Photography is an expensive profession, but sometimes, apparently, it's so simple that... well... even a monkey can do it.
That's really funny. I sometimes wish there was a LOL button for the articles themselves.
I don't know about anyone else, but if I made my living from using both photographic equipment and copyright, I'd do everything in my power to be well-versed at both. Just sayin'
Why is everyone ganging up on this one individual's request?
Because he is attempting to stifle speech using copyright law. Why did he only request that uses of his work that show them in an unfavorable way be taken down?
Randy is his own artist, struggling like most of us, trying to succeed in his art form.
Cool beans. There is absolutely no problem with that statement, except that it is irrelevant to this discussion.
If he feels threaten it must be for good reason.
Sorry, feeling threatened does not suddenly give you more rights then those that already exist.
We shouldn't be so cruel.
Who is being cruel? Pointing out that Randy took the worst possible route and then him doubling-down on it made him look like an idiot isn't being cruel, it's a truthful opinion.
Respect his decision and move on. How is his decision hurting you? No need to be spiteful.
His decision undermines Fair Use and that affects everyone. If you took a little time to understand Fair Use you would know how important it is, even to artists. Without Fair Use copyright would run afoul of the First Amendment and copyright couldn't exist in the United States at all. It's not spite driving the critics of these actions, it's common sense. Though I do wonder what drove him to issue the DMCA notices in the first place, because that appears spiteful to me.
But now in Connecticut there's no bar, as long as they think there might be a legitimate target in the area.
Oops. 23 states then.
Although, if Connecticut's law ever gets challenged in Federal court I'm thinking it would probably be overturned. I'd like to say that it's positive it would, but I'm not that confident about such things anymore.
They have every right to detain you until they can confirm your identity and involvement with that person you're walking with.
Wrong. There is no law in the United States that requires anyone to carry ID unless you are operating a motor vehicle or flying on a commercial air flight.
24 states currently have stop-and-identify laws, but even in those states the police MUST have reasonable suspicion that you committed a crime. Walking with someone (even if there is reasonable suspicion that they committed a crime) does not meet that bar.
The police cannot detain you for simply failing to identify yourself.
You have a really bad habit of thinking that anything you agree with is legal and anything you dislike is illegal. That's not the way it works in the real world, so please stop it and try educating yourself about our legal system a little more. It really makes you look foolish at times.
At some point, Google has become so pervasive online that they are a threat to my privacy. All of the information they store on me, every search made, every page viewed... it all adds up a serious risk - all this because I choose to use a browser that they offer or visit their search pages.
You have just made a very compelling argument as to why things like encryption, TOR, proxies, VPNs and general anonymity online are important these days.
Which is kind of funny in it's own right, because I'm pretty sure I've seen you argue against some of those things before.
I am following your AMA (good responses btw) and also noted this article going up at them same time.
I'm pretty sure that Techdirt has article queue that releases the articles at certain intervals.
That's what the Crystal Ball feature for the Insiders is all about - you get to see the stories in the queue before they are published to everyone else.
We are at a point in computer / tech times now that we have quickly gotten rid of many jobs or automated them to the point of not needing the workers, but little has come up to replace them.
I don't believe that's true at all. People still have to engineer, design, program, produce, install and maintain that automation. It doesn't automagically come into existence. Technological advancements change job descriptions and possibly geographical locations of jobs, but not so much the overall number of jobs.
If your supposition were true we would be seeing the population to jobs ratio falling like a 2 ton heavy thing. It's not. It's holding fairly steady between 55% and 65% since 1948 and there's been a shitload of technological advancement since then.
But, if you use ANY of the speed test sites, you'll get good results.
I've have sometimes wondered if the broadband providers tag packets going to and from well known speed test sites with a higher priority than those going other sites.
This seems plausible and like something they might do, I'm just not sure how possible it would be though.
North Korea on the other hand kills people and sends other to work camps for life for having the balls to get a non-standard haircut.
Yup, US certainly lost the moral high ground here.
Glad you agree.
The US lost that moral high ground awhile ago when we started torturing and holding people indefinitely at Gitmo (and other places) without allowing them to face a speedy trial by their peers. We lost even more when we started executing people via drones and SEAL teams without any legal conviction whatsoever of any wrong doing.
You can call our police actions the "War on Terror" all you want, but there still isn't an official declaration of war and habeas corpus hasn't been suspended.
After September 11th, in order to feel safer and more secure, Americans agreed to give up certain liberties in order for our government to keep us safe.
Wait. When did I agree to that?
I certainly would remember committing such un-American act.
“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” ― Benjamin Franklin
“It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority.” ― Benjamin Franklin
On the post: Photographer Still Insisting He Holds Copyright On Photo By A Monkey, Hints At Possibly Suing Wikimedia
That's really funny. I sometimes wish there was a LOL button for the articles themselves.
I don't know about anyone else, but if I made my living from using both photographic equipment and copyright, I'd do everything in my power to be well-versed at both. Just sayin'
On the post: Comic Artist Randy Queen Now Claims Post About His Abuse Of Copyright To Stifle Criticism Is Defamatory
Re: Don't be cruel.
Because he is attempting to stifle speech using copyright law. Why did he only request that uses of his work that show them in an unfavorable way be taken down?
Randy is his own artist, struggling like most of us, trying to succeed in his art form.
Cool beans. There is absolutely no problem with that statement, except that it is irrelevant to this discussion.
If he feels threaten it must be for good reason.
Sorry, feeling threatened does not suddenly give you more rights then those that already exist.
We shouldn't be so cruel.
Who is being cruel? Pointing out that Randy took the worst possible route and then him doubling-down on it made him look like an idiot isn't being cruel, it's a truthful opinion.
Respect his decision and move on. How is his decision hurting you? No need to be spiteful.
His decision undermines Fair Use and that affects everyone. If you took a little time to understand Fair Use you would know how important it is, even to artists. Without Fair Use copyright would run afoul of the First Amendment and copyright couldn't exist in the United States at all. It's not spite driving the critics of these actions, it's common sense. Though I do wonder what drove him to issue the DMCA notices in the first place, because that appears spiteful to me.
On the post: FIFA Pisses Away Free Advertising By Banning F1 Racer's Tribute Helmet To Germany's Futbol Team
Re:
Seriously, how the heck are you supposed to drink your victory beer out of that thing.
#hockeydoesitright
On the post: Internal Affairs Departments, District Attorneys' Offices Helping Keep Bad Cops From Being Held Accountable
Re: Re: Anti-cop website Techdirt flies same flag, as usual.
I most often see it as: "You are not a lawyer, therefore you cannot possibly have a valid argument concerning the law."
It's close to the Argument from Authority and No True Scotsman fallacies, but not close enough.
On the post: Connecticut Supreme Court Says State Cops Can Detain You Simply For Being In The Vicinity Of Someone They're Arresting
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I stand corrected...again.
***(mumbles something incoherent about them damn pedantic Techdirt readers)***
On the post: Connecticut Supreme Court Says State Cops Can Detain You Simply For Being In The Vicinity Of Someone They're Arresting
Re: Re: Re:
Oops. 23 states then.
Although, if Connecticut's law ever gets challenged in Federal court I'm thinking it would probably be overturned. I'd like to say that it's positive it would, but I'm not that confident about such things anymore.
On the post: Connecticut Supreme Court Says State Cops Can Detain You Simply For Being In The Vicinity Of Someone They're Arresting
Re:
Wrong. There is no law in the United States that requires anyone to carry ID unless you are operating a motor vehicle or flying on a commercial air flight.
24 states currently have stop-and-identify laws, but even in those states the police MUST have reasonable suspicion that you committed a crime. Walking with someone (even if there is reasonable suspicion that they committed a crime) does not meet that bar.
The police cannot detain you for simply failing to identify yourself.
You have a really bad habit of thinking that anything you agree with is legal and anything you dislike is illegal. That's not the way it works in the real world, so please stop it and try educating yourself about our legal system a little more. It really makes you look foolish at times.
On the post: Connecticut Supreme Court Says State Cops Can Detain You Simply For Being In The Vicinity Of Someone They're Arresting
Re:
How is filming police officers from a safe, respectable distance "provoking a confrontation"? Please explain.
Also, "LEARN TO THREADED MODE!"
On the post: Internet Industry Hate Taken To Insane Levels: Ridiculous Proposals To 'Nationalize' Successful Internet Companies
Re:
You have just made a very compelling argument as to why things like encryption, TOR, proxies, VPNs and general anonymity online are important these days.
Which is kind of funny in it's own right, because I'm pretty sure I've seen you argue against some of those things before.
On the post: ISPs Reporting That UK's Web Filters Being Activated By Less Than 10% Of New Customers
Re:
Or maybe the parents are simply opting to parent their children as they see fit and choosing not to rely on government cyber-nannys to do it.
The fastest way to piss off a group of parents is to start telling them how they should raise their own children.
On the post: Did Comcast's Infamous Customer Service Call Open The Company Up To Legal Troubles For Lying About Speeds?
Re: Comcast and Reddit AMA - at the same time?
I'm pretty sure that Techdirt has article queue that releases the articles at certain intervals.
That's what the Crystal Ball feature for the Insiders is all about - you get to see the stories in the queue before they are published to everyone else.
On the post: Open Journalism Leads The Way In Investigating The Crash Of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17
Re: Re: Re: Re: more propaganda
I agree. Very interesting indeed. Although I did get a little lost as to which bunk was being debunked at times.
Kind of proves the old adage though: There's always three sides to any disagreement. Your side, my side and the truth.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re:
I don't believe that's true at all. People still have to engineer, design, program, produce, install and maintain that automation. It doesn't automagically come into existence. Technological advancements change job descriptions and possibly geographical locations of jobs, but not so much the overall number of jobs.
If your supposition were true we would be seeing the population to jobs ratio falling like a 2 ton heavy thing. It's not. It's holding fairly steady between 55% and 65% since 1948 and there's been a shitload of technological advancement since then.
On the post: Open Journalism Leads The Way In Investigating The Crash Of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17
Re: more propaganda
[citation required]
you should not just post stuff without checking out the facts.
Do you actually have some facts to check out?
Everything I've Googled for Brown Moses or Eliot Higgins seems to be high praise from some pretty lofty places.
On the post: Mayor Of Arizona Town Publicly Shames Lousy Broadband Service Provider With Apology Letter To Hotel Guests
Re: Re:
I've have sometimes wondered if the broadband providers tag packets going to and from well known speed test sites with a higher priority than those going other sites.
This seems plausible and like something they might do, I'm just not sure how possible it would be though.
On the post: UN Report Says Mass Surveillance May Violate International Law
Re: Re: Re: I am laughing my ass off here
Yup, US certainly lost the moral high ground here.
Glad you agree.
The US lost that moral high ground awhile ago when we started torturing and holding people indefinitely at Gitmo (and other places) without allowing them to face a speedy trial by their peers. We lost even more when we started executing people via drones and SEAL teams without any legal conviction whatsoever of any wrong doing.
You can call our police actions the "War on Terror" all you want, but there still isn't an official declaration of war and habeas corpus hasn't been suspended.
On the post: UN Report Says Mass Surveillance May Violate International Law
Re: I am laughing my ass off here
That only means it's now a bona fide fact that the United States has lost any remaining shred of moral high ground it once had.
On the post: Saying That You're Not Concerned Because The NSA Isn't Interested In You Is Obnoxious And Dangerous
Re:
Wait. When did I agree to that?
I certainly would remember committing such un-American act.
On the post: Saying That You're Not Concerned Because The NSA Isn't Interested In You Is Obnoxious And Dangerous
Re:
Suppose you happen to like viewing Hentai porn. It's not illegal, but is really something you wish your wife/mother/boss/minister knowing about?
On the post: Saying That You're Not Concerned Because The NSA Isn't Interested In You Is Obnoxious And Dangerous
Re:
I'll wager my next paycheck you've already broken some law today.
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/10/you-break-the-law-every-day-without-even-knowing-it.htm l
Now knowing all that, do you still feel all safe and insulated from government spying?
Next >>