Apparently now big corporations
are stealing from individuals, instead of vice versa. It's a weird life.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/cc5e3/cc5e31e9bc5a9cfd9d671151d6f1f18f0b560318" alt=""
Talking about weird, how about the Allison Stokke
story? I an not sure what to think about that. On the one hand, I can understand that too much attention is too much, especially from creeps who overdo it or act as a-holes. On the other hand Allison is exceedingly attractive, and those shorts are really very small. It should not really be a big surprise that men like to put her picture on their desktop.
And about that, the former article, referring the latter issue, says:
"It's all doubly muddled online, where images can be thoughtlessly taken with one mouse click, such as when thousands of boys made screensavers out of high school track star Allison Stokke's photo and never once asked, 'Legal?'"...This is a pretty dumb comment. Personal use is legal. This issue is not germane to that discussion. I would expect better journalism from Washington Post.
Here's another remarkable comment:
"'What's noteworthy in each of these cases', Lessig says, 'is that bloggers, a community typically associated with piracy, are rallying in support of copyright.'"Bloggers are a community? With common personality traits? That's news to me. If "bloggers" are a group, it may well be the most diverse group I've ever heard of. And about the least coherent.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/2b693/2b693f55be3fb03ce17bdb8f00afdad81a7d901f" alt=""
I'm reminded: 25 years ago, I was contacted by Danish newspaper Extrabladet, they wanted to use this photo of my mom (which had placed highly in national contests and exhibitions) to illustrate an article about the elderly. I refused, because even though back then I could certainly have used any money they would pay, Extrabladet is a low-brow, unprincipled, and mean-spirited publication, and I wanted nothing to do with them.