21–30 of 168 posts
Come on kids, the rootkits on audio CDs are already history for quite a while. Yes, they shouldn't copy stuff from others, but why link it to past mistakes?
The link to past "misdemeanours" demonstrates a continued failure with respect to the rights of others.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So EXIF allows this but is hardly ever used. Sounds like this is a people problem, not a technical problem.
It's both (which is to say, it's about HCI). People would be more eager to use whatever license embedding mechanism we agreed upon if it was as easy as right click -> "License as..." -> "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0". That is not the case right now.
I like Sony, but some stuff they did in the past was highly questionable and may come back to haunt them, specially when some random artist at them use someone else artwork. The best thing Sony can do is fix this, say sorry, and punish the guy that did this. But.I have a hunch that they won't do that.
$14 billion market value, down 75% from 2007, and down 60% in just the last year. The company has nearly been demolished by the incompetent management.
Remains to be seen if they'll learn from their cultural problems or not (many of which no doubt contributed to their current mess).
While this blows ... it's a bummer that companies keep getting blamed when things like this happen. Sure, at some point an employee is a reflection of a company but at the end of the day a person did this. It's easy to point the finger at a big company and use this as fud against them. But really... the correct title should be "Someone who works for Sony pirated KDE artwork."
While this blows ... it's a bummer that companies keep getting blamed when things like this happen. Sure, at some point an employee is a reflection of a company but at the end of the day a person did this. It's easy to point the finger at a big company and use this as fud against them. But really... the correct title should be "Someone who works for Sony pirated KDE artwork."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's both (which is to say, it's about HCI). People would be more eager to use whatever license embedding mechanism we agreed upon if it was as easy as right click -> "License as..." -> "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0". That is not the case right now.
That solves the license input but doesn't make anyone more likely to check the license at go-live time.
My point is exactly that you shouldn't have to. If all your license information sat in the files themselves checking licensing would be accomplished by adding a few standard lines to your deployment script.
If your website used Creative Commons-licensed media your CMS would even be able to generate attribution data to be shown at the bottom of the pages that use that media on its own resulting in fully automated compliance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Honest question. Does Sony do the same when someone accidentally uses their licensed material?
In lieu of blogging about it? Yeah, yeah they do.
While this blows ... it's a bummer that companies keep getting blamed when things like this happen. Sure, at some point an employee is a reflection of a company but at the end of the day a person did this. It's easy to point the finger at a big company and use this as fud against them. But really... the correct title should be "Someone who works for Sony pirated KDE artwork."