Why You Should Never Lose Your Digital Media 671
kkrista writes "What would you do if you found someone's digital media card from their camera in your taxi? One such individual has decided to provide the world with 227 days of entertainment. I Found Some Of Your Life will post a photo a day and accompanying fictional narrative for the next 227 days using the photos found on a digital media card left in a cab. Is it pure genius or pure evil? Who cares? Just be thankful they're not your photos."
Wait a minute (Score:5, Funny)
You could always DMCA the bastard. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:You could always DMCA the bastard. (Score:3, Informative)
And there are different found property laws in different states. It's possible that "finders keepers" applies here. Whether it's right or not is another issue. Of course, if the owner doesn't come forward... well,then, I guess it doesn't matter.
Re:You could always DMCA the bastard. (Score:5, Informative)
He might gain ownership of the storage device, but I doubt the content on it
Re:You could always DMCA the bastard. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:You could always DMCA the bastard. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:You could always DMCA the bastard. (Score:3, Informative)
It's unlikely, I know, but you can't assume that this is the only copy of the pictures.
Re:You could always DMCA the bastard. (Score:3, Informative)
I was wondering about that myself, since otherwise how does the blogger justify possession of the media card in the first place (what's the moral difference between stealing the property of a previous occupant of the cab and stealing something out of the cab that belongs to the driver or the cab company?), but apparently it's too late to find out without hunting up a cache somewhere. Below is a copy and paste of the site from a few minutes ago (with formatting destroy
Thank you sir, may I have another photo published? (Score:4, Interesting)
One of "Jordan's" Slashdot-reading frat brothers (probably the goofy EE major who got in on a legacy bid) will spill the beans. I'd love to be a fly on the paddle-festooned wall for that moment.
What will happen next? The blogger has been careful to conceal his or her identity. What are the legal issues? Can the blog continue? Does the blogger face any liabilities?
If "Jordan" and his chums play it one way, they could be minor celebrities for a while--perhaps concealing their knowledge of the blog's existence to let the thing reach critical mass. Jordan could be the next Mahir! "I am Jordan! I high five you!"
On the other hand, they can probably bring terrible, expensive legal might to bear. What will blogspot do? What will become of America's new best-loved blog?
This little dramady is just beginning! heh
Re:Thank you sir, may I have another photo publish (Score:5, Insightful)
If you found someone's driver's wallet with their driver's license and credit cards, would you go ahead and impersonate them or steal their identity? It would be an identity theft - in some ways, I think that is exactly what this guy is doing.
I shudder to think what will happen if the real guy finds out. I for one know that if my pics were put up on the net - I would certainly get very mad, very pissed and would sue this guy to kingdom come.
Leave the fun and coolness part of it - it's just not quite right, it's unethical and wrong. I do not know about anybody else, but in my book what this guy is doing is simply wrong.
Re:Thank you sir, may I have another photo publish (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Thank you sir, may I have another photo publish (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Thank you sir, may I have another photo publish (Score:4, Insightful)
But why do people think they deserve money for something like this?
Distributing copyrighted works without permission, especially unpublished copyrighted works straight out of a camera, can result in severe statutory damages.
Re:Thank you sir, may I have another photo publish (Score:5, Informative)
Actually...
Having government registration allows you to have a more solid footing.
What is important in Copyright infringement cases is to prove intent. In this case, the poster KNEW the content was not their's to use and fully intended to post the content up.
The poster also decided to create fake events around the pictures. This can lead to slander/libel cases if the posted content results in mental anguish, loss of job, or other personal losses.
The quality of the pictures is not the point, the theft and misuse of the pictures is.
It would be very funny if the pictures actually belonged to a law student. *grins*
Re:Thank you sir, may I have another photo publish (Score:3, Informative)
Libel, however, is a pretty easy case to win.
Re:Thank you sir, may I have another photo publish (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Thank you sir, may I have another photo publish (Score:3, Funny)
Found this site LawGuru Copyright defined [lawguru.com].
Excerpt:
13.- 7. Requisites after the grant. No person shall be entitled to the benefitof this act, unless he shall give information of copyright being secured,by-causing to be inserted, in the several copies of each and every editionpublished during the term secured, on the title page, or the page immediatelyfollowing, if it be a book, or, if a map, chart, musical composition, print,cut, or engraving, by causing to be impressed on the face thereof, or
Re:Thank you sir, may I have another photo publish (Score:4, Informative)
Trademarks you have to continually enforce; copyrights you don't have to do a thing other than have created it. The © symbol is not necessary, its more of a reminder.
----
Comments by squigit, © 2004
Re:Thank you sir, may I have another photo publish (Score:4, Interesting)
It's not being greedy - for having done something like this, I'd like to see the other person suffer. The idea of sending a man to prison is not to make others feel happy - it's to make HIM feel bad and pay for his crime. Whether or not it works is a different issue, the idea is that you are punished for your actions.
Duh, I can't help it if you have an idea that taking a person to court is merely for my monetary benefit. That's YOUR flawed thinking, nowhere in my post did I suggest so. I merely said I'd sue this person for his wrongful act.
Is there anything in wanting to take a person to court because s/he posted my pics? And ofcourse, the brilliant Slashdot mods will moderate it down because nobody ever stops to think for a moment what the post really meant.
Sheesh.
Re:Thank you sir, may I have another photo publish (Score:5, Interesting)
Are you sure about that? I always thought the idea of punishments was to deter actual and potential offenders?
You'd like to see the other person suffer? That's rather small of you. Personally, I'd like to think that the intent of the law is to reduce suffering...
Offtopic Answer (Score:3, Insightful)
There are several purposes, actually.
Yes, one is deterrence. You hope that, by instituting undesirable consequences for a particular behavior, you'll discourage people from doing it. Another purpose is punishment -- to correct a single individual's behavior by imposing said consequences. Yet another purpose is to provide some relief for the victim, his/her family, and society at large. To put it another way, society e
Re:Thank you sir, may I have another photo publish (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow, that's a statement. Too bad you weren't born in the 15th century, the Spanish Inquisition had a perfect job for you.
Re:Thank you sir, may I have another photo publish (Score:5, Funny)
Because thats all people understand (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Thank you sir, may I have another photo publish (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Thank you sir, may I have another photo publish (Score:4, Insightful)
Obviously you are not from California.
Re:Thank you sir, may I have another photo publish (Score:5, Funny)
Well, a memory card for one.
Re:Thank you sir, may I have another photo publish (Score:5, Insightful)
I can understand being mad, wanting an apology, and wanting the blog aken down, and maybe criminal proceedings if any laws were broken. But why do people think they deserve money for something like this?
They deserve to ask for punitive damages [wikipedia.org] to punish and deter people from commiting these kinds of acts. And an extreme amount of public exposure can bring all sorts of problems like stalkers and death threats. There are a lot of loons out there that will target someone simply for being well-known publicly. Someone in that kind of a position will need security. Who is going to pay for it? If a person receiving a great deal of public exposure isn't someone like an actor who actually recieves an income relative to that exposure, then what financial recourse do they have to protect themself from the reprocussions?
What have they lost?
They have lost their privacy. Having pictures posted on the internet against one's will is an invasion of privacy, especially if it gets Slashdotted. Remember the Star Wars Kid [wikipedia.org]? He and his family weren't too happy about all that and took the parents of the kids that put his video on the net to court. They didn't want any part of the internt cult status the practical joke had given him and would have preferred not to have him humiliated with that kind of exposure.
Even if these photos are taken down by the poster, they could already have been copied and circulated around the net, just like the Star Wars Kid. And just because you're not doing anything wrong in a photo doesn't mean your privacy should be left to others to toy with and take away. Isn't privacy a fundamental right?
Mental suffering?
Something like this can indeed cause mental suffering. Have you ever heard of social phobia [wikipedia.org]? It is a very real anxiety disorder, and someone with such a condition could be severely traumatised if they had their privacy invaded with all the internet as an audience, even if the photos were innocuous.
What if a photo of yourself in an embarassing situation had been circulated on the net without your consent? A practical joke between friends is one thing, but letting a worldwide audience through the internet see it is another and can cause extreme humiliation and mental suffering.
Re:Thank you sir, may I have another photo publish (Score:4, Insightful)
No, and neither is this guy... he has there, for all to see, the disclaimer that this is all 'MADE UP', that what is being said is not the truth.
It's almost as if the card was meant to be left there, what with exactly one year of photos on it... almost like it was an arts project.
Or not.
It is amusing though... and from what I've seen, there's nothing there to be really worried about if they were your photos. Plus, he's now got them on the net in a professional manner for his friends to see. (and it's not like he could get off his arse to do so himself if there was a year's worth of shots on there)
Re:Thank you sir, may I have another photo publish (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Thank you sir, may I have another photo publish (Score:5, Informative)
If you read this comment [blogspot.com], you'll see that someone already found one of the people in the photo a while ago. The conclusion of the discussion at the time was that the participants should be allowed to 'discover for themselves.'
Hopefully the meta-drama will half as fun as the blog so far :)
(Yeah, it's pretty wrong. But hilarious.)
Re:Thank you sir, may I have another photo publish (Score:4, Informative)
First a picture from "I Found Some of Your Life"
Dianne [blogger.com]
Now a picture from KappaDelta
Lindsey [vanderbilt.edu]
That's basically the comment that got deleted.
And those are the same person!
Re:Thank you sir, may I have another photo publish (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Thank you sir, may I have another photo publish (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Thank you sir, may I have another photo publish (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Am I the only one that thinks this? (Score:3)
This coming from someone who wastes time posting on slashdot.
Re:Thank you sir, may I have another photo publish (Score:5, Interesting)
Ummmm, how many taxi drivers do you know at all? I have a good friend who's a Taxi driver and he's very intelligent; just not motivated enough to do something else for a living. Among his colleagues there are quite a few very intelligent guys, who have various reasons for driving a taxi: Some are students (it's perfect for the flexible hours), at least 2 I've met are even PhD's in purely academic fields (i.e. no big job opportunities); one was like a PhD in Music Theory or something and plays in a Folk Music group, which isn't lucrative enough to make a living, but he loves it. Okay, this is in Germany, but I think this applies elsewhere too.
-chris
Quoth I Southpark (Score:3, Funny)
I'm jealous (Score:5, Funny)
Day 1: This is wrinkledshirt on Slashdot.
Day 2: This is wrinkledshirt on Slashdot.
Day 3: This is wrinkledshirt cursing spymac mail.
Day 4: This is wrinkledshirt cursing Slashdot for not posting his spymac submission.
Day 5: This is wrinkledshirt on Slashdot.
And so on...
I love sites like these (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.spillway.com/ is still the king of "found photos on the Internet."
RSS Feed (Score:5, Informative)
Just click on the lightning bolt in the bottom left corner of the browser. It's really neat
Sorry to all of those who have been using RSS feeds forever.. I just got hooked
Re:RSS Feed (Score:3, Funny)
<other-larpers.mpeg>
LIGHTNING BOLT! LIGHTNING BOLT! LIGHTNING BOLT!
</other-larpers>
Keep in mind (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Keep in mind (Score:4, Insightful)
Either (a) it's a hoax, or (b) the author doesn't realize this is a lawsuit waiting to happen.
Re:Keep in mind (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, I know some of the guys in the pictures. They're frat boys from Vanderbilt, my school. I am privileged enough to have gotten drunk on their beer freshman year.
In any case, I happen to know that they are nowhere near smart enough or geeky enough to create a blog out of their pictures, let alone do so as a hoax.
Heh. (Score:4, Funny)
> Just be thankful they're not your photos.
Fortunately he didn't find the card with pix of his wife.
Presumed copyright (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Presumed copyright (Score:3, Funny)
What if I take a perfectly framed picture of a copyrighted picture? Do I then own the copyright?
What if the shutter button is pressed by two people simultaneously?
Maybe there is a complex multi-key system like they have in those submarine nuke movies. I suppose it's whoever turns the key last.
I guess they could both turn the key at the same time.
Of course, If you follow Einstein at all, you know that there is no way to know who turned t
Indeed. (Score:5, Funny)
I wholeheartedly agree.
Regards,
Arthur Goatse.cx, Sr.
Damm Proctologist (Score:5, Funny)
Regards,
Arthur Goatse.cx, Sr
Kappa Delta (Score:3, Interesting)
google: Kappa Delta [google.com]
Actually it's purely illegal (Score:5, Insightful)
However this is also a case of copyright infringement. Works are automatically copyright to you upon creation, no registration is required. So these photos are the copyright of whomever shot them. To post them on the Internet without their permission is infringement.
If I was the person who this happened to, I'd go after the blogger with a vengence. Instead of being a good citizen and either handing it over to the police or trying to track me down and instead of just being neutral, and leaving it, they decided to be malicious.
Personally, I hope they go to jail.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What about model releases? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What about model releases? (Score:3, Informative)
I got in a nice sticky fight about that early this year, you have absolutely no right to privacy in public. I can take photos of you, and I can take vido/film footage of you UNTIL you tell me to stop. and I can publish and broadcast those images of you without your consent.
If you want otherwise you had better run around with a "do not photograph me" sign around your neck".
Re:That's a little more grey. (Score:5, Insightful)
They may be posing, but not for you. They have a very strong case against the blogger.
Additionally, most of the pictures are in public. There probably isn't a whole lot of expectation that your picture won't be taken/distributed if you're posing for a picture in public.
There is a very reasonable expectation if you don't see any unauthorized photographer close to you. We are not talking about spy cameras here, these are decent quality pictures taken either on private property, or with flash in darkness.
Re:Actually it's purely illegal (Score:5, Insightful)
Secondly, the copyright infringement case would be difficult to make. Granted he is infringing on someone else's copyright, but he is not doing it for financial gain. I don't even see ads on the page (aside from a blogger banner at the top). Also how would somebody assess the value of these pictures. Criminal offenses for copyright infringement don't occur until the infringer has caused a significant amount of financial damage (a few hundred thousand dollars IIRC). I would be hard pressed to believe these pictures are worth that much.
If I was the person who lost the card, and I found out about the site, and if I were angry about it, I'd get a cease and desist letter sent and prove that I was the owner of the card. It's likely the blogger would close the page and return the card. The end result of this is the guy who lost his card would get it back, and the site would go down if the owner chose to do so. This would not happen if the site was not getting this much publicity, and may infact become the best chance for the owner to get his card back, along with some measure of internet immortality.
Personally, I hope the owner of the card gets it back and doesn't mind seeing the blogger continue his series.
Re:Actually it's purely illegal (Score:5, Informative)
That's not true. The finder has the basic common law title to the item as against all but the original owner. Title to property is relative. The finder has "worthier title" to the property than anyone but the original owner.
Now everything I'm about to say is based on the presumption that this is "lost property" rather than "abandoned property"...
This seems to be valid law in NY. See Hume v. Elder, 178 A.D. 652, 165 N.Y.S. 849 (2d Dep't 1917); Forman v. Rosetti, 38 Misc. 2d 317, 238 N.Y.S.2d 328 (City Civ. Ct. 1963); Garramone v. Simmons, 177 Misc. 330, 30 N.Y.S.2d 465 (Sup 1941)...
But at the moment he finds it, he only has an expectation of that title in NY, and he has to wait for the statutory time period to elapse, and the owner not to claim the item, for title to vest. See Bisignano v. Harrison Central School Dist., 113 F. Supp. 2d 591, 147 Ed. Law Rep. 529 (S.D.N.Y. 2000).
He gives it to the police, they keep it for a period, and when the owner doesn't claim it, and the time period expires, he can demand it back and his title vests.
The periods are described in N.Y. Pers. Prop. Law 253(7), and are basically...
* three months, if the property has a value of less than $ 100.00
* six months, if the property has a value between $ 100.00 and $ 499.99
* one year, if the property has a value between $ 500.00 and $ 4999.99
* three years, if the property has a value of $ 5000.00 or more
But there's more! This guy may be guilty of a misdemeanor:
N.Y. Pers. Prop. Law 252(1) says he has to turn it in to the cops within 10 days. 252(3) says anyone convicted of noncompliance is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by up to a $100 fine or 6 months in jail or both.
He also may be guilty of larceny:
N.Y. Penal Law 155.05(2)(b) says this could be larceny if he doesn't take reasonable measures to return the property.
Just goes to show, use your instincts about what's right, and you'll probably be much better off...
Not at all (Score:4, Insightful)
This is one of the things that bugs me about
No, it isn't.
It's the same as the physical world and goes back to basic kindergarden eithics: "Don't touch what isn't yours without the permission of who it belongs to." This is as true for vitrual stuff as physical stuff. It isn't any more legal or morally justified to steal a CF card and publish the pictures than it is to steal a wallet and use the cash to buy yourself stuff.
Even if you don't believe in copyright, you can hardly justify the theft of the card. That's real, physical property and they deprived the owner of it.
Re:Not at all (Score:3, Insightful)
And I hate the mentality that all laws should be followed to the letter, and anyone who doesn't, should be executed immediately.
There is grey area in the world, and a LOT when it comes to high-tech issues... Technically, it's a federal offense if you do anything unauthorized on someone else's computer, but what if it's a friend of yours, who you are playing a prank on? Why is it that when you do the most trivial of things on a computer it become
Asymmetric laws *can* make sense (Score:4, Insightful)
This might be a stupid idea; or it might not.
Since they are two sides of the same coin, the act we wish to prevent is basically downloading/sharing. Making one illegal, but not the other shifts the emphasis of responsibility for the 'combined act' onto one party. This may be more practical in terms of law enforcement (better to prosecute one sharer than many downloaders).
In other cases with similar 'contradictions', such asymmetry may have the effect of protecting one party (e.g. if you simply made it a crime for an underage child to have sexual intercourse with an adult, you may be setting up the situation where a 14-year old is in danger of being blackmailed by a 40-year old, for fear of prosecution; and criminalising the 14-year old would almost certainly go against the spirit of the law).
it is NOT the same as the physical world (Score:3, Interesting)
but the endless and effortless copying of electronic bits is not "stealing" in that you deprive someone of something that is there property, something solid, physical, made of atoms
now i'm not condoning kazaa, nor marching down the "information wants to be free, man" technoanarchist's tired rant
but what i am saying is that what you are talking about is not stealing at all, and it is most definitely NOT the same as the physical worl
Re:Actually it's purely illegal (Score:3, Interesting)
It was only a decision by the local DA that the case wasn't worth pursuing that kept it out of the courts.
Re:Actually it's purely illegal (Score:3, Interesting)
Depends on where you are. For instance, in 1993 a Mass DA had to decide whether to apply a statute requiring people who find property over $3 to turn it in to the police station in the case of a family that found a $10,000 lottery ticket. (The actual owner later looked for it in the same location.) Ultimately, the family was not charged. Though i
Re:Possession is 9 10ths of the law (Score:3, Informative)
Nobody blames the taxi company; most likely the cab driver didn't even know about the flash card.
The alleged crime here is all blogger's - he took someone's else property from the taxi (he shouldn't have done that at all), and then he accessed someone's else private documents without permission, and then he distributed the documents for everyone to see.
He violated the implicit copyright and a whole bunch of other laws t
Amsterdam.. (Score:2)
Evil... (Score:5, Insightful)
Pure Copyright Infringement (Score:3, Informative)
Camera in the woods (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Camera in the woods (Score:5, Informative)
Where's the evidence that says it's a hoax?
The photos that come after the one at the top of the tower where you see the creepy hunched over guy's reflection are clearly meant to appear as though they were taken as the photographer ran like hell. The fact that none of them are blurry shows that he stopped to take each of these "frantic" shots carefully enough for them to be in perfect focus with no motion blur. The sequence was too carefully crafted and tells a linear story too clearly to be unintentional. It's not even half as believeable as The Blair Witch Project, and that was pretty obviously fiction as well.
Awhile back... (Score:5, Interesting)
There were about thirty-some shots that were all stereotypical 'poor southern family'. Very odd, and a little sad, until you realized that they were genuinely smiling in every picture.
Interesting stories played out in my head about this family until I got my boring pics back.
Re:Awhile back... (Score:4, Funny)
You should start digicam-bombing people instead. Food is soo 1990.
Re:Awhile back... (Score:3, Interesting)
This happened to me, sorta. (Score:5, Interesting)
Regardless of how pissed I am at losing a $400 camera to a couple of asshats, I had some photos of my then girlfriend in various comprimising positions. To keep this brief, if I saw photos of her on the internet, bad things would happen to all involved. I wouldn't be surprised that if some of the images on that card are more personal, and if the owners get a glance, someone is gonna get hurt bad.
Re:This happened to me, sorta. (Score:5, Funny)
Now we *KNOW* you're lying.
Re:This happened to me, sorta. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:This happened to me, sorta. (Score:4, Funny)
n.
one who leaves his $400 camera (with personal porn) in the vehicle when taking it to a repair shop.
Absolute Scumbags (Score:3, Insightful)
I would do what I would expect any decent person to do....give it to the driver and tell him someone left this behind. I can't image the sense of violation the owner will feel once identified. The scumbags putting these up for the world to see will face civil culpability almost certainly. IMHO they also belong behind bars, but I doubt this will happen. Now I eagerly await the flurry of posts along the lines of "Hey, they forgot the memory card so they deserve their private photos posted on the internet". This is Slashdot after all.
that sorority girl loves linux?! (Score:5, Funny)
Like Homer Simpson says... (Score:5, Funny)
The Victims (Score:5, Informative)
Huge copyright issues and no fair use at all. (Score:5, Insightful)
His advice was pretty telling. While we had a good fair use argument, he indicated we would most likely run into legal problems anyway with model releases for people who weren't public figures, and even some politicians (like Arnold Schwarzenegger [dailyhaiku.com] hotly contest their public figure status regarding copyright.
As it is we had to go strictly with photographs in the public domain (and thankfully almost everything the federal government produces counts) or expressly granted for general use.
Posting entire found pictures (actually an entire collection), especially if used with a profit motive, with no permission from the photographer and the subjects is just asking for an incredibly brutal pounding in court.
-dameron
Still waiting for my C&D from Dick Cheney...
Re:Huge copyright issues and no fair use at all. (Score:3, Interesting)
Next time a celebrity is in town, take a photo and upload it here.
Disappointed (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes the guy who found the card should attempt to find the real owner, what better way? If he posted a few pics on the net, it would never get enough notoriaty to be found. Its a memory card, its not like there is an address and phone number on it. The cabby wouldn't be able to find the person, the person I'm sure doesn't know where exactly they lost it, and wouldn't be able to remember the cab companies name either. The cops would just junk it. This is the only way the real owner can get his pictures back.
Yes, in a way this is copyright infringment, but geeze, for a place that is sooo against musicians being able to keep people from copying things they actually make money off of, this guys pics seem like a bizarre hypocrisy to try to protect. It's not like he's a pro, or that he was gonna sell these pictures for money.
People here posting that this guy should be put in jail, or fined, or sued... well just chill out. He's having fun, I had a good laugh, and its actually possible that the real owner will get his pictures back, whereas if the poster didn't post them in this manner there is basically 0% chance that would happen.
Re:Disappointed (Score:3, Interesting)
"Maybe you will come here and reclaim this piece of your life."
Re:Disappointed (Score:3, Interesting)
Surely I'm not the only one to put my name and phone number on my various memory cards, just in case something like this happens? Not that it'll guarantee I'll ever see them again if I lose them, but at least whoever finds them would have the chance to ring me up to have a laugh or try and blackmail me or whatever...
Re:Disappointed (Score:3, Informative)
> address and phone number on it
Write your name address and phone number (or whatever details you want to include) on a piece of paper and take a picture of it on minimum resolution. Set to read only so you don't accidently delete it.
Cheers,
Roger
Oh fucking please (Score:3, Insightful)
Now maybe if he was running Linux and Apache on a Dreamcast, with an ISCSI hard drive over the DC's broadband addapter (which is basically an Ethernet card), now _that_ would be technical innovation.
But "oh look, I can post pics on the net" stopped being new and original some 20 years ago. Any kiddie can just use pre-made software they don't even understand to get some t
If you think this is evil, (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:If you think this is evil, (Score:5, Informative)
Regardless, it's not the same thing at all. An unprotected gallery on photobucket is much more fair game than stealing someone's memory card and platering it all over the web.
Welcome to Blackmail! (Score:5, Funny)
Each day the price doubles...
With kudos to Python
The Trachtenburg Family Slideshow Players (Score:3, Interesting)
Reminds me of "The Trachtenburg Family Slideshow Players" [slideshowplayers.com]. From their web site:
It's a little weirder than it sounds. [edit-video.com]
Those of you bitching about copyright: (Score:5, Interesting)
While the actions might be (since apparently the blogger actually does own the card) illegal or immoral, the end result was an interesting idea for something that is, essentially, a piece of art, and seeing the originator prosecuted would be a sad day.
I don't think this is funny ... (Score:4, Insightful)
With more then 200 photos ranging along a year's time one could easily gather some clues which could lead to 1. the owner, 2. someone who knows the owner.
Instead of doing some research and making someone happy for finding the lost pictures, this guy places them widely available.
I wouldn't sue the guy for doing this. I would kick his ass flat.
How to get your digital card back (Score:5, Insightful)
I bought a keydrive that had stuff on it (Score:3, Interesting)
If the drive had contained photos, would I have posted them on the Internet? No, because they wouldn't have belonged to me. Would I have looked at them? Yes, I'm as curious as the next guy.
Chip H.
Site has been taken down (Score:4, Informative)
Editor's Note
Hi. No new posts until further notice.
If you know things: ifsoyl at gmail.com.
posted by jordan | 1:57 PM
-+-+-+-
Thanks for ruining it for everyone, Slashdot :)
Actually, I figured with tidal wave of publicity a slashdotting gets you, plus the timbre of the legal-minded comments posted here, the site was doomed.
Gone Gone Gone (Score:3, Informative)
Re:So THAT'S where I left it... (Score:5, Funny)
There are girls in the pictures.
Re:An awful violation of the law (Score:3, Interesting)
The camera was purchased.
The media wasn't lost; it was included in the purchase of that camera.
The images weren't lost; they were included on the media.
Your argument is akin to "I bought this MS-Win2K CD from Comp-USA, and it had MS-Win2K on it!"
Oh, the DATA on that CD isn't included with the purchase of that media. REGARDLESS that the SELLER should have a REASONABLE EXPECTATION that there was data on them, you can't prove he did, and YOU should GO to JAIL."
Nonsense. If something is purchased