When I was young, I loved chocolate, the darker the better. Over the years, I somehow came to the point where I dislike it. I don't hate it (yet, my taste is continuing to evolve) to the point that I will simply refuse to eat it, but I'd rather pass.
Re: When Microsoft stops using mega-DRM, I'll believe that it doesn't work.
Hmmm... What you're saying here boils down to: one the of keys to success is to have a great product. This isn't a point that Techdirt has ignored at all. Not only is it self-evident, but they've stated it repeatedly.
I do exactly the same thing. In our overly capitalistic society, every dollar you spend is effectively a vote telling the company you're paying "Great job! Keep doing exactly what you're doing." I spend (or don't spend) my money with that in mind.
"Goober, you are actually quite incorrect where it concerns photographers who are 'paid' to take photographs."
I'm sorry, kenichi, but Goober is correct. In the absence of a contract saying otherwise, if you have photos taken by a professional photographer, what you are paying for is the prints, and the prints only. You don't get the copyright. That's why you don't get to have the negatives.
Potentially yes, depending on a lot of factors such as how the image was used, what state we're talking about, whether or not the subject of the photo is a public figure, etc.
"The OSI may not recognize these as "open source licenses", but they are open, nonetheless."
The term "open source" is a different subject entirely. You're right, in that the term has been bastardized to the point that it borders on uselessness. While I do not take any definition OSI puts forth as gospel, I do disagree with you here, though: the types of licenses you are describing are not "open source" in any meaningful sense, even if they use the term.
This depends on what you mean by "open". While patents are available for study and are "open" in the sense that you can look at them (ignoring the fact that patents are deliberately written to be as useless as possible in terms of learning about the tech that's patented), but they are closed in the sense of you being able to use them.
"The patent office makes them open."
Not so much. Patents only make them open when they expire. Until then, they make them closed.
But you're absolutely right in terms of what Ford is doing. They're not opening anything up at all. They're just continuing on with business as usual while claiming that they're opening something up.
IANAL, but my assumption is that this aspect depends on what state you're in. I could see it being true in community property states, but not in the others. I assume this because in non-community-property states, such joint ownership is not automatic for physical things.
"Overall, I still think it is a valuable resource for everyone and would encourage that access to it should not count towards internet connection limits."
I strongly disagree. Yes, it's a valuable resource, but I cannot be in favor of efforts to weaken or destroy the ideal of net neutrality. Net neutrality is, in my opinion, the greater good.
"The one exception is with professional photographers who are paid for their services to take those photos (i.e., the person who paid the professional photographer is the person who owns the copyright to those photos)."
This is not true unless the photographer signs something declaring either that the work is "for hire" or transferring the copyright to you.
Lots of people have discovered this when they've tried to publish family photos taken by professional studios or when they discover those photos being used by the studio for marketing purposes.
"I am unfamiliar with this. But the way you described it, sounds like Wikipedia would subsidize certain carriers (that they could come to agreement with) to not charge for access to Wikipedia"
I'm not familiar with it, either. But if this is accurate, then I object to it as well.
I have been using Gimp to be-blur photos for years now, following a procedure I found on the web. It works pretty well, depending. The more you know about the motion of the camera that resulted in the blur, the more accurate the blur removal is. I love the idea of using the other camera to track the motion!
I prefer sticking with using "photoshop" as a generic verb. If enough people do this for long enough (and I think we're pretty close to it right not), then Adobe will lose the trademark on it -- like what happened with "zipper".
"Just opening the door could trigger a small spark of static electricity, turning said vehicle into a bomb."
Not so much, really. It could turn the vehicle into a fireball, but not a bomb. Propane is not a high explosive, so to make a bomb with it requires a container that is sealed much more tightly than a car with a door cracked open.
(I speak from personal experience here, having lost an RV to propane system malfunction that filled it with propane.)
"As a fictional, for-profit movie, it has a different set of rules to play by when using real-life product names."
Not really. To the extent that the rules are different, they are more restrictive in works of nonfiction than fiction. Using real brand names is a trademark issue, and the particular one that is most likely to come into play is disparagement. Disparagement is only a concern if you say something nasty about the brand that isn't true and the audience is likely to believe that it is true.
Payment (in either direction) is not required to make the use of a brand name legal, as long as you're staying within the lines of trademark law.
Hollywood confuses this whole thing because movies tend to try to avoid using real brand names unless they're getting paid to do so. Not because that's required, but because they want to get paid.
On the post: This Week In Techdirt History: May 24th - 30th
Re: You should stop trying to re-cycle because just gets worse.
Your comment is so incorrect that it only demonstrates that you are simply refusing to understand what Techdirt has been saying.
On the post: Three PATRIOT Act Provisions Likely To Sunset, Briefly, But USA Freedom Will Pass Shortly
Re: Re:
Not when their captors are abusive.
On the post: Three PATRIOT Act Provisions Likely To Sunset, Briefly, But USA Freedom Will Pass Shortly
Re: Re: Re: Re: sunset
You forgot one from your list: corporations.
On the post: Sting Operation Shows How Full Of Crap Health Journals Are When It Comes To Dietary Studies
Chocolate hatred
On the post: CD Projekt Red Does Everything Right With Witcher 3 DRM & DLC...And Breaks Sales Records
Re: When Microsoft stops using mega-DRM, I'll believe that it doesn't work.
On the post: CD Projekt Red Does Everything Right With Witcher 3 DRM & DLC...And Breaks Sales Records
Re:
On the post: Rosie O'Donnell's Ex Accuses Her Of Copyright Infringement... For Posting Photos Of Their Daughter To Instagram
Re: Re: Re:
I'm sorry, kenichi, but Goober is correct. In the absence of a contract saying otherwise, if you have photos taken by a professional photographer, what you are paying for is the prints, and the prints only. You don't get the copyright. That's why you don't get to have the negatives.
Here's a site that gives a fuller overview of the law: https://www.ppa.com/about/content.cfm?ItemNumber=1720
On the post: Rosie O'Donnell's Ex Accuses Her Of Copyright Infringement... For Posting Photos Of Their Daughter To Instagram
Re: Re: Re:
But none of that is related to copyright law.
On the post: Google Backs Off Zero Rating In India After Facebook Takes A Global Public Relations Beating
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Ford Pretends To Open Up Its Patents Like Tesla, But Doesn't; Media Falls For It
Re: Re: Re: making patents open?
The term "open source" is a different subject entirely. You're right, in that the term has been bastardized to the point that it borders on uselessness. While I do not take any definition OSI puts forth as gospel, I do disagree with you here, though: the types of licenses you are describing are not "open source" in any meaningful sense, even if they use the term.
On the post: Ford Pretends To Open Up Its Patents Like Tesla, But Doesn't; Media Falls For It
Re: making patents open?
"The patent office makes them open."
Not so much. Patents only make them open when they expire. Until then, they make them closed.
But you're absolutely right in terms of what Ford is doing. They're not opening anything up at all. They're just continuing on with business as usual while claiming that they're opening something up.
On the post: Rosie O'Donnell's Ex Accuses Her Of Copyright Infringement... For Posting Photos Of Their Daughter To Instagram
Re:
On the post: Google Backs Off Zero Rating In India After Facebook Takes A Global Public Relations Beating
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I strongly disagree. Yes, it's a valuable resource, but I cannot be in favor of efforts to weaken or destroy the ideal of net neutrality. Net neutrality is, in my opinion, the greater good.
On the post: Rosie O'Donnell's Ex Accuses Her Of Copyright Infringement... For Posting Photos Of Their Daughter To Instagram
Re:
This is not true unless the photographer signs something declaring either that the work is "for hire" or transferring the copyright to you.
Lots of people have discovered this when they've tried to publish family photos taken by professional studios or when they discover those photos being used by the studio for marketing purposes.
On the post: Google Backs Off Zero Rating In India After Facebook Takes A Global Public Relations Beating
Re: Re:
I'm not familiar with it, either. But if this is accurate, then I object to it as well.
On the post: DailyDirt: Digital Photography Magic (aka Photoshopping)
De-bluring photos
On the post: DailyDirt: Digital Photography Magic (aka Photoshopping)
Re: Call It A “Photomanip”
On the post: Google Backs Off Zero Rating In India After Facebook Takes A Global Public Relations Beating
Re: Re: Re:
And well deserved, too. We all know that everything is either 100% good or 100% evil. Nuance and accuracy are for losers.
On the post: An Innocent Pressure Cooker Pays The Price In The War On Terror
Re: Re: Re:
Not so much, really. It could turn the vehicle into a fireball, but not a bomb. Propane is not a high explosive, so to make a bomb with it requires a container that is sealed much more tightly than a car with a door cracked open.
(I speak from personal experience here, having lost an RV to propane system malfunction that filled it with propane.)
On the post: Rockstar Ironically Goes On The Trademark Muscle To Silence BBC Documentary
Re: Not quite as black and white here.
Not really. To the extent that the rules are different, they are more restrictive in works of nonfiction than fiction. Using real brand names is a trademark issue, and the particular one that is most likely to come into play is disparagement. Disparagement is only a concern if you say something nasty about the brand that isn't true and the audience is likely to believe that it is true.
Payment (in either direction) is not required to make the use of a brand name legal, as long as you're staying within the lines of trademark law.
Hollywood confuses this whole thing because movies tend to try to avoid using real brand names unless they're getting paid to do so. Not because that's required, but because they want to get paid.
Next >>