Adobe Photoshop Express, Copyrights and IP

The Big Media reviews of Adobe's Photoshop Express are out today on Google News.   

So far, it appears that most of them must have been written early last week, before the news of the actual contents of Adobe's EULA hit at ZDNET, Ars Techica, MacRumors and others...all because of individual readership (not professional journalists) of the "Fine Print".

Apple Computer had a far more humorous EULA error this path month too - their fine print in Safari 3.1 for Windows said that it could only be legally run on Apple hardware.

Here's the fine print from Adobe:

Use of Your Content. Adobe does not claim ownership of Your Content. However, with respect to Your Content that you submit or make available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of the Services, you grant Adobe a worldwide, royalty-free, nonexclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, and fully sublicensable license to use, distribute, derive revenue or other remuneration from, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, publicly perform and publicly display such Content (in whole or in part) and to incorporate such Content into other Materials or works in any format or medium now known or later developed."

The key part is what it allows - - not what the alleges was its intent .  To that end, this text essentially gives to Adobe a free and unlimited license that they can do anything with, including selling your works, creating derivatives, selling it as Stock Photography, "Derive Revenue" etc, etc. .. and all without ever being required to give even a penny back to the actual Copyright holder.

I'd read enough.  This has shades of "Photo Contest" all over it.  

Photo contest?  Yup - you should go read their Fine Print inclusions sometimes too:  what you find is that they similarly leave themselves highly unconstrained.  It wouldn't be at all surprising if the underlying intent of at least a few of them isn't really to have a good old fashioned contest, but to harvest images with which to build a Stock Collection for free.

Thus, I've pulled my test photos OFF of Photoshop Express, just like I've stopped  entering 'Contests'.  

Thus, if you see this image out there, you know its probably been stolen without permission from its Copyright Holder:

Mufindi Starry Night (Tanzania 2006).

In the meantime, there's one possible "Poison Pill" for businesses that try to (cough) borrow Intellectual Property (IP) in this fashion:  the Photography Model Release.  An identifiable individual who hasn't signed a Modeling Release can cause trouble, although its also likely that a lawyer would argue that this "Perpetual License" puts the responsibility back on the Copyright Holder.  Well, maybe the IP owner does have a Model Release - - but Adobe (and all the rest) didn't buy a copy of that document.

-hh

John Gilmore was right

I recently ran across what I thought would be an interesting blog from former Apple Executive  for Federal sales, David Sobotta.   After a fairly straightforward dialog exchange ... which by definition, must have included some elements of disagreement (else why bother to reply), Dave terminated the dialog.  The topic wasn't really all that important, or profound: we simply disagreed, based on our personal perspectives.  It didn't even bother me if Mr. Sobotta wanted to curtail the discussion because he tired of it, nor even using his Moderator responsibility to have done this...that would have merely been rude.  

Instead, what bothered me was that he cut things off so as to get the last word in, a childish way to "win" a disagreement.  FWIW, this isn't my interpretation of what happened, for in this blog posting  David made his motive and intentions explicitly clear that that was precisely what he chose to do. 

Were I willing to stoop to David's level, I could have listed each of my discussion points here, where David can't touch it, to childishly get in my own "last word".  But I loathe being a hypocrite, so that won't be happening here.

So why am I writing anything?  Because this is unfortunately yet another example of something that I'm finding disappointing ... no, make that downright disturbing ... which is yet another example of someone who proves himself incapable of recognizing that with the Information Genie out of the bottle, all liars invariably get caught.  

  

This is precisely what Gilmore was warning of a decade ago:  the nature of IT is that if one tries to squash something in one outlet, there's now hundreds of alternative venues, so the word still gets out.  

There's already been hundreds of corporations who have learned this lesson by getting burned over the past decade - they were applying their 20th Century belief that they can manipulate and selectively lie without getting caught - - but then got caught, courtesy of this unbottled IT Genie.  It is effectively the Pandora's Box of the 21st Century.  

Overall, it does seem that there's a segment of the population who are otherwise very very smart people who think that their intelligence lets them stay on top of the lies that they make and avoid self-contradiction.  Unfortunately for them (my online friends know that I'm probably thinking of a certain former Clemson University Professor too), archives have a 'perfect' memory that merely takes perseverance to search, which reveals the self-contradictory claims and other hyperbola that people try to employ to obscure reality to try to force it to conform to their biases.

Thus, as John Gilmore reportedly said:

"The Internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it".

And the latest example is in the news this week, namely the drama of the website "Wikileaks", which posted documents that revealed criminal banking activities in the Cayman Islands.  It is the apparent crook who is trying to get the website shut down, so as to squelch the dissemination of evidence of his criminal activity.   But in the meantime, the news of the event has probably caused a few thousand more copies to get spawned.   To try to suppress them all is an exercise in futility, so the next thing we know, the criminal will be claiming that he's a victim...of getting caught.  

-hh

Why Webpages were invented

I was thinking of an old college friend today, Saint John Morrison, and got a chuckle from an old comment that he had made.

Essentially, it was that the real reason why the Internet invented the Webpage.

You see, it was for computer programmers to be able to put up photographs of their pet cats.  It wasn't for distributing esoteric data from NASA, to cure cancer, or even to sell books.  It was to share a photo of their cat. 

So with a photo online of our latest, here's a small Webpage tribute to good old (and not really a curmudgeon)  Saint John Morrison.  

-hh

Thinking about buying hybrid automobile?

Hybrids are all the rage whenever there's a spike in gasoline prices.

But while they might save you some gas, are they really saving you money? Afterall, isn't "saving money" usually the real reason why people want better gas mileage?

So lets see if a hybrid car really does saves us money or not.

There's a lot of things that go into the expense of operating an automobile. Its original cost, insurance, fuel, maintenance, etc. The sum of all of these is around 41 cents per mile, as per IRS tax law provisions (for non-cash donations to charity, etc). But I'm going to simplify things and only look at two of the variables, assuming that the others aren't going to change much.

The two I'm going to look at is the differences in fuel and maintenance expenses.

Fuel seems obvious...miles per gallon. Yup, its that simple, but I'm going to flip it over, to "cents per mile".

But maintenance isn't so straightforward, because Hybrid vehicle technology is more complicated than conventional automotive engines (including diesels). Simplistically, it is a conventional engine, "plus some other stuff" to pay to maintain. Without getting down into the weeds, I'm just going to consider two main components, the electric motor and the battery pack.

Let's get started:

The battery pack: when the Toyota Prius first came out, one of the pieces of information that was also released was the engineering acknowledgment that batteries don't last forever, and that having a bigger battery is going to cost more to replace than that single one that all cars have under the hood. At the time, Toyota estimated that the battery pack would last 100,000 miles, whereupon the cost to replace would be around $3,000. These numbers have probably since been updated, but I'm going to stick with these because they were real numbers and they serve as a good illustration of the cost comparison process: when we amortize this $3000 expense over its 100,000 lifespan, we get ($3,000/100,000) = 3 cents per mile.

The electric motor: its maintenance is hopefully zero, but some will break and need repairs that won't be cheap, plus it will eventually wear out. I don't really want to claim numbers because I've not researched any. However, if its similar to a clutch and/or transmission rebuild, we can probably expect half of a fleet will need such a service done by 100,000 miles and that it will cost at least $1,000. If you do the math, that works out to (1 cent per mile per vehicle)(50% service rate) = 0.5 cent/mile. For sake of keeping this analysis simple, we can assume that this is the lower limit for the sum of a bunch of the new electrical system components , such as the accompanying high voltage harness, etc. Keep in mind that the exact value isn't as important as how it is then used in the cost evaluation process.

And before I go on, it is true that we don't see these costs on a day-to-day basis: they show up when the car eventually gets service or repair, or by when we sell or trade-in the car before the repair is needed: more wear is invariably be reflected in a lower resale price, just like how you'll get a higher price after you've just made repairs, new tires, etc.


Okay, so the simple summary of the above essentially is that a hybrid costs more to keep maintained, and based on just these two factors, our estimate of this these expenses are (3 + 0.5) cents per mile driven.

And what this means is ~46 MPG (Prius) isn't the whole story: its 46MPG with a 3.5 cent/mile handicap that needs to be better, and we need to figure out the math to see if that's the case or not.

Assume: Regular Gasoline at $3.00/gal

46 MPG is thus: $3.00 / 46 miles = 6.5 cents per mile (direct fuel cost).

6.5 cents/mile + 3.5 cents/mile hybrid higher costs = 10 cents/mile (incremental hybrid cost)

Converting 10 cents/mile back into MPG: ($3.00/0.10) = 30 MPG

Thus, a Prius that's actually getting 46 MPG is the same as a normal car that's getting 30 MPG after we factor in the hybrid's higher incremental maintenance costs.

And since there's diesels that can do better than 30 MPG (even after we handicap their fuel cost), the simple bottom line is that a hybrid doesn't have the lowest cost per mile.

Do feel free to update & refine my numbers to make them more accurate.  However, you can't violate the general process of accounting for all operating expenses, and in particular the simple fact that a more complicated machine inevitably costs more to maintain.

-hh

Fresh Rock

Got a few photos from the Goddess Pele, during a chopper flight that was fortunate enough to coincide with the "Thanksgiving Eve" breakout (2007).

Here's the US Geological Survey's map of the new terrain, as well as one of their professional photos, taken ridiculously close.

For mere tourists, this is about the best we can do:

There's no scale to provide perspective, but as per the USGS's website, the perch channel pond in the top corner (dark) has a 6m ledge (20ft) and is around 50m wide (165ft), so the lively red one that's in the center of this image is probably well over 100 feet wide, and probably closer to 125ft.

Another view, of the lava's leading edge, can be found here.


We later did some hiking in Volcanos National Park over old (safer) lava beds and while geological aspects of it were interesting, even though "desolation" was expected, our normal expectations are nevertheless that if Mother Nature did it and we made it into a National Park, it should probably be pretty too. Sorry, but I do have to admit that the footing was a lot like walking over an old broken up macadam parking lot in an old US city, like Philadelphia or Newark. A few hours of walking with lousy footing over ridges and piles of black rocks, only to see...more black rocks! ... isn't a particularly appealing hike.


-hh

Hilton Waikoloa Village - Hawaii

Been away; spent some time of last month exploring Hawaii...

The low spot was the Thanksgiving Buffet at the Hilton Waikoloa Village. Food wasn't anything superior to a normal steam tray buffet, but what was most disconcerting was that the Service was ... non-existent! Yes, beyond Poor Service. The Dining Staff never followed-up to see if we wanted to buy additional cocktails, let alone even refill our water glasses, remove empty plates, etc. Considering that they didn't have to serve because it was buffet makes these shortcomings even more unacceptable.

Finally, after watching literally 20 minutes pass on my stopwatch for anyone to arrive, someone finally realized that two people with empty glasses, a half dozen empty dishes, napkins on the table top, etc, was a hint. We could finally ask for our check, and they got a mild earful about the utter lack of service. What was a further disappointment was the staff's failure to recover from this 'Customer Service' feedback, where they were literally hopeless to suggest anything to compensate, other than 'Coffee?'

(no thank you - its also too late for that, because I finished my dessert ten minutes ago. Just the check please).

Based on my positive business travels using the Hilton Family products, I would have expected that they would have Compensated us at least our drinks. Nope. Nothing.


So from two weeks of vacation in Hawaii, we can firmly say that in meals ranging from simple hot dog stands and shrimp trucks all the way up to the Hilton Waikoloa Village, the absolute worst service we received anywhere was at the Hilton Waikoloa Village on the Big Island of Hawaii.

Its prompting me to rethink what hotel chain I'm using for my ~10 weeks of business trips per year.


-hh

Irony of technology

I don't want to be OS evangelizing or political...

Nor do I really use You Tube much at all...

But I stumbled across this one in a technology article, and it has a certain irony to it:




Overall, it is inevitable that our computers will evolve and have different UI's than they have today. However, the consumer still gets to decide if he wants it or not. Thanks, but if we have room for something the size of a chest freezer, its going to be a chest freezer!

Other ironies in technology include those optional 'hands free' cellphone interfaces on new cars: a couple of years ago, I passed on one as it simply wasn't anywhere near worth the $1800 asking price for the feature. I'm still trying to figure out why it cost so much. I see the same thing happening today with navigation systems for automobiles: you can easily pay well over a Grand for one built into the dashboard from the OEM, or you can add an automotive GPS later yourself that sits on top of the dash from Garmin starting at only $200. Anyone care to explain why it costs so much to (figuratively) toss it into a reserved empty hole in a dashboard?


-hh