My understanding is that the license would cost at most 1.064% of their gross revenues, and potentially less as there are preferential rates for cable companies with smaller revenue amounts (and I'm unclear if it's done on a per-market basis)
Netflix could certainly roll out a p2p model like Spotify does. I'd be quite surprised if they haven't already developed a prototype just in case. I'm any event I doubt Verizon will really push the "balanced traffic ratio" argument because there are many ways it could end badly for them
Yeah that could have been more clear. I'm suggesting sending a constant stream of packets until the target asks you to stop. No need for windowing or flow control, but pretty computationally expensive
Netflix almost certainly has done tests on actual residential connections where they control for poor Lan setup.
They can also probably reach a statistical conclusion just fine because those customers with bad wifi setups likely exist on well performing isps as well
Surely Verizon can't expect balanced peering when they sell asymmetrical service to their customers. Suggesting they should get paid by Netflix because of the imbalance doesn't seem fair.
And really, if Netflix offered cloud backup service they could probably right a whole lot of that balance while causing even more headaches for isps
I can't wrap my head around exactly how, but it seems that the block chain is the closest thing we have to a cryptographic timestamp
Since the government have control of all those computers now, would it be ethical for them to go in and actually install the patches to stop them being easily becoming victims next time around?
The story linked to seems to have an awful explanation of what's going on. This makes a lot more sense:
Reminds me a little of a random project I started back in college where I'd transmit a file in a bunch of packets where each contained the original file modulo a specified prime number. That way, if the file was split into 10,000 packets, then the transmitter could send out a constant stream of packets module different primes and as soon as the receiver got any 10,000 of them they could use the extended euclidean algorithm to reconstruct the original file.
I was hoping we'd someday be able to multicast udp over the net to multiple random locations and this would be a fast way to send files.
Only over a very long timeline.
I almost thing the best solution would be to put something so radioactive right by the door that anyone who enters will be dead within a few days. That way there's much less chance of future archaeologists from pulling out fuel rods and stuff that will cause a slow death to many people.
You are clearly confusing a legal requirement with a good practice. It's absolutely a good idea to get a model release and I'm not trying to suggest otherwise. However it's mostly required for editorial and advertising photography because the potential lawsuit risks are so high (and typically people doing advertising have the dollars to be forced into big payouts).
Go read up on Arne Svenson - he shot artistic photos of his neighbors through their open windows. A lawsuit against him was dismissed last year and the judge said ”An artist may create and sell a work of art that resembles an individual without his or her written consent".
The Svenson case is even more egregious because it covers photographs taken without any consent (written or otherwise). I see why it's an obvious target but I don't think changing the rights of photographers and other artists is an appropriate response to this.
Generally no. You can indeed take artistic pictures and hang them in a gallery, for sale, without a release.
It's certainly prudent to have a release and I wouldn't consider shooting someone without one, but you don't NEED one unless the image will be used for advertising or promotion.
They can indeed sell them to stock agencies without a release, Shutterstock accepts images under an editorial license which aren't subject to the same rules as their commercial license.
Photographers who also publish images need releases to protect themselves, but there is a distinction between making an image available for sale (even via a website), which is not considered publication in a form that would require a release, and the use of the same image to promote a product or service in a way that would require a release. Whether or not publishing a photo via the internet requires a release is currently[when?] being debated in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. It is likely that any and all exposure to the public of unreleased photos via any vehicle will constitute civil liability for the photographer.
It's clear that you (as the photographer) can't license the image for use in advertising without a model release, but for anything considered artistic the rules are much more vague. Now I'm not sure exactly where I'd class revenge porn sites, but art is a broad term.
Generally a model release is not required for artistic work or for anything that could be considered "newsworthy". It's good practice to get one to cover your ass but unless it's being used in something like advertising then it's not required (in the US)
The problem is that generally, in the absence of any other agreement, the photographer owns the copyright to the image and can give that image to whatever site he or she chooses. In certain situations they might not be able to accept payment for it, but exhibiting their work is really their right.
If you are letting a partner take images of you then you are, without any further agreement, letting them do what they choose with that image.
Within current law, the only reasonable way to solve that is to have a contractual agreement in place first that allows you to recoup civil damages from the other party if they use the image in a way that you don't expressly consent to.