The reason they do this is so
I look forward to your justification for why Facebook feels it necessary to strip embedded copyright information from uploaded images.
(Arguably in violation of the DMCA.)
I'll wait.
--Joe
Funny, I had just been talking about this the day before yesterday.
In any case, http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1202
(b) Removal or Alteration of Copyright Management Information.— No person shall, without the authority of the copyright owner or the law—
(1) intentionally remove or alter any copyright management information,
(2) distribute or import for distribution copyright management information knowing that the copyright management information has been removed or altered without authority of the copyright owner or the law, or
(3) distribute, import for distribution, or publicly perform works, copies of works, or phonorecords, knowing that copyright management information has been removed or altered without authority of the copyright owner or the law,
Actually, the DMCA does have an anti-copyright notice stripping provision.
I'm not 100% convinced that Facebook's Terms of Service legally allow them around this, but I'll be damned if I'll be the one footing the bill for that case.
High speed popcorn delivery.
When I look to assess whether it's a few fringe conservative religious whackjobs running the GOP, or a large part of the base, I look to the results of individual ballot measures that touch on the questions that matter most to those folks--generally social conservative touchstones such as same-sex marriage, gay/lesbian employment discrimination measures, abortion, and so forth.
Those measures, even when they fail, pull 40%+ support.
I really see no way of explaining this as being a function of a tiny minority of the GOP.
In this election, I was able to find six high-profile races that touched on "Christian value" issues. The percentage of voters taking the "pro-theocrat" position on these individual issues is indicated below.
These numbers are more or less consistent with each other and history, and in every case above, the individual voting patterns are highly party-aligned.
What they are not consistent with is the idea that the theocrats are a tiny minority of the GOP.
"small fringe" is sadly not, to my mind, a plausible interpretation of the evidence
When you look at many votes on questions touched on by the theocrats, it's pretty clear that they enjoy substantial support from large segments and often majorities of the GOP electorate.
I'm very sorry that the somewhat more sensible Republican party of the past is no longer with us. But that's the case, and it's time for people who supported a more sensible GOP to either figure out a way of more effectively persuading people to your view (because the theocrats are winning that war, despite last night's results), or, alternatively, get themselves a more sensible party of their own.
Stop it? Don't be silly.
They've added to it.
Well, they're semi-effective at catching TSA employees who steal iPads, laptops and expensive camera gear.
No, they're not. There are occasional busts, but most go unreported or unaddressed.
Fun fact: The TSA refuses to report such thefts to local authorities, as a matter of policy.
Thank you, that's interesting and, at least in theory potentially useful to me some day.
(Only had one real copyright claim, someone used one of my images on the cover of their death metal CD and was selling it. No returned phone calls for weeks. Good thing it was the cover, Eventually I DMCA'd the album cover from Amazon's web site, got a call back in *minutes*, whole matter was settled an hour or two later. If they'd counterclaimed, or just used m images inside the CD booklet,
Anyway, thanks again for the data.
One other thing: The copyright office has an RfC or the like on making a copyright small claims court. I think something like that might be sensible, but IANAL. Anyway, FYI, http://www.copyright.gov/docs/smallclaims/
There is no US federal small claims court. In the US, copyright law is federal. This poster is pretty much f'd without a lawyer.
There is no federal small claims court. Copyright law is federal. Roughly speaking, this poster is f'd.
As long as they're filters created by individuals, I don't see a problem for me.
But practically speaking, user's aren't going to want to configure that, which is why the design mockups just had a single pushbutton, as I recall, for adult content.
As I recall, there was a lot of negative pushback on that idea on the basis of usability, but I don't have the links at hand.
Since you're clearly experienced with Wikipedia, I'll put it in Wikiparlance.
You can't define "mature content" without a POV.
That's the fundamental problem. Now, as it turns out, I happen to believe in a few cases (particularly with respect to the popular American idea that the EXISTENCE of gay people is a mature topic), it's a particularly egregious concern with respect to NPOV. But the fundamental problem is simply that it's POV.
So, you're entirely okay with complete descriptions of those subjects, no problem whatsoever, it's just the illustrations of it you object to.
I'm genuinely surprised. In my experience, most people who have an objection to one have an objection to both.
Solutions are obvious if one only has the optical power to observe them over the horizon. -- K.A. Arsdall
