Boojum 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (76) comment rss

  • On the post: Missouri Attorney General Claims The First Amendment Allows Him To Withhold Public Records

    Boojum ( profile ), 26 Aug, 2019 @ 10:40am

    From the FOIA Guide

    It also is important to remember that while the government may voluntarily or involuntarily waive its right to an exemption when its own interests are at stake, it cannot waive an individual's privacy interests under the FOIA by unilaterally publicizing information about that person. (100) The privacy interest inherent in Exemption 6 "belongs to the individual, not the agency holding the information," and "the fact that otherwise private information at one time or in some way may have been placed in the public domain does not mean that a person irretrievably loses his or her privacy interest in the information." (101)
    https://www.justice.gov/oip/foia-guide-2004-edition-exemption-6

  • On the post: Missouri Attorney General Claims The First Amendment Allows Him To Withhold Public Records

    Boojum ( profile ), 26 Aug, 2019 @ 09:56am

    First amendment does support anonymous criticism.

    I'm sorry, but the courts have often ruled that anonymous speech is protected, particularly in regards to the government and politicians. There is a case in the courts right now where an LDS member criticized the LDS church anonymously on Redit and the courts are taking steps to prevent him from being unmasked in the copyright case the LDS brought against him. The courts have said that the first amendment is not there just to protect the speaker, but to also protect the public's ability to hear what a speaker has said. That it not only applies to U.S. Citizens but to people in other countries, allowing U.S. citizens to hear what they have to say. They have already ruled that the chilling affects of unmasking an anonymous speaker prevents others from speaking, and thus falls under the first amendment.

  • On the post: Some Thoughts On The EU's Latest $5 Billion Google Antitrust Fine

    Boojum ( profile ), 18 Jul, 2018 @ 04:16pm

    The current ruling from the EU isn't about android either, it's about search engines and browsers. My Kindle Fire also limits my search engine and browser choice to just one, which is why I am wondering if they will be next. They won't let me install a bunch of stuff.

    Boojum

  • On the post: Some Thoughts On The EU's Latest $5 Billion Google Antitrust Fine

    Boojum ( profile ), 18 Jul, 2018 @ 04:05pm

    I wonder if Amazon will be next? My Amazon Kindle Fire runs Android but will not let me install the browser of my choice. All browsers except silk have been blocked.

  • On the post: Epic Decides To Double Down On Copyright For Cheating Lawsuit Against 14 Year Old By Taking On Mom

    Boojum ( profile ), 30 Apr, 2018 @ 12:58pm

    Re: Blocking users

    According to the court documents, they DID block him dozens of times. He kept creating accounts using fake data and streaming the game.

  • On the post: Epic Decides To Double Down On Copyright For Cheating Lawsuit Against 14 Year Old By Taking On Mom

    Boojum ( profile ), 30 Apr, 2018 @ 11:57am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright - DMCA Logic

    Acting as a devils advocate, if you can not legally agree to the contract then you can't legally use the software. If you still use the software you broke the law. If a minor breaks the law, the parent is responsible for restitution in many places. Thus, if your kid breaks someone's window (vandalism) the parents can be forced to pay for damages.

  • On the post: Epic Decides To Double Down On Copyright For Cheating Lawsuit Against 14 Year Old By Taking On Mom

    Boojum ( profile ), 30 Apr, 2018 @ 11:54am

    Re: Re: Re: Copyright - DMCA Logic

    The courts don't agree that you don't need a license to use software. Please refer to the many Microsoft cases where people used the Microsoft OS without a license and got found guilty of criminal offense.

  • On the post: Epic Decides To Double Down On Copyright For Cheating Lawsuit Against 14 Year Old By Taking On Mom

    Boojum ( profile ), 30 Apr, 2018 @ 11:01am

    Re: Copyright - DMCA Logic

    It is DMCA logic. Because you broke the terms of service, your license was immediately revoked. Because your license to use the software was revoked. When you create a video of yourself playing you are copying the stream without having a license to play. Congrats, copyright infringement.

    I am a little bit surprised, however, that these articles seem to be trying to diminish what the boy did by saying "For just using a cheat in a video game." On reading the court documents, they are saying he did a lot more than that. That he kept promoting the link to the cheat and telling everyone to use it. That they kept cancelling his account and he kept creating new ones under fake names. So this isn't like he didn't know they objected to what he was doing and it's not like he wasn't promoting the cheat. I agree that suing him is a PR nightmare, but if we are going to talk about a court case we should at least be open about what was being done and not dismiss the actions.

  • On the post: Not Everything Needs Copyright: Lawyers Flip Out That Photos Taken By AI May Be Public Domain

    Boojum ( profile ), 02 Apr, 2018 @ 06:41pm

    Read the post!

    It was a very interesting blog and I enjoyed reading it. There are a lot if interesting things to think about and look deeper into. Thank you for posting it.

  • On the post: Not Everything Needs Copyright: Lawyers Flip Out That Photos Taken By AI May Be Public Domain

    Boojum ( profile ), 02 Apr, 2018 @ 04:29pm

    I'd like to see that blog post

    Astronomy aside, as far as I know taking pictures of something in public view (such as a building or the night sky) confers copyright to the image, but does not prevent others from taking similar pictures of the object. I could be mistaken on that, but I seem to remember several lawsuits of public structures and landmarks were deemed to not violate the copyright of the original photographer even though they were a similar angle and blocking. This means that a person can take a picture of Halfdome and own the copyright to THAT picture.. and that someone else can come along and take a very similar picture and own the copyright to THAT picture... and so forth.

  • On the post: Not Everything Needs Copyright: Lawyers Flip Out That Photos Taken By AI May Be Public Domain

    Boojum ( profile ), 02 Apr, 2018 @ 03:59pm

    Re: Re: Removing RE:'s :D

    If the suggestion that pictures taken where the camera is not under the direct control of the photographer (camera mounted on wall, new google iclip, etc..) have no copyright, then I'm not sure why the raw footage of Andromeda would have a copyright. Conversly, if my raw footage of Andromeda has copyright, I'm not sure why automated picture taking of OTHER sorts wouldn't have copyright the photographer.

    This is a common problem as new technology comes online. People, including myself, would like an objective standard for how the law should be applied. A poorly thought out objective standard has all sorts of unintended consequences. I don't think there is a large body of caselaw on automated photography. It is, normally, assumed that the owner/operator of the camera who arranges for the photo to be taken has the copyright, regardless of how it is triggered. We are discussing an edge case, however. How is having a camera triggered by software installed that determines how good a picture will be different than one which autofocuses, autoshutters, autoaperature, then records constantly? How is it different from leaving your camera in a cage full of monkeys and "hoping" for a good shot? IS there any real difference in any of these possibilities?

    These are all topics that I will be very interested in seeing work out, both in law and in the courts.

  • On the post: Not Everything Needs Copyright: Lawyers Flip Out That Photos Taken By AI May Be Public Domain

    Boojum ( profile ), 02 Apr, 2018 @ 03:11pm

    Removing RE:'s :D

    Since Photographer control was brought up, that's what I was addressing. I can see your case for it to be a derivative work, but how much "control" that the photographer gives up removes copyright from their work? We have one side where the photographer controls everything (sets ISO, sets exposure, sets shutter speed, sets focus, arranges blocking, triggers picture), on the other side, technology provides a way to take each of those controls away from the photographer.
    It will be really interesting to see which way this goes if it ever comes up in a court case. As an amateur astrophotography buff I often use automation to guide and stack photo's. I have a guided mount and set up my camera to take a picture every X seconds (the less you touch the camera the more table your pictures will be.) When I have a hundred pictures taken, I can stack them and get some NICE pictures of stellar objects.
    If copyright is determined by creative control of the camera at the time the picture is taken, then I must admit there is very little control by me while pictures are being taken and so I would have no copyright on the original pictures, even though spent several hours at night taking them.
    Mind you, no copyright is not the same as being forced to provide access. No one has ACCESS to those original frames unless I provide it... Ownership does give some benefit to prevent others from using those frames.

  • On the post: Not Everything Needs Copyright: Lawyers Flip Out That Photos Taken By AI May Be Public Domain

    Boojum ( profile ), 02 Apr, 2018 @ 02:58pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    And yet it would seem that putting a camera in a blind to record wildlife at a watering hole and hoping that interesting footage is captured IS sufficient.. or at least it has been unchallenged (to the best of my knowledge.) Many documentaries use such footage when creating documentaries.

  • On the post: Not Everything Needs Copyright: Lawyers Flip Out That Photos Taken By AI May Be Public Domain

    Boojum ( profile ), 02 Apr, 2018 @ 01:37pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Interesting on so many levels

    While the photographer gives up control for a certain amount of time, he regains control and then begins cropping, sharpening, blurring, saturating, and all the OTHER things that photographers do with a picture. Pretty much no photographer today snaps a picture and then sends it out as is. Even without photoshop, there are LOTS of settings inside the camera that the monkey would almost certainly never change that would affect the outcome.
    Honestly, I agree with you though. I think that determining copyright on the picture will involve the amount of creativity the court feels the photographer put into it, the same as determining if a work is derivative or not... but that will be on a case by case basis and be VERY subjective. It would not provide photographers with an objective standard to guide their work.

  • On the post: Not Everything Needs Copyright: Lawyers Flip Out That Photos Taken By AI May Be Public Domain

    Boojum ( profile ), 02 Apr, 2018 @ 12:52pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Interesting on so many levels

    So this would imply that the intent of the photographer matters, not the actual trigger. So if a photographer left a camera in a cage of monkeys with the intention that one of them would trigger a usable picture, then the photographer would have the copyright? And if he didn't intend for a picture to be taken, there is no copyright on the picture?

  • On the post: Not Everything Needs Copyright: Lawyers Flip Out That Photos Taken By AI May Be Public Domain

    Boojum ( profile ), 02 Apr, 2018 @ 12:50pm

    Re: On Being Sane....

    Also in this argument, a timelapse photo or video of a flower is not copyrightable, and video of animals in the wilderness from tree mounted cameras is not copyrightable. Only the final creative expression of the documentary on PBS is copyrightable and anyone should be able to pull the timelapse or animal video out and use it for whatever they want. I'm not sure I agree with that interpretation. While the goal of the laws are important, there is no perfect implementation. We end up drawing lines where technology and creativity overlap.

  • On the post: Not Everything Needs Copyright: Lawyers Flip Out That Photos Taken By AI May Be Public Domain

    Boojum ( profile ), 02 Apr, 2018 @ 12:04pm

    Interesting on so many levels

    There are so many interesting things in this concept to dig into... as to where to draw the line as to who took a picture.
    1. Photographer pushes a button on the camera and ZZT it took a picture, almost no doubt he took the picture.
    2. PHotographer sets a timer on the camera to take a single picture or a timelapse picture. He is not actively pushing the button, did he take the picture or did the computer in the camera take the picture?
    3. Photographer sets up a laser trigger in the woods to take a picture with a camera on a branch when something walks through the invisible beam, Did he take the picture or did the animal walking down the path take the picture?
    4. Photographer sets up a motion activated video camera to capture footage for a documentary in the woods... did he take the picture or did the person moving about take the picture? Has he lost his copyright to these images from his movie because the computer in the camera took the picture?
    5. And now we get to this device. The photographer mounts the little camera but the computer decides when to take the picture?
    I can see a definite case where if no one has the copyright to the AI triggered picture, then no one has the copyright to any triggered picture on the grounds that the photographer didn't trigger it.

  • On the post: Facebook Has Many Sins To Atone For, But 'Selling Data' To Cambridge Analytica Is Not One Of Them

    Boojum ( profile ), 21 Mar, 2018 @ 11:35am

    Why regulate "internet" differently?

    What makes deep data mining work is the depth of the data that you have. It isn't that you have data from Facebook, it's that you have data from Facebook, Google, Safeway, the DMV, Red Robin, etc. The data that is mined doesn't just come from social media, it comes from that nice discount card the grocery store gave you, and the gift card to a restaurant that you went to, and many other places that are not social media. If you are going to pass a law protecting privacy, then it has to cover all the OTHER sources of data that deep data mining companies use, not just social media.

    Oh! And one other thing. That web browser that you are using for free? When the Mozilla/IE wars happened, the funding for browsers shifted from Users to Online Companies. This is one reason why you can get so much information about web browsing habits online, through cookies and what the computer sends to the server, which can be collected, which can be mined, etc. It is one reason why tracking pixels even work, because they can uniquely identify your computer/cell.. and then track you across multiple pages. So you would also want to pass regulations on what people can put on their web pages, such as tracking pixels and analytic javascript.

    If you are serious about protecting peoples privacy and "private data" then you have to go a LOT further than Social Media.

  • On the post: Court Destroys Future Public Art Installations By Holding Building Owner Liable For Destroying This One

    Boojum ( profile ), 22 Feb, 2018 @ 03:18pm

    Courts dim vue of people who try to end run

    I don't agree. Not issuing an injuction to prevent is not the same as giving license to do. Also, when the article says that "And therein lies the rub: the building owner did no more than what other law clearly allowed. But by allowing artists to bring claims for the "intentional distortion, mutilation, or other modification . . . [of works that] would be prejudicial to [the artist’s] honor or reputation" the court has set up a direct conflict between VARA and what traditional copyright law, and traditional property law, have allowed." that it ignores the fact that the artists were seeking to protect those same works "As the Law allows." By intentionally destroying the art before the case was complete, he denied them their lawful right to object to the artworks destruction in court as is granted to them in VARA.

  • On the post: Court Destroys Future Public Art Installations By Holding Building Owner Liable For Destroying This One

    Boojum ( profile ), 22 Feb, 2018 @ 02:55pm

    I am not sure I agree with the premise of this story, that the developer did nothing wrong because it was his. If someone finds out they are being sued for the ownership of a car and it goes to court.. and the court doesn't explicitly say "Don't destroy the car" but they deliberately run it through a crusher in order to avoid judicial action then I think they have done something wrong. Please note, this is not a comment on the VARA act itself, but rather on the articles implication that the person "Just did something with their own property that they were entitled to do." He knew there was a court case about the status of the paintings, that the court case was moving forward (not dismissed), and chose to destroy the artworks.

Next >>