The rights holder makes the copy in the case you describe and it gets beamed to you by their servers.
The restrictions on the copy don't require any kind of license agreement because it is already protected (in most countries) by some variation of copyright that grants the restrictions the moment the copy is created.
A packet of Myoplex costs less than $1 if you buy them in bulk on EBay, and each packet contains about half of the USRDA of more vitamins and minerals than I care to count right now. They also have enough protein to do whatever job you need protein to do.
I'm not sure if many people have the discipline to eat them very often but they can be made to be pretty satisfying.
Although your continued mastery of HTML's bold tag is impressive I feel like I should point out, a couple of earlier posts have done so as well, that copyright law generally places the responsibility on the person doing the copying, rather than the rights holder. If robots worked in the opposite direction and only copied material when a tag explicitly allowed them to it would be a better fit with existing law.
Not that copyright law doesn't need improvement in this area, but blaming the rights holders is off the mark.
I don't know about lately, humans have been herd animals for long time. Think of the original War of the Worlds broadcast. Or shopping in the US the day after Thanksgiving. Or wild speculation about a flu epidemic that will likely not happen. Or Y2k.
The Flat Iron building in New York City happens to be one of the more famous ones, and their security people will happily come across the street to tell you all about it if you have a view camera pointed their way.
They are also free to stand in front of the camera, even though I asked them nicely not to. But other than physically blocking my camera they had no legal way to prevent me from shooting the photo despite their claims to the contrary. But I've spent some time in Congo so those guys don't quicken my pulse a bit. What they could stop me from doing by claiming a violation of their trademark is distributing the photo, which I had no plans to do anyway.
Nearly all buildings of any kind of fame are trademarked. Pretty much all major sporting arenas, most corporate headquarters, buildings of historical significance, etc. This is mostly done so that images or likenesses of the buildings aren't used inappropriately. Even people who are obviously serious photographers aren't harassed except by the fringe element like Flat Iron, unless we start distributing the images.
Because there is a photographers exception to the portion of copyright that covers architecture. Photos taken from a public place of a building that is in public view don't require any kind of permission from the building's owner to be distributed or used.
Why would you think gunking up a free video site would give an advertiser pause? The only thing stopping them from physically grabbing your eyeballs and pointing them at their ads is that that kind of thing is illegal in most places.
As you appear to have read their Terms of Service I would guess that you are aware that Yahoo is under no obligation to actually make their service available to you at all, fake data or not?
Tomorrow, if they just decice to call it quits with regard to Flickr or any of the other services they run, their Terms of Service support their just shutting it down entirely without any notice to anyone.
Few features have been added, and those that have are of a blatantly revenue-generating nature
What manner of abomination will be forced upon us next? Plagues of locusts? The earth yielding of its dead? Who knows what will come next when we live in a time when a for profit corporation can make a service available free of charge and then commit such obvious atrocities as trying to get some money back out of it.
I, for one, just did not see this coming. I uploaded thousands of pictures to someone else's server and spent hours and hours and hours typing in metadata. Maybe I paid some kind of monthly fee and maybe I didn't, and maybe I read the User Agreement that stated that at any given time and for any reason, or no reason at all, the company that owns all this stuff I keep sending them can pull the plug on the whole works and all the work I put into it would be vaporized. Regardless, I expected that forever and ever this service would be made available to me, on terms set by me, by virtue of my having spent a lot of my time on it and becoming emotionally invested in its 'community'.
that doesn't sound very professional. That sounds stupid
Those two terms aren't mutually exclusive.
I'm a professional photographer who knows better than to a) use Flickr at all, and b) store my photos on disks I don't control. Photography is no different from other professions, we have plenty of hacks who are able to earn a living despite knowing little more than where the shutter release is located.
With the increasing number of cheap digital SLR bodies and even cheaper lenses to clamp on them I suspect this will only get worse in the coming years.
People don't understand the implications of compatibility because they don't have to. Jason Jennings doesn't recode the videos he watches on his iPod and neither do most people who watch videos on theirs. Jason and everyone else just plugs the iPod into the computer and lets it do its thing.
How on earth the guy can make out anything useful on the iPod's screen, from a downsampled video foibled around with to fit the screen, is beyond me.
It can be done both ways depending on the application, but resistance variation usually has the egde over PWM.
This flashlight uses resistance variation. The LED is on 100% of the time it is receiving power but the brightness can be varied by controlling the current allowed to flow through it and therefore the lumen output of the emitter.
This one uses PWM. The light can be made to appear dimmer to the eye by varying the amount of time it is on versus off despite the fact that when on it is always emitting the same number of lumens.
Which way is better depends on who you ask. A lot of people claim that PWM reduces the life of the phosphor in an LED by cycling it on and off so much. I have no idea and the LED manufacturers don't seem motivated to comment one way or the other.
I think the big stumbling block for LED acceptance on a larger scale are the inconsistencies in manufacturing them. For a given LED, say a 1 watt Luxeon, the color quality and the lumen output at a given voltage can vary quite a bit. Luxeon 'bins' each LED based on those 2 measurements and the cost of a 'high binned' LED, one with high output and good color, can be triple that of a 'low bin'. One of the reasons why a Surefire flashlight costs so much more than a similar hardware store equivalent even though both use a 1W Luxeon LED.
There are a couple of ways of running an LED from an AC power source. Some types can run directly from AC, and you are correct in thinking that they are lit only half the time. This typically happens faster than can be preceived by the human eye, but it screws up us photographers.
Some newer AC LEDs meant as replacements for incandescents come bundled with an AC to DC inverter. Various people are selling inverters combined with higher power LEDs, like the Cree or Luxeon 5 watt emitters, packaged into an incadescent sized space.
LEDs aren't quite there yet when it comes to indoor lighting. They make great flashlights, unless you want to see a long way off, but they tend to suck for general interior lighting.
You can't really up the sensitivity of the detector, but you can change what you do with the signal it sends once you get it.
With current pixels densities (say about 16MP on a full frame 35mm sensor) the signal can be boosted to give the ISO equivalent of 3200 speed film before the noise becomes objectionable. Noise is a problem in part because signals from adjacent pixels affect one another, which is magnified when the signal is boosted to ISO 3200.
I would suppose that a single pixel would be less prone to noise when boosted.
Convenient if you leave out the part where they were defeated in open warfare just prior to the part where they acquiesced.
And there are a lot of people who complain about it regularly. Some whackos and some not. Much of what they complain about, the Writ of Liberty for instance, isn't too far afield from the practices of the current administration.
This is true, but I always thought that pointing it out gave approval to the premise of the original statement.
The proper answer to someone who accuses your favorite gun of being 'designed to kill' is 'and if you aunt had a dick she'd be you uncle'.
4473s don't register guns, they are a way to standardize the data communicated during the background check process and the bound book entries the dealer must make. Government agencies can obtain them only with a warrant.
The dealer keeps them for 20 years. If you want to fret about something, we are required to keep our bound books forever.
Since it appears we've moved into the territory of outright blatant trolling:
Wow! Do you think it's a crime for a company to make money?!
Yes, certainly in the United States it is. Only the Federal Government is permitted to print US currency and anyone else who makes it is a counterfeiter.
You do realize the barrier to entry into producing and distributing your own "entertainment" continues to drop
I disagree. At some point in the past you could walk into a radio station with a banjo and, before you knew it, you were riding around the country opening shows for Elvis and eating more peanut butter and banana sandwiches than you ever imagined. Now you can't even get in the front door unless you have a diamond encrusted grill, and even if you do they'll still laugh at the banjo. If you want to go it alone you have to have a PC and broadband to digitize the banjo music, and a web site or at least a torrent. Type "banjo music" into Pirate Bay, that'll demonstrate the relative lack of good quality banjo music in today's supposedly barrier reduced internet driven music scene. It is deplorable.
DRM is simply a mechanism for entertainment companies to try and protect their investment
Absolutely, but given that it is an open standard I don't see how they are going to protect anything. Anyone who can afford it can buy the necessary equipment and employ the standard to broadcast their own sub 30Hz digital radio station. At this point DRM is the only source of top quality banjo music, particularly since many of the banjo greats were displaced by hurricane Katrina.
Man, I am so glad you posted that. It will be a relief to not have to wade through post after post of exactly the same pointless dreck that has been in every other global climate change themed story, here and everywhere else.
A nice, refreshing, intelligent discussion of the topic, with no hyperbole from either side, will be the result I'm sure.
They have plenty of resources, so they can fight their war on several fronts. It would be nice for business if they could get people into contracts that required them to hand over more money, and that would be even better if they had no competitors.
Because then, if you are an entertainer, and you want the entertainment you produce distributed, you'd have only one place to go and, regardless of the contract terms, you'd probably sin. And that whole process would be heped along if there were a law that prevented entertainment from being released into the atmosphere without the industry's explicit approval.
So we have a very large company doing several things at once, all with the goal of making more money.
It is also worthless in that there is currently DRM out there that is much more restrictive than proposed in the article and people are buying the hell out of it, and have been for quite some time.
The thoughts of a relative handful of geeks who have an idealogical disagreement with DRM aren't going to influence the masses.
Slashdot Mirror
The rights holder makes the copy in the case you describe and it gets beamed to you by their servers.
The restrictions on the copy don't require any kind of license agreement because it is already protected (in most countries) by some variation of copyright that grants the restrictions the moment the copy is created.
A packet of Myoplex costs less than $1 if you buy them in bulk on EBay, and each packet contains about half of the USRDA of more vitamins and minerals than I care to count right now. They also have enough protein to do whatever job you need protein to do.
I'm not sure if many people have the discipline to eat them very often but they can be made to be pretty satisfying.
Although your continued mastery of HTML's bold tag is impressive I feel like I should point out, a couple of earlier posts have done so as well, that copyright law generally places the responsibility on the person doing the copying, rather than the rights holder. If robots worked in the opposite direction and only copied material when a tag explicitly allowed them to it would be a better fit with existing law.
Not that copyright law doesn't need improvement in this area, but blaming the rights holders is off the mark.
I don't know about lately, humans have been herd animals for long time. Think of the original War of the Worlds broadcast. Or shopping in the US the day after Thanksgiving. Or wild speculation about a flu epidemic that will likely not happen. Or Y2k.
I think that an Office Space Milton joke would have been a better fit.
The Flat Iron building in New York City happens to be one of the more famous ones, and their security people will happily come across the street to tell you all about it if you have a view camera pointed their way.
They are also free to stand in front of the camera, even though I asked them nicely not to. But other than physically blocking my camera they had no legal way to prevent me from shooting the photo despite their claims to the contrary. But I've spent some time in Congo so those guys don't quicken my pulse a bit. What they could stop me from doing by claiming a violation of their trademark is distributing the photo, which I had no plans to do anyway.
Nearly all buildings of any kind of fame are trademarked. Pretty much all major sporting arenas, most corporate headquarters, buildings of historical significance, etc. This is mostly done so that images or likenesses of the buildings aren't used inappropriately. Even people who are obviously serious photographers aren't harassed except by the fringe element like Flat Iron, unless we start distributing the images.
Because there is a photographers exception to the portion of copyright that covers architecture. Photos taken from a public place of a building that is in public view don't require any kind of permission from the building's owner to be distributed or used.
Why would you think gunking up a free video site would give an advertiser pause? The only thing stopping them from physically grabbing your eyeballs and pointing them at their ads is that that kind of thing is illegal in most places.
As you appear to have read their Terms of Service I would guess that you are aware that Yahoo is under no obligation to actually make their service available to you at all, fake data or not?
Tomorrow, if they just decice to call it quits with regard to Flickr or any of the other services they run, their Terms of Service support their just shutting it down entirely without any notice to anyone.
What manner of abomination will be forced upon us next? Plagues of locusts? The earth yielding of its dead? Who knows what will come next when we live in a time when a for profit corporation can make a service available free of charge and then commit such obvious atrocities as trying to get some money back out of it.
I, for one, just did not see this coming. I uploaded thousands of pictures to someone else's server and spent hours and hours and hours typing in metadata. Maybe I paid some kind of monthly fee and maybe I didn't, and maybe I read the User Agreement that stated that at any given time and for any reason, or no reason at all, the company that owns all this stuff I keep sending them can pull the plug on the whole works and all the work I put into it would be vaporized. Regardless, I expected that forever and ever this service would be made available to me, on terms set by me, by virtue of my having spent a lot of my time on it and becoming emotionally invested in its 'community'.
Those two terms aren't mutually exclusive.
I'm a professional photographer who knows better than to a) use Flickr at all, and b) store my photos on disks I don't control. Photography is no different from other professions, we have plenty of hacks who are able to earn a living despite knowing little more than where the shutter release is located.
With the increasing number of cheap digital SLR bodies and even cheaper lenses to clamp on them I suspect this will only get worse in the coming years.
People don't understand the implications of compatibility because they don't have to. Jason Jennings doesn't recode the videos he watches on his iPod and neither do most people who watch videos on theirs. Jason and everyone else just plugs the iPod into the computer and lets it do its thing.
How on earth the guy can make out anything useful on the iPod's screen, from a downsampled video foibled around with to fit the screen, is beyond me.
This flashlight uses resistance variation. The LED is on 100% of the time it is receiving power but the brightness can be varied by controlling the current allowed to flow through it and therefore the lumen output of the emitter.
This one uses PWM. The light can be made to appear dimmer to the eye by varying the amount of time it is on versus off despite the fact that when on it is always emitting the same number of lumens.
Which way is better depends on who you ask. A lot of people claim that PWM reduces the life of the phosphor in an LED by cycling it on and off so much. I have no idea and the LED manufacturers don't seem motivated to comment one way or the other.
I think the big stumbling block for LED acceptance on a larger scale are the inconsistencies in manufacturing them. For a given LED, say a 1 watt Luxeon, the color quality and the lumen output at a given voltage can vary quite a bit. Luxeon 'bins' each LED based on those 2 measurements and the cost of a 'high binned' LED, one with high output and good color, can be triple that of a 'low bin'. One of the reasons why a Surefire flashlight costs so much more than a similar hardware store equivalent even though both use a 1W Luxeon LED.
There are a couple of ways of running an LED from an AC power source. Some types can run directly from AC, and you are correct in thinking that they are lit only half the time. This typically happens faster than can be preceived by the human eye, but it screws up us photographers.
Some newer AC LEDs meant as replacements for incandescents come bundled with an AC to DC inverter. Various people are selling inverters combined with higher power LEDs, like the Cree or Luxeon 5 watt emitters, packaged into an incadescent sized space.
LEDs aren't quite there yet when it comes to indoor lighting. They make great flashlights, unless you want to see a long way off, but they tend to suck for general interior lighting.
You can't really up the sensitivity of the detector, but you can change what you do with the signal it sends once you get it.
With current pixels densities (say about 16MP on a full frame 35mm sensor) the signal can be boosted to give the ISO equivalent of 3200 speed film before the noise becomes objectionable. Noise is a problem in part because signals from adjacent pixels affect one another, which is magnified when the signal is boosted to ISO 3200.
I would suppose that a single pixel would be less prone to noise when boosted.
Convenient if you leave out the part where they were defeated in open warfare just prior to the part where they acquiesced.
And there are a lot of people who complain about it regularly. Some whackos and some not. Much of what they complain about, the Writ of Liberty for instance, isn't too far afield from the practices of the current administration.
Enjoy your lonely stay in the land of reason and restraint.
This is true, but I always thought that pointing it out gave approval to the premise of the original statement. The proper answer to someone who accuses your favorite gun of being 'designed to kill' is 'and if you aunt had a dick she'd be you uncle'.
4473s don't register guns, they are a way to standardize the data communicated during the background check process and the bound book entries the dealer must make. Government agencies can obtain them only with a warrant.
The dealer keeps them for 20 years. If you want to fret about something, we are required to keep our bound books forever.
Wow! Do you think it's a crime for a company to make money?!Yes, certainly in the United States it is. Only the Federal Government is permitted to print US currency and anyone else who makes it is a counterfeiter.
You do realize the barrier to entry into producing and distributing your own "entertainment" continues to dropI disagree. At some point in the past you could walk into a radio station with a banjo and, before you knew it, you were riding around the country opening shows for Elvis and eating more peanut butter and banana sandwiches than you ever imagined. Now you can't even get in the front door unless you have a diamond encrusted grill, and even if you do they'll still laugh at the banjo. If you want to go it alone you have to have a PC and broadband to digitize the banjo music, and a web site or at least a torrent. Type "banjo music" into Pirate Bay, that'll demonstrate the relative lack of good quality banjo music in today's supposedly barrier reduced internet driven music scene. It is deplorable.
DRM is simply a mechanism for entertainment companies to try and protect their investmentAbsolutely, but given that it is an open standard I don't see how they are going to protect anything. Anyone who can afford it can buy the necessary equipment and employ the standard to broadcast their own sub 30Hz digital radio station. At this point DRM is the only source of top quality banjo music, particularly since many of the banjo greats were displaced by hurricane Katrina.
And given the previously warm climate they might even run across a few iceweasels.
Man, I am so glad you posted that. It will be a relief to not have to wade through post after post of exactly the same pointless dreck that has been in every other global climate change themed story, here and everywhere else.
A nice, refreshing, intelligent discussion of the topic, with no hyperbole from either side, will be the result I'm sure.
They have plenty of resources, so they can fight their war on several fronts. It would be nice for business if they could get people into contracts that required them to hand over more money, and that would be even better if they had no competitors.
Because then, if you are an entertainer, and you want the entertainment you produce distributed, you'd have only one place to go and, regardless of the contract terms, you'd probably sin. And that whole process would be heped along if there were a law that prevented entertainment from being released into the atmosphere without the industry's explicit approval.
So we have a very large company doing several things at once, all with the goal of making more money.
It is your belief that slavery is a voluntary arrangement on both sides?
It is also worthless in that there is currently DRM out there that is much more restrictive than proposed in the article and people are buying the hell out of it, and have been for quite some time.
The thoughts of a relative handful of geeks who have an idealogical disagreement with DRM aren't going to influence the masses.