Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Comment: Re:TOTALLY fair use (Score 1) 222

by bennetthaselton (#49176873) Attached to: Gritty 'Power Rangers' Short Is Not Fair Use
My point is that any time you create an original work using someone else's characters, you've already met 3 of the 4 criteria above, and if you make it free, then you've met all 4 criteria.

And yet, we do have the concept of character copyrights, which says that you cannot use someone else's copyright characters even for your own entirely original work.

So my point is that the very existence of character copyrights means that that reasoning cannot be entirely valid.

In particular, I would dispute your reasoning in this step: "How much of the original work does it copy? In this case, very little. Just the appearance of the characters. All the footage is original."

But the copyright that we're talking about is not a copyright on the original work, it's a copyright on the characters. And then the question becomes "How much of the original character did you use?" and the answer, is, essentially, 100% -- because a character either makes an appearance in your story, or they don't. (Especially in this case where the whole short film is about these characters.)

Comment: Re:What the hell is up with the bias? (Score 0) 222

by bennetthaselton (#49174683) Attached to: Gritty 'Power Rangers' Short Is Not Fair Use
It's an editorial, not a news article.

Regarding "not having a clear picture of what's going on" -- the opening paragraph links to the fan-made movie, and says that Vimeo took it down but Youtube left it up. If everybody else (including the people who vehemently disagreed with me) seems to have a clear picture of what's going on, perhaps the problem is with you?

Comment: Re:TOTALLY fair use (Score 1) 222

by bennetthaselton (#49174661) Attached to: Gritty 'Power Rangers' Short Is Not Fair Use
If this were the standard, then the concept of "copyrighted characters" would be meaningless, because anybody would be free to create new works of fiction using someone else's characters, as long as it was noncommercial and used no portion of the original work.

But, the general legal consensus seems to be that character copyrights are enforceable, i.e., you are not free to create works using someone else's characters even meeting criteria 1-4 above.

Comment: Re:First look at what EFF has to say. (Score 2) 157

by bennetthaselton (#48824685) Attached to: Your High School Wants You To Install Snapchat
Well, what percent of sexually explicit pictures sent by text message, are still present on the recipient's phone the next day? Almost all of them.

What percent of sexually explicit pictures sent by snapchat, are still present on the recipient's phone the next day? Probably not the majority.

Snapchat is not perfect, it's just better. Seat belts don't prevent all injuries, but you wear them anyway, don't you?

Comment: Re: i knew it was Bennett (Score -1, Troll) 157

by bennetthaselton (#48824567) Attached to: Your High School Wants You To Install Snapchat
Slashdot isn't the only place I share these arguments with people; I also share them with people whose opinions I respect and who are experts in math and economics, and their feedback tends to be much more positive than the commenters on Slashdot. So I assume the proportion of such people among Slashdot readers, is not zero. (Occasionally, there are comments and posts from people who did get the point of the article and argue it on its own terms, those posts just get drowned out by people saying that the article was too long.)

Comment: Re:First look at what EFF has to say. (Score 1, Interesting) 157

by bennetthaselton (#48824453) Attached to: Your High School Wants You To Install Snapchat
Good points. Addressing separately:

1) On a phone that hasn't been jailbroken or rooted, I believe Snapchat notifies the sender if the recipient takes a screen capture of their message. This doesn't prevent it from happening, but it may at least make people think twice about it. If you're having a fling with a girl, and the girl sends you an explicit Snapchat picture which is intended to disappear after you view it, and the girl gets notified that you took a screen capture of it, she might go "What the fuck?" and you might not get any more nookie from that girl; for some guys, this might not be worth the risk.

More generally, of course you're right -- some pics will get screen captured. But Snapchat doesn't have to work perfectly for this purpose, it just has to work better than what people are doing now (sending texts which stay on your phone forever). What percent of explicit pictures sent by text message get deleted right after they get sent? Probably very few. What percent of similar pictures sent via Snapchat get deleted right after they're sent? Probably most of them. It's just an improvement, not a panacea.

2) It would be better if Snapchat let users set up end-to-end encryption so even Snapchat wouldn't be able to eavesdrop on people, and we wouldn't have to "trust" them. For now, all we can say is that it's better than using text messaging.

Comment: Re:i knew it was Bennett (Score -1, Troll) 157

by bennetthaselton (#48823421) Attached to: Your High School Wants You To Install Snapchat
You're very articulate. But you never made an actual argument as to why the long-form posts are bad. (More precisely, why the benefits are outweighed by the unavoidable costs -- where the benefits include giving some people an argument to think about, and the unavoidable costs are that if someone doesn't want to read the article, they can move their eyeballs two inches down the page to skip it.)

Comment: Re:I work IT in schools (Score 0, Troll) 157

by bennetthaselton (#48823331) Attached to: Your High School Wants You To Install Snapchat
I think this is confusing "protection and safety" in the sense used by politicians and moralists (e.g. "protecting" kids from porn) with "protection and safety" in the normal English meaning of the words (protecting a person from some kind of measurable harm). Just because workshops use language like "safety" does not mean that they're actually increasing anyone's safety in the literal sense.

Most psychologists believe -- correctly -- that teenagers are not harmed (in the correct English meaning of the word) by seeing other teenagers naked (otherwise, wouldn't they be leading the charge against teenage sex?).

If you want to argue that such workshops are there for students' "safety" then you'd have to make an argument as to why you think the behavior in question is actually dangerous.

The reasons you've given have come up many times, but they sound like the kind of reasons that people invent after the fact, in order to rationalize conclusions that they've already reached. If blocking students from getting on Facebook were really about "focus", then schools would let students get on Facebook who could demonstrate that they're already doing good work and know how to manage their time properly. If blocking students from getting on Facebook were about "managing finite resources", then they'd let students get on Facebook during non-peak hours, or when less than 50% of lab machines were in use, etc. But nobody ever even gets into these discussions, because I think deep down everybody knows these are not the real reasons.

Comment: Re:First look at what EFF has to say. (Score -1) 157

by bennetthaselton (#48822995) Attached to: Your High School Wants You To Install Snapchat
I think that's a great reference. However, it doesn't have a column for "Are your past communications deleted by default by the client software, so that they will be unavailable even if your client machine is stolen by an adversary?", which is the feature of Snapchat that I'm focusing on here.

In fact, in a case where you want the clients to delete the messages by default, there's an argument that it's better not to have the client code and the protocol be completely "open". Because an open protocol makes it easier for third parties to write knockoff clients that speak the same protocol but that don't delete the received messages by default, thus increasing the risk to the sender. (Yes, people write third-party Snapchat knockoffs that do that anyway, but Snapchat can make it more difficult by changing their codebase and their protocol frequently.)

Technically it's "security through obscurity" to have your code be closed, but there's no real "security" here anyway, only a best effort. All you can aim for is that most of the time when you send a message, it will be deleted on the client side (and that they didn't take a picture of it first with another phone!).

Comment: Re:Hey Bennett, (Score 0) 182

by bennetthaselton (#48778853) Attached to: Four Facepalm Bugs In USPS Label-Printing Site
Actually that's the first time anyone asked that specific question, and the answer is: Nobody ever constructed a plan such that all the editors should have editor accounts (which, among other things, lets people filter out their stories), but my stories would be run under other people's accounts instead of my own so that there was no way to filter them out, because they were deemed "too important". Instead, I don't have an editor account because I'm not an editor, and when people suggest making me an editor so they can filter out my stories, the answer is always that we're not going to pander to people who are too lazy to just skip the stories themselves.

The degree of technical confidence is inversely proportional to the level of management.

Working...