thedj_sd - Slashdot User

Mozilla Thunderbird 3 Released 272

Posted by kdawson on Tuesday December 08, 2009 @06:48PM from the hot-bits dept.

supersloshy writes Today Mozilla released Thunderbird 3. Many new features are available, including Tabs and enhanced search features, a message archive for emails you don't want to delete but still want to keep, Firefox 3's improved Add-ons Manager, Personas support, and many other improvements. Download here."

Submission + - Spotify secure funding - Planing US launch (reuters.com)

Submitted by

BuR4N

on Tuesday August 04, 2009 @05:52AM

BuR4N writes: "Spotify ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spotify ) the Swedish streaming music service have secured funding ($50 million) for expanding in the US. Spotify aims to give iTunes a run for the money. Having a cost free (ad sponsored) account alternative (not for the iPhone version) and a lightweight streaming application with a fantastic music choice, it certainly going to be interesting to see if it can shake up the music market in the US."

Comment Re:ridiculous question here please (Score 1) 526

by thedj_sd on Saturday July 11, 2009 @12:00PM (#28660657) Attached to: UK's National Portrait Gallery Threatens To Sue Wikipedia User

"moral copyfraud".

Comment Re:"the NPG's taxpayer-funded mission" (Score 1) 526

by thedj_sd on Saturday July 11, 2009 @11:57AM (#28660637) Attached to: UK's National Portrait Gallery Threatens To Sue Wikipedia User

Yeah, in this I agree with BasilBrush somewhat earlier in the comments thread. "The law is flawed: The act of photographing a painting with the best quality of reproduction of the original is a technical exercise, not a creative act. It's not essentially different from an experienced photocopier operator making a photocopy."

Comment Re:"the NPG's taxpayer-funded mission" (Score 1) 526

by thedj_sd on Saturday July 11, 2009 @11:44AM (#28660505) Attached to: UK's National Portrait Gallery Threatens To Sue Wikipedia User

Indeed. This is not really a case of legal copyfraud, it's more about moral copyfraud. They might have the right to claim and exert their copyright on these photos perhaps, but in the light of their mission, it is a form of moral copyfraud, to do so, when the photos are of art works that are in the Public Domain. I advise people to read: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/06/26/copyfraud/ and http://blog.librarylaw.com/librarylaw/2009/02/more-attacks-on-institutional-copyfraud.html

Comment Re:Well, that makes it straightforward. (Score 1) 526

by thedj_sd on Saturday July 11, 2009 @11:38AM (#28660421) Attached to: UK's National Portrait Gallery Threatens To Sue Wikipedia User

You misinterpreted the poll. The poll was only to confirm if the community would follow the position of the WMF, or stand by it's previous guidelines under which these images would not have been allowed because they were from the UK. So the position of the WMF was not based on the outcome of the poll, it predated the poll.

Submission + - National Portrait Gallery testing copyfraud

Submitted by UKNeedsAPirateParty on Friday July 10, 2009 @10:01PM

UKNeedsAPirateParty writes: The National Portrait Gallery, London has sent one of the users of Wikimedia Commons, who had uploaded a bunch of NPG website images to the Commons website a legal threat, after Wikimedia refused to remove the images of many Public Domain portraits from their website. Since NPG apparently couldn't get their way with Wikimedia, they now seem to have decided to go after an individual. Wikimedia seems to assert that due to Bridgeman v. Corel, the copyright claim over these photographs is weak at best due to lack of originality. NPG on the other hand claims that this US court decision is not relevant in the UK and also claims their database rights. This practice of claiming (copy)rights on anything and everything build around works that themselves are in the Public Domain, has been described as copyfraud, but defended by others as required to maintain the financial health of museums.

Submission + - Wikipedia Sued By National Portrait Gallery (wikimedia.org) 3

Submitted by

jpatokal

on Friday July 10, 2009 @09:38PM

jpatokal writes: "The National Portrait Gallery of London is suing a Wikipedia user over his uploads of pictures of some 3,000 paintings, all 19th century or earlier and firmly in the public domain. Their claim? The photos are a "product of a painstaking exercise on the part of the photographer", and that downloading them off the NPG site is an "unlawful circumvention of technical measures". And remember, the NPG's taxpayer-funded mission is to "promote the appreciation and understanding of portraiture in all media [...] to as wide a range of visitors as possible"!"

Slashdot Top Deals