ChrisH 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (69) comment rss

  • On the post: Some Chefs Still Insisting That Photographing Meals Steals Some Of Their Intellectual Property

    ChrisH ( profile ), 09 Mar, 2014 @ 10:25am

    Re: Re:

    It depends on if what you're photographing is copyrightable subject matter. Neither the car nor the plate of food are so you're fine. Even if they were, there's still fair use to consider including the transformativeness test that someone else mentioned.

  • On the post: Some Chefs Still Insisting That Photographing Meals Steals Some Of Their Intellectual Property

    ChrisH ( profile ), 09 Mar, 2014 @ 10:18am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Copyright is a law. Licensing is a specific agreement between two parties, usually to achieve some state of affairs other than what would result from the law alone. They have nothing to do with each other.

    For example when you buy software, the law gives you certain rights, but you might then choose to sign a license that gives some of those rights back to the software publisher. That's another thing. Copyright, being a law, is automatic, whereas licenses are always voluntary.

  • On the post: Some Chefs Still Insisting That Photographing Meals Steals Some Of Their Intellectual Property

    ChrisH ( profile ), 09 Mar, 2014 @ 09:45am

    This is the problem with using the phrase "intellectual property". It gulls people into believing they have more rights than they actually do. Legally speaking, there is no such thing as intellectual property. There is only copyright, and plates of food aren't copyrightable.

  • On the post: Georgia Claims Its Annotated Laws Are Covered By Copyright, Threatens Carl Malamud For Publishing The Law

    ChrisH ( profile ), 31 Jul, 2013 @ 08:33am

    Now, technically, these states are on reasonably firm legal ground, even if they're on completely illogical common sense ground. While US copyright law is clear that works of the federal government are not covered by copyright, that's not the case for state or local governments.
    Even if though they're not excepted from copyright, I wonder how this would stand up to the question of copyrightability. Statements of facts are not copyrightable, so I'm wondering if that would be the most logical defense in this case.

  • On the post: Connecticut Man Arrested For Writing Obscenity On Traffic Ticket Payment Form

    ChrisH ( profile ), 21 Jun, 2013 @ 01:25pm

    A municipal judge on March 22, 2013 finally dismissed the charge against Barboza, stating that while his words were ?crude, vulgar, inappropriate and clearly intended to annoy,? that the First Amendment protects Barboza?s speech.
    Thank f#*k for that! Restores my faith in the legal system.

    If laws like this actually worked, we wouldn?t have spam.

  • On the post: Latest Stupid DRM Idea: Ebooks With Corrupted Texts That Vary By Customer

    ChrisH ( profile ), 21 Jun, 2013 @ 01:17pm

    The great success of DRM seems to be the erosion of first-sale rights, both in people's minds, and in the courts. Look at how a court used "usage & resale restrictions" to conclude that a product was licensed and not sold in the AutoDesk case.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vernor_v._Autodesk,_Inc.#Ninth_Circuit.27s_Analysis
    We read Wise and the MAI trio to prescribe three considerations that we may use to determine whether a software user is a licensee, rather than an owner of a copy. First, we consider whether the copyright owner specifies that a user is granted a license. Second, we consider whether the copyright owner significantly restricts the user?s ability to transfer the software. Finally, we consider whether the copyright owner imposes notable use restrictions.

    That DRM is easy to defeat technically seems like a small reassurance in light of its greater legal and PR effects.

  • On the post: Feds Realize That Exploiting A Bug In Casino Video Poker Software Is Not Hacking And Not A CFAA Violation

    ChrisH ( profile ), 08 May, 2013 @ 01:02pm

    I've said it a million times. The DOJ's interpretation of the CFAA (and other laws) is meaningless if it disagrees with previous court opinions.

  • On the post: DailyDirt: Antibiotic Abuse In The Food Industry

    ChrisH ( profile ), 04 May, 2013 @ 08:44am

    Re: Re: Eat it if you want it.

    This sounds a little bit like a straw man to me. I've heard plenty of people talk about issues with GMO but none of them have mentioned Autism. Unfortunately, nutritional science is not a very well understood field.

  • On the post: DailyDirt: Antibiotic Abuse In The Food Industry

    ChrisH ( profile ), 04 May, 2013 @ 08:31am

    Re: Eat it if you want it.

    +1

    Also, while there is much awareness of growing and raising issues, the processing still gets overlooked. For someone with food allergies , there's a big difference between vegetables from a farmers market and a supermarket like Whole Foods. Even if it's organic, the supermarket has washed its produce with citric acid to improve shelf life. That acid is almost certainly GMO and won't show up on any ingredient lists because items used in processing "don't count" according to regulations. At most USDA certified processors, meat (organic or not) is sprayed with lactic acid to kill bacteria (called an intervention). So good luck if you happen to be allergic to any of those ingredients (citric and lactic acid are made from corn). Luckily there's few small USDA processors which use a hot water rinse instead of acid but you need to ask around. Most of the times, even the those selling at a farmers market are unaware of how their meat is processed.

  • On the post: DailyDirt: Foods Unfit For Consumption

    ChrisH ( profile ), 04 Nov, 2012 @ 10:18pm

    Also, notice how many items in the grocery store are labeled "All Natural". They do that because while it conjures up a nice image for you, unlike labels such as "Organic", the word "natural" has no regulation whatsoever by the Food and Drug Administration. Any edible product at all can be labeled "All Natural" without running afoul of the law.

  • On the post: DailyDirt: Foods Unfit For Consumption

    ChrisH ( profile ), 04 Nov, 2012 @ 10:05pm

    Modern processed food is complete crap. As fewer and fewer people cook for themselves, the less questions they think to ask about what they're putting in their mouths. Did you know the majority of the money you pay for a box of corn flakes goes to advertising? Did you know ingredients used in "processing" are never included on the ingredient label even though they end up in the food? You might also think simple produce items aren't processed, but many of them from cuts of raw meat to heads of broccoli have been soaked in acid. The acid improves the shelf life but the taste and nutrition suffers. Hope your not one of the growing number of people allergic to these chemicals. Don't bother asking the store. The long supply chain in today's food market ensures the store knows next to nothing about what's actually in the food their selling. Meat is often treated with carbon monoxide to make it look fresher. The modern food industry is all about deceiving the consumer.

  • On the post: Washington Post: Yes, We Need To Give Up Liberty For Security

    ChrisH ( profile ), 30 Oct, 2012 @ 12:46am

    Re:

    Forget or not, we're all probably going to repeat it.

    "All this has happened before, and all this will happen again."

  • On the post: Washington Post: Yes, We Need To Give Up Liberty For Security

    ChrisH ( profile ), 30 Oct, 2012 @ 12:38am

    Re:

    I doubt that it's really possible today to go the other direction. Even if one country reverted to having a much smaller central government through a violent upheaval, it would eventually be conquered or absorbed by one of the remaining countries with a much stronger government. To truly go backwards, it would have to happen on a global scale, but what's the point since the size and scope of government will just naturally increase again?

  • On the post: Washington Post: Yes, We Need To Give Up Liberty For Security

    ChrisH ( profile ), 30 Oct, 2012 @ 12:23am

    Re:

    I agree. The real question we should be asking is if we are getting good value (in terms of lost liberty and monetary costs) for the security measures we have. For example I think the TSA is a complete waste of money and turns air travel into a humiliating experience but I'm perfectly fine with having to drive on the right side of the road instead of it being a choice.

  • On the post: Washington Post: Yes, We Need To Give Up Liberty For Security

    ChrisH ( profile ), 30 Oct, 2012 @ 12:15am

    Re: I'm just gonna say it

    Said the man who helped setup a federal government that did exactly that, trade liberty for security.

  • On the post: CNN Counts Patents, Mistakes Them For Inventiveness

    ChrisH ( profile ), 29 Oct, 2012 @ 11:55pm

    While we're at it, let's tackle the notion that more laws passed = better legislature. I figure if the laws weren't crap to begin with, they wouldn't need to rewrite them so often. It's certainly not a given that the more new laws passed the better, usually the opposite is true when it comes to technology. Sorry of going off topic.

  • On the post: Sticking It To The (Camera) Man: Inventor Develops License Plate Frame That Defeats Red Light Cameras

    ChrisH ( profile ), 27 Oct, 2012 @ 05:11pm

    Re: Re:

    Good question. What about increasing the delay from when the light turns red and the light for the cross street turn green? I'm sure when faced with these choices, the revenue generating aspect of the cameras will factor in.

    I don't believe that anyone would intentionally run a red light, at least not after it has been red for a few seconds and the cross traffic has started to move. I can only imagine that those people must have gotten distracted and not seen the red light at all. Wouldn't the cameras have no effect then? Maybe the thought of the tickets sits in the back of people's mind and raises their alertness around intersections. Not saying it actually works, just a theory.

  • On the post: Sticking It To The (Camera) Man: Inventor Develops License Plate Frame That Defeats Red Light Cameras

    ChrisH ( profile ), 26 Oct, 2012 @ 12:01am

    Re: Re: Re:

    How can that be? There would be a large area before the intersection where it would be theoretically impossible for you not to go through an amber light, even if you were going less than the speed limit. For example, if you were driving 55 mph on a wet road and the light turned yellow, you would need to be at least 350 feet away from the intersection to have a chance of stopping in time.

  • On the post: Sticking It To The (Camera) Man: Inventor Develops License Plate Frame That Defeats Red Light Cameras

    ChrisH ( profile ), 25 Oct, 2012 @ 11:35pm

    Re: Re:

    Yes, it really is when you consider that something like 70+ percent of red light citations are issued for not stopping long enough (whatever that means) while turning right on red. Most of the rest of them are for violations that occur less than half a second after the light changes. That may be a technical violation but it is not dangerous because traffic on the other side won't be moving yet.

    I can see why this could be dangerous. It's not the traffic that's stopped. If you're making a right-on-red, there could be pedestrians in the crosswalk. If you're rushing to turn before the other traffic goes you're not going to be paying as much attention to the crosswalk and will be more likely to hit someone.

  • On the post: Sticking It To The (Camera) Man: Inventor Develops License Plate Frame That Defeats Red Light Cameras

    ChrisH ( profile ), 25 Oct, 2012 @ 11:10pm

    Re: Re:

    Actually, the article doesn't say the opposite. It says the number of accidents have increased. That's the only statistic it mentions. The quote from AC says they have reduced the running of red lights.

    How about Wikipedia for a reference?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_light_camera#Studies_and_politics

    Most of the referenced studies show a reduction in injuries by around 30%. Focusing on the number of accidents misses the most important part of the story. The point of the cameras is not to reduce accidents but to reduce injuries. Intellectually honest observers can see the difference between these two measurements.

Next >>