I'm an amateur photographer who publishes most of my photos on Flickr using the Creative Commons attribution license. I have no problem with people using my photos for commercial endeavors, and Flickr is well within their rights to sell similarly licenses photos for a profit. However, I didn't expect that Flickr, as the service provider, was going to do this. They should have, at least as a courtesy, informed the community that they were planning to make this change and sought feedback.
I guess law enforcement just doesn't have enough things to do anymore, and our prisons must be empty. So, let's fill them up with people who post "felonious links" to content that may or may not be infringing.
Our Senators do not understand the law of unintended consequences. This would be a disaster if enacted.
I wonder if any of the various professional photography associations will take notice of this, think it's a good idea, and ask people to boycott posting their photos on Flickr under the Creative Commons license. After all, those photos are getting used for free....and dang it, that's just got to stop! It's a new world and these folks need to learn to adapt.
I am not a Verizon fan, but frankly I don't see anything wrong with companies like Verizon or Red Bull cheering on athletes in their tweets without paying the USOC. So what if this is in some sense "advertisement". These are public figures and the Olympics is an international event. They folks at Verizon who who tweeted their encouragement might be true fans and sharing their excitement, and yeah, it might also be good PR for the company. This is not the same as including an athlete's photo in an print ad where there is an implied endorsement of the product by the athlete. I'm willing to bet that if you showed those tweets to Lindsey Vaughn or the other athletes that their reaction would be "Cool!", and not "Show me the money".
I wonder how much the USOC spends on lawyers and others who spend their time watching Twitter and Facebook and every other place someone may mention the Olympics so they can quickly shoot off their "shut up or pay up" emails. Maybe the money spent on the lawyers would be better spent on the athletes.
This story boggles my mind. Is this 1984? I agree with the comments that there should be no expectation of privacy for anything the student does ON THE SCHOOL'S LAPTOP, but that doesn't give the school the right to spy on the kids in their bedrooms with the laptop's webcam. I also don't buy the excuse that they were checking to make sure it's being used by the student and hasn't been stolen. Whoever authorized this is either stupid or perverted, and should be disciplined in either case.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Don DeBold.