I can't see how this is possible when if it were you can then have a case of double copyright. What I mean is that the photographer normally owns the copyright meaning any chef reusing their photo is an infringement itself even if you infringed their food first.
Sure I accept that chefs can have copyright if they keep their artistic pudding to themselves when they still have copyright on the videos and photos. Established law has never stopped anyone copyright the recipe when no two creations are EXACTLY alike.
The killer situation though is that the chef has sold you the food at the point they have handed it to you meaning they then lack all control. This is the same as buying an oil painting when you can photo and video this all you want where the original artist then can't stop you.
(3) recommits itself to ensuring that [deceased] musical artists such as Frankie Knuckles receive fair protection under the copyright laws of the United States [while we fail to admit that Frankie Knuckles has no use for food, drink, air or copyright protection in his current state];
If they love the guy so much they should have his house music played in Congress 24/7 when such a heavy beat will sure liven up common debates.
Quite rightly the Judge should throw the book at them when this a total abuse of power for greedy theft. Makes you wonder all else they stole in their past.
They were dumb too when never link your personal details to BitCoin theft when instead just put funds in an obscure BitCoin account then do nothing for 1 to 10 years until the heat blows over and you have a perfect plan to cash out.
I can say that ecx.images-amazon.com is where they store all the product photos where naturally an SSL friendly site has to keep such location behind a valid certificate.
No such luck when change that HTTP link to HTTPS and we can see that Amazon has no certificate installed when this link defaults to the SSL certificate of their cloud hosting provider meaning site name mismatch and a huge connection warning.
I see this as disgusting when it is hardly like Amazon lack the funds to install the right certificates and to provide their visitors with the full encrypted and safe shopping experience.
So name and shame is not such a bad idea of such huge sites along with a boycott should they fail to change.
There are of course many sites out there who provide the full SSL service like Wiki do.
UK Prime Minister David Cameron doesn't ask for much from the world's tech companies. All he wants is for them to proactively police the web for child pornography, piracy and extremist content. He's not offering to pay for these services. He just expects Google et al to do this on their own time and own dime to make the world a better place.
I am already sure that the European Court of Justice have already ruled that Governments can't do this. To force businesses to do unpaid work is akin to modern slavery.
After all the Government does not hand an arms manufacturer a long list of desired hardware and then go "all for free" or to demand engineers build a new bridge for "zero charge".
So I have no idea why the Government wants to freeload off Internet data services when they pay GCHQ for data right but not Google for data?
As has been made clear before then if the Government wants Google to do work then the Government can enter into contract with Google to buy services at a fair market rate. Should Google refuse then sure the Government can aim to change the law to force them but they still need to pay for the work.
What a day this is when Joe Public has to explain basic economics to the poxy Government who seem intent on forcing slavery.
Beyond this all being a bad idea then I can say that many sites DO want to move to SSL but there are problems in doingn so where beyond technical implementation the main problem is that SSL certificates requite third party validation. It may be nice to ensure a valid business but this is no one off charge when such services want to milk the punters for all they can with an annual subscription of a high fee.
This is why if SSL is to become the standard across a vast variety of different sites then we need FREE validation. That is exactly what the EFF plan to implement in about 6 months time when they automate the validation process.
So not much can happen until then. Sure we need to lead sites into using SSL by default but it is still wrong to claim unencrypted is somehow dangerous or harmful.
Copyright belongs to the one who pushed the button and not the one who encouraged the shot. Like a wife saying to he husband to take a photo when the copyright belongs to him and not her.
To do the opposite creates no end of problems with people saying they encouraged a famous photo to be taken with the photographer playing the trained monkey in this.
The problem here of course is that copyright is a human concept meaning no macaque monkey can own copyright. That means this photo is expelled from copyright into the public domain.
You can always get this macaque monkey in Court though to fight for his copyright when he should be as good as many rights holders in terms of pointing fingers and screaming tantrums. I just don't see it working out.
"We added an update with some more details. The court's ruling, apparently, is not entirely clear on if this applies to infringing videos or not. In the original case, apparently the company claimed the original video was *not* uploaded with permission, which would indicate that the copy was unauthorized (favoring streaming sites' arguments), but other elements of the ruling suggest otherwise and the court more or less ignores the specific issue entirely."
This would indicate to me that the video being infringing or not infringing was unimportant to the ruling regardless when all embedding is lawful.
After all had the ECJ believed embedding an infringing video was unlawful then they would have said guilty from the moment they heard that the video was uploaded to YouTube without the approval of the owner. The fact that the video was already made public elsewhere seems unimportant when there is only infringing and not infringing where an unofficial YouTube upload is certainly infringing.
Still I do much await the English version to see clearly what these Judges said and what we can reasonably assume from what they did not say.
That incident sounds like a Cyber War attack even if it was an accident which makes it lucky that Syria did not take down United States Governmental services, or worse, even if they may lack that technology.
So the US terror campaign against the on-line world continues one country at a time.
As he was arrested then so was he bailed while they continue their investigation maybe leading to a [doubtful] trial.
The interesting part is what he was arrested for when to be a lawful arrest they have to believe he has committed a crime. We don't know the full details of course but from what we can publicly see he did nothing unlawful.