BBC Blog Network

User Profile

Johnny Pixels

Listed below are comments made by Johnny Pixels between Friday, 27th March 2009 and Thursday, 12th November 2009.

«Newer
Older»

Caption Competition 3:54pm on 12 Nov 2009 "Imma let you finish Kanye, but Ikea has the best chairs, of all time!"
Who is batting for file-sharing proposals? 10:00pm on 25 Aug 2009 @23, bazza001

Ok, imagine instead of the internet being used to download films, people are sending them through the post. Is it the responsibility of Royal Mail to police what people send? And is it right that Royal Mail would open everyone's letters (including yours, even though you are innocent), just to check that they're not sending or receiving films? All those letters including your credit cards, your bank statements etc. And should someone use your address to get a film sent to, maybe someone in your family or maybe just the man next door, and it gets discovered, then YOU are banned from using Royal Mail.

And as for your "substantive" point, if you steal a DVD from HMV, then HMV has one less DVD. If you download a film, HMV still has the same number of DVDs. You haven't taken anything away from HMV apart from a *potential* sale. If I go to CeX or Cash Converters and buy a secondhand DVD, then HMV still loses out on a *potential* sale. If I borrow a DVD from a friend and watch it and give it back, HMV still loses out on a *potential* sale. If I wait until the movie comes out on TV, then HMV still loses a *potential* sale.

So assuming I buy secondhand, borrow from a friend, or watch on TV, the film company gets none of my money. Those are all fine. If I download a film, the film company still gets none of my money, but this is classed as killing the film industry, and I am evil.
David Bain's Brain Strain 3:27pm on 21 Jul 2009 @ 23

Firstly the motorcyclist was punished for breaking the law, secondly speed limits are there because speeding increases the potential for accidents, therefore the motorcyclist is (like Kim) bringing about the circumstances which determine how "lucky" he is. Thirdly, motorcyclists make up less than 1% of traffic, but account for 14% of serious and fatal accidents. In 1999 motorcyclists were 28 times more likely to be killed or seriously injured than car drivers. Therefore the judge wasn't making a scapegoat of him, he was sentencing him for breaking the law, and gave him a harsher sentence because he was failing to take into account the effect that his actions would have on himself or others.

@22

The braking distance at 90mph is 704 feet, that's quite a distance to be looking out for kids. Getting hit by a car at 20mph, 97% of pedestrians survive, getting hit at 40mph, 90% will die.
David Bain's Brain Strain 12:13pm on 21 Jul 2009 We can only be held accountable for our actions, not our potential actions (which is different from intended actions). Tim hit a lampost, so he is held accountable for that action. Kim hit a child, so she is held accountable for that action. If Tim had gone out intending to hit a child but hit a lampost instead then he should be held accountable for that intended action as well.

Tim and Kim's sentences are different because there were different outcomes. Kim isn't unlucky in the sense that she brought about the conditions which killed the child. Tim isn't better, or being rewarded for being lucky. We can only punish him for his actions or intended actions, not every potential outcome of his actions, at least in part because we cannot ever know what any other outcomes from his actions may be, until they happen.

We could punish Oswald for attempting/intending to kill JFK if his rifle jammed or was stopped. However if his rifle jammed though we couldn't punish him for the possibility that if he had fired one of his shots may have killed a bystander, because we could never know that. Maybe if he had a machine gun and it would've been likely that in shooting at JFK he would wound and kill many others, but otherwise we can only punish what has happened, or someone intends to seriously make happen.
No more bright sunny days 4:53pm on 23 Jun 2009 Is this picture Film or Digital? Or more importantly, does it matter which?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/travel/gallery/2008/feb/06/photography?picture=332635675
David Bain's Brain Strain 6:50pm on 12 May 2009 If slowly replaced the pieces of the Cutty Sark with new ones over time, eventually replacing the entire ship, then that would still be the Cutty Sark, as replacing a single plank at a time would cause that new plank to become part of the Cutty Sark. For example the ship is bound to have had repairs during its lifetime, so if this were not the case, then only the original ship that came out of the shipyard would be the real Cutty Sark, and any repairs would immediately cause it to be an entity comprised of the Cutty Sark + repairs, which is clearly not the case.

If you did the same thing over a shorter period, ie methodically swapped all the old parts for new with the aim of replacing them all rather than repairing, then you wouldn't be repairing the ship, you'd be copying it.

The third case, using the old parts to again to make the ship somewhere else, then those rebuilt old parts would be the Cutty Sark, and the new one would be a replica of it, rather like a giant towers of Hanoi puzzle.

Essentially the difference comes down to intent, whether you replace the parts to repair the existing structure, or if you replace the parts to create a new structure.

Building a ship in Glasgow from the parts of the Cutty Sark wouldn't mean that you then had the Cutty Sark, you would have a replica built from the parts of the Cutty Sark, because the new planks which are gradually replacing the old ones in Greenwich become part of the Cutty Sark, because the intent is to repair. What you would have in Glasgow would be a ship made from parts of what used to be the Cutty Sark.
Caption Competition 11:00am on 01 May 2009 It was Stephen's first day on valet parking at the hotel, and this wasn't what he was expecting when he went to collect the Mustang
Caption Competition 10:04pm on 16 Apr 2009 Patrick Swayze's attempt at dirty tea dancing was going well so far
Map of the Week: Blobbed Britain 12:22pm on 30 Mar 2009 @52

"Why else do you think Advertising uses actors for every single image?"

For greater artistic control of the image they are creating.

"Where on earth did you ever get the idea/notion/assumption that you or anyone else can walk up to a person in the street, take their picture and then Publish it for profit without their permission?"

Maybe you could direct us to the law that says it is illegal ?
Map of the Week: Blobbed Britain 11:37am on 27 Mar 2009 @ 49

"Check this, the image is the copyright of the person who owns the 'property' i.e. his or her face!"

That's just not true!

From wikipedia:

"Copyright is a form of intellectual property which gives the creator of an original work exclusive rights for a certain time period in relation to that work, including its publication, distribution and adaptation; after which time the work is said to enter the public domain."

A persons face is not an original work, and has not been created by the person, therefore it cannot be copyrighted.

For example models and professional athletes have their photos taken for commercial purposes. If they could copyright their face and make money from it, don't you think they would? The only exception is when trying using celebrities images to sell products directly, ie using a photo of Steve Redgrave in an advert for a boating company to suggest he endorses it.

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

Johnny Pixels