this came up once before in a very similar situation. suffice to say, photographers get very defensive when you suggest that nature can't be copyrighted:
As you point out, there is an inherent hypocrisy in the attitude of such photographers.
If no amount of changing a photo is sufficient to make it an original work, then how is any mount of photographic creativity sufficient to make a visual copy of something that exists in the world an original work?
Re: Re: ":When Is An Image 'Manipulated Enough' To Become An Original Creation?"
It is worth noting that the current situation is often more onerous than what you propose. In music sampling, for example, there is no requirement that the creator even notice the sample. Notorious sample copyright trolls like Bridgeport (which owns -- though that's questioned -- the George Clinton catalogue) and Tuf America (the ones who sued the Beastie Boys last year) operate by buying up the rights to old jazz and funk records, then having their computers crunch through hours of audio from sample-based records to look for tiny sonic matches. Indeed, in a landmark 90s case involving Bridgeport, the court specifically rejected the argument that an "unrecognizable" sample is not infringing, and the standard ever since then has been "get a license or don't sample"
You are posing a false dichotomy between genocide and a police state. The fact that a problem hasn't been solved doesn't mean you must immediately embrace the most extreme solution, and the fact that you're not an saint doesn't mean you have to embrace the role of monster.
You're every bit as much an extremist as the most violent terrorist, and your rhetoric sounds quite similar to theirs. That makes you part of the problem.
It is astonishing that you think our culture can survive a world where superpowers wipe out entire civilizations at will, but not a world where extremist groups occasionally succeed in launching localized violent attacks.
I reject the notion that it's "that simple", as does anyone with any perspective. The attitude you are espousing is, as proven a million times over centuries of history, the single most dangerous, destructive and ultimately self-defeating attitude that a human being with a god complex can have.
If you believe that the human race, as a whole, is not capable of ever being anything more than a bunch of tribes engaging in genocide, then I suppose your attitude makes sense, since that is an incredibly bleak outlook.
But the fact is that the only thing standing between the world and total destruction is the fact that some people do not immediately and gleefully destroy their enemy just because they have been given nominal lease to do so. Balancing that with the need for security and strength, and sometimes the need for extreme action, is difficult but necessary, not to mention noble.
Only cowards and monsters gleefully embrace genocide as a solution.
You're a coward. Did you know that? I think you think that you're brave and strongheaded and practical, but you're not. You're an utter and total coward.
Do you know why? Because you want to take the easy way out. You're upset that 12 years in Afghanistan -- a blip in world history -- hasn't solved all of its problems. You think that trying to be constructive and address the root causes of terrorism is too much work and too scary. So you take the coward's way out: "kill them all".
The cold war lasted much longer than 12 years, and it was eventually resolved without the missiles flying. The world came very close to that disaster many times -- but each time it was narrowly averted. Do you know why? Because braver men and women than you were there to keep a level head, and choose the hard work over the easy and deadly coward's solution.
Your answer seemed to me like it was avoiding the question -- but based on your other comments, I'm realizing it wasn't avoiding the question, and you just have what I consider to be an extremely inhumane and dangerous attitude about this stuff...
Yes. And again, it seems like the systems currently in place worked perfectly to catch this exploit before terrorists or anyone else put it into action.
So again I ask: how would CISPA, a bill ostensibly about collecting traffic data related to network attacks as they happen so they can be better defended against next time, have helped here?
If that exploit is all he says it is (which is not at all clear, since the details are a incomplete and nobody else has been able to test or examine his system) then it seems to me everything worked perfectly. The exploit was discovered by a white hat hacker, presented to other security experts without disclosing any details that would allow someone to abuse it, and privately explained to the manufacturers of the flawed equipment so that it can be fixed.
How exactly would an ongoing program of sending internet traffic data to the NSA have helped in this situation?
Yeah, we were all a little disappointed that comment won, but not much to be done about it. Florida, apparently, is a big hit as a punching bag.
However, as a Canadian, I'll point out that seemingly about 90% of Americans are perfectly happy to jump on the bandwagon of cliched Canada jokes no matter how "juvenile, factually incorrect, intolerant and elitist" -- and I suspect the French feel similarly...
Re: Re: I'm fairly sure "copyright maximalists" DO have all sources tapped.
Indeed. For that matter, what does eBay produce? What does Wal Mart produce? What does a grocery store produce? What do banks produce? What do airlines produce? What do taxis produce? What do daycares produce?
OOTB is living under the bizarre delusion that you have to "produce" a "thing" in order to create value.
The question other AC is asking though is: is it still YOU? We don't really have a definition of "the self" and one has to ask whether a copy of you is the same self.
If we can make copies after someone has died, then we can make copies while they are still alive. So if you make a copy of yourself, which one is you? Where does your "self" reside when there are two of you? If you die, you still experience death, and it's not as though your "soul" jumps from the old body to the new...
The ontological implications of teleportation are massive and terrifying...
On the post: When Is An Image 'Manipulated Enough' To Become An Original Creation?
Re:
On the post: When Is An Image 'Manipulated Enough' To Become An Original Creation?
Re: YOU CANNOT COPYRIGHT NATURE!!
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120430/13265818718/sometimes-photos-are-just-fact s-copying-is-to-be-expected.shtml
On the post: When Is An Image 'Manipulated Enough' To Become An Original Creation?
Re:
If no amount of changing a photo is sufficient to make it an original work, then how is any mount of photographic creativity sufficient to make a visual copy of something that exists in the world an original work?
On the post: When Is An Image 'Manipulated Enough' To Become An Original Creation?
Re: Re: Re: ":When Is An Image 'Manipulated Enough' To Become An Original Creation?"
On the post: When Is An Image 'Manipulated Enough' To Become An Original Creation?
Re: Re: ":When Is An Image 'Manipulated Enough' To Become An Original Creation?"
On the post: DailyDirt: Helping People In Boston
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're every bit as much an extremist as the most violent terrorist, and your rhetoric sounds quite similar to theirs. That makes you part of the problem.
On the post: DailyDirt: Helping People In Boston
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: DailyDirt: Helping People In Boston
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you believe that the human race, as a whole, is not capable of ever being anything more than a bunch of tribes engaging in genocide, then I suppose your attitude makes sense, since that is an incredibly bleak outlook.
But the fact is that the only thing standing between the world and total destruction is the fact that some people do not immediately and gleefully destroy their enemy just because they have been given nominal lease to do so. Balancing that with the need for security and strength, and sometimes the need for extreme action, is difficult but necessary, not to mention noble.
Only cowards and monsters gleefully embrace genocide as a solution.
On the post: DailyDirt: Helping People In Boston
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Fine. So be it. But quit acting so baffled that most people here are better than that.
On the post: DailyDirt: Helping People In Boston
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Coward.
On the post: DailyDirt: Helping People In Boston
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Do you know why? Because you want to take the easy way out. You're upset that 12 years in Afghanistan -- a blip in world history -- hasn't solved all of its problems. You think that trying to be constructive and address the root causes of terrorism is too much work and too scary. So you take the coward's way out: "kill them all".
The cold war lasted much longer than 12 years, and it was eventually resolved without the missiles flying. The world came very close to that disaster many times -- but each time it was narrowly averted. Do you know why? Because braver men and women than you were there to keep a level head, and choose the hard work over the easy and deadly coward's solution.
On the post: DailyDirt: Helping People In Boston
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: DailyDirt: Helping People In Boston
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: White House Says It's Still Unhappy With CISPA, But Stops Short Of Veto Threat
Re: Re: Re:
So again I ask: how would CISPA, a bill ostensibly about collecting traffic data related to network attacks as they happen so they can be better defended against next time, have helped here?
On the post: White House Says It's Still Unhappy With CISPA, But Stops Short Of Veto Threat
Re:
How exactly would an ongoing program of sending internet traffic data to the NSA have helped in this situation?
On the post: CISPA Passes Markup Phase, But It Doesn't Look Like Much Was Fixed
On the post: CISPA Passes Markup Phase, But It Doesn't Look Like Much Was Fixed
Re:
Marcus! Carab! Marcus! Carab!"
If I ever said that, it would indeed be deserving of mockery, but I'm pretty sure you're just hallucinating.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: The top comment is shit
However, as a Canadian, I'll point out that seemingly about 90% of Americans are perfectly happy to jump on the bandwagon of cliched Canada jokes no matter how "juvenile, factually incorrect, intolerant and elitist" -- and I suspect the French feel similarly...
On the post: Recording Industry Lobbyists Accuse Pandora Of Deliberately Not Selling Ads To Plead Poverty To Congress
Re: Re: I'm fairly sure "copyright maximalists" DO have all sources tapped.
OOTB is living under the bizarre delusion that you have to "produce" a "thing" in order to create value.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re:
If we can make copies after someone has died, then we can make copies while they are still alive. So if you make a copy of yourself, which one is you? Where does your "self" reside when there are two of you? If you die, you still experience death, and it's not as though your "soul" jumps from the old body to the new...
The ontological implications of teleportation are massive and terrifying...
Next >>