hohum

Ahh, but if suffering is what you want, look at what happens if they ignore it :)

^ Indeed, I just had to clarify a few of the statements above (not really implying that they were false, just not quite "the rest of the story") :) Also wanted to throw out a few warnings and gotchas for the "non initiated"... "Be careful out there folks, its a wild wild world" Also, seriously keep in mind the DMCA takedown - its the easiest, fastest, and most effective way to get your images down when they are direct copies (while limiting your own downsides). If they've bene manipulated (or incorporated into another work, well then you still have to make your case as you say above).

bahaha, beer hall of fame... vanished from any radar as far as I can tell...

Again, I AM NOT A LAWYER, but I HAVE studied copyright law extensively (don't ask me how extensive, its PAINFUL extensive) As a very introductory threshold issue, it will make a difference if all the alleged infringing site is doing is LINKING to the image in an image tag (in other words, the image is served off of flickr's image farm). This could well kill a civil copyright infringement claim (see the cases on google images). In any case, it makes the case VERY difficult. If they are actually copying the image to THEIR servers and serving the image bits off of their server, its a different story. There is still alot of nuance here, and it will be very fact specific. That said, some general information about some of the comments above. First, just to correct some general misconceptions or possible misconceptions people may have from the above, there are two types of copyright infringement, criminal and civil. Each type has different requisites for bringing an infringement case. It is only a felony offense if it meets the requisites of the felony infringement statute. One of the chief requirements of criminal infringement is that a profit must be made off of the infringement, and in the broadest terms, there has to be some direct nexus between the infringement and a profit that is made. The clearest cut case is the sale of bootleg software, movies, or music. Most often, another requisite is that you have a federal copyright registration for the work, which is easy enough to obtain, but requires that you pay a fee, and possibly send copies of the work to the copryight office. This is not to say that you don't have a copyright until you register, copyright rights attach at the moment the work is fixed in a tangible medium of expression, but this will likely be evidence required for the prosecution of a criminal copyright infringement case (more on why it is necessary in civil infringement in a moment). There are other possible hurdles to a criminal infringement case as well, such things as the posting of notice of copyright as well as the penalties for infringement, etc. Not enough space here to fully explore all of those. The final, and largely the biggest hurdle in a case like this, is that a federal prosecutor will need to be convinced to bring the case. This means filing a complaint with the FBI, and the FBI referring the case to the prosecutor. In large scale bootleg operations, this is an easy case to bring to the FBI. In this case, well its much more individualized, and the monetary harm is harder to quantify. This gets to the question of CIVIL (not criminal) litigation of copyright infringement. As a threshold issue, be very very careful about making any such "threats." What you state in these types of letters can EASILY come back to bite you. Firstly, if you threaten criminal sanctions, you have to be careful that you have the wherewithal to back it up (see above). If you aren't sure, well think about it... The most common example one of these letters coming back to bite you is if you "threaten" to sue, but then never do. In this case, if you wait a long enough time you may be precluded from bringing suit. If you are "threatening" to bring suit, you should really think carefully about what you say and assess whether you are the one best equipped to be doing what you are doing. To actually bring suit, there are many of the same requisites as above if you want to get damages, and not just an injunction. Again, its too small a space here to really clarify it, but damages are rare, lets just put it that way. Also, you will absolutely have to have a copyright registration before actually bringing suit, its a requirement of the statute. That said, the good news is, that if all you want is for them to remove the infringing content from their site, you have another option under the statute, specifically, under the DMCA. The DMCA has been a fairly controversial statute, but it has some arguably decent provisions, not the least of which are the takedown provisions (for copyright holders). See my post above for the sample takedown letter. The good news about this statute is their is a STATUTORY period of response, where the site owner HAS to remove the content. The burden on the site to inspect is quite minimal. Its the "easy" way to get infringing material removed. Also, notice that the letter above never threatens to sue, it just says see this statute, see this material on your site, take it down. I am currently a software engineer, in law school, so I can answer this too. Yes there are many ways, google robots.txt to start, then move on the other possibilities. One way is to only serve images through javascript (ie, no direct links). Most spider software doesn't have a built in javascript interpreter, and consequently the images won't download. You can also google for all kinds of sample javascript to do this (this of course all presumes you host your own images in your own content controlled site) Google is your friend, all kinds of sample code to be found. If they are merely linking to your images (as described above), then yes. You can can use google to find all sites that link to a specific url. If they are copying the images, well it becomes much harder.

^ OHHH!!! Good call, I will check them out for the next suit to see what they have... I would much rather patronize a local than a chain!!! (I can't imagine a made to measure suit is going to cost only $500 though, that has to be off the rack price. If thats made to measure price, I'll go buy three of em like today - truly custom fit suits usually start at $1000 and run into the multiple thousands - just look up the price of a true London made bespoke suit -- get in the door for about $4000, and if you want the really nice fabric, think $10000)

There is something you can do to have the image removed from their site, you can send them a DMCA takedown letter. More info here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMCA and http://www.learnaboutlaw.com/General/learnaboutDMCA.htm And here is a sample takedown notice - http://www.learnaboutlaw.com/documents/DMCA_notice.htm And if those don't work, you can always sue. Lawsuits suck (and I say this as a law student) but sometimes ya gotta do what ya gotta do. BTW, standard disclaimer here - I am not a lawyer (YET)

leave out the under 35 bit, and yeah I totally agree. And no square toe shoes, over and done with ;)

True, but closer than going to get the deal on the whole suit package than up in Jeffersonville. Suits are one of those things I am actually willing to drive for, I always think you are happier in the end if you get the most for your money.

You can find a nice suit there, it just require a bit more looking. I like Men's Wearhouse but it defeats my usual shopping method - run in, immediately grab what I want, run out <-- not much of a shopper

More Grammers coverage :) found at - http://cinweekly.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/A1/20080408/ENT0109/804090307/ Raising the Bar: Grammer's Over-the-Rhine bar reopens and maintains history AMBER SAMBLANET | CIN WEEKLY Stepping into the newly reopened Grammer's is stepping straight into history. With roots going back to the 19th century, the Over-the-Rhine bar is now under new ownership. However, it continues to wear its history proudly with touches such as the original red mahogany bar from 1872, the original tile work on the floors and the murals of Germany's Rhine River Valley, which were painted in 1940 and restored in the 1980s. See link above for article.

I think volunteer embassadors program could work quite well as a stopgap measure. It may be hard to sustain long term, but could work very well in the short term... What does everyone else think about volunteer embassadors?

To a degree, it also brings the pan handlers a calling...

I don't know what Cincinnati's loitering ordinance looks like, I am sure that they have one... Where I have seen such large bans enforced was in an area where the property owners actually "own" the sideway, and the city has an easment over the property. This way it is the "owner's" responsibility to take care of the sidewalk. Some loitering ordinances are restricted to the entry ways to businesses. Now I am curious, and I will have to look up what the law is here... edit - actually, I bet I know someone who would know, I'll just ask him... <-- lazy law student

The suit prices aren't all that different, but the tie and shirt prices are fairly significantly different. I priced my complete suit/shirt/tie/belt downtown, and it would have run me $885. The same suit/2 different (but similar style) shirts/2 different ties/different belt ran just shy of $600 at the store up in Jeffersonville. I am a law student, so I needed a nice suit, but had to do it on a "lower budget." The biggest savings were the shirts and ties, and the variety of suits in their lower tier prices was much bigger (I'm 6'4" and fairly big, so the selection was important). I am pretty sure its actually an outlet store (all the ties are usually "last years fashion" and the shirt prices were also less... belt was only slightly cheaper even for "last years fashion") I've bought a few ties downtown that I have replaced at the Jeffersonville location a year later for half the price.

YAY! Hopefully this will equate to somewhat less expensive honey at the farmers markets this summer! Ohio has some awesome honey...

Lunging at you, umm, that is scary. Sorry to hear about that. And when there are confrontations on the street, well that is also scary (for anyone) and I would certainly avoid it, by all means. Anyhow, so long as there is a reasonable balance struck, I think there are proactive ways to deal with these issues. I have seen street long loitering bans, and I can't stand how they are enforced (a sad sight to see the day when the police come and ticket everyone on that random day) Michael, I am guessing you've looked into good ways to deal with "problem loitering" as they have been implemented elsewhere. Is there any creative mechanism that you have seen that other cities have put into good use? Personally, I think the way Kaldi's has dealt with people who loiter in front of their establishment is admirable -- they have a pretty decent repore with all of the local regulars, and can talk to them reasonably and they usually move on... But this requires a fairly strong proactive stance from the business owner, and there has to be a way that better utilizes both the private and public means to this end. What do the businesses have to say about the issue?

^ Yup, this is absolutely true. I am working on convincing my wife to sell or rent our current house to buy a place in OTR in the next few years, and frankly, this is the stumbling point. However, the counterpoint is that I think many women wouldn't feel safe walking around in very large swaths of most cities... There has to be a balance, because we can't make the entire city Hyde Park Sqaure...

^ Yes, the balance is good, and deserves some attention. Both need to be placed in perspective of actual daily production. A 500,000 bpd decrease is still just 0.5% of total daily extraction (just like a 500,000 bpd increase is 0.5%). However, my thought is that the decline is <b>somewhat</b> more significant because worldwide demand is increasing.

An increase of 500,000 bpd is only about an increase of .5% over the current daily extraction rate. I don't think this detracts much from the theory at all - especially considering that such an increase only just makes up for the slight decline in bpd extraction rates over the last 3 - 4 years. IF they can manage to produce as much as they say (I'll believe it when I see it), this just brings us back to the level extraction rate for the last several years. (Yet demand is increasing, so what does this say about the future cost of a barrel)

I know she "revised" her numbers (at least very minorly as they were published on the beacon), but she didn't correct all the problems (especially the population issues or the cost of operation by mile problems). Did she actually submit revised numbers to council? I certainly haven't seen that.

^ Yup, for sure. LincolnKennedy - I don't mind "guarantees" either but the form of the guarantee does matter. Uptown would be an obvious extension/connection, but the guarantee should not be don't build anything until there is money and buy in for everything. A motion in council could make these guarantees by placing much less restrictive conditions on what gets done. I entirely disagree with the notion that Cheryl has been viciously attacked. I have, and many other people, have engaged her in more than civilized debate. But she persists even when it is more than apparent that her "facts" are nothing more than fiction. If you put your name on a publication, you can expect people to look you up in whatever public data sources there are available. I expect it, and its one of the reasons I hold my house via an unincorporated entity rather than in my own name. I don't see how taking advantage of <b>public</b> information sources to understand your adversary is an attack. As far as where the piece was published, the pulse gets a broader readership than you might expect, and RIGHT in the heart of what should be the core constituency of the current streetcar proposal. This is why its important, if not nearly as weighty as a publication with wider distribution. Personally, I make it a point to try to counteract falsehoods about this proposal wherever they may be published (if at all possible - The Enquirer seems not to care much about such trivialities as publishing the truth)

Hmmm, I wonder if this is more of a problem for women than men? I hardly ever get a word out of folks hanging around on the streets, but I also am a fairly large man. To Michael's comment, when the people who are loitering aren't doing anything wrong (and comments like "hey blondie" certainly aren't what I would consider "doing nothing wrong") I would much rather change the perception. I prefer to work to change reality when reality and perception are, in actuality, the same. However, when at least some of the perception is based upon what people imagine these folks are up to, well thats a different story. (And I certainly think that is part of what goes on here) I certainly respect business owners who want to make sure people feel comfortable walking into their stores, but having grown up in a city as a kid, the sidewalks were our stomping grounds, its where we would play, and I wouldn't want that taken away... There were parks around my parents place, but the cops were far more likely to chase us out of the park so that we wouldn't bother the visitors there than from the streets. I guess it all boils down to the fact that I dont' like drawing absolute lines. There are people who are hanging out on the streets who just aren't doing anything wrong (regardless of whether they "should be at a job" - not quite sure what that means really - if they can afford (without govt. help) to not work or only work sporadically or work night shifts, whats the harm in hanging out). Then there are folks who make nasty comments or who engage in street dealing, and those are the folks I would rather see something happen about.

Brooks Bros is the way to go, but honestly, its better to hit the Brooks Bros outlet for them. Up to 50% less than their downtown store... Brooks is the classic -- well made, nice lines, and will last a long time. They make quite nice shirts too (partial to their french cuffs myself) Downside is that downtown, definitely gonna drop some money on it. You can walk out with a very nice BB suit, shirt, tie, and belt at the outlets for around $500. At the downtown brooks, the ties alone can easily run more than $100. I know "go to the outlets" isn't an option downtown, but if you want to get a suit, get the best you can afford, and you can afford so much more up there.

As far as the Kroger goes, decent Kroger if it wasn't for the size. Also, not a big fan of their meat or produce, but passable. Honestly, I am probably just biased because if I am shopping down there its either the weekend and I am at the market, or its a weekday and I am walking back uphill, and I can still, well, hit the market (but I will stop there for a few things time and again on the way home) As far as the loitering goes, does that really bother anyone? I could care less about loitering, street dealing is what bothers me... In a residential city neighborhood, thats just where folks hang out. Noone usually bothers me...

NOOOO, I was hoping noone would go there... BAH!!! IT HURTS MY EYES!!!!