Grumpy Old Man: Smoking Tobbaco Smoking Salmon

It's My Home, I'll Smoke If I Want To

Where do my rights to do what I want at home begin or end?

This is something that I think holds true whether you own or rent a house or suite in an apartment building. While I should have dominion over my home, there is a range of activities that might infringe on other peoples and some might lead to problems or at least friction.

There are some things that wouldn't be too much problem if you own a house with a yard. For instance smoking cigarettes on your back porch - or pipes or cigars or even hookah. In the city there might be a problem if you start smoking salmon or bacon or game in your backyard on the other hand. It might seem contradictory in that the smoke from a barbecue is not a problem even if that also would fill the neighbourhood with the smell of cooking meat.

Getting back to the "smoking" that same tobacco smoking that is okay on a porch may be an issue on an apartment or condominium balcony or patio because of the intimate nature of the suites where one person's balcony is directly beneath the next's window. I think that at least at the moment things like smoking are governed by leases and strata agreements. That goes for smoking inside the suite as well. In future, it looks like there are leanings in the direction of laws to do with smoking indoors if children live in the home just as there are in more and more places such laws coming into place about smoking in a car if children are passengers.

I think right now that voluntarily and especially if there are lease provisions prohibiting smoking in an apartment people will smoke on the balcony. I think the lease provisions for a large part have to do with the damage that continued smoking has on the suite with regards to the smoke and tar getting into carpets and staining the walls and such where perhaps smokers might not notice the oder but nonsmokers can note it long after a tenant has moved out.

I have heard there also being problems in buildings with central heating where the smoke will travel from suite to suite and that there are also issues to do with fire insurance.

But without there being laws about smoking, and if smoking is allowed in the apartment suites, what about the balconies? Where are your rights if neighbours complain about your smoking on the balcony?

But smoking is a very sticky issue really. What about barbecuing? What about loud conversations on the cordless or cell phone while on the balcony? What about tearing apart go-karts, lawnmowers, or chainsaws - or some other activity that is if not light industrial or commercial borders on it? Do my neighbours have any right to say what activities I do on my balcony or in my living-room?

I think there is a reasonable expectation that we be able to enjoy the place we call home. That being said - if we want to raise sheep, perhaps we should live somewhere with a meadow or field which is safe for sheep.

But we are in transition when it comes to things like smoking. We are going from a time when smoking was considered to be a normal and common thing and where a person would have to seek a place to avoid smoke and smokers to a time when smoking is considered dangerous and where a person has to seek a place where they can smoke.

A lot of what is acceptable has to do with what is acceptable in society, and that is not necessarily talking about whole countries, but even neighbourhoods. In some neighbourhoods having a meat smoker at the back of the yard might be acceptable and the smell of hickory smoke from the smokers on the block would be a welcome homey smell where the same smoker would be something considered nearly an industrial process in another neighbourhood.

Location does have to be kept in mind still as does safety. Tearing apart Harleys in the living room might be okay, but there is an issue perhaps of solvents, oil, and gasoline along perhaps with things like coolant being dangerous in a residential apartment. It might be okay in an apartment garage on-the-other-hand in the same building. Barbecues might be okay in some buildings but it might depend on a barbecue by barbecue basis and balcony by balcony basis. A small propane barbecue on a larger balcony is different from a larger charcoal or wood barbecue on a smaller one. I had one neighbour pumping a whole tin of barbecue lighter fluid - smelled like kerosene - on his large cast iron barbecue. I was 9-12 metres away (30-40 feet) away and was finding the fumes from the lighter fluid overwhelming inside my suite. I think that though perhaps there weren't flames shooting up - perhaps he let the fluid soak well into the briquettes - there is a black sooty smudge on the ceiling of the balcony above. Now the smell might be a nuisance but the fumes and flames are a hazard to the whole building.

But taking away the danger aspect - getting back to things like noisy telephone conversations under neighbour's bedroom windows or cooking weird and wonderful aromatic foods that aren't inter culturally acceptable where does one tenant's right end and the next begin? Since things travel through walls and through windows and around corners can you say at the wall?

A person could always say "If you don't like me as a neighbour, you can always move." But there might always be someone in every group who is stretching the bounds and hence no matter where you go there would be someone stretching those bounds if there aren't boundaries set. I don't know that I am wise enough to set those boundaries, but I am curious as to what they currently are.

Later!
~ Darrell

75.

Legal - Copy Copy Copy Not Right

Copy Copy Copy Not Right - On Copyright!

There are very many times and places you will see images, videos, and graphics and hear sounds and music that people are posting on the Internet. There is a lot involved in whether it is infringing on someone else's rights and I think many people do not really think about it or have been led to believe false facts about it. It is one reason why you have seen little in the area of graphics or other images on The Gnomestead Stump so far. I do feel free to use my own images that I have created using portraits of myself of which many I have done some photo-manipulation and photo-editing.

The World Wide Web or Web is a very visual place and plain text really is boring, so I have tried to break the monotony up at least a little with my portraits and tried to use ones that slightly fit the theme. I was going to go with a different image, but at the moment my server - the one that gnomestead.com is hosted on - is down. So I am using my default portrait.

I have made use of an organization called "Creative Commons" to put a license on The Gnomestead Blog". It is a way to let people what rights they might have when it comes to content here. You can look for it at the end of the blog pages. I would like people to be able to copy these articles as long as they don't alter them or use them for commercial purposes. If someone were perhaps to want to use an article for commercial purpose, I assume they would approach me for special permission.

Something that I have found is very common is that once someone has copied an image without any credit to the photographer or creator people seem to think they can copy it onto their site with impunity. One of the dangers of copying material without giving credit is that nobody can look into the creator and even try to give credit at a later date without a large amount of research - unless like the editorial cartoonist Steve Greenberg they include name and web page in their signature or elsewhere in the image. I have seen though where people have cropped images specifically to remove copyright information from an image. This is - I think - a despicable action because it implies to others that there is no copyright infringement when there is.

Of course there is copyright even when it is not explicitly written on a document. Saying so tells who wrote the document and when the document was written or at least who owns the rights. Registering has the advantage of proof if ever someone were to place a claim on a work which is disputed.

I think it is very important to acknowledge the source of any material you find and use even if you are not quoting or copying it. This is even if for your own records so that you can know just where you found the information in case you have to verify the facts. It might help you for future further research as well. You would also be able to ask for permission to make use of a drawing or photo from the person who holds the copyright.

There is also a provision for "fair use" which is the use of a quote or part of something for the purpose of review of it or for educational usage. I can not tell you all that is involved. But I know that it is okay to quote a passage or two giving full credit ot the source and it is okay to use images in "some" cases. I am not sure of the cases so I am shy about using images. I do think it is okay to use a thumbnail image of a larger one to indicate a link to the source of the image when speaking about it though. If that thumbnail is not specifically provided for such purpose - meaning using the image in it's original location - then you take the thumbnail image or create one and store it on your webspace and use that image to then link to their site.

BTW using an image by taking the address of that image and using that address in your blog or web page is something called "hot linking" which is considered to be bandwidth theft. Whenever someone looks at that image on your blog or page, the image comes directly from their server and not the one that your blog is on. Essentially you are using their resources or "bandwidth".

It might not mean much on a blog or website that gets 5 or 10 hits a day, but one that gets hundreds or thousands can make a big difference and if a person is using a service like PhotoBucket for storing their images on, you can exceed their usage levels and the person whose space it is will not be able to have people see their picture.

This can really get out of control when someone hotlinks to a hotlinked picture which has been hotlinked by a few others... etc.

It is far better to save the picture onto some server space you have, whether on PhotoBucket or some other and then link to that than to hotlink to someone's site. I would then create a link back to that site with credits where credit is due. It would be better to keep in mind "fair usage" and create a thumbnail or other representation of the image and have the viewer of your page go to the source, but at least linking back lets the owner have a chance to attract the viewer of your page as an audience with you acting as an advertisement for their site. Just remember that you are still violating their copyright if you are using their artwork without permission.

Some places do give permission to use artwork as long as you include a link back to their site and the will advise you that if you wish to do so you must save the image to your server and use their icon for the link. But it is their image and their right to ask for that. They could be forbidding it instead.

So remember that pictures do have copyright, no matter where you see them. People might have placed works in the public domain, but this will be something that will be displayed with the image and you should be including that note with the image.

I am not very well known, but I have found pieces of poetry I have written and some artwork that has been copied and distributed without my knowledge - work from over a decade ago - and worse yet someone else has put their name to it! - flattery, I guess.

Later!
~ Darrell

37

Legal - The Small Print

In This Corner, the Lawyers

If you've ever installed a program on your computer you have seen the long document of legal requirements that you must agree to in order to install the program. I am university educated and literate and I have a hard time making my way through these documents each and every time I want to install something.

I have always dutifully read through instruction manuals when I have purchased appliances and equipment before using it. In the beginning I read the small print on the licenses and other installation agreements. But things are getting ridiculous.

I know that if you accept a contract you are accepting what is written on it whether you have read it or not. You may be "signing" away some rights that you might otherwise have. I am wondering if the language used in these documents really can be expected to be understood by the average person who can be expected now to be wanting to install and use this software?

A contract requires a meeting of the minds - I believe, but could be wrong on that - and if the average person can not be expected to understand the wording of the contract, how can there be a meeting of minds? Of course the argument could be that you shouldn't "sign" what you don't understand. That is true. But should a person be expected to hire a lawyer whenever it is time to install a patch to some software they have purchased previously? Or when they purchase the software package should they be expected to have a lawyer on hand when they buy it in the first place?

Can a person return software when opened if they do not agree to the license agreement? If not, isn't it a bit of coercion to accept the agreement or lose the purchase price? Often you can not read the agreement until after opening the package.

Now I am understanding that now they consider that you are not actually not "buying" the software or program but purchasing a license to use it. That means you agree to the terms of the license in order to use the software which is still owned by the company that puts it out.

I can see that companies want to protect themselves and perhaps all that text is necessary. At the same time it is too much and beyond many to read and understand and it comes too often for most users of the software.

I might suggest a solution.

I suspect that large sections of these agreements are the same from one agreement to the next. Now if they are the same could they not be standardized so that if given a label or title that would be agreed upon, if read and understood once, a person could be told that it was that section and they would know what it was without re-reading it. They would then focus on what makes that document different from other agreements.

A person could then simplify going through the legal agreements before installing and they would be informed about the agreement before installation. It would be a win-win situation for user and company wouldn't it?

I do wonder if those agreements really are binding if there can be no expected meeting of minds?

Later,

~ Darrell