At 02:05 PM 3/25/04 -0500, Tyler Durden wrote:

"In the Brinworld of Phonecams this is a nice challenge for the freelancer... Fuck you, Anderson III"

All he did was raise the prices of said photos, correct? Shit...I should get on out there and make myself a fortune...

In practice, because markets are robust, and anonymity not so hard, yes. :-) However this is a classic case of the State using *violence* to (wrongly) prohibit behavior which is in fact protected. You *don't* have a right to take pictures inside *my* walls if its prohibited, since its private property. In my house or store, I can call for the State's violence against you if you do things I don't consent to. But on public land, or from a private building in the area, no one (incl. the State's twerps like Anderson III) can prohibit such behavior, as there is no right to privacy in public. Excellent (and 'punkly) point about the market for information, though. PS: I'd say the Streisand vs. Coastal Photographer lawsuit was a good example of someone trying to abuse the State's violence by convincing it that the Photog was somehow doing a wrong. In that case the Judge correctly decided that Streisand was full of shit.