"Musicians, filmmakers, photographers....writers....should be able to make a living from their work."
I get about one email every day from some multimillion dollar company asking me to work for free to provide them with some content that "isn't in their budget for this project, but will lead to great exposure for me"
Then when I point out that if they assume that working for free is ok, then the project director should transfer their paycheque over to me for the duration of the project, and they can work for the exposure, they make it sound like I'm the one being unreasonable.
I don't care one bit if regular people infringe on my content; I'm all angried out by these big companies who are screwing the artists *and* screwing their fans.
I have a fair number of good friends with PhDs, and I am acquainted with many other PhD havers.
None of them ever point out the fact they have PhDs, it only comes up casually in conversation years later.
"Hey can you help me with this coding problem I'm having? Oh, wow, you are really good at math! Oh, you have a PhD in the subject? So I should have been calling you "Doctor" this whole time? Hahahah! Another round?"
The only person I've ever met to incessantly point out that they had a PhD was the worst, most useless prof I ever had the misfortune of studying under.
Generally, people who are really good at something don't have to point out their qualifications, as their work speaks for itself.
If the authorities think "wget" is some sort of elite hacker tool, just wait until they find out about "dd".
Freaking out over wget is almost as laughable as hearing something like "using "Ctrl+C" and "Ctrl+V", a group of elite hackers were able to steal the contents of several websites and recreate various articles on their own computers at home."
"Or let me put it into perspective for a drug using, liberal, hippy pussy like yourself: 99% of people who smoke pot do it responsibly and safely, but 1% of the people who use participate in violent crime, or crash their cars when theyre high and kill others or themselves, but I don't see you posting about how ALL pot smokers should be punished."
Well, that's because one is burning a leaf, while the other is a tool specifically designed for killing things. And if you're driving high and crashing and killing people, it's the motor vehicle, not the weed that is doing the killing. That's why vehicles have a long list of strict safety targets they must meet to be street-legal.
Americans and their guns...if only they realized how silly their obsession looked to the civilized world...
"i see nothing wrong with his site. if you are foolish enough to give nudes to someone you should make sure they are mature enough to pull something like this if the relationship goes wrong."
Well, without a signed model release, publication of images where the model is the clear focus of the image, and not an incidental background figure is exactly the kind of thing that can get you into some legal trouble. That's why photographer's assistants and Production Assistants are so insistent that everyone appearing on-camera signs the model release.
Bah! Sleep is just a poor man's coffee substitute.
I've been working to get on 'the Da Vinci sleep schedule' for the past few years. a 20-30 minute nap every 4 hours. Eventually, your body gets so exhausted you jump straight to REM sleep - or so the theory goes.
I find that irritability, diminished motor skills, poor decision making, vision problems, inability to concentrate and poor memory are the real outcomes of this bizarre schedule.
As a Canadian, a person from the land of strict gun control, I don't know if my perspective is quite the same as everyone elses here, but rather than trying to ban something outright which is completely unenforcable, why not just do something like automatically double the sentence for any crime committed by a person in posession of a gun, 3D printed or otherwise, whether or not the gun was used, to disincentivise people from using guns for evil, while not restricting the rights of those who aren't huring anybody?
You can't stop a guy with a lathe and a milling machine from making a gun, and that's been around for decades, what's so different about 3D printers? Nothing.
Rather than freak out and try to do the impossible, why not legislate what you can control?
"What does that mean in real terms? It means if your machine dies or you upgrade to a new computer you cannot take a copy of Office 2013 with you to new hardware. You will need to purchase another copy, which again will be tied to the machine it is installed upon forever."
This is completely wrong. What this means IN REAL TERMS, is that users will download a cracked version of office from the pirate bay when their legit version fails to function on a new machine.
I really wish the film and music industries would offer a simple service where I could just go to their website, pick a piece of content, and pay $5 to support those involved in the creation of that content, then I'd get an email saying I was now licensed to own a copy of that content in any form.
Then I can go to pirate bay, iso hunt, or wherever, download the content, and it would be perfectly legal and paid for, and that would be the end of it.
One of the dangers of the advanced chemistry of the modern age is that we can create things that trick our bodies, bypassing the warning systems we have developed over millions of years of evolution.
In nature, very few sweet things are toxic. Lead is the only thing I can think off. Lead is delicious.
If you are concerned about antifreeze, only ethylene glycol is toxic. Propylene glycol, a common "marine antifreeze" or "non-toxic antifreeze" is also used a food additive, so use it instead and your pets will be fine. It doesn't taste nearly as good as ethylene glycol does, but it wont kill you or your pets either.
If OCAD is still run the way it was while I was a student, I'm afraid this isn't really an option, since the art history courses are compulsory.
What sets OCAD apart from other schools, and what motivated me to go there back in '02 over anywhere else was the strong emphasis on studio work over academic work. I have this crazy idea that if I want to get good at doing stuff, then doing stuff is more effective than writing about doing stuff. And OCAD got that, they understood that. So there was only one Academic course per year (2 if you were enrolled in the degree program) and it was mandatory. everyone had to take it, and everyone had to pass to move on to the next year.
"Hopefully, these students will find this experience an education in the realities of today's copyright, as these art schools otherwise leave them woefully ignorant, and will carry this realization into their professional lives."
Not just ignorant, but horribly misinformed.
Several years ago, I was at the OCAD grad show, and a spectacularly gifted student was showing. I asked if he had a website where I could see more.
"NO! Absolutely not! If I put pictures online everyone will just steal them"
"So...how are people supposed to find you, to get to know you? to become familiar with your work?"
He walked away, angry.
This wasn't an isolated incident, as many other students has the same attitude. Someone is telling these kids that copyright is like gold and must be protected at all costs.
The best revenge, however, is success, and I was picked up by a gallery by them googling "cool effing art +toronto" and I came up in the results.
I haven't seen anything from these students in years, it's like they disappeared off the face of the earth, and without a website, that's exactly what's happened.
OCAD also has a laptop program, where students are forced to purchase one of very limited selection of laptops for their coursework.
So they are forced to buy textbooks AND laptops.
I graduated from this school in '06.
By 3rd year I had stopped buying any of the text books for a number of reasons:
1. free copies are available in the library.
2. I can pay attention in class and still pull off high 70's.
3. Marks are irrelevant, it's the $20,000 piece of paper at the end that matters, not your report card.
4. You are buying your way into a social network, not actually learning anything, so who cares about textbooks?
5. It's cheaper to not buy stuff.
During the copyright consultations that were held several years ago, where the government pretended to care about what Canadians wanted out of copyright reform, a big issue that took the government by surprize was strong support for the abolition of Crown Copyright.
They just don't get it. They see it as a way of protecting Canadians, only "approved agencies" present the info, so we can "trust it".
A lot of statistics and information is like this, making it very hard to collect and present information about my own damned country. If, for example I want to list the GDP from each year over the last hundred years and compare it to which party was in power to get a sense of who is better for the economy, I can't find it anywhere. If I want to do the same for The States, after 5 minutes on Google, I have everything I need.
How is this helping Canadians?
The public paid for it, the public should own it.