Prison terms are predicated on these nonexistent items, allowing the government to send someone away for decades for almost robbing an empty house.
So we can be sentenced to long prison terms for planning to do something we couldn't have actually accomplished because it was all fake. But on the other hand, if the government fires you because it mistakenly believes you engaged in speech it disagrees with, that's no problem.
It seems like either the intentions of the "bad actor" should be controlling, or not. If someone can be convicted for wishing he could be a terrorist even if he really wasn't, the government should also be penalized for trying to curtail constitutionally protected freedoms even though it failed to do so. Or, if the government gets a free pass because the speech it thought was happening really didn't exist, the conspirators should go free because there was no actual crime.
Without the cellular network being able to determine your location, they would never be able to make your phone ring or send you a text message. Heck, the wouldn't be able to charge you roaming fees and roaming data costs...
That's not true, the network only needs to know what cell you're connected to, which gives only a very broad indication of location.
If you go through the legally-binding version of the license, there is no mention of any restriction on commercial use. That would be the CC-BY-NC license, which he didn't use.
At least that's probably how most people would read it, and most people aren't attorneys (thank goodness).
When you see that license deed that explicitly allows commercial use, you read that as forbidding charging for the photograph? Why? Or is there some part of the actual license that you think looks like it forbids charging money?
You have to keep companies honest, especially in the USA, and I think the judges erred.
The company was being perfectly honest. In what way do you think the court erred?
People think photos on the Internet are free for them to use
In this case, it actually was - as long as the license terms were followed, which they were.
At the very least, the headline was insulting to the photographer, and it was more critical than warranted.
It described exactly what happened.
Instead of doing things, 99% of people appear to spend their days judging what other's do... Much respect to those who take risks instead of choosing the safety and security of judging behind anonymous screen names.
So the copy would have to be the hard drive the work is stored on, or the section(s) of the hard drive, since that's the only material object involved. That is not distributed, so no copy is distributed either. Right?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I know this make me a target, but....
And "inconsiderate, self important users" are a problem behind the wheel even without distractions.
I heard that certain people are more or less bound to be distracted drivers. If they don't have a cell phone, they'll find something else to distract themselves with - playing with the radio, doing a crossword puzzle, whatever. That group of people is the main reason why we need autonomous cars. The other is that even most of the other people who are paying attention aren't all that good at driving.
The interesting difference is that if a homeowner refuses to cooperate with a search warrant, the police can break the door down. With strong encryption that is not true, which is of course why they are seeking laws like this one. I think 5th amendment law really needs to be settled on whether suspects can be compelled to give up encryption passwords.