I suppose I would also own the copyright if I set up a system to snap a picture each time the ocean waves smash up against the rock. That makes sense.
Now, switching to 'just trolling mode' . . .
I have this device that, when a button is pushed, it takes a picture. I left the device on the ground anticipating the possibility that something might come along, pick up the camera and push the button.
Since I set up my apparatus to take pictures, do I own the copyright when a monkey takes the picture?
If I own the pictures when I set up a tripod camera to auto-shoot pictures when something moves in the frame, they why wouldn't I own the copyright in this hypothetical when I left my camera so that it could take a picture if something picked it up and pushed the button?
I sincerely regret that we at VW have violated the public's trust.
I ask for your forgiveness and pledge that in the future we will not get caught doing anything like this ever again.
I am deeply sorry that bad judgment and poor choices of actions resulted in personal embarrassment for myself and those who assisted in committing these terrible crimes. We will cooperate with investigators to determine what low level person to blame this on.
I take full responsibility for my negligence and lack of diligent care to ensure that we would not get caught. You have my personal assurance that all of us at VW will be more careful next time.
To all of those who were harmed by our deceptive, selfish and thoughtless actions I would like to humbly offer my sincerest indifference.
The major problem with Option 1 is that it undermines forward looking efforts to move the US to be more of a police state. Option 1 is almost an admission that there is little to be afraid of, at a time when the government needs people to be afraid.
Look at the model of some of the countries that we were fighting in the previous century. In one such country almost half the population was employed to spy on the other half. How would that work with Option 1? From what I seem to observe, the US in this century wants to change into the type of countries that the US was fighting in the previous century.
It's the quality of the malware contained within the ad.
Why should an ad be executing code on my computer? It's one thing if an advertiser wants to put pixels in front of my eyes. Even targeted pixels, which might be better in that I may be potentially interested.
Advertisers know no bounds. Have no shame. Advertisers would get legislation to make it mandatory to put animated advertisements on the insides of our eyelids if the technology were available. After all, the argument would go . . . when you close your eyes, you're not looking at anything, so what does it hurt to insert an friendly ad into that space. The next improvement would be sound to go with the eyelid ads.
The world is polluted with ads.
The problem is it doesn't scale. It's not as bad as telemarketing. Or spam. But it's effectively the same problem as spam, but at a cost to the advertiser. If every possible advertiser could get an ad in front of your face, any time they want, life would simply not be worth living. And the advertisers would not care!
Dear advertisers: when I need your product, I am resourceful enough to find it!
Remedy for trademark infringement -- withhold coverage
Setting aside whether or not this is actually trademark infringement (and I think it is not) . . .
The remedy for trademark infringement is a legal process. Not withholding coverage. You can even sue over the trademark issue and still be obligated to provide coverage.
I think Blue Cross should be sued over that particular issue. In addition sue Blue Cross to get a declaration of non infringement. And for costs. And maybe punitive damages for threatening to withdraw coverage.
Actually an automated system might be better at determining whether an image is pornographic than a system could be at determining if an image is infringing, or is fair use.
The determination of pornographic is determined merely by the content.
The determination of fair use requires information not within the content (image, text, video, etc). How does the use affect the market value of the work? How similar is it? How much of the original work does it include or appear to include?
Computers can already determine whether an image is of a car, or a dog, or a person in a black shirt with a guitar.
Can you please define what is an infringing domain?
Do you mean a domain name owned by a copyright infringer? If so, what material has the infringer infringed, and which of their servers is it hosted on?
Oh, so this site does not host infringing content. Merely links to it? Isn't that like telling someone "the crack house is on 14th street". It doesn't mean I am facilitating or enabling or even condoning use of illegal drugs.
It is organizations like the AP that should INSIST on Creative Commons licensing.
The AP would not need to keep track of detailed rights, or the particular text of a permission grant from a particular photo owner. They would not need to ask for all rights.
The AP would simply record who the owner of the photo is, which CC license it is under, and that would serve as a short easy to understand indication of what rights they have. For exmaple, all the AP needs to do is give credit.
Re: TL;DR! You quote that mass of drivel and expect anyone to read it all?
CC is attempting copyright WITH TEETH. And it will work to whatever extent copyrigtht teeth.
Some people WANT others to take and use their content. And some of that content is valuable. (See Open Source. Red Hat is a billion dollar company built on open source written by others.)
CC is similar to open source. You can take it and use it -- as long as you comply with the terms of the license. No need to ask permission. Just comply with the CC license terms.
It will work. It does work now. It will continue to work.
You can stream Netflix using the Google Chrome browser -- even on Linux.
Now that may not answer all of your (or my) DRM objections. But I find Netflix to be a decent value given that I can use it on just about anything anywhere. All my android devices. All my set top boxes. Chromecast stick. Any computer with a Chrome browser. Some other browsers on Windows. And on devices I do not even own: Roku, Firestick, etc.
Not only must punishment be reasonable, but it must be given to the people who deserve it.
This includes extra judicial punishments, like the police beating someone up on the way to booking. Or while in holding cell.
This includes using government power to harass someone and destroy their lives. See Aaron Swartz (The Internet's Own Boy).
This includes thin skinned public officials harassing people critical of them. Using police power to do so.
And many more incidents.
When police stand up to protect bad cops, this does not make the public trust the police more. This is a bit off topic, but if you want good social order and for people to respect they law, they also must respect the people administering the law. The people in the system must be seen to be The Good Guys.
Good social order? It doesn't help when everyone can plainly see how brazenly corrupt congress is.
On the post: Monkey Business: PETA Sues On Behalf Of The Monkey Selfie; Claims Copyright Belongs To The Monkey
Re: Re: Monkey and Copyright
Now, switching to 'just trolling mode' . . .
I have this device that, when a button is pushed, it takes a picture. I left the device on the ground anticipating the possibility that something might come along, pick up the camera and push the button.
Since I set up my apparatus to take pictures, do I own the copyright when a monkey takes the picture?
If I own the pictures when I set up a tripod camera to auto-shoot pictures when something moves in the frame, they why wouldn't I own the copyright in this hypothetical when I left my camera so that it could take a picture if something picked it up and pushed the button?
On the post: CIA, FBI And Much Of US Military Aren't Doing The Most Basic Things To Encrypt Email
Leading by Example?
Do not use encryption on your emails. Only the terrorists would do that. If you're not doing anything wrong, you've got nothing to hide.
On the post: VW Accused Of Using Software To Fool Emissions Tests: Welcome To The Internet Of Cheating Things
Apology straight from the top
I ask for your forgiveness and pledge that in the future we will not get caught doing anything like this ever again.
I am deeply sorry that bad judgment and poor choices of actions resulted in personal embarrassment for myself and those who assisted in committing these terrible crimes. We will cooperate with investigators to determine what low level person to blame this on.
I take full responsibility for my negligence and lack of diligent care to ensure that we would not get caught. You have my personal assurance that all of us at VW will be more careful next time.
To all of those who were harmed by our deceptive, selfish and thoughtless actions I would like to humbly offer my sincerest indifference.
On the post: No Library For You: French Authorities Threatening To Close An App That Lets People Share Physical Books
Re:
Maybe cell phones? All consumer electronics?
Hey, how about all household goods?
Automobiles?
Hey, its for the sake of copyright!
On the post: No Library For You: French Authorities Threatening To Close An App That Lets People Share Physical Books
Re:
It's the French. They don't have to be smoking anything.
Just look at the history of TechDirt articles, France and Copyright.
This is just one more reason that Copyright needs to be put out of our misery.
On the post: Having Lost The Debate On Backdooring Encryption, Intelligence Community Plans To Wait Until Next Terrorist Attack
Re: The next terrorist attack...
Doesn't the FBI already have plenty of experience manufacturing terrorist plots?
On the post: White House Realizes Mandating Backdoors To Encryption Isn't Going To Happen
The problem with Option 1
Look at the model of some of the countries that we were fighting in the previous century. In one such country almost half the population was employed to spy on the other half. How would that work with Option 1? From what I seem to observe, the US in this century wants to change into the type of countries that the US was fighting in the previous century.
On the post: Techdirt Podcast Episode 42: Adblocking Wouldn't Be A Problem If Ads Didn't Suck So Much
It's not the quality of the ads
Why should an ad be executing code on my computer? It's one thing if an advertiser wants to put pixels in front of my eyes. Even targeted pixels, which might be better in that I may be potentially interested.
Advertisers know no bounds. Have no shame. Advertisers would get legislation to make it mandatory to put animated advertisements on the insides of our eyelids if the technology were available. After all, the argument would go . . . when you close your eyes, you're not looking at anything, so what does it hurt to insert an friendly ad into that space. The next improvement would be sound to go with the eyelid ads.
The world is polluted with ads.
The problem is it doesn't scale. It's not as bad as telemarketing. Or spam. But it's effectively the same problem as spam, but at a cost to the advertiser. If every possible advertiser could get an ad in front of your face, any time they want, life would simply not be worth living. And the advertisers would not care!
Dear advertisers: when I need your product, I am resourceful enough to find it!
On the post: Blue Cross Threatens To End Coverage For Patients At Christian Hospital Group Over Blue Cross Logo
Remedy for trademark infringement -- withhold coverage
The remedy for trademark infringement is a legal process. Not withholding coverage. You can even sue over the trademark issue and still be obligated to provide coverage.
I think Blue Cross should be sued over that particular issue. In addition sue Blue Cross to get a declaration of non infringement. And for costs. And maybe punitive damages for threatening to withdraw coverage.
On the post: Netflix Keeps Losing Mainstream Movies, Informs Users They Should Be Ok With That Because Of Adam Sandler
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Big, Confusing Mess Of A Fair Use Decision Over DMCA Takedowns
Re:
The determination of pornographic is determined merely by the content.
The determination of fair use requires information not within the content (image, text, video, etc). How does the use affect the market value of the work? How similar is it? How much of the original work does it include or appear to include?
Computers can already determine whether an image is of a car, or a dog, or a person in a black shirt with a guitar.
On the post: Motion Picture Academy's Five-Year Quest To Make GoDaddy Pay For 'Infringing' Websites Ends In A Loss
Re: Infringing Domain?
What about 'sucks' domains?
In fact, maybe '.sucks' should be a new top level domain. Whoever registers a .com domain cannot register the same .sucks domain.
On the post: Motion Picture Academy's Five-Year Quest To Make GoDaddy Pay For 'Infringing' Websites Ends In A Loss
Infringing Domain?
Can you please define what is an infringing domain?
Do you mean a domain name owned by a copyright infringer? If so, what material has the infringer infringed, and which of their servers is it hosted on?
Oh, so this site does not host infringing content. Merely links to it? Isn't that like telling someone "the crack house is on 14th street". It doesn't mean I am facilitating or enabling or even condoning use of illegal drugs.
On the post: The Crazy Permission-Asking Media Scrum That Descends When Photographic News Happens On Twitter
Re: Re:
The AP would not need to keep track of detailed rights, or the particular text of a permission grant from a particular photo owner. They would not need to ask for all rights.
The AP would simply record who the owner of the photo is, which CC license it is under, and that would serve as a short easy to understand indication of what rights they have. For exmaple, all the AP needs to do is give credit.
On the post: The Crazy Permission-Asking Media Scrum That Descends When Photographic News Happens On Twitter
Re: TL;DR! You quote that mass of drivel and expect anyone to read it all?
Some people WANT others to take and use their content. And some of that content is valuable. (See Open Source. Red Hat is a billion dollar company built on open source written by others.)
CC is similar to open source. You can take it and use it -- as long as you comply with the terms of the license. No need to ask permission. Just comply with the CC license terms.
It will work. It does work now. It will continue to work.
On the post: Should Police Have The Right To Take Control Of Self-Driving Cars?
Re: Re: Re: Re: An ethical question about self driving cars
But I should have the capability to OVERRIDE the self driving car and run someone over.
On the post: Netflix Keeps Losing Mainstream Movies, Informs Users They Should Be Ok With That Because Of Adam Sandler
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Now that may not answer all of your (or my) DRM objections. But I find Netflix to be a decent value given that I can use it on just about anything anywhere. All my android devices. All my set top boxes. Chromecast stick. Any computer with a Chrome browser. Some other browsers on Windows. And on devices I do not even own: Roku, Firestick, etc.
On the post: First Library To Support Tor Anonymous Internet Browsing Effort Stops After DHS Email
Re: Fixed it for you
On the post: Yes, I Was Deeked By Two Hoax Kim Davis Stories Today
Re: Re: $1.2 Million for 46 seconds
On the post: Techdirt Reading List: Pirates, Prisoners, And Lepers
Not only Reasonable punishment, but . . .
This includes extra judicial punishments, like the police beating someone up on the way to booking. Or while in holding cell.
This includes using government power to harass someone and destroy their lives. See Aaron Swartz (The Internet's Own Boy).
This includes thin skinned public officials harassing people critical of them. Using police power to do so.
And many more incidents.
When police stand up to protect bad cops, this does not make the public trust the police more. This is a bit off topic, but if you want good social order and for people to respect they law, they also must respect the people administering the law. The people in the system must be seen to be The Good Guys.
Good social order? It doesn't help when everyone can plainly see how brazenly corrupt congress is.
Next >>