Creative Commons only addresses copyright. That is all. It implies the photographer has the authority to give up some of the rights reserved by copyright. That is it. And the photographer does have that authority. The text of the Creative Commons licenses include:
Unless otherwise mutually agreed to by the parties in writing, licensor offers the work as-is and makes no representations or warranties of any kind concerning the work, express, implied, statutory or otherwise, including, without limitation, warranties of title, merchantibility, fitness for a particular purpose, noninfringement, or the absence of latent or other defects, accuracy, or the presence of absence of errors, whether or not discoverable*
The license explicitly makes no guarantee that the work is completely free to use in any other than a copyright sense. The photographer is free to license a photo under these terms. A company is not allowed to publish the photo without a model release. It's that simple.
*case changed to avoid lameness filter
Good catch. I didn't spot that in reading through the license. Wasn't really looking for it, either. Though, looking at it, that clause alone would be enough to keep me away from the CC license in any further use; or at least get written proof that the licensor has the copyright and ability to license the work. That makes a lot of other things more difficult, I suppose.
It's a shame someone will mod this as flamebait instead of recognizing it as a voice of reason.
Because, depending on who is modding you, it might not be. There are two trains of thought going on about this. One is that the best way to deal with this is simply spamming NSI and hoping the extra traffic teaches them a lesson. You are correct that, in this situation, using a dictionary based system biases the end result for NSI. However, the other thought is that what would be just as, or more, effective to set the other domain registries against NSI. A dictionary attack could be more useful here in that it increases the likelihood that it will get noticed.
This isn't a problem with the CC at all, or even with the photographer. The photographer in the case you mention had every right to post the photo under any license he wanted to, including a Creative Commons license without the "No Commercial Use" tag, or heck, even public domain. By releasing the photo under CC, the photographer is only addressing the copyright of the photo, not other issues such as the need for a model release. Further, it is the publisher of an image (in this case, Virgin Mobile) who is responsible for making sure there is a model release. Again, this has nothing to do with copyright. The copyright on an image may be free and clear, even with no model relase in place. And as the sole creator of the image, the photographer is free to license the image under any license he or she wants, regardless of the existence of a model release or really any other legal complication for publishing the photo that may exist. The photographer is simply saying it's ok to use the photo commercially from a copyright point of view
Yes, it is a problem with the photographer. A license to use a work implies that the person licensing it has the authority to do so.* While it would be nice to blame the 'Big Corporation' for this, and they do bare some responsibility, it is not just their fault. The photographer, in putting the picture up for possible commercial use, implied that they were authorized to release it that way.
The best case I could see is that "Big Corp" agrees not to sue the photographer if family agrees not to sue "Big Corp". Otherwise, family has a valid case against both the photographer and "Big Corp" while the company has a case against the photographer for their loss both in the advertising campaign and the loss of the other lawsuit.
*Not a lawyer, but I did stay at a holiday inn express spend the summer reading about photography law.
At the same time, most PIs are not in the least bit qualified to do what I do.
I agree with you there.
I'm completely against handing any and every PI out there carte blanche permission to handle computer evidence. The average one would be shredded on the stand when asked about their computer skills and documentation of what, exactly, they did. I'm also against the State licensing professions, personally. A CCE is a much better display of skill then a PI license would probably be. However, the State already requires a license for physical forensics, why shouldn't it be extended to computer forensics? This is one of the few cases where the law is trying to keep up with technology, and it's being railed against as 'more nanny state' laws. The option is not to keep this law off the books, it's to either accept it or get rid of the requirement to be a PI in order to perform physical forensics.
I could argue that I've been able to pick locks since I was 9, and know how to both use and install digital cameras, why should I need a PI license to do a job I am qualified to do. I would be making most of that up, but the point is still there.
I don't see a problem here. The law is pretty simple, if you want to collect evidence for use in court, you need to have a license to prove you are doing things right.
A guy who comes home and finds his door kicked in does not get to collect finger prints from his house to prove who did it. Frankly, there is no reason why the CEO's nephew should be allowed to pick through a log file like he picks his nose and, upon seeing an IP address with 66.6 in it be allowed to declare 'This is who hacked our computer.'
Yes, it's another unneeded tax, but it's not as bad as the summary makes it sound. Right now, any one can claim to be a computer forensics specialist.
As someone who puts together what ever junk or pre-used items I can find into something interesting or, sometimes on rare occasions, useful, I want to thank people like you.
I just finished an art project that used 9 Wii remotes, only two of them were owned by people working on it. The rest were donated by folks who just wanted to see what we could do. Granted, being students and not 'real' artists yet, they also wanted them back afterwards. Never would have been able to have the display without that help.
The mythical "they" haven't even cracked the save game encryption on the Wii yet. The goal seems to be, "Crack saved game format so we can make fake saved games. Pass modded save game to various games till a buffer vulnerability is found. Use that vulnerability to get access to the firmware of the Wii."
From the looks of it, the downloaded stuff is encrypted like the saved games, then encrypted again to pair it with the particular Wii account that downloaded it. Look in the/. archive for last month, there was a story about Wii elliptic curve encryption. It doesn't look like an easy task at all, Nintendo must have really hated the homebrew scene that the DS has.
Line 6's Variax does just that. It's not perfect, but it's good enough for a live show.
My understanding of the Variax is that it still 'reads' the strings, and pitch shifts that towards what ever the goal frequency is. That is very different from simulating the strings from scratch. If you change strings on a Variax, from one metal and diameter to a completely different style, does it change the tone of all the other instruments that it simulates? What about when the strings age and stretch, and change their harmonic responce? I'm guessing yes, but I haven't had the chance to mess with one.
All of that, though, is different from a completely deterministic guitar. The Variax is a step that direction, but not near what I thought the GGP was talking about.
In case you aren't kidding, it's because each individual guitar has it's own resonance that it passes on to the strings and the resulting sound. The sound isn't just 6 separate frequencies and the harmonics of those 6 interfering, but all the other harmonics that the guitar adds. 7th fret E string would, in your system be just a B note, but on a guitar if you hit the fret just right* and you an E note as well. Then, add on top of that the sustain and decay behavior that varies with the strings material, length, placement of the pickups, tension on the strings, pressure on the fret, and lots of other things. Tell ya what, you create a system that can model all of those behaviors, and do it's output in real time, and you might be on to the next digital instrument fad.
I feel quite certain that some colonialists felt the same way about the New World. Food, money, supplies, all of that had to come from some where until they decided that government control was too much and started making their own. Fuel and oxygen are the same. They just need someone willing and able to step up and make it work. And for all the government paperwork, someone will.
I think what the GP meant was that adding a bug like Thompson detailed would infect that version of GCC and any further versions compiled by it. It would not magically infect all other versions. For Thompson's bug to escape into the wild, either the code for the bug would have to get adopted into the main stream for even one patch, or his binary version would have to be handed out.
Yes, any Linux distro could put a poisoned binary of GCC in their boot disks, which would then create further poisoned binaries of GCC on recompiles. At least with Linux, this is a more open process and I hope has more eyes watching it.
This just shows that the AdSense network is not robust enough to handle
No, it doesn't. It shows that Google doesn't want to spend money supporting the API for use by small companies. AdSense is still available to small web pages.
Don't you know, looking at any form of smut on the internet will make children gay! It doesn't matter if it's straight pron, gay, furry, or any other fetish, all of it turns kids gay!
I don't know that 'uncomfortable not knowing' is the right concept either. With a baby, there are not many cues to tell the person what pronoun to use, and I suspect they are more uncomfortable getting it wrong by mistake and, in their own perception, possibly offending the parent. There seems to be huge social pressure to not insult a person's child. If a person doesn't know the pronoun to use, they either stumble over the name they are given, using that instead, or just pick one. They can't pick one randomly, that might insult the parent, and they are holding the baby, so why not just check?
In counter to that experiment, try it with an older subject. Since I get called sir as often as ma'am at restaurants, I started raising my voice when they called me sir, and lowering it when they call me ma'am. Neither of those get people to change their pronoun or honorific. Not shifting my voice gets them to, almost always, change to using ma'am or miss. Why that happens beats the hell out of me.
I know this is offtopic and I'm burning karma. Oh well.
For 32 and 64 bit operations, it is probably much faster than the PS3. Last I read, the PS3 really slowed down on large floating point intensive operarions, which is where AMD has traditionally excelled.
Virginia provides this service as well, and requires anyone doing any digging to call and have the lines marked. Anyone not calling the number and allowing a few days for the markings becomes responsible for the damage they cause.
I can't say that the marking system works too well, though. My father, in the process of putting in a drainage ditch, discovered that the people marking his lawn used metal detectors to find the lines that they already had map references to. What the map did not show was that the gas line had been replaced at some point with a hard plastic pipe that was about 5 feet south of the old metal pipe. No fireball resulted, thankfully.
Years after, they still don't have the plastic pipe marked on their survey maps.
hammers and screwdrivers do not have an end use licence agreement.
Neither does the Wii, the DS, nor any other console that I've bought. When I turned on my DS, I never had to click through a questionable document that pretended to be a contract between me and Nintendo.
Slashdot is not the place to argue if a sticker on a box counts as a contract, though. If a company wants to license a product so that it is only used in certain ways, then the contract should be negotiated, up front, before the purchase. After I have purchased the device, I may decide to cut through the cardboard box, rip through the paper that was going to be a license, and then compost the paper without even looking at it.
Who is Dell to say I can not install Linux on a computer I buy from them, they sold it to me right? Who is Ford to say I can't put after market air filter on my car, I bought the car. And, to make a direct parallel to your argument, why can't an auto maker force me to only use their car for street driving instead of racing? They would have changed twice the price if they knew I wanted to drive on a track/off road/anywhere else. It's their product, who am I to simply use it as I see fit after I've already paid them for it.
I really hate arguing with ACs, but since you asked.
Where, exactly, is the rationalization? If you, for what ever reason, left a computer on the front porch with a sign saying 'free internet access' then you would be completely insane to expect people not to use it. Now then, where exactly is this different from a shop leaving an open AP available 24/7?
Now, if you think I was rationalizing that 'my computer just connected, it's not my fault,' then you are still completely off base. Call me a geek, but 802.11 has tons of ways to both turn off advertising an open network and protecting it. If a business leaves the lights on and doors open with a sign saying 'take a brochure or leave a note' then I doubt they would mind if I did exactly that. If I had gone in and messed with the router settings, after cloning a MAC address and hacking the WEP key, then you might have a point. Otherwise, you are just looking for a reason to suggest that the technology should protect you, instead of taking responsibility for the technology you use.
How about I settle things and just say, 'I suck at spelling and my English grammar, even though English is my first language.'
There, can we get back to actual points now?;-)
Just wondering, but what brain-dead IM service allows connections that don't go via SSL?
Well, that particular example was some time ago, but I believe it was AIM. I think that was back between '00 and '03 but if I tried to narrow it down someone would probably point out that I couldn't have used Kismet since it was only release last month or something.
Slashdot Mirror
The license explicitly makes no guarantee that the work is completely free to use in any other than a copyright sense. The photographer is free to license a photo under these terms. A company is not allowed to publish the photo without a model release. It's that simple.
*case changed to avoid lameness filter
Good catch. I didn't spot that in reading through the license. Wasn't really looking for it, either. Though, looking at it, that clause alone would be enough to keep me away from the CC license in any further use; or at least get written proof that the licensor has the copyright and ability to license the work. That makes a lot of other things more difficult, I suppose.
Because, depending on who is modding you, it might not be. There are two trains of thought going on about this. One is that the best way to deal with this is simply spamming NSI and hoping the extra traffic teaches them a lesson. You are correct that, in this situation, using a dictionary based system biases the end result for NSI. However, the other thought is that what would be just as, or more, effective to set the other domain registries against NSI. A dictionary attack could be more useful here in that it increases the likelihood that it will get noticed.
Yes, it is a problem with the photographer. A license to use a work implies that the person licensing it has the authority to do so.* While it would be nice to blame the 'Big Corporation' for this, and they do bare some responsibility, it is not just their fault. The photographer, in putting the picture up for possible commercial use, implied that they were authorized to release it that way.
The best case I could see is that "Big Corp" agrees not to sue the photographer if family agrees not to sue "Big Corp". Otherwise, family has a valid case against both the photographer and "Big Corp" while the company has a case against the photographer for their loss both in the advertising campaign and the loss of the other lawsuit.
*Not a lawyer, but I did stay at a holiday inn express spend the summer reading about photography law.
I agree with you there.
I'm completely against handing any and every PI out there carte blanche permission to handle computer evidence. The average one would be shredded on the stand when asked about their computer skills and documentation of what, exactly, they did. I'm also against the State licensing professions, personally. A CCE is a much better display of skill then a PI license would probably be. However, the State already requires a license for physical forensics, why shouldn't it be extended to computer forensics? This is one of the few cases where the law is trying to keep up with technology, and it's being railed against as 'more nanny state' laws. The option is not to keep this law off the books, it's to either accept it or get rid of the requirement to be a PI in order to perform physical forensics.
I could argue that I've been able to pick locks since I was 9, and know how to both use and install digital cameras, why should I need a PI license to do a job I am qualified to do. I would be making most of that up, but the point is still there.
A guy who comes home and finds his door kicked in does not get to collect finger prints from his house to prove who did it. Frankly, there is no reason why the CEO's nephew should be allowed to pick through a log file like he picks his nose and, upon seeing an IP address with 66.6 in it be allowed to declare 'This is who hacked our computer.'
Yes, it's another unneeded tax, but it's not as bad as the summary makes it sound. Right now, any one can claim to be a computer forensics specialist.
I just finished an art project that used 9 Wii remotes, only two of them were owned by people working on it. The rest were donated by folks who just wanted to see what we could do. Granted, being students and not 'real' artists yet, they also wanted them back afterwards. Never would have been able to have the display without that help.
Speak for your self.
From the looks of it, the downloaded stuff is encrypted like the saved games, then encrypted again to pair it with the particular Wii account that downloaded it. Look in the /. archive for last month, there was a story about Wii elliptic curve encryption. It doesn't look like an easy task at all, Nintendo must have really hated the homebrew scene that the DS has.
My understanding of the Variax is that it still 'reads' the strings, and pitch shifts that towards what ever the goal frequency is. That is very different from simulating the strings from scratch. If you change strings on a Variax, from one metal and diameter to a completely different style, does it change the tone of all the other instruments that it simulates? What about when the strings age and stretch, and change their harmonic responce? I'm guessing yes, but I haven't had the chance to mess with one.
All of that, though, is different from a completely deterministic guitar. The Variax is a step that direction, but not near what I thought the GGP was talking about.
In case you aren't kidding, it's because each individual guitar has it's own resonance that it passes on to the strings and the resulting sound. The sound isn't just 6 separate frequencies and the harmonics of those 6 interfering, but all the other harmonics that the guitar adds. 7th fret E string would, in your system be just a B note, but on a guitar if you hit the fret just right* and you an E note as well. Then, add on top of that the sustain and decay behavior that varies with the strings material, length, placement of the pickups, tension on the strings, pressure on the fret, and lots of other things.
Tell ya what, you create a system that can model all of those behaviors, and do it's output in real time, and you might be on to the next digital instrument fad.
*or wrong, depending on what you were aiming for.
Then the TSA goons will all be chipped and expected to check every bag,
I feel quite certain that some colonialists felt the same way about the New World. Food, money, supplies, all of that had to come from some where until they decided that government control was too much and started making their own. Fuel and oxygen are the same. They just need someone willing and able to step up and make it work. And for all the government paperwork, someone will.
Yes, any Linux distro could put a poisoned binary of GCC in their boot disks, which would then create further poisoned binaries of GCC on recompiles. At least with Linux, this is a more open process and I hope has more eyes watching it.
No, it doesn't. It shows that Google doesn't want to spend money supporting the API for use by small companies. AdSense is still available to small web pages.
Don't you know, looking at any form of smut on the internet will make children gay! It doesn't matter if it's straight pron, gay, furry, or any other fetish, all of it turns kids gay!
In counter to that experiment, try it with an older subject. Since I get called sir as often as ma'am at restaurants, I started raising my voice when they called me sir, and lowering it when they call me ma'am. Neither of those get people to change their pronoun or honorific. Not shifting my voice gets them to, almost always, change to using ma'am or miss. Why that happens beats the hell out of me.
I know this is offtopic and I'm burning karma. Oh well.
Not my town, so I can't say for sure.
For 32 and 64 bit operations, it is probably much faster than the PS3. Last I read, the PS3 really slowed down on large floating point intensive operarions, which is where AMD has traditionally excelled.
I can't say that the marking system works too well, though. My father, in the process of putting in a drainage ditch, discovered that the people marking his lawn used metal detectors to find the lines that they already had map references to. What the map did not show was that the gas line had been replaced at some point with a hard plastic pipe that was about 5 feet south of the old metal pipe. No fireball resulted, thankfully.
Years after, they still don't have the plastic pipe marked on their survey maps.
Wait, Ubuntu has a warez installer? Isn't the point of Linux to not need to pirate a copy of Office 2009 Blue Screen Edition?
Slashdot is not the place to argue if a sticker on a box counts as a contract, though. If a company wants to license a product so that it is only used in certain ways, then the contract should be negotiated, up front, before the purchase. After I have purchased the device, I may decide to cut through the cardboard box, rip through the paper that was going to be a license, and then compost the paper without even looking at it.
Who is Dell to say I can not install Linux on a computer I buy from them, they sold it to me right?
Who is Ford to say I can't put after market air filter on my car, I bought the car.
And, to make a direct parallel to your argument, why can't an auto maker force me to only use their car for street driving instead of racing? They would have changed twice the price if they knew I wanted to drive on a track/off road/anywhere else. It's their product, who am I to simply use it as I see fit after I've already paid them for it.
Where, exactly, is the rationalization? If you, for what ever reason, left a computer on the front porch with a sign saying 'free internet access' then you would be completely insane to expect people not to use it. Now then, where exactly is this different from a shop leaving an open AP available 24/7?
Now, if you think I was rationalizing that 'my computer just connected, it's not my fault,' then you are still completely off base. Call me a geek, but 802.11 has tons of ways to both turn off advertising an open network and protecting it. If a business leaves the lights on and doors open with a sign saying 'take a brochure or leave a note' then I doubt they would mind if I did exactly that. If I had gone in and messed with the router settings, after cloning a MAC address and hacking the WEP key, then you might have a point. Otherwise, you are just looking for a reason to suggest that the technology should protect you, instead of taking responsibility for the technology you use.
How about I settle things and just say, 'I suck at spelling and my English grammar, even though English is my first language.' ;-)
There, can we get back to actual points now?
Well, that particular example was some time ago, but I believe it was AIM. I think that was back between '00 and '03 but if I tried to narrow it down someone would probably point out that I couldn't have used Kismet since it was only release last month or something.