% of adults in the US use some sort of vision correction.
As for 3" being a comfortable width to hold, I'm sure it is for some. But I'm average sized for a US male, and even 4.3" phones are too wide to be held comfortably. While not everyone is the same, that means that >50% of the US male population will probably find it uncomfortable, and an even higher percentage of US women will find it uncomfortable. And since most of the world's population is on average shorter/smaller than the US population, the percentage worldwide is also higher. Then, only about 1/3-1/4 of those have sufficient visual acuity to see the difference between this display and existing displays. That doesn't mean there is no market, but it's less than 15% of the potential market.
All of which supports my initial statement "as a practical matter, I see few uses for this display."
When a neo-conservative doesn't want to do something, they make it so no-one may do it
FTFY.
I can also make out 1-pixel movements at 97ppi from 6 feet away. At 12 inches, that's the equivalent of over 580ppi. At 9 inches it's nearly 780ppi.
Detecting movement is not the same as angular resolution. 1 arc minute of visual acuity (the standard for 20/20 "nominal" vision) is 327 dpi at 12". Sub-pixel rendering allows for positioning/movement in one dimention at 3x the resolution.
And as I stated in my original post "most people start to have difficulty focusing closer than 12 inches". Yes, younger people can often focus closer, but that doesn't change the fact that 12"+ is a typical viewing distance.
And 3"x5" is not too big at all. I've had wallets bigger than that.
You don't typically hold your wallet for 5-60 minutes, and don't try to hold it up to your ear. Irrelevant comparison.