In my experience, stripping the EXIF data could significantly reduce the file size of the image. For some part of the world where inet bandwith is not a premium, the size savings may not matter, but for others where it's a premium, it does matter.
I can understand why some sites automatically strip the EXIF data. For them to reach the maximum penetration possible, they have to consider the lowest bandwith available to the user. Hence, smaller file transfer is desirable. I also use this technique on some sites I helped develop, and the bandwith saving is huge IMO (some pages reached nearly 9mb savings; but of course I'm combining EXIF stripping with other techniques).
That was sometimes ago, when such stripping really matters. However, the lower bandwith are now slowly rising. Does the rising made the saving from stripping EXIF matter now IDK, as I quit the web dev arena a while ago.
What I don't get is why you guys keep attacking the writer rather than the writing. If you think you got it right then it should be a breeze to demolish the writings rather than going for the writer's throat. Doing that only shows that you're:
1. Know that you're standing on a shaky ground but refuse to acknowledge it (the "la la la can't hear you" syndrome)
2. Fear the writer for the message (s)he brings, cos you know his/her writings/message will obliterate your worldview (primal survival instinct)
Given that, I'm so close to use the "T" word as comparison to you.
Human is highly adaptable to it's environment. Put a highly noble/honest/what-other-good-trait person in a highly corrupt environment, and (s)he is most likely to be "adapted" to that environment. Of course once a while there come a person who defies the norm and make the environment adapt to him/her instead, but that's an exception/anomaly rather than a rule.
Yes the $$ is a factor, but not the only one. The most dangerous is the "slippery slope" actions. "To achieve common good I must sacrifice X," and hell break loose from there. As they say, "the road to hell is full of good intentions".
What I'm thinking is AFAIK under current US laws derivative work are eligible for a separate copyright. The way you define "adapting to new medium" is not merely format shifting, but also include a fair amount of creativity. Adapting a movie to a novel, or in reverse, for example, is not straightforward.
If the law for derivative work stay as it is, and by my reading of your proposal that adaptation is exercising copyright hence not eligible for a separate copyright, there will be a dilemma, at least for the holder. The incentive for creating an "original" adaptation (i.e. quality work) will not too strong, as under law "any" adaptation will do. However, the market won't accept "unoriginal" work, but if the goal is only exercising copyright, then it still beneficial to create one after another.
Also, what if the one doing the adapting is not the original copyright holder. Can the adaptation be considered as exercising copyright by the original holder? Does the adaptor get a separate copyright?
If you do think Mike is spewing nonsense, why bother keep coming here in the 1st place? I'm sure there's more productive ways to spend your time than this. If you're not looking for a Master, then another possibility is he hurt you somehow (either real or imaginary) and you're looking for revenge, not unlike a scorned ex-boy/girlfriend.
If you are saying that you want the "truth" about Mike to come out in the open, then stop wasting time posting chastisement here and create your own blog. There you can write all the rebuke you want and present your case.
To be obsessed with someone's position like this, I'm starting to think you're browsing to see if Mike is eligible for your vote to a position of power, specifically an authoritative position over you. It's like you're looking for someone to do all the thinking for you, or in BDSM parlance (AFAIK), a Slave looking for a Master.
Maybe a 2 yrs automatic grace period. Within those 2 yrs, the author can opt in for a 5 yrs protection with 1 time 2 yrs extension. However, if the author opt in after the grace period, he can only get 2 yrs opt in protection without chance for extension, if it is done no more than say 3yrs(?) after the grace period. After that, if the author still not opt in, the work automatically enter public domain, if he not specifically declare the work as public domain before hand.
The problem with that setup is the 3yrs after the grace period, which can make a work in an undetermined state. Maybe the system will better off without the 3yrs "last chance" period.
You'd go on as if piracy is a lucrative business. I've yet to see an unbiased report of it bringing home something lucrative.
Lessened risks lead to increased piracy? Heck, even an infinitely heightened risks won't deter, in fact will stimulate, infinitely increasing piracy if the core problems aren't addressed. You can't just address the problem at the end of the pipeline while ignoring the ones at the source. All that'll do is blow up the whole thing.
There are myriad of reasons people turn to piracy. What I think TD is covering all along is piracy as a release valve from pressure of unmet demand of one form or another (scarcity of legal sources, unfair pricing/practices, etc). That's one, albeit most widely cited cause. Even in those cases I've yet to see TD making a call to pirate something.
There's a minor anecdote running outside of the US, especially in Muslim countries: If you have your name, or part of it, sounded Muslim, forget traveling to the US for any reason. It'll be lucky if you're not end up in Gitmo even if you're traveling there to do humanitarian work. Use the 48 days waiting for the US embassy to respond why you couldn't fly there from your home country (that is, if ever) for a more productive work instead.
Also, I've heard the same anecdote for some small part of Europe. Which part I forgot, cos it's rare compared to ones made for the US
All these efforts, more surveillance, "selectively" bypass judicial procedure, harsh punishment, etc, ad nauseum, will do nothing in curbing "terrorism", if the underlying cause is not found, studied, and acted upon.
The thing is, this is a fairly simple fix, and it's all technological: the automated system being used by DTecNet ought to actually check the file type and size before sending out a DMCA notice.
The thing is, it is NOT simple to fix using only technological/automated means. File type and size? That's the easiest thing to spoof (intentional action) or collide (unintentional action). The next thing is using hashes, while it doesn't deter spoofing 1 iota, it can decrease collision chance considerably.
While hashes seems like good news, consider it from copyright holder's view. 2 same media file, one slightly modified (i.e. resized by 1px for visuals, or apply filtering on unused spectra for audio) yield to a very different hash, hence uncaught infringement. Developing methods precise enough to handle this problem is hard and expensive. It's more easier to use "shoot 1st ask question never" approach cos DMCA is particularly weak in deterring this kind of approach.
The only sure way to satisfy both party (accuser and accused) is to have conscious human being (or something similar ;P ) to do the final arbitration, and that still do not account for further "complications" like fair use etc.
(hard/expensive method for doing it right) + (no reprisal) = abuse + (collateral damage)^3
What's the minimum number of victims after which we waive all decency and respect of human rights of the "alleged" perpetrator(s)? What's the restitution of wrongful allegation/conviction in such case(s)?
As much as I may empathize with various oppressed people (and they are everywhere), terrorism (and killing, for that matter) is never a reasonable tactic. Never.
Trouble is, the word "terror" is open for interpretation, at least for what specific action causing it, i.e. I could be cowering in terror knowing that my Miranda rights can be revoked at anytime without clear explanation/rules as to why. I could be arrested for jaywalking, and some smart ass argues my jaywalking threatens public safety and poof goes my Miranda rights (apparently, he doesn't approve my relationship with his daughter/sister/neighbor/friend/someone across the street/what-have-you).
I'm not saying that the morality/honor codes justify censoring speech. What I'm saying is that IMO a call for ISP to "voluntarily" block speech (by way of blocking Tor) tend to have more gravity than the same call made in the western culture, even without dubiously worded laws and/or backroom deals.
You have to remember, this is Japan we're talking about, and have a different mindset than most western world. I for one like to see what those "voluntary" requirement will ensue, but I won't be surprised if the ISP cave in without having introducing any kind of law.
For example, there's a Japanese game modding forum which frowns, if not ban outright, foreigners. Why? Cos the "foreigners" by large won't respect the original mod author's wishes for not distributing/re-uploading their work, even if there's "transformative works" involved. As for the native, if the author say "jump", all will ask "how high".
Whether that example can be applied to this matter remain to be seen. But that example is inline with what I know about Japan's history.