Your freedom is limited by the rights of others. To believe otherwise is the definition of anarchy.
Rose M. Welch asked the question of me, and every other reader here, as to whether hers was a good reason. I responded in kind. It's funny to me that you would champion freedom while suggesting I shouldn't be free to voice my opinion.
Whether or not a corporation is a "legal fiction", the freedom of any person to take a picture of a house from the street and post it on the internet is protected by law. It isn't a violation of privacy. Whether a different person takes the photo from the one who uploads it doesn't affect those rights. If they make some money by selling ads where people view their photographs, that's allowed too.
It can't be emphasized enough that these are photographs (which are not invasive, if you know anything about the physics of light) taken from a public place. If they were blasting x-rays across neighbourhoods, I would agree that's going too far (for anybody).
If corporations are indeed a fiction, then why should (or how would) their rights to take and post pictures be limited beyond those of any individual person? That seems like an arbitrary distinction to make.
Lastly, if you care, I'm not a lawyer. You weren't right about that either.
"It makes me more comfortable" is not a good reason. There's plenty of stuff that could be done to make certain people more comfortable, but you aren't allowed to do any of it if it infringes on someone else's rights.
It's within Google's rights to offer selective blurring. It isn't within a citizen's, nor the law's rights to demand Google take down a picture taken in public.
This is a silly extension to what Google caved on a couple years ago. People complained about the higher resolution images Street View provided, so they lowered the quality across the board.
The high-res images were tremendously useful when you were trying to figure out in advance which building you were supposed to be going to on a street. You could zoom in on doors and read the street address. It helped save me driving around or backtracking multiple times.
The same arguments hold up there. It's all photography of public places that any car can, by definition, go to. It's a useful service, and that use is being diminished by reducing the quality of the images.
What about the part where they haven't been paying customers more than $125 for lost luggage? It wouldn't take many lost suitcases to more than make up for that fine, and none of it goes to the people harmed by the losses.
I remember a case of a landlord installing a camera in a tenant's shower, and recording her. (I probably read it here.) The only law he could be prosecuted on was tapping her power to run the camera. I would think the same thing would apply here.
"Celebrate this tax on innovation and creativity"?
I don't think it celebrates it. I think it acknowledges that "tax" as the reality of the situation (even in the fictionalized version). The lawyer even makes the argument the settlement cost is merely a "speed bump", and that's why he should pay and move on with his life.
I think the movie did a great job of not making anyone seem particularly great or right in what they did. It showed the negative aspects of everybody, and left it to the viewer to draw his/her own conclusions about what is "right".
That said, I walked away shouting at my girlfriend, "WHY DID THEY GET $65 MILLION FOR DOING NOTHING?!? AN IDEA IS NOTHING! IT'S ALL ABOUT EXECUTION!" She was more bothered by me at that point. :P
Is this part of some elaborately idiotic plan to demonstrate that "we tried to offer a legal alternative, but people won't pay for digital copies, so we need to make it more illegal to copy"?
I mildly see the value for families, but if you're waiting for video anyway (i.e. not concerned about seeing it when it is first out), why wouldn't you wait the extra month? If it's cheaper to *buy* the thing a bit later, I would think most cost-conscious families would go that way. Or Redbox it for $2.
There's no way anyone could think this would actually work, do they?
While we're in a transitional period, keep in mind in 10-20 years, the people running and hiring internet kids will mostly be people who grew up with the internet themselves. They will understand the situation, and will have an online history of their own to relate to.
The people making a big deal about this now are people who come from a different culture with different expectations. Time will take care of their concerns.
The fact that they built a business on it doesn't mean it deserves to be protected. I don't know how it's really any different from bartering, other than you only get one shot at it. It's basically a negotiating technique.
Why would anyone want to leverage the name "Kazaa"? It was notorious for basically being a trojan, packing all sorts of adware into its installer. It only retained popularity for a period because it had access to more content than the competitors. People liked what it delivered, not what it was.
Perhaps someone should remind CA lawmakers that Lindsay Lohan just got out of a 90 day sentence after two weeks because the prisons are already overcrowded. Party crashing is obviously a bigger threat to the public safety than DUIs.
I'd question if you've tried what you suggested. I don't have any speakers that will produce 30kHz very well (60kHz is a laugh), and I have multiple (audio) monitors in a recording studio. Beyond that, your sound card would have to operate at 192kHz, which few will.
Furthermore, the laser target just female mosquitos (based on the beat frequency of their wings), not all insects. I'm not an expert on animal hearing, but I doubt you'd find a sound that specific. You wouldn't want to drive your chickens crazy in the process of keeping mosquitos away.
I was going to ask about this. I'm currently reading Superfreakanomics, and IV gets talked about rather favourably in it for their climate control ideas. I thought the name sounded familiar, but I had to check that it was the same people who've been doing all the patent trolling. (The authors said IV was creating a "market for IP", or something like that.)
Tied to this, the authors pointed out that IV spent a lot of money on projects (like the climate control), which weren't expected to make any money. Once I realized they were the group who sued everyone for infringement, it made me wonder if their "cheap and simple" solutions would remain that way.
On the post: Google Begins Blurring German Houses In Street View On Request
Re: Other's reasons are not for *you* to judge.
Rose M. Welch asked the question of me, and every other reader here, as to whether hers was a good reason. I responded in kind. It's funny to me that you would champion freedom while suggesting I shouldn't be free to voice my opinion.
Whether or not a corporation is a "legal fiction", the freedom of any person to take a picture of a house from the street and post it on the internet is protected by law. It isn't a violation of privacy. Whether a different person takes the photo from the one who uploads it doesn't affect those rights. If they make some money by selling ads where people view their photographs, that's allowed too.
It can't be emphasized enough that these are photographs (which are not invasive, if you know anything about the physics of light) taken from a public place. If they were blasting x-rays across neighbourhoods, I would agree that's going too far (for anybody).
If corporations are indeed a fiction, then why should (or how would) their rights to take and post pictures be limited beyond those of any individual person? That seems like an arbitrary distinction to make.
Lastly, if you care, I'm not a lawyer. You weren't right about that either.
On the post: Google Begins Blurring German Houses In Street View On Request
Re: I'm a blurrer right here in the US.
It's within Google's rights to offer selective blurring. It isn't within a citizen's, nor the law's rights to demand Google take down a picture taken in public.
On the post: Google Begins Blurring German Houses In Street View On Request
I wish Google would stand up for itself
The high-res images were tremendously useful when you were trying to figure out in advance which building you were supposed to be going to on a street. You could zoom in on doors and read the street address. It helped save me driving around or backtracking multiple times.
The same arguments hold up there. It's all photography of public places that any car can, by definition, go to. It's a useful service, and that use is being diminished by reducing the quality of the images.
On the post: Delta Fined For Lying To Passengers About How Much They Could Get Reimbursed For Lost Luggage
On the post: If You Ask The Question In A Certain Way, 61% Of Americans Say They Support An Internet Kill Switch
Re:
On the post: The Boy Who Mistook An iPhone For His Mother
Doesn't anybody realize?
On the post: Guy Finds FBI Tracking Device On Car, Posts Pics Online... FBI Shows Up Demanding It Back
Re: Re: Re: Question...
On the post: Guy Finds FBI Tracking Device On Car, Posts Pics Online... FBI Shows Up Demanding It Back
Re: Question...
On the post: The Difference Between Ideas And Execution -- And What's Missing From 'The Social Network'
"Celebrate this tax on innovation and creativity"?
I think the movie did a great job of not making anyone seem particularly great or right in what they did. It showed the negative aspects of everybody, and left it to the viewer to draw his/her own conclusions about what is "right".
That said, I walked away shouting at my girlfriend, "WHY DID THEY GET $65 MILLION FOR DOING NOTHING?!? AN IDEA IS NOTHING! IT'S ALL ABOUT EXECUTION!" She was more bothered by me at that point. :P
On the post: Hollywood Got The FCC To Break Your TV Because It Thought You'd Pay $30 For A PPV Movie?
Foolish game
I mildly see the value for families, but if you're waiting for video anyway (i.e. not concerned about seeing it when it is first out), why wouldn't you wait the extra month? If it's cheaper to *buy* the thing a bit later, I would think most cost-conscious families would go that way. Or Redbox it for $2.
There's no way anyone could think this would actually work, do they?
On the post: Denial Of Service Attacks On RIAA & MPAA Are A Really Dumb Idea
You called something /b/ did dumb?
On the post: Will Kids Change Their Names As They Become Adults To Hide From Their Google Permanent Record?
Flip side
The people making a big deal about this now are people who come from a different culture with different expectations. Time will take care of their concerns.
On the post: NHL Team Offers 'Bid On Your Own Price' Season Tickets
Re: Re:
On the post: Court Asks: If Fleeting Expletives Are Okay, How About Fleeting Nudity?
To mention the obvious
On the post: Kazaa Returns As Expensive, Crappy DRM'd Music Service
Re: Brand Equity?
On the post: Kazaa Returns As Expensive, Crappy DRM'd Music Service
Brand Equity?
On the post: Hollywood Trying To Get A Special Anti-Party Crashing Law
Overcrowding
On the post: Don't Read Too Much Into The Claims That Intellectual Ventures Returns Are Negative
Re: Re: Re: Mixed bag
Furthermore, the laser target just female mosquitos (based on the beat frequency of their wings), not all insects. I'm not an expert on animal hearing, but I doubt you'd find a sound that specific. You wouldn't want to drive your chickens crazy in the process of keeping mosquitos away.
On the post: Don't Read Too Much Into The Claims That Intellectual Ventures Returns Are Negative
Re: Mixed bag
Tied to this, the authors pointed out that IV spent a lot of money on projects (like the climate control), which weren't expected to make any money. Once I realized they were the group who sued everyone for infringement, it made me wonder if their "cheap and simple" solutions would remain that way.
As you say, "mixed bag".
On the post: Perfect 10 Loses Again, As Court Says DMCA Notices Need To Be Properly Filed
Next >>