Posts by El Presidente 451 publicly visible posts • joined 19 Apr 2011
"If I am looking for a free image and like one where there is a clue that someone wants me to pay, I will look for a different one The only time someone could loose a sale is when my requirements are specific enough that I am starting my search with the assumption that I am going to end up spending money. Buying an image requires an effort. Making sure that I am buying form the owner requires more effort"
Freetard manifesto, section one, paragraph one:
Describe an existing marketplace, declare that the marketplace is "too difficult" to operate in, steal.
Efforts were made overnight to track down the original source of the image ? No need to make efforts, just have a look at the EXIF data. There's everything you need right there unless the media organisation you work for uses content management software which ignores or, worse, actively strips out the metadata.
Efforts were made ? Yeah, to make the Beeboid's excuse sound plausible. FAIL.
You can all shove your new fangled tech up yer hoops, ok ?
We're not interested.
The so called crisis is OVER and you all managed to post MASSIVE profits.
BRING DOWN THE PRICES OF DRIVES AND STOP GOUGING THE MARKET.
There. I've said it and I feel much better.
"Fair pay for your creative work, without having it ripped off left right and centre"
Gained 6 negative votes ... proving that many of El Reg's commentards are thick and thieves.
Feel free to down vote this comment, it's the red arrow button right below here ↓
Is that every time the issue of copyright arises, the discussion is immediately subverted by freetards in favour of relaxing copyright, to the sole benefit the freetard.
This in turn plays right into the hands of Big Business in handing ammunition to the quangos and academics who want to be seen to be doing something because they've been told that something needs to be done.
Nothing needs to be done without the FULL consent of those creating IP
Nothing should to be done without the FULL consent of those creating IP
The INDIVIDUAL working in the creative industries WILL suffer financially from collateral damage in the Battle of the Freetards vs the Lobbyists. That's a given.
The quangos will feel they've done something and the academics will saunter off to the refectory, on the public purse, to dream up another way of justifying their existence whilst coming up with more unrealistic business models they themselves are not subject to.
Big business will be given a license to hoover up EVERYTHING not nailed down to be re-sold at their rates, under their own terms and conditions (rights grabs aplenty) take it or leave it.
It's happening now and it's getting worse.
"For always-on devices they are *significantly* more likely to fail than semiconductors"
So, to recap, only a complete and utter div would use a NUC mobo +FAN in a POS environment with an intended constant run time of circa 4 years ?
Well, that's the best reason I've heard today not to buy this motherboard for any other intended purpose. For that, I thank you.
"Exactly. Ergo if the fan doesn't work, your whole system's down."
EVERYONE PANIC !!!
"A lower spec processor with no fan will be a better candidate for interactive displays, PoS systems etc."
Horses for courses ? Is that what you're suggesting ?
And, really, how often do modern fans fail ?
It would seem that some people can't help but to find any "fault" - instantly - with any innovation, instead of immediately appreciating and recognising a viable use for a great product.
Smaller, faster, better connected = fail ?
More evidence of Google Lobby™ in action ?
"Privacy and copyright are two things nobody cares about unless it's their own privacy, and their own copyright"
Freetards rarely create anything so even if one were to explain the fundamentals of ownership to them - even them owning their own stuff - they still wouldn't understand and would probably side with Google under an anti-copyright banner as a matter of 'principle'.
Twisted logic but that's freetardism in action.
The only privacy freetards care about is their ability to hide their IP address.
Work out where you are staying before you leave home and print out a pocket sized street map onto some old tech stuff called paper. In case your battery goes proper flat, like. It's what people used to do in teh dark ages.....
Seeing at it's Barcelona I think Bill Ray ought to have taken the full experience option and asked a cab driver to take him to his hotel.
Whereupon he would have been charged €20 to be driven round the City GTA style for five minutes before being dropped at the bottom of Las Ramblas.
Is leaving themselves wide open to all sorts of problems.
When QR codes were first popularised I .. erm .. someone I met in the pub theorised that a few well placed QR code stickers on a bus stop or shop windows, ideally within view of the pub, would be a very easy method to subvert someone's curiosity and get them to visit a website like tub girl or goatse. We could then laugh at the expressions on their face as they saw the horror. For a laugh, like.
Malware is the obvious extension to this idea.
It's like what used to be called a press card, which was equally useless in any given situation and rarely granted a hack access to an event if you looked like you might not give 'good' coverage in the 'right' media.
However, in the olden days, the press card didn't operate like journalism's version of the Tesco club card, whereby the more on message copy you churn for your media partners, for minimum wage, the more access you get to your media partners.
Besides, most of the best journalism happens online. That's why the intarweb versions of some of the dead tree press is so successful. Well, that and blatant theft of what they came to refer to as "unlicensed journalism".
The clever man who invented licensed journalism decreed that if a story or a picture is not licensed then it is unlicensed and as such it is acceptable ok to steal said works from the creator, give it to an unpaid intern to have a veneer of licensed respectability applied. Behind a paywall.
The Clever man's idea made the business of journalism respectable again.
On the web. Somewhere to get their spazz on ...
Like FacePlace and GoogleMySpuh+ etc.
Anyone doing business online should have a proper *real life* contact address.
The relevant authorities should enforce existing legislation rather than introduce a new set of rules they are not going to police.
See Leveson et al.
Many of the most interesting compounds are schedule one which means that you need to apply for a license to conduct research on them and the compliance regime is extremely expensive, highly restrictive and (some might say) designed from the outset to inhibit research rather than support research.
This is France we're talking about ... Everything medicinal goes up the bum.
That includes sticking plasters, splints and spectacles in some Arrondissements.
Method of delivery is possibly one reason the regulatory people are squeamish about registering the wonder drug mentioned by Voland's right hand for use in the UK.
“What's fascinating is that you could think they wouldn't, and of course you're right.”
Prof. Nutt is saying that such unequivocal certainty must be the result of unbalanced and unnatural thought processes.
It's borderline demented gubmint indoctrination: Drugs=Bad which is, demonstrably, bollocks.
Will rapidly turn to fury and anger when some freetard's kid's photograph is lifted from some social networking site and widely used in a global advertising campaign (or worse - see link below)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1321076/Lara-Jade-Coton-sues-porn-firm-uses-picture-aged-14-explicit-DVD.html
Once the freetard realises that their talented but stupid child has missed out on the chance of a 50% deposit on a house by assigning their copyright to a third party because they ticked the wrong box when they uploaded their work ...
Or that those rights which were once enshrined in law are long gone because some library thinks it too difficult to track down copyright owners, or because Google says that's what it wants so that's what call me Dave gives them ..
It *is* about the individual creator potentially losing the right to decide who uses their work, where and for how much.
Hollywood and Big Music may have the loudest voice but individual creators have the most to lose.
"a cartel, namely publishers, who exploit their control over distribution to the detriment of creators and consumers alike."
Erm .. that's what the Google report wants to usher in.
Another big F OFF collecting organisation legally able to hoover up other people's work and use/flog it on their own terms and for their own profit.
It's like your local council licensing a massive gang of shoplifters then giving them a rent free shop on the high street in which to sell the goods they've just stolen from the other shops.
Spent £400,000 on road signs and legal documents before their 'consultation' into parking 'levies' was finished. Anyone who's been through redundancy will know what consultancy means.
This so called copyright consultation will produce nothing useful to the individual creative and play right into the hands of collecting agencies who cannot be trusted to act in the best interests the individual (STARES AT DACS) when there's any whiff of extra profit.
Any photographers reading this ought to sign up to the Plus Registry which, at the moment, has the tacit approval of a LOT of working photographers.
https://www.plusregistry.org
"Should only compensate for the genuine loss suffered by the victim" -
Where's the incentive to be honest ?
You go into Tesco, load up your trolley with goods and leave. You get caught and the only consequence is that you have to pay market value for the goods. You will immediately see that the odds are in your favour and you will continue to shoplift.
Conversely, if you know that when you get caught you will have to pay DOUBLE what it would have cost you to obtain the goods legitimately, plus costs, then the odds are obviously stacked against you.
There's a clear incentive to make an honest purchase at cost price.
Not so. What usually happens is that the byline/watermark/identifier is placed by the photographer bottom right or left so as not to detract from the picture. It is then a simple matter for anyone to crop out the 'offending' byline in the stupid assumption that if the byline is not there, no one will recognise the picture. Have a look at the UK's leading online 'news' web site. That particular practice is rife.
A whacking great © in the middle of the image may deter unauthorised use but will also ruin the picture and why would anyone proud of any image they've produced have to ruin it to prevent it being nicked ?
"Although I wouldn't put it past Facebook to be doing this deliberately, most websites that accept image contributions are going to want to resize and possibly reduce JPEG quality of images to optimize filesize and therefore their bandwidth requirements" - Most websites which use images do so for their own benefit, to increase the value of their own site to advertisers. That's good business but purposefully removing the metadata is still a criminal offence. Purposefully removing metadata demonstrates ignorance of the law and total disrespect for the individual who created the image that the site owners wishes to use to add value to their site. If the image is good enough to use to add value then it's worth paying for.
Removing metadata copyright statements is a criminal offence under UK and US law. Ben White doesn't come across as arrogant, he is arrogant. He's a glaring example of a tax payer funded institution fronting a salaried person with vested interests, attempting to force a situation which could seriously damage the lives and interests of thousands of other (tax paying) people. The worst bit ? Ben White isn't your archetypal clueless bureaucrat, he knows exactly what he's doing.
I wasn't scared to change to a new fangled GUI and I wasn't scared to leave System 7.
I wasn't scared to configure Win98 to behave visually as much like System 7 as possible, as I did with Win2K and XP and now Win 7.
Taskbar at the top, auto hide, 26" display giving me enough quick launch icons to launch whatever.
Once an application is open the desktop environment is largely irrelevant.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmbis/writev/1498/contents.htm
"I've put my money where my mouth is"
So, to recap, no /money/ involved yet the money/mouth imbalance prevails ?
"in the shape of declaring all of my works to be CC:NC and/or open source under the GNU public licence.
All your works. No money involved.
Your entire point appears to be as confused as it is long-winded and it seems to be based on the politics of envy and the hatred of successful business models.
Your points *support* those groups I've identified as being in cat 1) who are bad for creatives.
You are *firmly* in cat 2) which is bad for creatives.
You present unsubstantiated c'n'p stats as fact and use bluff and bluster from people in cat 3) to back up your argument.
All this while breaking almost every rule in how to comprehensively fail in an online discussion.
http://tinyurl.com/ygx8wdz
Which would suggest that you don't work in IT and if you do you haven't done so for very long.
"All told, I'm not entire sure how those two websites are meant to leave me better informed..."
I'm at a loss to think what, if anything, would. Perhaps you do have a dog in this fight.
Maybe you have 1bn reasons to defend the source of the article, so vociferously, and backed up with so much research. Just a thought. I'll leave it to others to decide if my hunch is right.......
/end
Because Google say it is.
The rest of your post is bluff and bluster. You work in IT and draw a salary. To coin a phrase: you don;t have a dog in this fight.
You're entitled to your opinion but please don't pretend that in this instance your opinion is either informed correct because it demonstrably isn't.
http://stop43.org.uk/
http://www.useplus.com/aboutplus/system.asp
Have a read. That might leave you better informed which will leave you better able to compose a coherent response to serious matters, the consequences of which you have so far failed to grasp :)
That post is so contradictory he's obviously had one too many. The confusion that poster exhibits between copyright and derivative works, for example, is very telling.
And this: "Extended copyright terms make it easier for people to sue other people for perceived copyright infringement"
No it does not. Copyright is either infringed or it is not. It's a binary thing, perception doesn't come into it. The method and ease/difficulty by which someone can be sued for infringement also remains unchanged.
There is *no* grey area except in the mind of the freetard who thinks because someone placed something on the internet it somehow becomes 'free' and they can use it for free and in some extreme cases profit from it.
What about this nonsense:
"works are being "orphaned" - i.e. the ownership is unclear"
No, works are not being orphaned and the acid test of ownership is simple. Is it mine ? No it's not therefore it belongs to someone else and I must do due diligence in finding out who that person is. If I can't find that person I must not use their work.
It can't be any more simple than that.
Creating another layer of bureaucracy to handle so called orphan works - in many cases works which can be identified if some effort is applied - will serve only to distance creators from their works and the end user which will, in turn act as a disincentive to the creator.
Commissioning a creative is perceived as expensive but it usually turns out that that it's not as expensive as defending blatant copyright infringement and ignorance is no defence under the law.
In my experience, and I have a fair bit, I haven't met one creative who's in favour of less protection for their work.
Every person I'm aware of who is in favour of relaxation in copyright falls into three camps:
1) they have a vested interest in making money from the work of others.
2) They are a proponent of freetardism because they have grown up with the internet in their bedroom and, like, everything is free on the web, isn't it ?
3) They are an academic who draws a fat salary every month and they want to be a bit edgy and perhaps secure funding for some more lame irrelevant 'research' so they come up with a contrarian opinion.
Everyone does something for a living. When did it become offensive to be a musician, a photographer or a film maker ? Tarring the vast majority of people working in the creative industries with the U2/Sting/Madonna brush is a classic straw man approach as the vast majority of people working in the creative industries don't earn anything like the amounts made by those people and as a result would like to hold on to every penny they can.
Much in the same way as most people don't just give away chunks of their salary every month to random passers by.
Why, you ask.
Well, a bunch of freetards opened up an identical shop/service/business right next door to where you work.
The people who opened the business are not bound by any of the rules and regulations that your workplace is and the staff don't take a salary.
Therefore their business can offer the exact same service as your workplace only they can do it for free. Yay freedtards !! Shit's too expensive anyway !!
So, as of mid day, you're out of a job. By the end of the month you'll be out of savings and by the end of the year you'll also be a freegan, living out of a skip.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
