That's a very good addition to my analogy. Obviously car analogies won't map to the copyright situation (it's normally a novelty to see a car analogy that actually works).
Anyhow, if the lady had decided to call the police because she didn't believe that you were preventing her car from killing random people on the street, as you say you would have had a pretty good reason for being in her car. Ok, it would end up costing you (don't get me started on how difficult it is to be a good Samaritan nowadays). So, as you've proved, implied consent can depend on the situation, but I don't see any situation where it would be necessary to download a torrent.
But that's my point, They didn't hand anyone a note saying take it. Yes, they left the torrent there for the taking, but people had to search for it, and make the decision to download it. At no point did Prenda contact individuals and say "download this".
1. I park my car on the street and leave the keys in the ignition 2. A passer walks down the street looking into each car 3. They see the keys in the car 4. Even though they don't know who the owner of the car is, they decide to drive off with it
1. Prenda Law uploads a torrent 2. A person is searching for porn torrents 3. The person comes across Prenda's torrent 4. Even though they don't know who the owner of the copyright, they decide to download it
In both situations something is there for the taking, but neither (as I see it) have implied consent. Prenda Law are complete dickheads, and the individuals in charge deserve to be bankrupted into oblivion. Admittedly, I'm playing devil's avocado (mmm, avocado) here, and feel free to add a steps in my two lists, but I look at this as being a sting operation (which is legal in most countries)
If they claim that putting the files up conveyed no implicit permission to download them, then their behaviour could well be judged to amount to "entrapment"
I'm not convinced about the entrapment bit - entrapment requires that somebody is encouraged to commit a crime. In this case they uploaded their content, but didn't contact the downloaders and say "look at this porn, it's free, go on download it, it'll be fine". Personally, I think it's more of a sting operation.
The difficulty is that - for example a bait car - string operation, just because the car has been left with the keys in the ignition it doesn't mean that there's implied consent that the thief is allowed to take it, so one *could* use the same logic and say there's no implied permission here. You could of course argue that by seeding the torrent is encouraging people to download it, but I feel it's more like shouting "look, anyone could drive off with that car" - you're still just giving people the opportunity to incriminate themselves.
And for the record, while I don't condone copyright infringement I don't view it as theft.
Not a bad theory, apart from the fact that Glenn Greenwald received a phone call - from a "security official at Heathrow airport.", only identified by his number 203654 - that
[his] partner, David Miranda, had been "detained" at the London airport "under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act of 2000."
We have the same in the UK - British Transport Police who I learned are 95% funded by the train companies*. Essentially, it's just another constabulary with a limited jurisdiction:
In certain circumstances, a BTP constable can act as a police constable outside of their normal railway jurisdiction as described in the "Powers and status of officers" section.
* I learned this today when I was wondering why the public are paying for police on privately owned trains stations, and then found we're not (at least, not directly)
If you're having to check the high water times when landing a 777, you're probably doing it wrong! But just to be on the safe side, I'm going to start check the Southampton airport QNH when I go sailing.
Wasn't Scopus was it - I use that when doing Iomega tech support (for Softbank / Clientlogic) in Dublin (they had moved from Watford). It was a complete dog to use.
I think what was being asked was "would you be able to spot the work created by a human, amongst those created by a robot". I ask because I've been to the Tate Modern numerous times, and quite frankly some of the stuff showed no sign of creative talent nor intelligence. Of course, you can argue that art it subjective (and I would completely agree), but then there are critics who don't believe that:
The public doesn't know good from bad. For this city to be guided by the opinion of people who don't know anything about art is lunacy. It doesn't matter if they [the public] like it.
I like to quote Brian Sewell, because it makes people aware of what an utter cunt he is.
But in your case the clause wouldn't have been necessary as she informed you before the procedure what may actually have to be done. You could have told her that you couldn't afford the crown, so if the tooth can't support a filling just remove it (unlikely, but it's your prerogative).
Well, it's akin to me complaining that I'm broke so I'll have to stop buying my weekly lottery ticket, but keep up my $1,500 dollar a day habit.
Mind the pennies does indeed make sense, to a point, but when you're comparing a project that costs $12,500,000 per year to $175,000,000 per day, the analogy goes out the window.
Indeed, you only need to cancel 5110 HAARP programs to cover the Afghanistan costs.
Because they got a shit load of abuse for suing Google when they decided to call their phone Nexus One. That, or they're too busy working out ways to make more money from their father's work without inputting anything of their own.
As you might guess, I've a very low opinion of children of live of their parent's copyrighted works.
Ministers are in charge of a portfolio and sit in the Upper House (AKA Senate).
I would disagree with that - MPs reside in the House of Commons* (Lower house, which is analogous to Congress), whilst the House of Lords (is analogous to the Senate, though they are not publicly elected, rather chosen by governments). Ireland has a very similar setup, the Dáil (Lower House) and the Seanad (Upper House, which again is not selected by the public, but selected by TDs, universities, etc).
* Some peers from the House of Lords are given a ministerial role, thus being unelected - an example being [ex BT boss] Ian Livingston (Tory), and [Lord Vader] Peter Mandelson (Labour).
And then you have rags like the Daily Mail that harp on about porn on the internet, and on one side list all their gossip columns with photos of who's wearing how little on the beach, and look my at this celebrity's 17 year old daughter - my how she's growing up, nudge nudge.
Slashdot Mirror
It's definitely not disinformation:
we found Snowden's leaks stored in his electric toothbrush, so there>
Quoted an unnamed official who then blew a raspberry.
Screw keel designs, they just need some way of stopping the boats from breaking in anything above 18kts.
That's a very good addition to my analogy. Obviously car analogies won't map to the copyright situation (it's normally a novelty to see a car analogy that actually works).
Anyhow, if the lady had decided to call the police because she didn't believe that you were preventing her car from killing random people on the street, as you say you would have had a pretty good reason for being in her car. Ok, it would end up costing you (don't get me started on how difficult it is to be a good Samaritan nowadays). So, as you've proved, implied consent can depend on the situation, but I don't see any situation where it would be necessary to download a torrent.
But that's my point, They didn't hand anyone a note saying take it. Yes, they left the torrent there for the taking, but people had to search for it, and make the decision to download it. At no point did Prenda contact individuals and say "download this".
1. I park my car on the street and leave the keys in the ignition
2. A passer walks down the street looking into each car
3. They see the keys in the car
4. Even though they don't know who the owner of the car is, they decide to drive off with it
1. Prenda Law uploads a torrent
2. A person is searching for porn torrents
3. The person comes across Prenda's torrent
4. Even though they don't know who the owner of the copyright, they decide to download it
In both situations something is there for the taking, but neither (as I see it) have implied consent. Prenda Law are complete dickheads, and the individuals in charge deserve to be bankrupted into oblivion. Admittedly, I'm playing devil's avocado (mmm, avocado) here, and feel free to add a steps in my two lists, but I look at this as being a sting operation (which is legal in most countries)
Does this mean that leaving my car in the street with the keys in the ignition means that I've given implicit permission to drive it?
If they claim that putting the files up conveyed no implicit permission to download them, then their behaviour could well be judged to amount to "entrapment"
I'm not convinced about the entrapment bit - entrapment requires that somebody is encouraged to commit a crime. In this case they uploaded their content, but didn't contact the downloaders and say "look at this porn, it's free, go on download it, it'll be fine". Personally, I think it's more of a sting operation.
The difficulty is that - for example a bait car - string operation, just because the car has been left with the keys in the ignition it doesn't mean that there's implied consent that the thief is allowed to take it, so one *could* use the same logic and say there's no implied permission here. You could of course argue that by seeding the torrent is encouraging people to download it, but I feel it's more like shouting "look, anyone could drive off with that car" - you're still just giving people the opportunity to incriminate themselves.
And for the record, while I don't condone copyright infringement I don't view it as theft.
Not a bad theory, apart from the fact that Glenn Greenwald received a phone call - from a "security official at Heathrow airport.", only identified by his number 203654 - that
[his] partner, David Miranda, had been "detained" at the London airport "under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act of 2000."
I think in America a bum bag is something they put homeless people in when somebody important comes to town.
And Switzerland, and France. What is going on with public transport accidents at the moment?
We have the same in the UK - British Transport Police who I learned are 95% funded by the train companies*. Essentially, it's just another constabulary with a limited jurisdiction:
In certain circumstances, a BTP constable can act as a police constable outside of their normal railway jurisdiction as described in the "Powers and status of officers" section.
* I learned this today when I was wondering why the public are paying for police on privately owned trains stations, and then found we're not (at least, not directly)
If you're having to check the high water times when landing a 777, you're probably doing it wrong! But just to be on the safe side, I'm going to start check the Southampton airport QNH when I go sailing.
I didn't see anything in the original comment that suggested that the poster didn't like gay people.
Wasn't Scopus was it - I use that when doing Iomega tech support (for Softbank / Clientlogic) in Dublin (they had moved from Watford). It was a complete dog to use.
I'm with AC, what happened with HR? I think everyone would like to hear a story where HR benefited the employees and not themselves.
It worked for Radar O'Reilly in the 50s.
I think what was being asked was "would you be able to spot the work created by a human, amongst those created by a robot". I ask because I've been to the Tate Modern numerous times, and quite frankly some of the stuff showed no sign of creative talent nor intelligence. Of course, you can argue that art it subjective (and I would completely agree), but then there are critics who don't believe that:
The public doesn't know good from bad. For this city to be guided by the opinion of people who don't know anything about art is lunacy. It doesn't matter if they [the public] like it.
I like to quote Brian Sewell, because it makes people aware of what an utter cunt he is.
You can't get much slower than non-existent.
<ducks>
But in your case the clause wouldn't have been necessary as she informed you before the procedure what may actually have to be done. You could have told her that you couldn't afford the crown, so if the tooth can't support a filling just remove it (unlikely, but it's your prerogative).
I would say most, otherwise I'd be able to take my ISP to court for fraud. Their other page is worth a read too.
Well, it's akin to me complaining that I'm broke so I'll have to stop buying my weekly lottery ticket, but keep up my $1,500 dollar a day habit.
Mind the pennies does indeed make sense, to a point, but when you're comparing a project that costs $12,500,000 per year to $175,000,000 per day, the analogy goes out the window.
Indeed, you only need to cancel 5110 HAARP programs to cover the Afghanistan costs.
Because they got a shit load of abuse for suing Google when they decided to call their phone Nexus One. That, or they're too busy working out ways to make more money from their father's work without inputting anything of their own.
As you might guess, I've a very low opinion of children of live of their parent's copyrighted works.
Ministers are in charge of a portfolio and sit in the Upper House (AKA Senate).
I would disagree with that - MPs reside in the House of Commons* (Lower house, which is analogous to Congress), whilst the House of Lords (is analogous to the Senate, though they are not publicly elected, rather chosen by governments). Ireland has a very similar setup, the Dáil (Lower House) and the Seanad (Upper House, which again is not selected by the public, but selected by TDs, universities, etc).
* Some peers from the House of Lords are given a ministerial role, thus being unelected - an example being [ex BT boss] Ian Livingston (Tory), and [Lord Vader] Peter Mandelson (Labour).
Page 3. But that's completely different.
And then you have rags like the Daily Mail that harp on about porn on the internet, and on one side list all their gossip columns with photos of who's wearing how little on the beach, and look my at this celebrity's 17 year old daughter - my how she's growing up, nudge nudge.
Actually, it's Member of Parliament - Ministers tend to be those who head up a department (or Ministry) and are part of the cabinet.
Of course, now that I've corrected somebody, I'll have made any number of mistakes.
There is an upshot to this. MP websites should be hacked regularly and then reported to CEOP so that they get added to the filter lists.