I just figured it out! 'Hollywood' isn't actually making less money from piracy. They are probably making more. They are just making out that it's costing them money to insight controversy which leads to free press coverage. Good citizens then feel bad for the poor little Hollywood moguls and then pay to go see more movies to ease the guilt.
It's such a sinister plan it might actually be true!
That's it. This article is the final straw. Sorry, Mike. But yet again I have become far too frustrated with the world's stupidity and it's time for me to stop reading Techdirt and go bury my head in the sand. I sincerely mean no offence by it, but as the constant purveyor of bad news like this and my growing disdain for the IP world at large, I have no choice but to avoid this website.
I'm just going to tweet that I've left the house every morning, then walk the 15 paces to my office on the other side of the house. With any luck some douchebag will try and rob me and I'll get some entertainment out of kicking their ass.
I think it's funny that they are suing over the pinch zoom functionality that is a function of the Android OS, not the hardware, which is basically just a capacitive touch display. As someone has already said, they are trying to sue Google without suing Google. Probably because they know Google would probably eat them alive.
Is the iPhone losing market share or something? ;)
Well, as a photographer I have to say that I'm quite disappointed at some of the short-sighted comments by some here. When people say crap like "Sorry, pro photographers, but you've been found out and the gig is up.", I shake my head, sip my coke and sigh with pity. If ANYONE can take good pictures these days, then why am I getting paid for it and they aren't?
Mike's article is pretty spot on though. I know a lot of photographers that covert their work and will charge people if anyone so much as looks at it. Personally, I give a lot of my stuff away for free and don't care. My mentality has always been "if you put it on the Internet, expect people to copy it". Which is why none of my commercial paid work goes on the net because someone has specifically paid for it.
If I was this dude in the article, I'd simply tell Apple, put a small watermark with of my name on the photo in the top right corner and have a nice day. Sometimes getting your name out there is a lot more valuable than the 100 bucks you'd get for a photo licence.
I'm a photographer and I really can't see myself editing 24mp photos on a 9.7" touch-screen screen when I really wish I could afford something bigger than the 24" screen I'm using on my PC now. Photoshop at 1GHz? Please kill me now.
I don't think this article is clear enough on how this process actually works.
Here, in Australia, the owner of the vehicle is sent any fines from red-light/speed cameras automatically. On the back of the fine there is a section to declare who the actual driver was at the time, or even if the driver is unknown.
If this is what REALLY happens in florida, then fine. If not, I agree it's a screwed system.
Either way, I agree with everyones opinion on these cameras being nothing more than a revenue raising mechanism.
Wouldn't the point of purchasing rights to a true story be so that the studios can avoid, for example, defamation law suits if they get any of the facts wrong and cast REAL people in a 'fictional' and bad light?
Being an Australian, I'm both pissed off by this while at the same time, not really that worried. I'm pissed off for obvious reasons but the broadness of the bill will not cause the cops to abuse it. They learned a long time ago that the magistrates really don't tolerate that sort of stuff here. So if the wrongfully accused take it to court (and you know they will) most magistrates will bend the cops over and sodomize them for the trouble.
On a side note, Pat, yes, you ARE a moron. How about we block your righteous Christian(we know you're a churchie) do good Jesus loving websites as "Cult Activities" like poor old Mr Gore?