Just an old retired girl from Ontario (though sometimes, I'm just tired). Retired photographer, doing freelance and stuff for fun now. Not very politically motivated, but there are some things that can get me riled up some...
If you live in Florida and drive to PA and purchase a product in one of their shopping malls, then drive home with it ... is the business in PA required to pay taxes to FL for the product you purchased from PA store?
Rather reminds me of an "energy" company we have here. I'm not associated with it, but my poor old aunt got sucked into it. After she sold her house and had to move into a nursing home the contract followed her ... for a product she no longer used. After she died, they wanted to charge us (the estate) for an "early cancellation" fee.
Essentially I told them if they wanted to sue a dead lady with no monetary estate, have at it. And then I'd make sure every newspaper and TV channel in Canada carried the story.
[And there should be, also, a very tiny tax on email," perhaps one-hundredth of a cent. He said this would discourage spam and not have much impact on the typical Internet user. Wozniak went on to suggest a sales tax on internet transactions that could help, in part, fund "vital functions that the post office serves."]
Remind me not to send emails to anyone in the US. Geeze.
The snail mail postal services actually do serve a purpose. Not everyone even has email or internet access, and thousands still send greetings cards by mail, and wedding invitations and even (gasp) bills. And how would one send a package containing a gift by email (okay, one could use courier, but the post is usually cheaper)?
My husband has an old ticket from the Daytona 500 (probably about 8 years ago) and it does indeed have a disclaimer on the back of the ticket, but that disclaimer (the way I read it) doesn't mean you turn over your copyright to photos/videos you take, it simply means they can use your likeness (ie: a photo of your, or a video of your) in any way they choose. A quote from the back of a Daytona ticket:
[Holder irrevocably grants to Daytona International Speedway and its assigns, licensees, affiliates and successors the right to use Holder's image, likeness, voice, actions and/or statements in all forms and media including advertising, trade, or any commercial purpose throughout the world and in perpetuity. Holder hereby waives any and all claims that holder may have for libel, defamation, invasion of privacy or right of publicity, infringement of copyright or violation of any other right arising out of or relating to any utilization of Holder's image as described herein.]
[where such image is created by or with the assistance of a satellite, drone, or any device that is not supported by the ground.]
So I wonder if a balloon and gondola tethered to the ground fits that description?
Otherwise, Google Maps will be utilizing some really big cranes if they want visuals for the maps.
How taking aerial photos of something is considered a criminal offense is beyond me. It's okay to stand in the street and take a snapshot of the house, but not okay to do it from the air...hmmmm. A shot of your house front from the street is likely to reveal as much or more than aerial view would.
[People are driven by what they know. They are always slow to change. If you don't know that I am sorry. ]
And this makes it Google's fault because people are slow? If you don't know that people are responsible for their own actions, then I am sorry about that, but people need to learn something called "responsibility" ... have it. Use it. It's good.
[I can tell you from years of experience that people are not even sure what the address bar is.]
That's true. I know lots of them too. However, it is their own fault for not exercising their own choice to learn or to drown on the web. It isn't Google's responsibility (nor anyone else's) to force netintelligence on them either.
My dad always told me "if you don't know how it works, learn. If you don't want to learn, don't use it."
My dad didn't even finish grade 8, but he was a smarter man than most guys I know who finished university.
If Monsanto didn't actually want people to plant seeds from these plants, why wouldn't they make them sterile or at least engineer them to prevent them producing viable seed? A lot of hybrid garden plants (not edible) won't produce seed that's viable.
Oh ... that's probably because they want to sell all the seed themselves to farmers so they still need plants that actually produce usable seed.
I see no correlation at all between a seed patent and software - they're about as far apart as the ocean and the stars.
[Whenever I hear these silly corporate names invoked with sanctimonious awe, I imagine Dipsy, Laa-Laa, Po, and Tinky-Winky singing their hit single “Teletubbies say ‘Eh-oh’ ” as they shake the change out of some two-year-old’s pocket.]
I guess it's not surprising that he actually knows who the teletubbies are, and what they sound like.
[It's that his masturbatorial (like an "editorial," only more self-serving) rant projects an egomaniacal picture of the Publisher/Writer/Journalist as the Savior of Culture.]
I'll save my own culture interests thanks ... I don't think I need the editor of Harper's for that cause, well you know - I can find it on the web anywhere.
I actually had to go and look at Harper's to see what they publish. I wouldn't pay for that ... on the other hand, I might pay for TechDirt if it came right down to it.
Oh get a grip. I was not born into any sort of "riches", but I totally agree with the whining and silly aspects of this.
Just because these bloggers can't deal with the fact that they agreed to the terms when they signed up isn't HuffPo's fault, nor should the courts have to deal with it wasting tax payers time and money.
They aren't now and never were entitled to any share of the profits of the site they wrote for, particularly when they agreed to blog for free.