"Mr Slater left his camera unattended for a while."
"Fascinated by her reflection in the lens, she then somehow managed to start the camera."
"He must have taken hundreds of pictures by the time I got my camera back, but not very many were in focus. He obviously hadn't worked that out yet."
These suggest that the photos were not set up by David Slater, and that the principal creative work in taking the photos (composition, framing, focus, etc.) was in fact done by the monkey.
(Incidentally, I'm also interested in how the monkey changed sex half way through the photo session.)
If this comes into effect, I'm going to find something really cool that uses the MIT licence (or similar), make it slightly cooler, strictly forbid anyone from downloading it and release it via lots of P2P, file locker and other sites. Then, when my slightly cooler product becomes massively popular, I can do my part in kicking half of America off the internet! Maybe I should buy some ISP shares first though...
Ali Aghamohammadi, the Iranian Head of Economic Affairs, has expressed his confidence that the government-approved internet and operating system will also be deployed by other Muslim countries.
Yeah, because every other country in the Middle East trusts Iran implicitly.
While this appears to be more of a rebranding exercise than anything (it's apparently based on Linux), it's probably a good time, in advance of the inevitable hack attacks that will follow, to remember Schneier's Law
Any person can invent a security system so clever that he or she can't imagine a way of breaking it.
Let's hope so. Then PROTECT IP and the recent ICE domain seizures could lead to some interesting court cases. Though I suspect the US courts may not be as forward looking as Egypt in this regard...
Yeah, I think you're missing the point. Like many others on here, the post highlights the hypocrisy of many who subscribe to the traditional Big Content view of the world: that it's OK for them to use others' work in their own creations, but it's not OK for others to use their work in turn.
The thing is, Dylan didn't just rip off other people, he transformed and reinterpreted the music, added his own lyrics, etc. - and this adds value. This makes his offering unique and valuable to many people. And, by being inspired and building on others' music, Dylan was able to create a body of work far superior to that which he could have done as an "actual creator". (Taking this to its logical conclusion, would he have to invent his own instruments, musical notation and language to qualify as a real "original artist"?)
Like everyone else, he stood on the shoulders of all those who went before him, and his work was much better for it - this is progress. The point here is not to highlight a false dichotomy between "actual creators" and "cultural aggregators like Bob Dylan"; the point is that every creator is an aggregator, and that their creations - with their own unique transformations and additions - are much better for it.
Would the weightings be adjusted over time, so if this model encouraged (say) twice as many 30-somethings to vote, would their vote count for less next time? (Or even this time?)
How granular should this be? If I were a particularly diligent student of politics (and took some sort of test?) - or indeed just more intelligent / better educated than most people - would I get extra points?
Should my vote, as a man, count for less than a woman of my age because I am likely to live less long? If I were a smoker, should my vote count for even less?
It's good to think about, but ultimately I believe it would be skewed to benefit the elite most (because someone has to set the rules) - the same problem with the otherwise worthy 'benign dictator' system of government.
The opportunity, in the competitive market, is not to focus on offering a class that sucks to get people to sign up for a better class. It's to make the best class all around, and continue to improve it to keep your community as happy and loyal as possible... and then build a business model on top of that.
But isn't this exactly what Oliver Reichenstein is saying? He argues that newspapers look the way they do because that's how the design team was able to marry up competing requirements for content, sharing and advertising, and this means "[l]oud distracting banners, cheap stock picture material, sloppy typography, a lot of useless comment noise, machine generated reading tips, no human service, and a claustrophobic information design." This may not be a great solution for readers, but it may be the best compromise for newspapers.
Adding a paid business class service removes the need to generate income through adverts and probably reduces the need to get more pageviews through "machine generated reading tips" too. Remove those requirements from the spec and the design team would come up with something much closer to the business class mockup.
While there's certainly an incentive in the short term to make the standard site suck to encourage upgrading, it's likely it will be suboptimal for the reader even if the paper creates the best experience it can, based on the competing requirements for audience, revenue, sharing, etc. it faces. (I'm not saying that newspapers are actually doing this right now, but let's assume they are or will try to.) But change the requirements to a paid business class model and the best possible experience suddenly becomes a lot better for those readers.
U.S. Patent No. 6,803,072 on "girls in various states of undress raising alcoholic beverages and shouting "WOOOOOOO!"
Abstract
Apparatus and methods are disclosed for the disrobing and subsequent public display and video recording of inebriated girls. Significant quantities of cocktails, vodka or other alcoholic beverages are provided to ensure effective intoxication of party participants. An atmosphere conducive disrobing is provided through party participants shouting, “WOOOOOOOOO!” (U.S. Patent No. 7,762,818), a self-perpetuating state also believed to be a novel form of perpetual motion (U.S. Pat. Pend.). Girls remove some or all of their clothing, exposing areas of their bodies including (but not limited to) breasts, back, some or all of the buttocks, breasts, thighs. And breasts. Still images and moving video footage of participants is recorded and subsequently widely distributed for profit.
Anyone have the full patent?
On a more serious note, here's another writeup of this patent dispute, with pretty pictures and everything.
From the rest of the article, I don't think Paul Ohm is talking about inferences such as those given in the examples above. I think he is discussing cases where the identity of a person can be inferred from apparently anonymised data (e.g. Netflix rentals or Amazon purchases). This is not the same as a butcher recommending new meats as he already knows you personally (though he may of course know you better post analysis).
And this is something that I believe is already covered by some legislation. In the UK, the Data Protection Act regulates the use of personally identifiable information. If I remember correctly, a record qualifies as personally identifiable information if it uniquely identifies someone, so if they had my address and I lived in a house with 5 others it would not count, but if I lived on my own it would. Presumably Netflix rental data would fall under this too if it were possible to identify me uniquely. The DPA does not stop companies from offering a better service to their data subjects (or even ripping them off :) based on the information they have; it principally regulates distribution to others and mandates advertising / database opt outs.
As far as I can tell from the story, he was using a personal Facebook profile to promote himself, not a fan page. Personal profiles can only have 5000 friends; was he planning on suing Facebook for that too? (The person who won apparently had 6000 people who liked his page.)
He chose the wrong tool for the job and then got upset when he couldn't do what he wanted with it. Maybe he could sue foursquare too for only letting people who were actually at his rallies check in, rather than everyone in the state.
Yeah. After reading about it several times here on Techdirt, I'm increasingly coming to the view that in many of these copyright cases, it's not about money (either "lost sales" through piracy or lost sales through DRM or regional restrictions) and it's not about what's best for consumers, the public at large or even the company itself. It's about control.
I'm not sure it's actually "batshit-fucking-insane": they want to remain as the gatekeepers, as the people with power, the people who can't be commoditised. It's not going to work as people will just innovate round them, but it's understandable.
I have some sympathy for your point of view ("It's my baby!"), but ultimately I don't think it should be within your purview to restrict how people use your work if they have bought a copy of it. Similar to First Sale - Apple may not like it if I draw a smiley face or write something rude about them on my iPod and sell it, but I can do it if I want. And regardless of my artistry, most people will continue to see an original, unmolested iPod, not my modified version - it won't replace the original in the public's consciousness.
I think you're talking about moral rights, and specifically the "right to prevent distortion, mutilation, or modification that would prejudice the author's honor or reputation," something that was covered on Techdirt recently. Moral rights are actually quite troubling: even though you've sold me your painting, you can potentially stop me from defacing it or even throwing it away.
(Though this point is somewhat moot - I don't believe moral rights apply here because >200 copies of each DVD have been made.)
Ah, thanks. Missed that. The seizures in the US with judges apparently rubber stamping requests are not a great precedent, but at least there would be some judicial oversight.
One of the BBC's linked articles says "[t]he police are seeking powers to shut down websites deemed to be engaged in "criminal" activity", which seems less broad than "used by criminals". So that, at least, is good. :)
Nominet does not have any clear obligation in its registrant Terms and Conditions that a domain name should not be used in connection with any activity that would constitute an offence under UK criminal law. This is in contrast to many registrars and a number of registries including .org and .biz.
Despite this lack of obligation, apparently Nominet cooperated with the police to take down 1200 UK domains before Christmas this year.
According to the police press release, the sites targeted were selling counterfeit goods. (Though of course that's been conflated with other stuff people don't like...)
Lesley Cowley, chief executive of Nominet, said: "We received clear instructions from the PCeU to take down the .co.uk domain names, which have been under investigation for criminal activity. We worked closely with the police and our registrars to quickly carry out the instruction to shut down access to these sites.
I can find no mention of due process in the press release.
Do you feel awkward paying in restaurants for the "dining experience"? Do you feel awkward paying in football stadia for the "game experience"?
This is a point that Mike has made repeatedly: it's all about the experience. People could download Amanda Palmer's music for little money / for free if they wanted to. They could probably download her concert recordings for free too.
People want to be there with her, they want to be part of what she does for a night, they want to feel closer to her. This experience is valuable and is worth $5k to them.
That there's money involved doesn't make it any more wrong than Pizza Express charging me £5 for one of their pizzas in a supermarket and £15 for the same pizza if I enjoy it in their restaurants.
That's certainly true, and I've done the same. I wasn't suggesting that $5k was a lot for what she did (it's probably pretty reasonable for someone with her type of following, though I haven't booked anyone who plays that sort of music).
I was just talking about the additional value the fans - and hopefully the artist - get from exchanging, say, $50 directly, rather than via a bevy of middlemen.
Yet, after all of this, when the deal does go through, and you realize that it's a direct connection between two people who are happy about how each came out of the transaction, people begin to realize it shouldn't be awkward at all.
Absolutely. I bought an album directly from someone recently and I feel a stronger connection to her as a result. I want to find out about what she's up to, what shows and new music she's got coming up. Spending money on her album *felt good* because I got the music, yes, but also because I feel I got some sort of connection.
I've never felt that buying a CD from a shop, who pass on half of the money to a record label, who in turn maybe pass on a few pence to the star, who has so many fans anyway that I'd just disappear into the noise. Even if Amanda Palmer gave away the $5k she earned, this is a great way to connect with fans, and great fun for her too by the sounds of things. :)
While, like most people here, I'm not convinced blocking these autocomplete terms is a good idea, Google has been doing exactly this for a while now with porn-related / explicit searches.
'Boob', which seems pretty mild to me, is blocked in autocomplete. Half of the 1st page of results are not explicit sites (paralleling BitTorrent's "legitimate uses"), including news stories, a Wikipedia page, a Dreamcast site and Boobdesign (clothes for maternity and breastfeeding).
Should Google also suggest 'tittyfuck' when you start typing in 'titanic'? (And it probably would, as I bet far more people look for the former than the latter.)
(Just for the record, I don't have a good answer here; just posing a question.)
On the post: Monkey Business: Can A Monkey License Its Copyrights To A News Agency?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Mr Slater left his camera unattended for a while."
"Fascinated by her reflection in the lens, she then somehow managed to start the camera."
"He must have taken hundreds of pictures by the time I got my camera back, but not very many were in focus. He obviously hadn't worked that out yet."
These suggest that the photos were not set up by David Slater, and that the principal creative work in taking the photos (composition, framing, focus, etc.) was in fact done by the monkey.
(Incidentally, I'm also interested in how the monkey changed sex half way through the photo session.)
On the post: ISP's Five Strikes Plan: Railroading, MPAA/RIAA-Style
Excellent!
On the post: Censoring Begins At Home: Iran Announces Plans To Build Its Own Internet, Operating System
Yeah, because every other country in the Middle East trusts Iran implicitly.
While this appears to be more of a rebranding exercise than anything (it's apparently based on Linux), it's probably a good time, in advance of the inevitable hack attacks that will follow, to remember Schneier's Law
Any person can invent a security system so clever that he or she can't imagine a way of breaking it.
On the post: Entertainment Industry Lawyer: The Public Domain Goes Against Free Market Capitalism
In other words...
Huh?
On the post: Egypt's Ex-Pres Mubarak Fined Millions For Cutting Off The Internet
Re: I hope this sets an international precedent!
On the post: Dylan: What's Yours Is Mine, And What's Mine Is Mine, Too
Re:
The thing is, Dylan didn't just rip off other people, he transformed and reinterpreted the music, added his own lyrics, etc. - and this adds value. This makes his offering unique and valuable to many people. And, by being inspired and building on others' music, Dylan was able to create a body of work far superior to that which he could have done as an "actual creator". (Taking this to its logical conclusion, would he have to invent his own instruments, musical notation and language to qualify as a real "original artist"?)
Like everyone else, he stood on the shoulders of all those who went before him, and his work was much better for it - this is progress. The point here is not to highlight a false dichotomy between "actual creators" and "cultural aggregators like Bob Dylan"; the point is that every creator is an aggregator, and that their creations - with their own unique transformations and additions - are much better for it.
On the post: Should Young People Have Their Votes Count More?
Hmm
Would the weightings be adjusted over time, so if this model encouraged (say) twice as many 30-somethings to vote, would their vote count for less next time? (Or even this time?)
How granular should this be? If I were a particularly diligent student of politics (and took some sort of test?) - or indeed just more intelligent / better educated than most people - would I get extra points?
Should my vote, as a man, count for less than a woman of my age because I am likely to live less long? If I were a smoker, should my vote count for even less?
It's good to think about, but ultimately I believe it would be skewed to benefit the elite most (because someone has to set the rules) - the same problem with the otherwise worthy 'benign dictator' system of government.
Obligatory Churchill quote.
On the post: Why Every News Site Should Focus On Being First Class All The Time
But isn't this exactly what Oliver Reichenstein is saying? He argues that newspapers look the way they do because that's how the design team was able to marry up competing requirements for content, sharing and advertising, and this means "[l]oud distracting banners, cheap stock picture material, sloppy typography, a lot of useless comment noise, machine generated reading tips, no human service, and a claustrophobic information design." This may not be a great solution for readers, but it may be the best compromise for newspapers.
Adding a paid business class service removes the need to generate income through adverts and probably reduces the need to get more pageviews through "machine generated reading tips" too. Remove those requirements from the spec and the design team would come up with something much closer to the business class mockup.
While there's certainly an incentive in the short term to make the standard site suck to encourage upgrading, it's likely it will be suboptimal for the reader even if the paper creates the best experience it can, based on the competing requirements for audience, revenue, sharing, etc. it faces. (I'm not saying that newspapers are actually doing this right now, but let's assume they are or will try to.) But change the requirements to a paid business class model and the best possible experience suddenly becomes a lot better for those readers.
Perhaps...?
On the post: Details Of Apple's Lawsuit Against Samsung Revealed; And It's Even More Ridiculous
Re: Re:
U.S. Patent No. 6,803,072 on "girls in various states of undress raising alcoholic beverages and shouting "WOOOOOOO!"
Abstract
Apparatus and methods are disclosed for the disrobing and subsequent public display and video recording of inebriated girls. Significant quantities of cocktails, vodka or other alcoholic beverages are provided to ensure effective intoxication of party participants. An atmosphere conducive disrobing is provided through party participants shouting, “WOOOOOOOOO!” (U.S. Patent No. 7,762,818), a self-perpetuating state also believed to be a novel form of perpetual motion (U.S. Pat. Pend.). Girls remove some or all of their clothing, exposing areas of their bodies including (but not limited to) breasts, back, some or all of the buttocks, breasts, thighs. And breasts. Still images and moving video footage of participants is recorded and subsequently widely distributed for profit.
Anyone have the full patent?
On a more serious note, here's another writeup of this patent dispute, with pretty pictures and everything.
On the post: Is It A Privacy Violation For Companies To Make Inferences About What You Might Like?
And this is something that I believe is already covered by some legislation. In the UK, the Data Protection Act regulates the use of personally identifiable information. If I remember correctly, a record qualifies as personally identifiable information if it uniquely identifies someone, so if they had my address and I lived in a house with 5 others it would not count, but if I lived on my own it would. Presumably Netflix rental data would fall under this too if it were possible to identify me uniquely. The DPA does not stop companies from offering a better service to their data subjects (or even ripping them off :) based on the information they have; it principally regulates distribution to others and mandates advertising / database opt outs.
On the post: Guy Sues Facebook For His Failure To Be Elected To Congress
Re: It may be a new millenium...
He chose the wrong tool for the job and then got upset when he couldn't do what he wanted with it. Maybe he could sue foursquare too for only letting people who were actually at his rallies check in, rather than everyone in the state.
On the post: European Parliament Committee Willing To Push Back On Copyright When It Comes To The Blind
Re:
I'm not sure it's actually "batshit-fucking-insane": they want to remain as the gatekeepers, as the people with power, the people who can't be commoditised. It's not going to work as people will just innovate round them, but it's understandable.
On the post: Hollywood Shuts Down Another 'Family Friendly' DVD Editing Operation
Re: Artist Rights
I think you're talking about moral rights, and specifically the "right to prevent distortion, mutilation, or modification that would prejudice the author's honor or reputation," something that was covered on Techdirt recently. Moral rights are actually quite troubling: even though you've sold me your painting, you can potentially stop me from defacing it or even throwing it away.
(Though this point is somewhat moot - I don't believe moral rights apply here because >200 copies of each DVD have been made.)
On the post: UK Law Enforcement Also Looking To Be Able To Seize Domains
Re: Re:
On the post: UK Law Enforcement Also Looking To Be Able To Seize Domains
Re:
Some day I shall learn to proof read.
On the post: UK Law Enforcement Also Looking To Be Able To Seize Domains
The Nominet issue group brief that will discuss this matter says that
Nominet does not have any clear obligation in its registrant Terms and Conditions that a domain name should not be used in connection with any activity that would constitute an offence under UK criminal law. This is in contrast to many registrars and a number of registries including .org and .biz.
Despite this lack of obligation, apparently Nominet cooperated with the police to take down 1200 UK domains before Christmas this year.
According to the police press release, the sites targeted were selling counterfeit goods. (Though of course that's been conflated with other stuff people don't like...)
Lesley Cowley, chief executive of Nominet, said: "We received clear instructions from the PCeU to take down the .co.uk domain names, which have been under investigation for criminal activity. We worked closely with the police and our registrars to quickly carry out the instruction to shut down access to these sites.
I can find no mention of due process in the press release.
On the post: The Awkwardness Of Cutting Out The Middleman
Re:
This is a point that Mike has made repeatedly: it's all about the experience. People could download Amanda Palmer's music for little money / for free if they wanted to. They could probably download her concert recordings for free too.
People want to be there with her, they want to be part of what she does for a night, they want to feel closer to her. This experience is valuable and is worth $5k to them.
That there's money involved doesn't make it any more wrong than Pizza Express charging me £5 for one of their pizzas in a supermarket and £15 for the same pizza if I enjoy it in their restaurants.
On the post: The Awkwardness Of Cutting Out The Middleman
Re: Re:
I was just talking about the additional value the fans - and hopefully the artist - get from exchanging, say, $50 directly, rather than via a bevy of middlemen.
On the post: The Awkwardness Of Cutting Out The Middleman
Absolutely. I bought an album directly from someone recently and I feel a stronger connection to her as a result. I want to find out about what she's up to, what shows and new music she's got coming up. Spending money on her album *felt good* because I got the music, yes, but also because I feel I got some sort of connection.
I've never felt that buying a CD from a shop, who pass on half of the money to a record label, who in turn maybe pass on a few pence to the star, who has so many fans anyway that I'd just disappear into the noise. Even if Amanda Palmer gave away the $5k she earned, this is a great way to connect with fans, and great fun for her too by the sounds of things. :)
On the post: Will Google's New Hamfisted Censorship On Autocomplete Raise Questions Of Human Meddling?
Porn!
'Boob', which seems pretty mild to me, is blocked in autocomplete. Half of the 1st page of results are not explicit sites (paralleling BitTorrent's "legitimate uses"), including news stories, a Wikipedia page, a Dreamcast site and Boobdesign (clothes for maternity and breastfeeding).
Should Google also suggest 'tittyfuck' when you start typing in 'titanic'? (And it probably would, as I bet far more people look for the former than the latter.)
(Just for the record, I don't have a good answer here; just posing a question.)
Next >>