* Posts by h4rm0ny

4545 posts • joined 26 Jul 2008

Hey, remember that monkey selfie copyright drama a few years ago? Get this – It's just hit the US appeals courts

h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Concept of "legal person" and copyright ownershi

Accidentally and in a public place? Probably not. However, there was little accidental about this photo. The photographer went to a lot of effort financially and creatively to set it up in the hopes of getting one of the monkeys to trigger it and for that to result in a good photograph.

1
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Devil's Advocate

>>Please explain to me what is Marxist about PETA?

Their membership on the whole. They have a very heavy overlap with the extreme Left, core support in Antifa (who again need not be communist but largely are).

>>But I am tired of people using "Marxist" to mean "something indefinite I personally dislike

I'm not and largely don't. However, the GP called them that and I'm just observing that in my experience they actually largely are. It's nothing inherent to PETA's mandate that is Marxist. And certainly nothing to do with Animal Rights as I am a supporter of Animal Rights and am pretty Right Wing. But PETA membership heavily slants that way, ime.

4
8
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: if cost == 0 then panic

>>"To alter your question... If *I* push the ball down the slope, do I own the copyright, or does the person/monkey who setup the camera?"

It follows creative intent and input. If someone set up some gorgeous shot with a micro-camera of the ball-bearing down on the camera and you merely pushed the ball at some arbitrary time, then clearly the angles, the exposure, plus any post-work such as selection, cropping, colour balance, et al. are all the work of the photographer. They supplied the creative input and intent. This is especially the case if you didn't know about the camera or - as in the monkey's case - didn't know what it was and the exposure, lens, flash, et. al had all been chosen for you.

If your pushing the ball had some creative intent or value. E.g. you saw a woodlouse walking across the path of the ball right in front of the camera and you timed it so that the woodlouse looked up in horror as the ball-bearing rolled towards it Indiana Jones style, then you would have grounds to claim copyright, barring contractual agreements otherwise.

Copyright is to preserve intent and creative input.

5
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge
Flame

Re: Is the monkey confused ?

I made the same decision over it. I used to contribute yearly to Wikipeda until this. I actually went as far as contacting them to let them know why and got a rather high-handed, morally superior response WIKIsplaining to me why there was no copyright on the picture. An explanation that ignored the actual facts of the matter, as it happens.

A blackly comic note to this would be that if PETA were to win this, then all those Wikimedia proponents who argued that they didn't have to pay licence fees because Slater didn't own the copyright due to the monkey actually being the creator, would now find themselves being sued by PETA for back-usage of the image based on their own arguments.

16
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Devil's Advocate

>>You forgot to say they're also pinko Nazi Commie librul traitors, and any other term you personally don't like.

Ordinarily I'd agree with you challenging someone characterising a group they don't like as "SJW marxists". But honestly this is PETA here and that pretty well describes the majorty of them.

9
6
h4rm0ny
Silver badge
Mushroom

Re: Devil's Advocate

The Wikipedia page on this subject is one of the most obnoxiously smug and faux-neutral things I have ever read. PETA's contention that a monkey owns the copyright is deeply flawed. It would be flawed even were the monkey a human. They present this as an act of will on the monkey's part whilst others present it as simple happenstance rather than intent on the photographer's part. Neither is true.

David Slater travelled around the world specifically for the purpose of nature photography by which he earns his living, spent days being accepted by the monkeys so that they would tolerate his presence. He purchased the equipment, set up the equipment, waited patiently for the right circumstances travelling with the monkeys and deliberately set the camera up so that the monkeys could trigger it. Is copyright not possible on all those nature documentaries where an animal triggers the camera themself? What about where a camera is positioned over a nest or fastened to a bird? Can copyright not exist if the photographer is not physically operating the camera at the time. David Slater went to a LOT of effort to set things up so this would happen. PETA are fanatics who insist animals must be treated as people even to the absurd extent that they must be regarded as taking deliberate, informed actions when obviously they do not - such as the monkey triggering the camera.

Also, as any photographer will tell you, taking a picture is hardly the beginning and end of the work. David Slater went through all the photographs to select appropriate ones (how many of a monkey's feet and leaves do you think were also taken?), cropped and positioned the photograph, did post-work on the photograph (which is an artistic and technical skill in itself), publicised the photograph. I can guarantee that if it were just some raw original with no work by himself, it would not look remotely as good. Copyright covers any creative input to a work, not just clicking a camera button.

But other than that, no, let's assign copyright to a monkey that pressed a button. And that tapir that wandered through a photography trap at night so we could get some wildlife photography of them in their natural habitat? Better track it down and give it a copyright entitlement as well.

The work of nature photographers such as David Slater is a huge help to conservation efforts and animal welfare in that it shares with people around the world the beauty and wonder of nature. But it relies on copyright in order to exist. Nobody just gives him money to do this - he earns his living through it. We should be happy that there exist ways of making your living that actually enrich society rather than just everybody being a lawyer for example. Not punishing it and trying to harm nature photography. David Slater actually travelled around the world to photograph these monkeys to help raise awareness that they were in danger. PETA, by trying to take away his livelihood, directly harms his efforts to save the very monkeys they claim to care about.

Fuck Peta, quite frankly. Authorship depends on the creating input and the provided resource to create the work. The photographer provided both, the monkey neither. Signed (in a hopeless attempt to counterbalance the reputation damage PETA's stunt is causing) -- a vegetarian and supporter of animal welfare.

63
0

Ubuntu Linux now on Windows Store (for Insiders)

h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: <strike>Mensa</strike> Powershell

>>And then they made it stupidly verbose

You know there is such a thing as auto-complete? Plus the vastly greater consistency of naming of both commands and parameters provides far more gain than the brevity of awk, sed, top, whatever.

2
2
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Mensa

>>"but I don't really consider MCSE an asset when reviewing resumes, in fact I deduct points for it"

You can value the knowledge or not, consider the qualification an asset or not. But to actually count it against someone just shows you to be a snob. Someone put in time and effort and money to try and improve their career and you consider that a minus! Not smart.

7
2

Uncle Sam says 'nyet' to Kaspersky amid fresh claims of Russian ties

h4rm0ny
Silver badge

>>Does Kaspersky have email protection? You know, viruses, trojans, malicious links and attempts to manipulate foreign elections?"

Manipulation of foreign elections. Hmmm... off the top of my head:

* The CIA have been actively fomenting disorder in Syria since 2012 (on record) and spend about a billion dollars a year funding and training rebel groups there.

* The USA was actively agitating in the Ukraine before the Orange Revolution there which overthrew the elected ruler of the country (whether or not there was electoral fraud as claimed, we'll probably never know but the overthrow was pushed for by the USA).

* When the Palestinians democratically elected Hamas because their only alternative was the insanely corrupt and Israeli backed Fatah, the USA froze their bank accounts around the world, sanctioned palestine and said the Palestinian people must vote again and elect someone the USA approved of.

* President Obama all but explicitly endorsed David Cameron and the Conservatives before the 2015 UK election with numerous statements and photo ops.

You could, in fact, go on for a pretty long time listing out the instances of the US interference with elections in foreign countries. But Oh No Kaspesky!

13
1
h4rm0ny
Silver badge
Paris Hilton

"whom do you trust?"

Well, given UK and USA intelligence are far more likely to be spying on me than the Russians, and that I'd be far more concerned about UK police battering my door in if I said or did something the UK government doesn't approve of than a police force on the other side of the world that doesn't give a shit about me, the logical answer would be Kaspersky.

Not that anyone has ever given any evidence of collusion as far as I can see and Kaspersky would have a lot to lose if they did.

19
1

Former GCHQ boss backs end-to-end encryption

h4rm0ny
Silver badge

However, there is also the simpler possibility that they know this wont stop "bad guys" but they can use it to dissuade law-abiding people from using encryption. That allows them to more easily sweep for those that do and hone in on them. It's not being able to hack encrypted emails they want so much as ensuring that most emails aren't encrypted.

0
1
h4rm0ny
Silver badge
Unhappy

Re: No longer in post -> Can speak truthfully

>>The ones still in the job act as if their families would be murdered in their beds if they simply spoke honestly.

*cough*David Kelly*cough*

3
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

But he's a former GCHQ boss. Haven't you noticed that people who have retired / no longer depend on approval of others (public or government) suddenly start talking sense. Why even politicians suddenly become seemingly rational once they're no longer subject to party whips and looking good to the electorate. (Well, sometimes).

19
0

May the excessive force be with you: Chap cuffed after Star Trek v Star Wars row turns bloody

h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: No contest

I reckon I can top that:

Star Wrek (Full Movie)

Captain Pirk meets Commander Sherrypie. Affectionately sends up both B5 and ST at the same time. Worth it for the AMI Bios boot screen gag alone.

4
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: No contest

I discovered Lexx late at night on Channel 4 many, many years ago. It was the first episode and the moment a computer glitch switched the fates of a wanted terrorist with an assembly of school children who had arrived for an award ceremony, I knew I had to watch all of it. It's on Amazon Prime at the moment so I re-watched it the first couple of episodes. And guess what - the sight of a bunch of smug school children being sentenced to death by lizard still makes me laugh.

Honestly, neither Star Wars (no science), nor Star Treck (awful science) come close to the holy trinity of space nonsense that are Babylon 5, Blake 7 and Lexx.

20
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: No contest

That's funny. Avon saying: "Have you considered amputation?" has been my default reply to anyone complaining of a headache to me for years.

Doesn't win me many friends, though. :(

26
0

Web inventor Sir Tim sizes up handcuffs for his creation – and world has 2 weeks to appeal

h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Sir Tim is 62

>>Yes. Obviously not for the average consumer, but for a well-resourced and motivated person/organisation. It requires only one such organisation to crack the DRM and make the content available to everyone else.

And yet none have. UHD BluRays have been around for a couple of years now. UHD BluRay has been holding up just fine.

0
1
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Mixed feelings

>>"Trade is a matter of bargaining. If providers want to well to us then they have to deal with our terms. Success happens when a common set of terms can be agreed on by both sides."

But that's tangential to DRM. You are bothered by DRM because it allows wider range of terms to be negotiated over. Nobody has to buy DRM'd content and were the above truly what you believed then you would recognize that DRM doesn't impede the trading process. It logically enhances it because it opens up new options. For example, I rent movies on Amazon. That is a set of terms that would not be possible without DRM. I would be limited to posted discs or all-out purchase because there's no way a company can rely on an honour system for people to delete MP4 files after download. The DRM allows both sides to agree on a common set of terms that couldn't exist otherwise.

Let's be brutally frank here - your worry is not that people will not be able to agree on common terms and negotiate. Your worry is that people will do so and they will agree on terms that you personally do not like.

3
6
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

>>"Fine, but those who purchase something want something they can keep. Big Content tries to sell the same thing over and over again, rather like prostitution."

Really? When? Selling you DVD's for movies that you previously had on VHS? DVDs were way better than VHS and nobody forced you to buy. Selling Blu-ray versions of movies you had on DVD? Don't think the upgrade is worth it then don't buy it. For others, the noticeable jump in quality was. "Big Content" may try but unless they're actually forcing you to, then that's their right. Blu-ray to HD w/ HDR? Again, nobody forced you to buy if you don't think the quality jump is worth it to you.

Honestly, if a movie means that much to you that years after seeing it you still feel the need to see it still more and with higher quality, then pay. It's a different product. You were happy with the original quality. If you're no longer happy with that quality that doesn't mean you get the work and production costs that go into the latest release of it. This is a very frail argument to call buying a product a "ransom". Nobody can ransom something to you that you don't own and don't have to have and owning a crappy VHS copy of something doesn't mean you "own" the lastest remastered DVD.

1
6
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: competition

You talk as if DRM is something for big players and not for small ones, patreons and direct-to-creator. But it's hugely useful to small players who ordinarily wouldn't be able to use DRM. This opens the door to small players being able to protect their work for the first time.

0
1
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Which should then lead to an end to the ridiculous situation of paying a surcharge for blank media for the music industry. Sounds like a plus to me. Always been a dumb idea.

4
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

>>"To decrypt your files that our "CDM" encrypted you have to pay us our ransom"

You say ransom, I say purchase...

3
5
h4rm0ny
Silver badge
Trollface

I don't see a problem.

Those people who want to secure their content with DRM can use it. Those who don't aren't compelled to. The only negative consequence of this technology is the scenario of someone wanting access to content without, you know, paying for it. And that's just hypothetical so I'm sure has nothing to do with it.

19
27

Microsoft boasted it had rebuilt Skype 'from the ground up'. Instead, it should have buried it

h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: "This new app is absolutely terrible"

I'm trying Yandex now. Thanks - this is a really good recommendation. It is blisteringly fast.

0
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge
Headmaster

Re: a colleague skyped me..

I don't mind auto correct when it is a spelling mistake. What drives me crazy with Windows Phone auto correct is when I type a word and it decides I must mean a different one because shock! horror! my vocabulary is wider than an illiterate fourteen year old. Or same principle it decides for me that I can't possibly use words like fuck, shit or cunt and changes them for me.

That, alongside lack of an app for Signal are the main things that killed Windows Phone for me.

7
1

Intel AMT bug bit Siemens industrial PCs

h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: If the vulnerablity cannot be removed by software

>>then where is the hardware recall?

This is absolutely huge. A product recall would put a big dent in even Intel's enormous pockets.

1
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: more details here

One of the most interesting parts of that very good article was Semi-Accurate's belief that the bug was still there at the request of State Intelligence organizations. They cannot prove it but they support it with some good argument.

Which makes the opening paragraph of this article a little misjudged. There's a strong probability that the AMT flaw IS the result of state interference.

1
0

China pollutes ocean with bloody big rocket

h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Elsewhere reported flight aborted one hour after launch...

>>"Until they get rid of that particular asian social particularity

Particular Asian Particularity? I'm Western and if a couple of billion dollars and years of work of mine exploded, I'd be pretty "particular" about things, too.

2
0

Kaspersky repeats offer: America can see my source code

h4rm0ny
Silver badge

I doubt a non-compete would do it. When the USA sets its sights on someone they say it's because of non-cooperation by the other party but that's just a fig-leaf. Saddam offered full access to weapons inspectors before Iraq war. Gaddhafi repeatedly offered ceasefires and dialogue from the very start of the Libya bombing. Kaspersky can offer, but unless he has a concrete guarantee that showing the source code will result in a calling off of the targetting, I wouldn't do it.

Remember, Kaspersky Labs are the ones that exposed the "Equation Group" (aka NSA) and also were our primary source for information about Stuxnet (Israel and USA in high probability). They have everything to lose here.

5
0

Linux 4.12 kernel lands: 'Go forth and use it' quoth Linus Torvalds

h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Secure Boot and Trusted Execution Environments.

So many, many arguments I had with zealots about these things when MS started taking advantage of such technologies. Glad to see GNU/Linux finally getting up to scratch with this as well - it's been an annoying omission.

1
3
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Cringe at the grammar though

I don't think it's a US thing. More just an idiot thing.

5
5

US Senators want Kaspersky shut out of military contracts

h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: If their computers run fast enough to let them

I use Kaspersky. Runs very efficiently so far as I can tell.

Also, if there were government mandated backdoors in software I use (I do not believe Kaspersky contains any for the record), I would prefer them to be Russian than Western. After all, if I do something illegal or subversive, do you think Russian police are going to turn up on my doorstep? They wouldn't give a flying fuck. UK police or surveillance though - that's what I logically would have to worry about.

6
1

Concorde without the cacophony: NASA thinks it's cracked quiet supersonic flight

h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Let's just hope....

By the time this actually gets off the ground, I wouldn't think it would be flown by humans at all! Turn around time on a new commercial airliner can be a couple of decades. The Airbus A380 took first flight in 2005. Design began seventeen years before in 1988. And we've still only built about two-hundred of them.

This isn't even an actual plane design, is it? If a real plane based on these ideas launches in 2037, I can well imagine you wont need a pilot at all let alone need to fly it visually!

7
0

We'll drag Microsoft in front of Supremes over Irish email spat – DoJ

h4rm0ny
Silver badge
Pint

And that's why Microsoft are fighting this so hard. Microsoft want your money. They will do anything and everything to get it, up to and even including, doing the right thing.

Cheers, MS!

11
0

Heaps of Windows 10 internal builds, private source code leak online

h4rm0ny
Silver badge

>>But I have to say it couldn't have happened to a more deserving company.

Haliburton (backer and opportunist of the Iraq war), Goldman Sachs (fiddled figures to get Greece into the EU exacerbating massively the financial crisis for those of us in Europe), DeBeers (works people to death in mines), FoxConn (doesn't work people to death because they have safety nets to catch jumpers, now), BAE (so in control of the British government that they can get Number 10 to order the Serious Fraud Office to drop investigations into it), Keurboom Communications / Gregory Rudd (99.5 million nuisance calls in the UK).

But yeah - darn that evil Microsoft selling their software! ;)

14
5
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: If I was a conspiracist...

This code is already available to governments and other big, security-conscious clients. So your Conspiracy Theory wouldn't hold up.

5
1

Teen girl who texted boyfriend to kill himself guilty of manslaughter

h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Factor in suicidal people are not exactly thinking rationally.

Actually one study I read showed the people with depression were actually more aware of the world around them. Essentially they had greater clarity than non-depressed people. I think the principle of "better a comforting lie..." is relevant here.

Paranoid people have a distorted view of their relationship to the world. Paranoia and depression can co-exist. But depressed people often seem to lack the delusional self-importance and unfounded optimism that keeps the rest of us going.

0
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: clutching at straws

I'd say it's more like evidence that the person is not well, confused and struggling with things herself.

1
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Stupid but?

Prison seldom works as a deterrent. Extra long sentences never do. If you're willing to give up two years of your life living in a box and have every aspect of your life controlled by prison guards, then you're already not thinking rationally about cost-benefit. So why do you think twenty years would make someone suddenly rational.

2
2

Software dev bombshell: Programmers who use spaces earn MORE than those who use tabs

h4rm0ny
Silver badge
Headmaster

Re: If this were to do with the number of spaces...

>>"Using less spaces either means:-"

Fewer spaces.

0
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

>>Anyone who uses tabs has clearly never found themselves having to read a script on a server where the only available text editor is Notepad.

Found your problem and it's not with tabs. Seriously, if we have to design everything around the lowest common denominator, we might as well call it a day on this species now.

0
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: tabs take fewer keystrokes

>>true. and then ANY text-based program or editor (say 'less' or 'nano') will show what you did exactly as you did it, always lining up, always consistent, etc..

Consistent with itself, yes - just as it would be if you used tabs. But not consistent with files from other authors such who used a different number of spaces. Whereas tabs would be.

0
1
h4rm0ny
Silver badge
Boffin

Re: A question

">>his means that you can't get meaningful results with global substitutions of fixed numbers of spaces.."

So you're saying spaces are a substitute for people who can't handle regular expressions. Now THAT I would believe.

0
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: A question

Look at the pair of you arguing over whether the correct number of spaces is 3 or 4 (or any other number). Spaces are not a standard. Spaces are just a doorway to lots of different individual preferences. Tabs are a standard because the person who wants four spaces width sets tabs to display as that and the person who wants three spaces width sets tabs to display as that and neither is messing up things for the other.

Tabs are the only logically correct standard to settle on. Everyone who thinks differently is an idiot.

Also, I resent the article calling me a fanatic just because I can prove that I'm right!

2
5

Move over, Stuxnet: Industroyer malware linked to Kiev blackouts

h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: The as yet unknown authors of the malware were familiar with industrial control systems.

>>"Do you wear a tinfoil hat?"

In the future, I predict, everyone will be wearing one.

2
0

Kaspersky files antitrust suit against Microsoft

h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: pedantry

>>"However if MS removed the security holes from windows rather than produce a competing AV product then Kaspersky would not have a leg to stand upon, sadly this did not happen and so MS are at fault."

Sure, but is an invulnerable OS possible? If so, why hasn't any GNU/Linux distro done it, why hasn't Android done it, why hasn't Apple done it? Note that the ones that do it most successfully are also the ones that have a walled-garden. You want MS to remove "security holes" instead of provide AV, but many of those "holes" are legitimate functionality that is necessary. What much malware does is function as any other program but doing something you don't want. Being able to encrypt files is not a security hole that you can close (ransomware) for example. For that, you need something that can detect whether a program instructing the OS to do that is legitimate or not. Which is what AV does for the most part.

0
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Is there truly a market in failure?

Integrating HTML rendering and Javascript into the OS is a natural progression. Some people just don't like Microsoft. MS started down that road ages ago with Active Desktop and pulled back because of criticism. They have done it with Windows Store apps - again to howls of criticism. Yet many of the same critics fell over themselves with joy at ChromeOS and Chromebooks.

0
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: No Kaspersky, spasiba.

Well to paraphrase Mady Rice-Davies, "they would say that, wouldn't they?" I mean you're relying on the world's largest propagator of surveillance with a history of false flag operations for your accusation here and no evidence provided. Even if AV providers were in-bed with their governments you logically have far less to fear about Russian authorities knowing you've broken British or US laws or leaked information than your own government knowing. If I expose someone connected to the government doing a dodgy arms deal (say Amber Rudd's husband to pick a non-random example) who do you think I'm more worried about figuring out that the anonymous source was me? It's not like I'm going to find Russian police on my doorstep.

And actually, there's never been evidence of collusion with Kaspersky that I'm aware of whereas we have some to suggest it with Microsoft and Trend Micro. So I'm calling your post as unsubstantiated accusation.

1
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

And MS are welcome to continue to do so. What they should not do is try to unfairly exclude others from also trying to make Windows secure. Windows Defender is decent for the average user. Several Third Party vendors do a better job though. Especially if you need Enterprise solutions.

6
1
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Forums

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018