Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Good. (Score 1) 312

My gain is not your loss, unlike with network TV, where my gain naturally comes at the loss of whatever show used to occupy that time slot.

Not quite true. Your gain is still his loss as, without per-show advertising revenue, whatever money is budgeted to make a show you like, isn't being budgeted to make a show he likes. Of course, there's no guarantee (or even likelihood) that if they didn't make the show you like, they'd make a show he likes. So it's still silly to complain about the shows they do make if they don't appeal to you.

Comment Re:Berkley didn't do this to be jerks (Score 1) 555

hrm... could they release purely audio recordings of lectures?

Yes.

could they demand closed captioning on audio recordings too?

Yes again. The ADA applies to every online video hosted in, or distributed by an entity in the U.S.
Which means virtually every video hosting/streaming site, from Twitch to Brazzers, could be sued at any time for not providing closed captions on their videos.
The only thing holding such suits back is that the law is very vague as to whether the law applies to online videos so every suit is a crap shoot (well, that and there's no chance of a financial payoff if a suit is successful).

The DOJ issued a Advance Notice of Proposed Rule Making (ANPRM) where they intended to clarify how the rules apply to online videos. But it has been repeatedly delayed since 2010 and most people think they're just waiting for the market to clear it up for them by introducing affordable (or freely available) tech available to the general public that will provide accurate closed captions on the fly for any video to make it easier for businesses to comply by simply making use of such software to generate the captions automatically.

Comment Re:Out of ideas? (Score 1) 542

Prior to the existence of video games they made movies based on books, plays, radio shows, magazine articles, comics and comic strips, cartoons, toys as well sketches, tv shows, operas and basically every other type of media that has ever existed.

None of this is new. The first remake ever was 1904's The Great Train Robbery by director Siegmund Lubin which was a remake of 1903's The Great Train Robbery by director Edwin S. Porter. Reboots have been common as well. First, and probably most famously, is Godzilla which has been rebooted at least 20 times. Many of the movies that have become classics were themselves remakes of more poorly made movies. There were 10 other versions of The Wizard of OZ before the 1939 classic was made. 1964's A Fistful of Dollars was a nearly frame by frame remake (ripoff) of a 1961 japanese film, Yojimbo by Akira Kurosawa. The Maltese Falcon (1941) was a remake of a 1931 film which itself was based on the book.

Hollywood isn't cranking these movies out because they're out of ideas. Rehashing old stuff is a tried and true tradition they haven't had any reason to abandon. There's still lots of original adaptations being made and even some original IP being introduced, but just as it always has been, the times they actually hit on something better than the original or originally good is few and far between. We just now have the Internet to give us the ability to incessantly reboot and rehash complaints when they crank out something shitty.

Comment Re:Tough (Score 1) 122

If anyone thinks Canada, France, Germany an Britain don't already do the same things, they're delusional. Every country with any economic resources at all is spying on everyone they possibly can. It's just that the most powerful nations that proclaim to be in favor of democracy and freedom are scrutinized for hypocrisies and when discovered, have those hypocrisies exposed.

Comment Re: pointless (Score 1) 179

Just because you have a "smart" TV doesn't mean you're stuck using the "smart" bits.

But you are stuck paying for them. Most people would prefer to not pay for things they don't want. Plus, all those smart bits often make TV performance terrible over that of a dumb box in things like channel switching unless you buy one of the really high end sets.

Comment Re:They want no cash (Score 1) 558

Tons of companies sell technology that will allow a company to track the location of every RFID tag in a warehouse down to the inch.

Why couldn't a grocery store do the same? Stick on RFID on everything. Track where everything is every second, match it up to the register you were at when the items were bought, check the transaction record and match it video surveillance and from there they can easily match your name and customer info with every item you bought, looked at, hesitated in front, how you and wife seem to be getting along, how fat your kids are, and other things that some people find terrifying.
My view is, I don't give a fuck. Stopping them from using it for anything else is a fight for a different arena. It's not Safeway's fault they can't inform me of products I might actually want in the most efficient way possible without there being the risk someone else might take it and use the knowledge they have of me for fuckery.

Comment Re:Punishes users and good advertisers (Score 1) 707

I use the ads on Amazon all the time to find things I wouldn't have known to or thought to look for. Maybe I don't need a automatic dog walker right now, but it's good to have been informed it exists. Maybe a neighbor will ask where to find one. I can now tell her I saw it on Amazon.



JESUS! FUCKITY! FUCK! FUUUUUUUUUUUCK!
It's just not possible to agree with something a company like Amazon does without sounding like a fucking shill. I don't see how, but the evidence is conclusive. I have to be wrong.

Comment Re:And with laws like the DMCA you can be sued for (Score 1) 406

While we usually associate "facility" with just physical space, the (standard and legal) definition of the word it also includes the equipment necessary for doing something which extends the section to also include "virtual space" like a website.
It's intended to target hackers but it's use of a word with a wide definition like "facility" rather than something more specific means that legally, bypassing an "adblock block" or telling others how to do so would be illegal under the law as it "intentionally exceeds an authorization to access that facility" by bypassing their requirement that you accept viewing their ads in return for consuming the content on their site.

Comment Re:What is "biometric information"? (Score 1) 58

So, either the Illinois law considers all photos containing faces "biometric identifiers"

It doesn't. The Illinois law they're using to sue considers face geometry scans a "biometric identifier", but it specifically excludes photographs as biometric identifiers.
The plaintiffs are claiming that the defendants digitally "scanned" the facial geometry from the photos, which exposes an ambiguity in the law and a Federal judge basically said he wasn't going to resolve ambiguities within the state's statute and left the issue in the hands of the state courts.

In the end, the suit is likely to fail, at least on the privacy issue. If it doesn't, it could make simply recognising someone in a photo a criminal act. While an involuntary basic human ability, it requires one to visually "scan" the photo and match it up to a mental database of "scanned" faces which the plaintiff's claim the law makes illegal. Of course, there's been far worse legal decisions so who knows? A positive outcome for the plaintiffs would certainly make many lawyers very, very happy.

Comment Re:Oh give me a break (Score 1) 349

It's maybe protected. But probably not.

It's doubtful that Newlin and her estate have kept up with the technical requirements of the 1909 Copyright Act to continue the copyright protection beyond the original 28-year copyright period.
There's no record of renewal, or any notice at all in the Catalogs of Copyright Entries that I could find under "Warm Kitty" or Newlin's name.
And while copyright could be renewed by an assignee, there's very specific rules and procedures that have to be followed in the renewal application for that to happen. It's doubtful Willis Music did what was needed to renew the copyright of the lyrics for Newlin. Rather, their copyright renewal would only affect publication, ownership and copyright of the lyrics held by the author which would only cover the lyrics when matched to the same particular public domain tune. Responsibility for retaining the rights to the lyrics alone would have fallen to Newlin, who did not apparently ever register a copyright on the lyrics, meaning her copyright would have expired 28 years after she wrote the poem.

So, the song (lyrics + music) as it appears in the book is certainly still copyrighted by Willis Music, but the lyrics by themselves are almost certainly public domain.

Slashdot Top Deals

"The following is not for the weak of heart or Fundamentalists." -- Dave Barry

Working...