[And there should be, also, a very tiny tax on email," perhaps one-hundredth of a cent. He said this would discourage spam and not have much impact on the typical Internet user. Wozniak went on to suggest a sales tax on internet transactions that could help, in part, fund "vital functions that the post office serves."]
Remind me not to send emails to anyone in the US. Geeze.
The snail mail postal services actually do serve a purpose. Not everyone even has email or internet access, and thousands still send greetings cards by mail, and wedding invitations and even (gasp) bills. And how would one send a package containing a gift by email (okay, one could use courier, but the post is usually cheaper)?
My husband has an old ticket from the Daytona 500 (probably about 8 years ago) and it does indeed have a disclaimer on the back of the ticket, but that disclaimer (the way I read it) doesn't mean you turn over your copyright to photos/videos you take, it simply means they can use your likeness (ie: a photo of your, or a video of your) in any way they choose. A quote from the back of a Daytona ticket:
[Holder irrevocably grants to Daytona International Speedway and its assigns, licensees, affiliates and successors the right to use Holder's image, likeness, voice, actions and/or statements in all forms and media including advertising, trade, or any commercial purpose throughout the world and in perpetuity. Holder hereby waives any and all claims that holder may have for libel, defamation, invasion of privacy or right of publicity, infringement of copyright or violation of any other right arising out of or relating to any utilization of Holder's image as described herein.]
[where such image is created by or with the assistance of a satellite, drone, or any device that is not supported by the ground.]
So I wonder if a balloon and gondola tethered to the ground fits that description?
Otherwise, Google Maps will be utilizing some really big cranes if they want visuals for the maps.
How taking aerial photos of something is considered a criminal offense is beyond me. It's okay to stand in the street and take a snapshot of the house, but not okay to do it from the air...hmmmm. A shot of your house front from the street is likely to reveal as much or more than aerial view would.
[People are driven by what they know. They are always slow to change. If you don't know that I am sorry. ]
And this makes it Google's fault because people are slow? If you don't know that people are responsible for their own actions, then I am sorry about that, but people need to learn something called "responsibility" ... have it. Use it. It's good.
[I can tell you from years of experience that people are not even sure what the address bar is.]
That's true. I know lots of them too. However, it is their own fault for not exercising their own choice to learn or to drown on the web. It isn't Google's responsibility (nor anyone else's) to force netintelligence on them either.
My dad always told me "if you don't know how it works, learn. If you don't want to learn, don't use it."
My dad didn't even finish grade 8, but he was a smarter man than most guys I know who finished university.
If Monsanto didn't actually want people to plant seeds from these plants, why wouldn't they make them sterile or at least engineer them to prevent them producing viable seed? A lot of hybrid garden plants (not edible) won't produce seed that's viable.
Oh ... that's probably because they want to sell all the seed themselves to farmers so they still need plants that actually produce usable seed.
I see no correlation at all between a seed patent and software - they're about as far apart as the ocean and the stars.
[Whenever I hear these silly corporate names invoked with sanctimonious awe, I imagine Dipsy, Laa-Laa, Po, and Tinky-Winky singing their hit single “Teletubbies say ‘Eh-oh’ ” as they shake the change out of some two-year-old’s pocket.]
I guess it's not surprising that he actually knows who the teletubbies are, and what they sound like.
[It's that his masturbatorial (like an "editorial," only more self-serving) rant projects an egomaniacal picture of the Publisher/Writer/Journalist as the Savior of Culture.]
I'll save my own culture interests thanks ... I don't think I need the editor of Harper's for that cause, well you know - I can find it on the web anywhere.
I actually had to go and look at Harper's to see what they publish. I wouldn't pay for that ... on the other hand, I might pay for TechDirt if it came right down to it.
[Police are] going to be in SWAT gear and have AR-15s around their neck," Stovall said. "If you're out walking, we're going to stop you, ask why you're out walking, check for your ID."]
OMG, really?
I mean seriously ... don't people just go for a walk without having a reason? What happens when your reason isn't good enough to be "out walking" ... holy crap.
Oh get a grip. I was not born into any sort of "riches", but I totally agree with the whining and silly aspects of this.
Just because these bloggers can't deal with the fact that they agreed to the terms when they signed up isn't HuffPo's fault, nor should the courts have to deal with it wasting tax payers time and money.
They aren't now and never were entitled to any share of the profits of the site they wrote for, particularly when they agreed to blog for free.
The consumers responsibility is only to buy and use the product.
Not buy and copy the product. Just cause I don't care if they copy my painting doesn't mean I expect them to put their name on it, thereby causing others to think they created the original work.
That's the "harm" I suppose I was considering - I lose exposure if the person says they painted it, unless of course they do paint their own, then sell that. And then, I don't really care.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
[but if you're suggesting that the tendency of the younger generations is "ignore laws and do whatever I want",]
I'm suggesting that ignoring laws can lead to anarchy. So right now, it's the red light and copyright?
Which both seem pretty minor, I agree.
But the concept of ignoring laws is not likely to stop there. The "we want what we want" mentality isn't confined to the younger set either, but they do embrace it a lot quicker than old fogies like me.
I'm saying that doing anything the wrong way (such as trying to get poorly written laws like copyright changed) can lead to chaos. It isn't about the fact that it's copyright laws, but more about choosing methods for change, or to try and bring about change.
On the post: Wrong Legislative Thought Of The Day: An Email Tax To Save The Post Office
Remind me not to send emails to anyone in the US. Geeze.
The snail mail postal services actually do serve a purpose. Not everyone even has email or internet access, and thousands still send greetings cards by mail, and wedding invitations and even (gasp) bills. And how would one send a package containing a gift by email (okay, one could use courier, but the post is usually cheaper)?
...besides, old people like their "mail".
On the post: Our Turn To Get Bizarre Legal Threats From Global Wildlife Foundation
Well, it certainly appears to be. I'm enjoying the show a great deal.
[Gentlemen, I only requested you do the right thing.]
Which of course is what he says is the right thing and not necessarily what the laws say?
[And never use the word that I threaten you. I have been kind and upset, but I would never threaten anyone. ]
So, this email was just a friendly thank you?
[I want an answer by 10 CST that you will stop the damage you and your associates have done.]
And as I can see by this post, TechDirt has indeed answered.
[And I love court and depositions!]
But they do not love you back.
Waiting for the next batch of wonderfully ludicrous and non-English emails to hit the web.
On the post: Bizarre Legal Threat Of The Day: Confused Zoo Owner Threatens Popehat Over... Well... Just Read It
Gosh, how did he manage to hire Google's lawyers away from them?
On the post: NASCAR Abuses DMCA To Try To Delete Fan Videos Of Daytona Crash
Re: Re: Fine Print
[Holder irrevocably grants to Daytona International Speedway and its assigns, licensees, affiliates and successors the right to use Holder's image, likeness, voice, actions and/or statements in all forms and media including advertising, trade, or any commercial purpose throughout the world and in perpetuity. Holder hereby waives any and all claims that holder may have for libel, defamation, invasion of privacy or right of publicity, infringement of copyright or violation of any other right arising out of or relating to any utilization of Holder's image as described herein.]
On the post: New Hampshire Politicians Want To Make 'Satellite View' On Maps A Criminal Offense
So I wonder if a balloon and gondola tethered to the ground fits that description?
Otherwise, Google Maps will be utilizing some really big cranes if they want visuals for the maps.
How taking aerial photos of something is considered a criminal offense is beyond me. It's okay to stand in the street and take a snapshot of the house, but not okay to do it from the air...hmmmm. A shot of your house front from the street is likely to reveal as much or more than aerial view would.
On the post: Google Looks To Cut 'Funding' To 'Illegal' Sites It Doesn't Fund In The First Place
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Google actions = FUD
And this makes it Google's fault because people are slow? If you don't know that people are responsible for their own actions, then I am sorry about that, but people need to learn something called "responsibility" ... have it. Use it. It's good.
[I can tell you from years of experience that people are not even sure what the address bar is.]
That's true. I know lots of them too. However, it is their own fault for not exercising their own choice to learn or to drown on the web. It isn't Google's responsibility (nor anyone else's) to force netintelligence on them either.
My dad always told me "if you don't know how it works, learn. If you don't want to learn, don't use it."
My dad didn't even finish grade 8, but he was a smarter man than most guys I know who finished university.
On the post: Google Looks To Cut 'Funding' To 'Illegal' Sites It Doesn't Fund In The First Place
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Google actions = FUD
Why do people insist on blaming someone or something else for THEIR OWN choices?
Nobody is forced to use Google search. If they're too dense to pick their own search engine whose fault is that?
Oh wait ... of course, it's Google's fault. Why not. Just about everything web related appears to be Google's fault.
On the post: Supreme Court Set To Hear Case On Whether Or Not Planting Legally Purchased Seeds Infringes On Monsanto Patent
Oh ... that's probably because they want to sell all the seed themselves to farmers so they still need plants that actually produce usable seed.
I see no correlation at all between a seed patent and software - they're about as far apart as the ocean and the stars.
On the post: Harper's Magazine Publisher Shakes Verbal Fist At Google; Romanticizes Own Profession; Quotes Teletubbies
Re: Re:
On the post: Harper's Magazine Publisher Shakes Verbal Fist At Google; Romanticizes Own Profession; Quotes Teletubbies
I guess it's not surprising that he actually knows who the teletubbies are, and what they sound like.
[It's that his masturbatorial (like an "editorial," only more self-serving) rant projects an egomaniacal picture of the Publisher/Writer/Journalist as the Savior of Culture.]
I'll save my own culture interests thanks ... I don't think I need the editor of Harper's for that cause, well you know - I can find it on the web anywhere.
I actually had to go and look at Harper's to see what they publish. I wouldn't pay for that ... on the other hand, I might pay for TechDirt if it came right down to it.
On the post: Man Detained By TSA For Writing 4th Amendment On His Chest Wins 1st Amendment Argument In Court
: writing on his chest is bizarre? or,
: removing his shirt is bizarre? or both?
In either case, one has to wonder why they don't think that allowing the TSA agents to feel passenger's private parts isn't "bizarre".
On the post: Racist Apps In Google's Play Store Test Just How Free You Want Speech To Be
Re: Warning from Llort
'nuff said.
On the post: Police Chief Deploys Officers With Assault Rifles To Stop & ID Everyone; Says Local Crime Stats Give Him Probable Cause
OMG, really?
I mean seriously ... don't people just go for a walk without having a reason? What happens when your reason isn't good enough to be "out walking" ... holy crap.
Even worse: what happens if your a visitor?
On the post: Appeals Court Smacks Down Unpaid HuffPo Bloggers Who Demanded A Cut Of HuffPo Sale
Re: Knew Mike would have to jeer at the writers.
Just because these bloggers can't deal with the fact that they agreed to the terms when they signed up isn't HuffPo's fault, nor should the courts have to deal with it wasting tax payers time and money.
They aren't now and never were entitled to any share of the profits of the site they wrote for, particularly when they agreed to blog for free.
OMG ... talk about entitlement issues.
On the post: Canadian Politician Claims That Ripping A CD To Your iPod Is Like Buying Socks & Stealing Shoes To Go With Them
On the post: AMC Defies MPAA Bullies: Will Show Unrated Documentary To Kids With Permission Slips
Re:
[For God's sake man, leave the MPAA alone for a single day. Is that possible]
NO
[or do you plan to continue to use your blog as a vehicle for attacking the MPAA, the RIAA, lawyers,]
YES
...until they all fall down.
Or at least until there are some realistic IP regulations, not what there is now.
On the post: Twilight Studio Issues Another Bogus Takedown, But Is Zazzle Partially To Blame?
Re:
On the post: Since The RIAA & MPAA Say That A Copy Is Just As Valuable As The Original, Send Them A Copy Of Money
Re:
It warns you that you can't scan money, but then it will do it anyways.
I've scanned a bunch of our Cdn money for a photoshoot.
Still have the scans. I also scanned an old American dollar from the 1930s...maybe it doesn't recognize it as real money.
On the post: Guess What? Copying Still Isn't Stealing
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
Not buy and copy the product. Just cause I don't care if they copy my painting doesn't mean I expect them to put their name on it, thereby causing others to think they created the original work.
That's the "harm" I suppose I was considering - I lose exposure if the person says they painted it, unless of course they do paint their own, then sell that. And then, I don't really care.
On the post: Guess What? Copying Still Isn't Stealing
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
I'm suggesting that ignoring laws can lead to anarchy. So right now, it's the red light and copyright?
Which both seem pretty minor, I agree.
But the concept of ignoring laws is not likely to stop there. The "we want what we want" mentality isn't confined to the younger set either, but they do embrace it a lot quicker than old fogies like me.
I'm saying that doing anything the wrong way (such as trying to get poorly written laws like copyright changed) can lead to chaos. It isn't about the fact that it's copyright laws, but more about choosing methods for change, or to try and bring about change.
Doing it wrong.
Isn't going to always make the results right.
Next >>