Slashdot Mirror

Ah yes, I meant that Peter Harzheim is not a member of the DLRG like in the post before that. Small typo forgetting that one 'not', sorry. No reason for name calling.

Bottom line: So far the only link that can be made between the DLRG and that statement is through that article from The Guardian. It is a bit of a stretch to say that the DLRG links (the growing number of) child drownings in Germany to obsession with cellphones under those circumstances.
You know what an appropriate expression for these methods is? -- Putting a spin on it.
https://idioms.thefreedictiona...
https://www.dictionary.com/bro...
https://www.dict.cc/englisch-d...

https://www.dict.cc/englisch-d...

I hope that was a joke, as "Antwort" is feminine, meaning die is correct...

In Germany you are allowed to take pictures of any person, you just need their permission to publish or exhibit KunstUrhG 22 with uploading usually being publication. Since 2004 you are not allowed to take pictures of people without their consent inside someones home or similar secured spaces StGB 201a. Outside these special locations you won't need a permission if people are just accessories ("Beiwerk") or part of an assembly ("Versammlung") or parade ("Aufzug") or similar KunstUrhG 23.

In Germany you are allowed to take pictures of any person, you just need their permission to publish or exhibit KunstUrhG 22 with uploading usually being publication. Since 2004 you are not allowed to take pictures of people without their consent inside someones home or similar secured spaces StGB 201a. Outside these special locations you won't need a permission if people are just accessories ("Beiwerk") or part of an assembly ("Versammlung") or parade ("Aufzug") or similar KunstUrhG 23.

In Germany you are allowed to take pictures of any person, you just need their permission to publish or exhibit KunstUrhG 22 with uploading usually being publication. Since 2004 you are not allowed to take pictures of people without their consent inside someones home or similar secured spaces StGB 201a. Outside these special locations you won't need a permission if people are just accessories ("Beiwerk") or part of an assembly ("Versammlung") or parade ("Aufzug") or similar KunstUrhG 23.

Poor translating tools. This page gives me:

angefressen
eroded {adj} {past-p}
angefressen [ugs.]
pissed off {adj} [vulg.]
angefressen [Metall]
pitted {adj}
angefressen [fig.] [ugs.]
fretted {adj} {past-p} [annoyed]
angefressen [ugs.: verärgert]
peeved {adj} [coll.]
miffed {adj} [coll.] [not before noun]

Sounds like a fairly common use of the word. Half-eaten isn't even on the list...

Actually, "Dreck" means "dirt" or "crap".

Easy: check out its entry on dict.cc (an English<->German online dictionary), and click on the speaker icon in the leftmost column. They have both an automatically-generated computer version and a sound recording by a British user.

sap in German is derogatory

I'm German, fairly literate, have never heard of a German word "sap", and I'm not alone.

yes Ray, I read the transcript back then (and also flew over it again right now) [you are talking about the transcript with the paperclip example by the judge, aren't you?].

Me not sure about your reference to absence of "volitation".
Could be a german/english syntax misunderstanding!

According to my favorite dictonary service some lawerese translation would be this
http://www.dict.cc/englisch-deutsch/conditional+in tent.html
while "Intent", as I thought the parent poster was refering to it in his example, maybe translates in legalese more like
http://www.dict.cc/englisch-deutsch/malice.html.

the parent posting by popo said that if he had no intent to download pirated content with his TiVO like system then he could use the defense of "be able to claim lack of intent."
And his headline claimed that intent is the key which logicly would mean if copyrightowner could not prove intent that would be popo's free ride ticket to pirated stuff.

I was refering to your blog 'cause thats where I found the links to all those PDFs and the mentioning of the titles of the laws (FRCP, FRE and Title 17 and all those stuff) It was not my http://www.dict.cc/?s=Absicht to say YOU personly told in your blog what I stated in my above comment to popo's posting. I'm sorry If we might missunderstood each other a bit here.

What I read in http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html is that;
501 "Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner[...] is an infringer of the copyright or right of the author, as the case may be."
No mentioning of "willfully violating" as a prerequisite to be an infringer.

And 504 (C)(2) says;
"In a case where the copyright owner sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that infringement was committed willfully, the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000. In a case where the infringer sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that such infringer was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright, the court in its discretion may reduce the award of statutory damages to a sum of not less than $200."

Of course you as a lawyer know all that and definetly better then me.
But popo might not be aware of that, as it seems from his post that he was under the impression that he can comit copyrightinfringements "unintentionally" without being liable for statutory damages.

As I understand your law it is a "tort liability" issue which does not require intent to do something unlawful according to coyprightlaw.

If you can correct my understanding, I would be happy to learn from you.

yes Ray, I read the transcript back then (and also flew over it again right now) [you are talking about the transcript with the paperclip example by the judge, aren't you?].

Me not sure about your reference to absence of "volitation".
Could be a german/english syntax misunderstanding!

According to my favorite dictonary service some lawerese translation would be this
http://www.dict.cc/englisch-deutsch/conditional+in tent.html
while "Intent", as I thought the parent poster was refering to it in his example, maybe translates in legalese more like
http://www.dict.cc/englisch-deutsch/malice.html.

the parent posting by popo said that if he had no intent to download pirated content with his TiVO like system then he could use the defense of "be able to claim lack of intent."
And his headline claimed that intent is the key which logicly would mean if copyrightowner could not prove intent that would be popo's free ride ticket to pirated stuff.

I was refering to your blog 'cause thats where I found the links to all those PDFs and the mentioning of the titles of the laws (FRCP, FRE and Title 17 and all those stuff) It was not my http://www.dict.cc/?s=Absicht to say YOU personly told in your blog what I stated in my above comment to popo's posting. I'm sorry If we might missunderstood each other a bit here.

What I read in http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html is that;
501 "Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner[...] is an infringer of the copyright or right of the author, as the case may be."
No mentioning of "willfully violating" as a prerequisite to be an infringer.

And 504 (C)(2) says;
"In a case where the copyright owner sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that infringement was committed willfully, the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000. In a case where the infringer sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that such infringer was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright, the court in its discretion may reduce the award of statutory damages to a sum of not less than $200."

Of course you as a lawyer know all that and definetly better then me.
But popo might not be aware of that, as it seems from his post that he was under the impression that he can comit copyrightinfringements "unintentionally" without being liable for statutory damages.

As I understand your law it is a "tort liability" issue which does not require intent to do something unlawful according to coyprightlaw.

If you can correct my understanding, I would be happy to learn from you.

yes Ray, I read the transcript back then (and also flew over it again right now) [you are talking about the transcript with the paperclip example by the judge, aren't you?].

Me not sure about your reference to absence of "volitation".
Could be a german/english syntax misunderstanding!

According to my favorite dictonary service some lawerese translation would be this
http://www.dict.cc/englisch-deutsch/conditional+in tent.html
while "Intent", as I thought the parent poster was refering to it in his example, maybe translates in legalese more like
http://www.dict.cc/englisch-deutsch/malice.html.

the parent posting by popo said that if he had no intent to download pirated content with his TiVO like system then he could use the defense of "be able to claim lack of intent."
And his headline claimed that intent is the key which logicly would mean if copyrightowner could not prove intent that would be popo's free ride ticket to pirated stuff.

I was refering to your blog 'cause thats where I found the links to all those PDFs and the mentioning of the titles of the laws (FRCP, FRE and Title 17 and all those stuff) It was not my http://www.dict.cc/?s=Absicht to say YOU personly told in your blog what I stated in my above comment to popo's posting. I'm sorry If we might missunderstood each other a bit here.

What I read in http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html is that;
501 "Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner[...] is an infringer of the copyright or right of the author, as the case may be."
No mentioning of "willfully violating" as a prerequisite to be an infringer.

And 504 (C)(2) says;
"In a case where the copyright owner sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that infringement was committed willfully, the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000. In a case where the infringer sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that such infringer was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright, the court in its discretion may reduce the award of statutory damages to a sum of not less than $200."

Of course you as a lawyer know all that and definetly better then me.
But popo might not be aware of that, as it seems from his post that he was under the impression that he can comit copyrightinfringements "unintentionally" without being liable for statutory damages.

As I understand your law it is a "tort liability" issue which does not require intent to do something unlawful according to coyprightlaw.

If you can correct my understanding, I would be happy to learn from you.

So, what cool keyword searches do people like to have?

• Dozens for a couple small sites I use.
• Queries for common DB queries using PhpMyAdmin on box. (for example, 'ecdbqid' for looking up eC user by id; localdb just for PhpMyAdmin on localhost.)
• demd5 for a reverse md5 lookup (+ demd5a through demd5c in case it's not found in the first database).
• de for http://www.dict.cc/?s=%25s
• e2 for Everything2
• ol for Onelook
• anagram for http://www.wordsmith.org/anagram/anagram.cgi?anagr am=%25s
• dns for http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/ptr.ch?ip=%25s
• Shortcuts for numerous Google searches, of course.
• rot13 for http://rot13.com/index.php?text=%25s
• ensv for http://www.tranexp.com:2000/InterTran?type=text&fr om=eng&to=swe&text=%25s (At some point, I intend to define keywords for all the combos, but I think I have to edit bookmarks.html directly to do that en masse.)

Boxen is German for boxes.

http://www.dict.cc/?s=boxes&btngo=Go!

If we can't say boxen for Linux boxes, then we can't say free software is libre?

Better use protection.
http://www.dict.cc/?s=tust

Llo is a prolly dictionary, BUT it is not GPL or similar license. You cannot download translation database for whatever use you want.
Use:
- dict.cc
- tu-chemnitz
instead of leo, you can also contribute or use offline.

_______________
freedict.de

I wonder why they chose to name it "Eigenradio"? Eigen being a German word, it seems that the primary meaning is "to own." Really makes me wonder what kind of statement they are trying to make. Of course it seems obvious to me that the main point of this project (outside of the technical challenge presented) is to make some sort of statement regarding the music industry.