>>An anonymous reader writes "Today as we were biking around our
neighborhood in a small city we saw a strange vehicle slowly driving
around.
I saw articles on the live driving thing months ago and tested it. I
think they had Seattle and New York initially. No news here. What's the
privacy issue?
On Sun, 3 Dec 2006, Larry Seltzer wrote:
> >>An anonymous reader writes "Today as we were biking around our
> neighborhood in a small city we saw a strange vehicle slowly driving
> around.
>
> I saw articles on the live driving thing months ago and tested it. I
> think they had Seattle and New Y
I don't know if you've actually looked at the service, but the pictures
are of the street, not focusing on anyone in it. Occasionally there is
someone who you might be able to identify if you know who they are, but
the pictures aren't sharp enough for the most part.
>>I claim intellectual property
On Mon, 4 Dec 2006, Larry Seltzer wrote:
> I don't know if you've actually looked at the service, but the pictures
> are of the street, not focusing on anyone in it. Occasionally there is
> someone who you might be able to identify if you know who they are, but
> the pictures aren't sharp enough f
On Mon, 4 Dec 2006, Lubomir Kundrak wrote:
> On Po, 2006-12-04 at 11:11 +, Drsolly wrote:
> > In my case, there's the issue of copyright. As the owner and creator of my
> > face and body shape, I claim intellectual property in it, and they would
> > have to negotiate a licence to use it or any
On Mon, 4 Dec 2006, Dude VanWinkle wrote:
> Actually in the states, its the responsibility of the copyright holder
> to enforce their own interests.
Of course. But it's also incumbent on everyone to respect other people's
copyrights.
> Also, if you are well known, you are a public figure and d
/
http://blog.eweek.com/blogs/larry%5Fseltzer/
Contributing Editor, PC Magazine
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: Dude VanWinkle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 4:48 PM
To: Drsolly
Cc: Larry Seltzer; funsec@linuxbox.org
Subject: Re: [funsec] FW: Windows Li
On 12/4/06, Drsolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>I claim intellectual property in it, and they would have to negotiate
> a licence to use it or any deriative work based on it, such as a picture
> of me.
>
> This is an unreasonable claim. Nobody can take a picture of a public
> street you're in
On Mon, 4 Dec 2006, Larry Seltzer wrote:
> >>Also, if you are well known, you are a public figure and dont have any
> control over what pictures are taken of you and dont have much control
> over what people say about you.
>
> Hey, everyone knows Dr. Solomon
I doubt if you could find more than
r the information
requestor?
-Original Message-
From: Drsolly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 4:06 PM
To: Larry Seltzer
Cc: funsec@linuxbox.org
Subject: RE: [funsec] FW: Windows Live and Privacy
On Mon, 4 Dec 2006, Larry Seltzer wrote:
> >>Also, if you are well
On 12/4/06, Richards, Jim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
When I lived in London, the CCTV cameras were everywhere.
Anyone can request video from any camera, and I am assuming they do not have
to contact everyone in the requested footage for permission before complying
with the request.
And that's
On Mon, 4 Dec 2006, Brian Loe wrote:
> On 12/4/06, Drsolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > >>I claim intellectual property in it, and they would have to negotiate
> > > a licence to use it or any deriative work based on it, such as a picture
> > > of me.
> > >
> > > This is an unreasonable cla
On 12/4/06, Drsolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You can copyright your street if you made it. If you created your house,
then you own the copyright to it just as you would any sculpture. You do
not to take any action, the copyright is automatically yours. But it's up
to you to enforce the copyrigh
>>> In the US (at least) I am free to take a photograph from a public
place
>>> of virtually anything (so long as I'm not peeping through your
windows).
News to me. Over the past few years, I've been yelled at for taking a photo
of a sign inside of an airport about the U.S. Visit program,
On 12/4/06, Richard M. Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> In the US (at least) I am free to take a photograph from a public
place
>>> of virtually anything (so long as I'm not peeping through your
windows).
News to me. Over the past few years, I've been yelled at for taking a
photo
of a
On 12/4/06, Dennis Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> News to me. Over the past few years, I've been yelled at for taking a
photo
> of a sign inside of an airport about the U.S. Visit program, a
surveillance
> camera at a Starbucks, and the Wynn Casino in Las Vegas while it was under
> const
> On 12/4/06, Drsolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You can copyright your street if you made it. If you created your house,
> > then you own the copyright to it just as you would any sculpture. You do
> > not to take any action, the copyright is automatically yours. But it's up to
> > you to enf
>>...Over the past few years, I've been yelled at for taking a photo of
a sign inside of an airport about the U.S. Visit program, a surveillance
camera at a Starbucks, and the Wynn Casino in Las Vegas while it was
under construction...
The Starbucks and (probably) the casino examples are differen
have been. Nowadays the restrictions have just been
tighten in the name of security.
Richard
-Original Message-
From: Larry Seltzer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 6:22 AM
To: Richard M. Smith; funsec@linuxbox.org
Subject: RE: [funsec] FW: Windows Live a
On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 23:36:45 CST, Dennis Henderson said:
>
> Totally irrelevant to copyright and relevant to security measures.
Totally irrelevant to security measures as well, when you're trying to
ban cameras - but allowing people to walk around with cell phones to their
ears. I'm sure that so
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 10:38 AM
To: Richard M. Smith
Cc: funsec@linuxbox.org
Subject: Re: [funsec] FW: Windows Live and Privacy
> Pretty clearly, we are not "free" to take all photos in public places
> in the U.S. and we never have been. Nowadays the restrictions h
On 12/5/06, Richard M. Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I tried taking the Wynn photo from the sidewalk along Las Vegas Blvd. and
got yelled at by a rent-a-cop. The rent-a-cop clearly was out of line, but
was probably acting on orders from above.
Pretty clearly, we are not "free" to take all ph
On 12/5/06, Rob, grandpa of Ryan, Trevor, Devon & Hannah
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You're both right--but, of course, you're talking about different things.
Alan is talking about copyright, Brian, and he is perfectly correct, even in
the US.
There are plenty of instances of companies that are
On 12/5/06, Richard M. Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I understand the difference. However, Brian Loe made the point in his
original message that we are "free" to take photos in public. He wasn't
only making a legal argument. Our actions are controlled not just by laws,
but also by social co
On 12/5/06, Larry Seltzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The Starbucks and (probably) the casino examples are different than, for
example, the airport ones. It's nothing new that stores don't want you
taking pictures of their insides, and ironically it's also about IP
protection, specifically "trade
27;t this about the same, only more convenient for the information
> > requestor?
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Drsolly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 4:06 PM
> > To: Larry Seltzer
> > Cc: funsec@linuxbox.org
> &g
On Tue, 5 Dec 2006, Paul Munday wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-12-04 at 21:55 +, Drsolly wrote:
> > On Mon, 4 Dec 2006, Lubomir Kundrak wrote:
> >
> > > On Po, 2006-12-04 at 11:11 +, Drsolly wrote:
> > > > In my case, there's the issue of copyright. As the owner and creator of
> > > > my
> > > >
On Tue, 5 Dec 2006, Brian Loe wrote:
> On 12/5/06, Richard M. Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I tried taking the Wynn photo from the sidewalk along Las Vegas Blvd. and
> > got yelled at by a rent-a-cop. The rent-a-cop clearly was out of line, but
> > was probably acting on orders from above.
n the theater.
> Richard
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Dude VanWinkle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 10:38 AM
> To: Richard M. Smith
> Cc: funsec@linuxbox.org
> Subject: Re: [funsec] FW: Windows Live and Privacy
>
> > Prett
On Tue, 5 Dec 2006, Brian Loe wrote:
> On 12/5/06, Rob, grandpa of Ryan, Trevor, Devon & Hannah
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You're both right--but, of course, you're talking about different things.
> >
> > Alan is talking about copyright, Brian, and he is perfectly correct, even
> > in the U
On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 20:38:50 GMT, Drsolly said:
> Copyright breach isn't a criminal offence, it's a civil matter.
I'll excuse you from knowing that in the US, it's now a criminal matter,
since terrorists can be pirating MPAA/RIAA materials for money
(Really - 17 USC 506 discusses criminal cop
On 12/5/06, Drsolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I disagree. The copyright was infringed. What I thnk you mean, is that the
copyright was not enforced, and the pirate was not sued in the civil
courts.
You're simply wrong. I can not explain it any better. The ONLY way
this could possibly be an is
On 12/5/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 20:38:50 GMT, Drsolly said:
> Copyright breach isn't a criminal offence, it's a civil matter.
I'll excuse you from knowing that in the US, it's now a criminal matter,
since terrorists can be pirating MPAA/RIAA materials
Drsolly wrote:
Copyright breach isn't a criminal offence, it's a civil matter.
Not true, in the US. Not since the DMCA and later bills which attach
criminal penalties to copyright. As much as $250,000 and 10 years in
prison, if memory serves.
BB
___
On Tue, 5 Dec 2006, Blue Boar wrote:
> Drsolly wrote:
> > Copyright breach isn't a criminal offence, it's a civil matter.
>
> Not true, in the US. Not since the DMCA and later bills which attach
> criminal penalties to copyright. As much as $250,000 and 10 years in
> prison, if memory serves.
Date sent: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 14:27:24 -0800
From: Blue Boar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Drsolly wrote:
> > Copyright breach isn't a criminal offence, it's a civil matter.
>
> Not true, in the US. Not since the DMCA and later bills which attach
> criminal penalties to cop
Rob, grandpa of Ryan, Trevor, Devon & Hannah wrote:
To be boringly pedantic about it, doesn't the DMCA only kick in when you do
something to "circumvent" a tech that is being used for dig. rights man.? (Which
is a dangerous enough law to have around ...)
You'd have to ask a lawyer, who would
Brian Loe wrote:
> Were you arrested? Camera confiscated? If so, what were the charges?
>
> Btw folks, who has a story of someone being arrested - or even
> harassed by the cops - for copyright infringement? I've heard of court
> orders against the infringers, law suits and such, but never anyone
First, I am not a lawyer (and definitely not an expert in UK law), but
this kind of discussion always attracts my attention, as it sometimes
reveals the amount of absurdity hidden in most laws.
Alan claims that:
I am a work of artistic craftsmanship, irrespective of artistic quality.
A photo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
- -- Nick FitzGerald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>For copyright infringement? Well, kinda -- specifically under the
DMCA. Pointing out that ROT13 is not really an "effective" encryption
mechanism with which to "secure" copyrighted digital content i
falls with you the client.
Richard
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Peter Kosinar
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 11:16 PM
To: funsec@linuxbox.org
Subject: RE: [funsec] FW: Windows Live and Privacy
First, I am not a lawyer (and definit
On 12/5/06, Nick FitzGerald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
For copyright infringement? Well, kinda -- specifically under the
DMCA. Pointing out that ROT13 is not really an "effective" encryption
mechanism with which to "secure" copyrighted digital content is itself
NOT allowed under the DMCA (show
On 12/5/06, Richard M. Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
WikiPedia is our friend:
Okay, enough already, this should provide everything we need to know:
http://www.wipo.int/sme/en/documents/ip_photography.htm
And to Solly's exact point:
http://www.wipo.int/sme/en/documents/ip_photography.htm#3
Hello Brian!
Okay, enough already, this should provide everything we need to know:
http://www.wipo.int/sme/en/documents/ip_photography.htm
First, this looks like a general rule-of-thumb kind of a text; revelvant
laws in UK might be more or less restrictive (especially with respect to
the lat
On Wed, 6 Dec 2006, Nick FitzGerald wrote:
> Brian Loe wrote:
>
> > Were you arrested? Camera confiscated? If so, what were the charges?
> >
> > Btw folks, who has a story of someone being arrested - or even
> > harassed by the cops - for copyright infringement? I've heard of court
> > orders ag
On Wed, 6 Dec 2006, Peter Kosinar wrote:
> First, I am not a lawyer (and definitely not an expert in UK law), but
> this kind of discussion always attracts my attention, as it sometimes
> reveals the amount of absurdity hidden in most laws.
>
> Alan claims that:
>
> > I am a work of artistic c
On Tue, 5 Dec 2006, Brian Loe wrote:
> On 12/5/06, Richard M. Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > WikiPedia is our friend:
> >
>
>
> Okay, enough already, this should provide everything we need to know:
> http://www.wipo.int/sme/en/documents/ip_photography.htm
>
> And to Solly's exact point:
>
On Wed, 6 Dec 2006, Peter Kosinar wrote:
> Hello Brian!
>
> > Okay, enough already, this should provide everything we need to know:
> > http://www.wipo.int/sme/en/documents/ip_photography.htm
>
> First, this looks like a general rule-of-thumb kind of a text; revelvant
> laws in UK might be more
On 12/6/06, Peter Kosinar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Brian, did you read that carefully?
No, of course not. :)
] Using someone's image for commercial benefit
]
] Many countries recognize that individuals have a right of publicity. The
] right of publicity is the direct opposite of the right
Drsolly wrote:
> > For copyright infringement? Well, kinda -- specifically under the
> > DMCA. Pointing out that ROT13 is not really an "effective" encryption
> > mechanism with which to "secure" copyrighted digital content is itself
> > NOT allowed under the DMCA (showing what a shitty littl
Date sent: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 08:12:00 -0600
From: "Brian Loe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> One, I don't think Microsoft is going to use it for profit.
Merely the fact that anyone could *make* that statement boggles the mind ...
== (quote inserted random
On Mon, 4 Dec 2006, Brian Loe wrote:
Without intellectual property rights what would our world look like
right now? Even the opensource community has copyrights... (or do they
call them copylefts?)
Think "USA before 1909": http://www.arl.org/info/frn/copy/timeline.html
This period arguably con
On Thu, 7 Dec 2006, Nick FitzGerald wrote:
> Drsolly wrote:
>
> > > For copyright infringement? Well, kinda -- specifically under the
> > > DMCA. Pointing out that ROT13 is not really an "effective" encryption
> > > mechanism with which to "secure" copyrighted digital content is itself
> > >
On 12/6/06, Bruce Ediger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Some philosophical objections to copyright also exist:
http://libertariannation.org/a/f31l1.html
I doubt those will make much impression on you. The way you phrase your
question seems to indicate that you believe that "IP rights" should exist
Yep, copyright is one of many examples of government regulation that is
needed for markets to work fairly. The problem nowadays is that
copyright law has been perverted beyond its original scope by vested
interests. Example: The anti-research provisions of the DMCA.
Richard
Brian Loe wrote
> Yep, copyright is one of many examples of government regulation that
> is needed for markets to work fairly.
I dunnp. I'm far from convinced that anything like copyright is needed
"for markets to work fairly". To work the way we're used to, perhaps,
but I think it's a bit of a stretch to claim
Let's us know when you come with a better system. After all there are
many authors on this list whose creations and paychecks rely on
copyright law.
Richard
der Mouse wrote:
I dunnp. I'm far from convinced that anything like copyright is needed
"for markets to work fairly". To work the
On Wed, 6 Dec 2006, Rob, grandpa of Ryan, Trevor, Devon & Hannah wrote:
> Date sent:Wed, 6 Dec 2006 08:12:00 -0600
> From: "Brian Loe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > One, I don't think Microsoft is going to use it for profit.
>
> Merely the fact that anyone could *make* th
On Wed, 6 Dec 2006, Bruce Ediger wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Dec 2006, Brian Loe wrote:
>
> > Without intellectual property rights what would our world look like
> > right now? Even the opensource community has copyrights... (or do they
> > call them copylefts?)
>
> Think "USA before 1909": http://www.ar
> Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 22:03:35 + (GMT)
> From: Drsolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Bruce Ediger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [funsec] FW: Windows Live and Privacy
> Cc: funsec@linuxbox.org
>
> On Wed, 6 Dec 2006, Bruce Ediger wrote:
>
>
A very good response didn't appear to make it to the list, so:
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- Randall M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> An anonymous reader writes "Today as we were biking around our neighborhood
> in a small city we saw a strange vehicle slowly driving around. It appeared
> to
> Actually in the states, its the responsibility of the copyright
> holder to enforce their own interests.
Is that still true? I thought the USA now had law criminalizing
copyright violations.
/~\ The ASCII der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML [E
62 matches
Mail list logo
