Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Re: Copyright again ... potentially a serious problem.

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: Copyright again ... potentially a serious problem.

 
 
Whisky-dave
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-30-2012
On Thursday, November 29, 2012 8:47:34 PM UTC, nospam wrote:
> In article <CCDCF874.93D8A%(E-Mail Removed)>, George Kerby
>
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>
>
> > >> One problemm is that drivers need to make a continuous stream of

>
> > >> decisions without complete knowledge of the facts. It is inevitable

>
> > >> that what appears to be a perfectly reasonable decision will turn out

>
> > >> to be wrong for reasons which cannot be known to the driver until

>
> > >> after the event. The system is imperfect and failures (accidents) will

>
> > >> be inevitable.

>
> > >

>
> > > which is why driverless cars will be able to reduce the number of

>
> > > collisions because they will have more facts and can process them more

>
> > > quickly and make better judgements too.

>
> >

>
> > AND the alcohol they consume doesn't impair their functions...

>
>
>
> driverless cars will eliminate driving under the influence of alcohol,
>
> pot, medications, or just too tired.
>
>
>
> you can then get as trashed as you want and the car will safely take
>
> you home.


provided you manage to instruct it as to where your home is or when yuo want to go. I asume even google cars will need some manaul controls as there will be a possiblitly of the cars systems failing if not in full then in part.
It's an intrestingn project to build an automated car a great academic challenge not sure ity'll be practical for teh majority to have one.



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-30-2012
Eric Stevens <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Nov 2012 18:51:24 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
>>Eric Stevens <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 05:13:24 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
>>>>PeterN <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


>>>>> Absent some express provision to the contrary, purchase of a book is a
>>>>> purchase of a limited right to the contents of that book.


>>>>Only with ebooks.


>>> Not so. If you look inside the cover of most books you will find a
>>> detailed copyright notice limiting your rights as to what you can do
>>> with it.


>>The notice is only that: a notice. It's not a contract.
>>You did not enter into it. You did not agree to it. You did
>>not sign it.


> I think you will find that under Copyright law, you are bound by those
> terms if you choose to buy the book.


Go ask your lawyer if
- the notes in a book you bought carry any legal weight.
- US copyright law applies to other countries with not only
different laws but a different law tradition (common law
versus civil law).

Report back.

If the notes in the book happen to state exactly what the law
says, that's a happy circumstance, nothing else.

>>You purchased the physical thing, and you have the same rights
>>to the content as if you loaned it from a library or a friend
>>or if you stole the book.


> Not so.


So which additional rights to the content does buying
(compared to lending) grant one?

Ask your lawyer.
Report back.


>>Therefore: you did NOT purchase "a limited right to the
>>contents of that book", unless there is a notice that *gives*
>>you special rights if you *purchased* the book.


>>> I recently picked at random "David Busch's Nikon D300 Digital SLR
>>> Photography" the fly leaf of which contains


>>> "ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.No part of this work covered by the copyright
>>> herein may be reproduced, transmitted, stored or used in any form
>>> or by any means graphic, electronic or mechanical, including but not
>>> limited to photocopying, recording, scanning, digitizing, taping,
>>> Web distribution, information networks, or information storage and
>>> retrieval systems, except as permitted under section 107 or 108 of
>>> the 1976 United States Copyright Act, without the prior permission
>>> of the publisher."


>>> The purchaser clearly has limited rights as to what they can do with
>>> that book. That is typical.


>>Sorry, the 1976 United States Copyright Act does in no way
>>apply to me, since I am neither a citicen of the US nor do I
>>reside where that act holds power. For all I care, it could
>>be the copyright statues of lost Atlantis.


> You should have a look at your local copyright law. You will find that
> if you buy the book you are bound by those terms.


We don't have a "local copyright law". We have "creator
rights". Apart from that[1], yes, I'm bound by the *local*
laws, *not* by what any notes in the book may say, *nor* by
any US copyright acts. Which is the point I have been trying
to get across to you for some posts now.

How you still managed to stumble over it by accident is
perplexing me.


[1] and yes, they're different in interesting ways, e.g. you
can't sign away all your rights as a creator, and defacing
a work you bought is AFAIK not allowed, though you may
destroy it


>>If I lived in a place where wholesale copying of foreign
>>books were allowed --- say in the United States some time ago
>>(back when they didn't have to protect their own produced
>>copyrightable works worldwide because they didn't have that
>>many) --- I could do so, no matter what the notice says.


> You can't get out of it that way. The US has been a signatory to
> international copyright agreements for some years now.


There it is again: if the US is a signatory, then every
country must be a signatory. Typical.


>>Note that there is no "if you personally bought this book,
>>you may copy the pages 110-125 and sell them, if you name the
>>source" or similar text in the notice, which would give you
>>limited rights to the contents of that book if you purchased it.


> I would love to see you trying to tell that to the judge.


You probably should closely reread what I wrote, you seem not
to get it. In case you think you do:

Print a book with that notice, I'll buy it, copy and sell
pages 110-125 naming the souce, you sue me, I tell that to
the judge (and show him the notice), I prove that I bought the
book personally --- as stipulated --- and the judge will
agree with me and laugh you out of court.

It's not *that* expensive to print a book on demand, so you
could try it. I'll pay my $35, and then let's have a go.

Are you willing to stake 5000 USD that a notice in a book can
expand your rights if certain conditions are followed? I am.
The GPL works much the same. Ask a lawyer. Ask people staking
billions of USD on that.

-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-30-2012
PeterN <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On 11/26/2012 3:41 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
>> On Sun, 25 Nov 2012 18:51:24 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg


>>> Note that there is no "if you personally bought this book,
>>> you may copy the pages 110-125 and sell them, if you name the
>>> source" or similar text in the notice, which would give you
>>> limited rights to the contents of that book if you purchased it.


>> I would love to see you trying to tell that to the judge.


> Only if had had the money to pay me after he lost the case. Otherwise
> why bother.


See my answer to Eric. Go print a book with that notice,
I'll personally buy it, copy pages 110-125 and sell them,
naming the source ... you sue me, then the judge (or your
lawyer) will explain the details to you. How much money are
you willing to bet on you winning?

-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
Whisky-dave
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-30-2012
On Friday, November 30, 2012 3:53:45 PM UTC, nospam wrote:
> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
>
> Whisky-dave <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > you can then get as trashed as you want and the car will safely take

>
> > > you home.

>
> >

>
> > provided you manage to instruct it as to where your home is or when yuo want

>
> > to go.

>
>
>
> it knows where you live. it's your car. however, if you are too drunk
>
> to walk to the car, there might be a problem.
>
>
>
> > I asume even google cars will need some manaul controls as there will

>
> > be a possiblitly of the cars systems failing if not in full then in part.

>
>
>
> sure, but you only need to use that if the driverless function fails.
>
>
>
> > It's an intrestingn project to build an automated car a great academic

>
> > challenge not sure ity'll be practical for teh majority to have one.

>
>
>
> it will be quite useful for nearly all situations.
>
>
>
> imagine having the car take you to the door of a crowded shopping mall
>
> or downtown restaurant and drops you off at the main entrance, then it
>
> goes and parks itself someplace. when you're ready to leave, you summon
>
> it from your smartphone and it comes and picks you up.


yes good to have imagination nothing wrong with that.
That can be done already by employing a driver, nothing new there.
In fact I'll probbly go for that option tonight at about 3am I'll phone for a cab.




I wonder what happens if the car I summon via my phone gets a punctuure on the way to me, or if a doizen peole all summon their cars at closing time



 
Reply With Quote
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-30-2012
Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> On 2012-11-25 10:12:37 -0800, Wolfgang Weisselberg
>> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:


>>> Twinkie anybody?
>>> The Twinkie is no less an intellectual property than, a book is to a
>>> publisher, an iPhone to Apple, of CS6 to Adobe.


>> What intellectual property is in a twinkie? A brand name, sure.
>> The recipe --- that's a trade secret (right?) and may be
>> independently rediscovered. So it's not 'property' as much
>> as 'secret' ... lawyers may disagree however-


>> CS6 is pure intellectual property.


> A recipe, such as those held by Hostess and Coke-a-Cola, and their
> production processes are every bit as as much intellectual property as
> is CS6.


Not in the same sense --- Coke Twiunkies are not protected
by copyright, nor is the recipe protected by patents (as the
latter would require publishing the recipe and only protect
it for a comparatively short term).

In addition, Adobe licenses a (VERY complex) recipe called
"CS6", whereas Hostess/the Coca-Cola (I nearly mistyped
"Coca Cholera") company *sell* you *physical* objects
created using their recipes with no strings attached --- feel
free to disassemble and reverse engineer them, if you can.
(Just don't sell it as Coca Cola or Twinkie, cause that brand
name is taken.)

Short of Star Trek technology you can't duplicate physical
objects like Twinkies or Cola just like that, but you can do
that with CS6 --- in fact, installing it from e.g. a CD or a
saved download file performs such a duplication step.

>>> The unions didn't take Hostess seriously in the negotiation process. As
>>> a result they have ended up with 18,500 jobs lost and a 100% cut in pay
>>> and benefits.


>> 100% cut in pay? Were the workers allowed to work for free
>> instead of paying to be allowed to work?


Well?

>> Oh, yes, unions aren't a silver bullet, and yes, being humans,
>> they do make real bad blunders at times ... but I guess it'd
>> be worse without them.


> Unions have a place in fair negotiations for workers, but when they are
> unable to recognize the critical points in any such negotiation they
> end up working against the best interests of their members. This is
> what happened in this case.


Have you never seen managers acting against the best interests
of the stakeholders of the company that employs them?

-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-30-2012
George Kerby <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Jews and tires. Yes, this group is ALL about digital photography!


Tires seem to be a religious argument but why Jews and
not Pentecostals?

-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-30-2012
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Whisky-dave <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> > imagine having the car take you to the door of a crowded shopping mall
> > or downtown restaurant and drops you off at the main entrance, then it
> > goes and parks itself someplace. when you're ready to leave, you summon
> > it from your smartphone and it comes and picks you up.

>
> yes good to have imagination nothing wrong with that.
> That can be done already by employing a driver, nothing new there.


you can, but then you're paying for the driver, including while the car
is parked.

> In fact I'll probbly go for that option tonight at about 3am I'll phone for
> a cab.


good idea.

> I wonder what happens if the car I summon via my phone gets a punctuure
> on the way to me,


good question.

> or if a doizen peole all summon their cars at closing time


you wait your turn.
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-30-2012
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Whisky-dave <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> > you can then get as trashed as you want and the car will safely take
> > you home.

>
> provided you manage to instruct it as to where your home is or when yuo want
> to go.


it knows where you live. it's your car. however, if you are too drunk
to walk to the car, there might be a problem.

> I asume even google cars will need some manaul controls as there will
> be a possiblitly of the cars systems failing if not in full then in part.


sure, but you only need to use that if the driverless function fails.

> It's an intrestingn project to build an automated car a great academic
> challenge not sure ity'll be practical for teh majority to have one.


it will be quite useful for nearly all situations.

imagine having the car take you to the door of a crowded shopping mall
or downtown restaurant and drops you off at the main entrance, then it
goes and parks itself someplace. when you're ready to leave, you summon
it from your smartphone and it comes and picks you up.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-30-2012
Whisky-dave <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 28, 2012 10:18:11 PM UTC, Savageduck wrote:


[bald tires and/or failing brakes and (maybe) knowing about
them and not fixing it.]

> This is the type of thing I was getting at with the law needing to me more strict with google cars.


> 1/ Is there any reason why a car can't be driver on relavitly bald tyres ?
> here in teh UK you can buy retreads which are basically underspec types but thy are quite safe provided you don;lt go too fast, now how will a google car interpret that will it set a lower maxiulm speed for teh car will it aply the breakls earlier or will it just cease to work until the tryes are of an accetable level and will the google car measure this itself.


> Will the google car say at the end of a jounrney "you only have 0.5mm of tread left for this reason you can no longer drive this car", not even to the garage ?


> If teh google car doesn;t know it's own minimiun stopping distance then how will it know other google cars stopping distance ?


You seem not to have much knowledge about programming OR cars, do
you?

1. Of course you can drive on bald tires. Formula One pilots
do so all the time. But then they don't have very far to
drive to switch to rain tires.
2. a) The google car will of course monitor how effective the
brakes are and track the differences *each* time it
brakes. It knows far more exactly when and how much to
apply the brakes to come to a standstill at an exact
spot.
b) For safety it'll aim shorter, if possible, and reduce
braking pressure once it's slower. While doing that
it'll also monitor how effective the brakes are right
now (see 2a).
c) The google car will for now probably depend on a human to
occasionally check the thread depth, and will request a
change many millimeters before 0.5. As would any sane
driver. So the only reason you could even come close
to 0.5mm is neglecting the warnings over weeks and
months.
d) If you put substandard tires on the car, you tell the
car that fact and the legal limits (e.g. max speed),
and the car will figure out it's probable braking
behaviour even before the first time it bakes on a
certain ground type (wet/dry/ice/several types of snow,
gravel, dirt, asphalt, cobble stone pavement, uphill
(how steep), downhill (how steep), ...)
e) OTOH the drivers manual will probably tell you to only
use proper tires.
f) For the forseeable future, if you drive a Google Car(tm),
you have more than enough money to buy several dozen
expensive high end tires per month.
3. The google car knows it's minimum stopping distance more
exactly than (practically) any driver. Other google cars
are not different from other normal cars in that respect
that the google car must make sane assumptions about them.
Just like any other driver. Quick, tell me the stopping
distance of my car (which you have never seen, nor know
the brand of!) See?

> I wonder if brakes can fail unexpectedly on a google car.


Yes. They're mechanical. Hydraulic lines may burst during
braking. The braking cylinder may fail. The brake shoe may
fail due to e.g. bad material ...


>> However, during the investigation into this "accident", his visit to
>> the mechanic is discovered along with his failure to implement a
>> repair, or replacement. He has demonstrated that his "Gross negligence"


> Or blame google (when in a google car) for not taking into account the conditions of the tyres, brakes and road conditions.


That's plain silly. OK, the US *is* silly, requiring notes
not to dry animals in microwaves ... common sense there is
completely optional, whereas here it's expected.

So you'll find a note telling you not to drive with "bad" tyres
or brakes on the manual, on the start screen and probably on
the windshield. Too bad, you only have yourself to blame.



>> 192.**Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without
>> malice.


> Basically the same as UK it seems,. in that it';s murder if it can be proved you planned the killing or that the death was very likely from your acts.


Murder is killing a human for base motives (e.g. for greed,
for sexual desires), OR treacherously (e.g. from behind when
there was no reason for the victim to suspect an attack and
they were unable to defend themselves (for example a sleeping
victim) --- contrast killing someone in a quarrel or fight) OR
cruelly (well, more cruel that your average killing, e.g. star
or in a way dangerous to the public (car bomb anyone?) OR to
commit or cover up another crime (kill the (presumed) only
relevant witness to someone's crime, kill a guard to get into
the bank, ...)

Includes related stuff like killing someone to cover up an
awkward situation or because of racism or "honor killings",
or killing Joe before he might have a chance to tell the Boss
Mobster that you, ah, misbehaved.

Otherwise, it's homicide (or justified self defense, or killing
on demand, or even something else, like bodily harm with deadly
results or neglient killing (which may even result in just
a fine) or polluting the environment with deadly results ---
there are quite a number of other "with deadly results").

Planning's got nothing to do with it, you can murder
spontaneously, and your manslaughter can be long and
meticulously planned.



-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-30-2012
Mayayana <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>| > I can't say I look forward to the day that our Google
>| > cars apply an algorythm to decide which two of the
>| > three drivers should hit... while we're all forced to
>| > sit back and look at targetted ads for the latest
>| > anti-lock-brake technology.


>| they won't collide at all.



> You know that? Then apparently Google technology
> can already predict the future, too.


Of course.
Or do you think they don't plan for the future --- rather
successfully, don't you think?

> Perhaps in your
> technophile future Google will also be able to have
> sex, work and eat for you. Then you'll be able to *really*
> relax, with lots of free time to ...uh... not do whatever
> you want.


This being a photography newsgroup, why don't you go out
shooting? Maybe take up wet plate photography as a hobby ...

-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Youtube copyright infringements are not all bad for the copyright holders? Colin B Digital Photography 195 01-19-2007 09:00 AM
Why Getting 'A Potentially Dangerous Request...' Error? Anil Kripalani ASP .Net 2 02-25-2004 06:39 PM
A potentially dangerous Request.Form Alex Munk ASP .Net 2 12-17-2003 09:11 AM
Re: a serious question for a non-serious cause... henry DVD Video 1 11-08-2003 04:38 PM
Potentially Massive Internet Attack Starts Today =?iso-8859-1?Q?Frisbee=AE_MCNGP?= MCSE 14 08-26-2003 02:12 AM



Advertisments