Increased delays and added costs at U.S. airports due to new security procedures provide incentive for many short-haul passengers to drive to their destination rather than flying, and, since driving is far riskier than air travel, the extra automobile traffic generated has been estimated in one study to result in 500 or more extra road fatalities per year.
Re: 'Big broadband is going to howl and protest...'
And sites like TechDirt will continue to provide an healthy, ongoing application of sunlight to disinfect such chicanery. Do not underestimate the influence that the people and the press exerted here to cause such a dramatic 180° from Wheeler.
I just got into a discussion with a colleague who was advocating a breed-specific "pit bull" law to deal with the fact that pit bulls have a greater tendency to maul people/children than other breeds.
Here's the crux: do we really care about what breed caused the damage? Why not just legislate "if you have a pet and it harms someone, you are responsible"?
Same goes here. Why do we care that these are Muslim extremists? What if we determined the attackers weren't actually Muslim, but were some splinter religion that mainstream Muslims are distancing themselves from? And who gets to decide if they are "real" Muslims or not?
And ultimately, who really cares? Some sociopaths killed a dozen people. Let's punish them for that and not get into trying to legislating away the crazy by conflating it with other traits. Even if—and this is just a hypothetical—there was a .99 correlation between Muslim and terrorist, it still would be a shitty law because it would wrongly implicate innocent people.
So you are arguing he somehow deserves partial copyright? What about the airline that flew him to the location? The guide who drove him into the field? The company that designed and manufactured the photography equipment he used? The electric company that charged the batteries he used? If merely twiddling a few settings (or even just leaving them alone, right?) confers rights, then maybe I also deserve some for not running out of the bushes and screaming "SHOO MONKEY! RUN FROM THE CONTROVERSY!" thereby disrupting the conditions that allowed this photo to take place.
Regardless, despite your false assertion, the USCO Compendium most certainly does make this a pretty clear cut case. But if you really want proof, then why don't you bring it to court Mssr. malbee?
What you and other "real artists" believe, and what the law says are not necessarily the same thing. And in this particular case, they are exactly the opposite.
The amount of effort or expense one exerts in an endeavor is ultimately not relevant in what one receives as a result of said endeavor. Poet Robert Frost wrote one of his best poems—Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening—in just "a few minutes without strain." Whereas countless aspiring writers have written reams with nary a ruble rewarding their effort.
malbee: it actually has yet to be determined that Mr Slater "lacks a copyright".
Since you are playing the part of pedant, then you must also admit that it has yet to be determined the Mssr. Slater actually has a copyright claim here. With no court ruling to say one way or the other, the state of Schrödinger's Monkey is officially undefined.
So I say bring on the lawsuit! If Mssr. Slater is so confident in his rights, then he should have no problem asserting them in court. If not, well that itself speaks volumes.
Lack of copyright isn't preventing Mssr. Slater from collecting money from this picture. It is for sale on his web site, and wtop.com paid him for their use of it back in August when they wrote about it. He has also gotten a lot of attention for him and his photography from this story (I certainly hadn't heard of him before this) which no doubt has led to more business opportunities. To say Mssr. Slater has not benefited from these selfies that happen to be taken by a monkey using his equipment—despite the fact that they are not covered by copyright—is either ignorant, facile, or both.
Protip: if you want to argue intelligently about intellectual property issues, I highly encourage you to learn the difference between "stealing" and "infringement".
Re: Re: Re: Re: TechDirt wasn't the only one who got this letter
Yes, the point I was making with the +44 was all signs point to UK/Guernsey. There is the one employee listed with a US telephone number—Angela Adrian, Chief Knowledge Officer—but the 949 area code points to the Southern Los Angeles 'burbs, not Louisiana.
However now that I look at her LinkedIn profile, I see that she proclaims: I am the CEO of Icondia LLC, New Orleans, Louisiana. That must be her scribble as the signatory of the letter I received.
FYI, here is Google Street View for 862 Camp St in New Orleans. There are 22 companies with this as their address, and Icondia isn't even listed there. Note that "John J. Sullivan" is the registered agent for all of those businesses. And if you zoom in on Google Street View all the way, you can see that's his name on the plate below the street address. Given the modest size of the building, I seriously doubt these companies are actually working out of there. Smells a lot like the copyright trolls' East Texas "offices", and John J. Sullivan is simply taking money from people for the use of his address.
CEO Icondia November 2012 – Present (2 years 2 months) Guernsey Founder member and CEO of Icondia Ltd
Their contact phone numbers are all +44 (Great Britain). I'm not sure exactly what that address is in New Orleans, but I suspect it's just a postal presence. I doubt this company has any legal sway in the USA. Note the signature on the letter in incomprehensible and is labeled Icondia Ltd. They weren't even brave enough to have an actual person put their name on it.
who (if anyone) 'owns' the copyright on the trail cameras where the animal triggers the picture?
This was discussed in the comments of the previous article on this issue. My opinion is that there is no copyright, but others (like the BBC) disagree. Ultimately this will end up in court (unless the copyright office or Congress preempts) as we will need to set some legal precedent before it can be resolved.
Icondia sent the threat letter to me—at my work address no less, despite the blog post in question being on my personal blog. It really is hard for me to believe that any competent organization based in the USA (in this case, New Orleans, LA) would solemnly assert any sort of right of a non-US law; especially Guernsey, which isn't even a real country, rather a "British crown dependency" like the Isle of Man, and other pwns plebes of Great Britain.
It's unfortunate I am now a part of the story and hope that it ends here, but given what I've seen so far, I wouldn't bet on it. And for what it's worth, they paid $6 and change to send this via certified mail. That plus the labor of Iconia, I wonder how big the hole Mssr. Slater is digging for himself. Which reminds me of one of my favorite performance review comments of all time: ...has hit rock bottom and has started to dig.
Re: Re: Nit: The filenames contained the word "password"
Because there's no way anyone in Sony is so organized and also willfully aggressive about poor security as to have compiled all of the dispersive password files from different groups, divisions, sites, and even countries and put them into one location.
The "password" folder was likely created by the leaker to aggregate the dispersive password files. I highly doubt there was a folder on any computer within Sony named "passwords" that contained all of those files.
This is passive-aggressive codependent manipulation at its finest: if you don't do X then you will make me do Y. But here's the thing: if the subsidies don't come through and they do follow through on their threat to not invest, what the hell are they going to tell their stockholders? That it is choosing not to fully invest in the future and its future profits because it's mad at the government? Sounds like the flawed, emotional logic of a 3 year old.
Why don't we simply ask the public what they expect
It's completely arrogant for the DOJ to assert what the public does and does not expect regarding privacy in this interconnected world. The public is capable of speaking for ourselves. So why don't we just ask them? Someone should do a survey of the public asking privacy-related questions (e.g. Should the government be able to look at your the location data derived from your cell phone as you move from cell tower to cell tower without a warrant?)
IANAL, but I'm guessing this wouldn't necessarily be admissible, and it probably wouldn't trump law. But it would be a hell of a lot more honest than what the DOJ is doing here. If the DOJ is going to rape the public, they should at least show the most basal respect; don't blame the victim and claim that they consented.
The tripod is an irrelevant red herring. The monkey both put herself in the frame and pressed the shutter. There's no way Slater can argue that he framed the monkey in that way intentionally and all the monkey did was trigger the shutter.
Which is the same reason why camera trap photos cannot be copyrighted either. Yes the photographer chooses where to place the camera and point, but they do not specifically choose which animals are in the frame, which way they are facing, the specific lighting conditions at the time of capture, exactly when the shutter is triggered, and a whole host of other variables.
Whoever takes this one to court will have an uphill battle convincing a knowledgeable judge that they hold copyright on camera trap photos.