Wikipedia did it once too. But they had it slightly easier, if I recall correctly. They were originally under an older version of the the GFDL. Then when GFDL 1.3 came out, they could automatically upgrade to that. Then as a result of GFDL 1.3 including an explicit relicencing clause, they could switch to CC-BY-SA.
> I was so sick and tired of people coming back into the computer store trying to say we ripped them off because their 40 GB hard drive wasn't 40 GB
You should blame Microsoft for failing to switch to using decimal values while still incorrectly using SI prefixes. Typical users should rarely be exposed to binary values (except for RAM, where IEC binary prefixes should be ideally used instead. i.e. GiB, not GB).
OS X and Ubuntu (not sure about other Linux distros) handle this (mostly) correctly. But Windows is still lagging behind.
No, a megabyte (MB) is really 1000000 (mega- means 10^6) bytes. A mebibyte (MiB) is 1048576 bytes (mebi- means 2^20). (These are what the IEC binary prefixes are designed for)
The annoying usage of SI prefixes for binary values is an historical artifact of a time when 1024 bytes was a close enough approximation of a kilobyte.
Standard SI prefixes and interpretations (base 10) are used for data transfer and all modern disk storage capacities. OS X and Ubuntu now correctly use SI units for file sizes. Windows still gets it wrong.
Oops, my bad. I misunderstood. I thought the Tesco TV ad was the infringing video. It seems the two videos given are indeed the same songs. The claimed infringing video is linked separately. I retract my previous comment.
> really? you have copyright on the use of weather as metaphor for happiness in a song?
Did you even listen to the two songs? I played them simultaneously and they synced up almost perfectly. They are virtually identical. I couldn't distinguish between them at all.
Assuming the company really did fail to pay appropriate royalties for the use of the musical score and did just re-record it and try to pass it off as their own, this is a clear and blatant case of copyright infringement and it's difficult to see how any fair use/fair dealing (or equivalent) defence could be used in this case.
This is ridiculous. It's not a requirement for any given work to be a progress for science and/or the useful arts. That is a mandate for the US government to create laws regarding exclusive rights that do that. It is simply unrealistic to have a system where the determination of what qualifies for copyright or not be based on someone's subjective interpretation of usefulness.
The difference is that the TSA forces you to consent to the pat down. If you don't consent, they don't let you fly, whether you like it or not. The TSA agent never consented to the reciprocal pat down, regardless of fairness.
The article you linked to does not claim the boots resemble the actor himself and you are blatantly misrepresenting the issue here. It clearly states:
According to the lawsuit, the boots look similar to a pair that Brando wore in the 1953 classic The Wild One.
Since neither you nor the other article actually included a picture of those boots from the film, it is difficult to evaluate the claim here, at least as far as the similarity of the boots is concerned. (I'll leave it to the lawyers to fight over whether the Brando estate actually has any rights whatsoever to the design of the boots, even if they are similar.)
The domain that Sunde is referring to, which was handed over to the IFPI, was ifpi.org. Sunde had somehow obtained the domain after the IFPI had let it expire. The details of how he obtained it aren't clear, but he claimed it was given to him by someone else who snagged it after it expired. He had then set up a landing page on the site calling it the International Federation of Pirates Interests. ICANN then decided to seize the domain and return it to the IFPI.
I really despise the CC-NC and CC-ND licences. They are an attractive nuisance that are used by far too many clueless people who don't understand the inherently blurry line between commercial and non-commercial works, and, particularly in the case of ND, by people who have no interest in actually contributing their creative work to the collective commons, but still want to be associated with the CC brand.
The NC licence actually has a hidden ShareAlike-like component to it, in that any work that is licenced for non-commercial use can only be reused in works that also have a non-commercial restriction. A lot of people miss that point. So although CC-SA-NC is technically worse, at least it's honest about what it means.
Any work that is licenced under the NC or ND licences should simply be considered unusable.
But the problems you describe are not limited to people beliving all CC licences are NC. I've also seen many people completely misunderstand the restrictions imposed on works that are licenced under NC, and believe that all CC licences can be reused and modified without a problem. (I think this is actually far more common than the reverse situation you described.)
I also have a problem with the CC-SA licence because any copyleft licence is inherently incompatible with almost any other copyleft licence, and so it often imposes an unintended reuse restriction. e.g. A work licensed under CC-SA is incompatible with a work licensed under the GFDL, even though both licences are intended to permit reuse and remixing.
The CC -NC licences are an attractive nuisance. They're often used by clueless people who simply don't understand the restriction that imposes on reusing the work. While they seem appealing, they are absolutely annoying and must be strongly discouraged.
Say you make a mashup from various CC licenced materials. If you use anything in there with an NC licence, then the work as a whole must also be licensed only for non-commercial use.
It gets worse if you use CC-SA, because you simply can't mixed by-sa and by-sa-nc together. For me, CC-by is the only creative commons licence I will accept.
Having said that, I fully understand why the CBC would want to avoid CC-NC licences, and perhaps also CC-SA license. But CC-BY licences should be completely acceptable.
Having a website up asking for ideas is not a bad thing. It's a great way to get feedback from their viewers. But normally with this type of thing, they have terms and conditions that clearly state that by submitting your idea to them, they have the right to use it. It's pretty stupid submitting an idea to them, thus granting them permission to use the idea (not that permission is really needed anyway), and then suing them over it.
The problem with speeding is not only that people are travelling too fast to handle the speeds, there are also problems created by having vehicles on the same road travelling at vastly different speeds.
On most highways, the difference in speed between vehicles is generally +/-5km/h around the specified limit. By allowing some cars to optionally travel up to 25 miles, or 40km/h, faster, you suddenly have a situation where you'll either have cars rapidly and unexpectedly approaching from behind and either slamming on their breaks to avoid hitting you, or whizzing around. That does not create a safe driving environment.