13 posts • joined Friday 25th April 2008 09:59 GMT
More clarification needed
Parody ain't black and white. The grey areas may be in need of clarification (which I don't think the consultation delivers).
If I write lyrics to somebody else's tune, then if I want to do anything public or commercial with that work, I need the permission of the copyright holder of the tune. (Why should it be otherwise?)
On the other hand, if Mitch Ben or the Heebie Jeebies (Angus Deayton, Michael Fenton Stevens, and Philip Pope) write a parody in the style of someone else, they should have the right to create original works for the purpose of taking the piss.
The parody has to come close to the original to do its job, but somewhere there's a crossover point, where melody or lyrics (in the example of a song) move from parody to appropriation. At that boundary we have more jobs for m'learned friends.
[Holmes icon because some wazzacks are still trying to claim copyright for Conan Doyle material.]
Brings back happy memories...
A few years back, there was a spate of muggings and thefts of lap-tops from a railway station near Amsterdam which was frequented by the staff of an electronics company, and also by employees of a consultancy company.
The electonics company staff received a corporate memo (along the lines of the Carphone Warehouse one), telling them to look after their personal safety as a first priority.
The consultants received a memo from their parent company telling them to password-protect their hard drives.
Re: Expect a call from your bank selling
It's not just your bank.
I got an Identity Theft sales pitch from Staples this morning. Their solution to Identity Theft? A shredder.
"Think of the planets in terms of forming a sentence."
Verb (imperative): Study
@Alex's Silly Question
I am not the pathologist whose comment Alex requested but....
To have a heart attack in these circumstances, you have to be predisposed to heart attack (otherwise everyone struck by a police baton and pushed to the ground would have a heart attack).
Heart attacks are caused by blockages in blood vessels around the heart. (Predisposition to heart attack usually means that those vessels are constricted and are therefore more vulnerable to blockage by blood clots than vessels in good condition.)
I can speculate on two contributions to heart attack in this case:
Firstly, stress contributes to heart attacks (apparently by increasing blood pressure - a process in which the body "deliberately" constricts blood vessels. Where blood vessels are already constricted, recovery from stress tends to take longer than it would do in someone in "normal" physical condition). I would contend that being attacked by the police was a stressful experience.
Secondly, blood clots are formed by platelets which can form in response to damage to blood vessels - clotting is part of the process of repair to damaged caused by contusion - for example, being struck by a baton. So where there is bruising, there is increased formation of clots. It may be possible that some of the clotting agents are swept along in the blood stream to areas where they are not needed - and in the case of already constricted blood vessels, to places where they do damage. Clotting is not an instant process (otherwise all wounds would heal instantly.)
So, I can imagine a chain of events from assault to heart attack.
For a more informed view, a pathologist and a coroner are required.
The BT Gulag
The problem that BT got into with the forum threads was that they deliberately restricted threads, and, by way of a sweetener, they created a limited number of threads (eventually one) in which they invited questions about Webwise.
Since Webwise had not been implemented, all the questions were about how it was going to work, and the only people who could answer those questions were BT.
BT did not answer the questions. (And they steadfastly did not answer the questions about when they would answer the questions.)
Furthermore, since the people who were asking questions were the ones who knew about Phorm and were therefore convinced that it was a thoroughly bad idea, all of the questions were hostile.
As BT did not answer the questions, the questions became progressively more hostile.
BT had two ways out: they could have made the honest admission that spying on their customers was a bad idea. Instead, they took the Stalinist approach.
Mine's the MAC.
Not Quite to type
It is unlike ATOS Origin to be so careless with data.
A few years ago, there was a spate of violent muggings, some involving the theft of laptop computers, from a railway station frequented by personnel from ATOS Origin and one of its clients. Employees of the client company received a memo giving them advice about personal safety. Employees of ATOS Origin received a memo reminding them of the steps they needed to take to keep their data secure.
Mine's the one with the encription keys on the same ring as the car keys.
In the full text of the ICO response on the cable forum, they say "BT’s view is that as the 2007 trial was small scale and technical in nature and no adverts were served, it would have been difficult to frame any advice for customers about the operation of cookies, and obtain any relevant consents for the processing of traffic data"
In other words, "we don't have to tell customers that we're sharing every detail of their browsing habits with a third party because we're not using it to generate adverts".
That bit of BT sophistry should have been given a good mauling by the ICO, instead, the toothless tiger didn't even attempt a gummy suck.
Paris, on the grounds that she'd appreciate the last comment.
Don't celebrate too early
Note the quote from Virgin Media's Webwise page: "Webwise is a technically complex application which could be implemented in a number of different ways and it will be some months before we can confirm if the service will be made available to our customers and if so, how and when it would be deployed."
That could be read as "We're going to keep quiet until the fuss dies down, then make our move".
Don't let up the pressure - it still stinks!
Re: Just for Giggles
It should be noted that Phorm say that they will not include porn in their profiling.
I believe them.
It should also be noted - and emphasised over and over again when this business comes to court - that the profiling is done in software.
So whilst I believe Phorm now in this respect, I also know that their software can be updated, and that in future they will come under commercial pressure to make more money by looking for opportunities to expand their profiling. Because it is software, they can adapt it to scruitinising anything they wish.
For me, the big issue with Phorm is that it is the thin end of a wedge. I do not want to have to wait for the abuse to happen before a legal challenge is mounted, I want the potential for abuse to be prevented.
Amongst many others, there is an interesting difference between the level of detail between the Home Office assessment and Bohm's with respect to the presumed consent of Webmasters to access by Phorm.
The Home Office makes the assumption that "because it's on the web, then a search engine can get to it, therefore it's open to anyone, including Phorm".
As Bohm points out, that ain't so. In common with many others, my web site has some private areas. The private areas do not have links from anywhere else on the web, so search engines cannot find them. However, because Phorm follows the user, not a spider, if I've told anyone how to get to the private area, then Phorm can follow them there - and it does not give me, as webmaster a way of preventing this (aside from restructuring the pages by encryiption).
Phorm is presuming a consent which I do not grant!
- Xmas Round-up Ten top tech toys to interface with a techie’s Christmas stocking
- It's true, the START MENU is coming BACK to Windows 8, hiss sources
- How UK air traffic control system was caught asleep on the job
- Google embiggens its fat vid pipe Chromecast with TEN new supported apps
- Pic NASA Mars tank Curiosity rolls on old WET PATCH, sighs, sniffs for life signs