Just looking at the statute, and it's complicated but it looks to me like the rule is that you can get any actual damages you can prove, or elect before the end of the trial to get statutory damages. The statutory damages would be between $100 and $5000 for non-commercial infringers, jointly and severally. Which essentially means that if you file a lawsuit with 10 infringers and 1000 songs each, if you elect stat damages you're limited to at most $5k for all the infringers. Which is kinda nifty. And very very tricky. Stat max for commercial infringers if you take this option is $20k.
I think you're essentially correct, with the caveat that I don't know whether the cap is per infringer or per infringing song. I'm sure you can appreciate the difference. It's still better than minimum statutory damages.
"At the moment, Canada is arguably more restrictive than even the U.S., though the digital lock rules do not carry significant penalties for individuals. Under Canadian law, it is not an infringement to possess tools or software that can be used to circumvent digital locks and liability is limited to actual damages in non-commercial cases."
The liability limitation will likely take some of the sting out of the lock provision, as will the $5000 cap on damages for non-commercial infringement. Looks like a bit of a legislative hack, but I suspect that if you're ripping your dvds to stream them around your house you won't have much to worry about (no damages to speak of), and even if you're torrenting your rip, the damages would be pretty low (less than $5000), which is not going to make a big inviting target for the CRIA to attack. Of course, YMMV, I am not your lawyer, etc etc.
Well, I'd rather mess with my body as little as possible when it comes to stuff like this. Vaccines aren't always a sure fire bet, and something like AIDS warrants extra circumspection. I'll wait for version 1.5 or 2.0, or 3.0, thanks.
See, this is why they're doing phase I trials on people who are already infected with HIV. You know, like it says in the summary?
This also mitigates the risk of unwanted kids as well as the unjust pressure feminist law has foisted on society in the context of relationships.
What the fuck are you talking about, and what the fuck does it have to do with the article? You know what? Never mind, I don't want to know.
Why do people hate us Americans? New survey reveals it's because we're bombing them! Apparently, 100% of the respondents stated they didn't like getting blown up.
Not that micro-USB standards are all that standard. I just got a Blackberry Playbook through work to go with my BB phone. Imagine my surprise when my micro-USB charger and USB cable for the phone don't work to charge the Playbook. All the sins great and small attributed to Apple have been committed by RIM on its users since time immemorial.
Apple's been doing this with (some of) their software titles for years. This is nothing new to them at all. The only thing that's new is that expectations are higher for Apple now, and they can't release a product without the eyes of the world scrutinizing every tiny thing they do.
Everyone's making a big deal about Apple Map software, but nobody seems to remember that Safari, iTunes, and a half-dozen other Apple applications are steaming piles of shit, and that to make a proper operating system, they had to buy one that was based on BSD. This isn't about Apple adopting a bad software dev strategy, it's about Apple's bad software dev strategy biting them in the ass for the first time.*
*Disclosure and notice to the flame-warriors: I say these terrible things about Apple not because I'm an Apple hater, but because I've been using Apple products almost exclusively for many years now, and have much experience with Apple's flaws as well as its finer qualities.
Not for offending someone, for inciting the very predictable violence that resulted in the deaths of the Ambassador and his staff. There is a difference, you know.
Yeah, you're probably right. My point above was that there are so many people and groups who benefit from this video that sorting out who might have funded it (if anybody) is virtually impossible. And there's no reason to think that there are any secret backers at all, other than the suspicious timing and the increasing tensions between Iran and the US and Israel. Suggestive, but nowhere near proof of anything other than that we live in a shitty world where fanatics of all stripes seem to get all the attention.
Maybe. If you're a militant atheist who wants to demonstrate the "inherent harmfulness" of religions, then stirring up a bunch of extremists of various religions might be to your benefit. I don't think Dawkins put up any money for this, but I bet that wherever he is, when he hears this story he smiles.
Canada also has hate-crime laws (which I'm pretty sure this video would fall under), and those laws have been tested against our constitutional protections of freedom of expression. Not all speech should be protected speech.
And what if some anti-Israel powers funded it, hoping that Israel would be pinned for the job? I'm not saying there wasn't Israeli funding behind it, they certainly are not above this kind of thing, but neither are parties like the Government of Iran, who stand more to gain by inciting anti-US riots in other countries than Israel does.
I'm not saying you're wrong, just that there are a lot of people and powers with motivation to get the fringes and fanatics riled up in the Middle East.
I've been asking myself this same question since the story broke. Sadly, far too many disparate groups are benefitting from this, including but not limited to Israel, Al Qaida (whatever that really means), fundamentalist Christians, Salafists and Wahabbists in the Middle East, the idiot who made the film, and possibly others. And this doesn't count people or groups who may have thought they'd benefit from it, but aren't, like Mitt Romney's campaign team, and the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt.
So yeah, pick your motive, take your chances. This mess is benefitting someone, somehow. I wonder if the US based creators of this film can be charged with negligent homicide. I sure hope so.
It's probably not anything like American politics. I don't think there's anything in the world like American politics. Which is not to say that they won't forget their promises.
Slashdot Mirror
Not likely. Of course they did lose track of the church he was buried under the first time....
Or the depleted uranium.
I believe the gentleman you are referring to is from Bruges.
I would pay money for this.
It is an open question as to whether Rob Ford's career is over; he can run again in the next election, and he might even win.
Just looking at the statute, and it's complicated but it looks to me like the rule is that you can get any actual damages you can prove, or elect before the end of the trial to get statutory damages. The statutory damages would be between $100 and $5000 for non-commercial infringers, jointly and severally. Which essentially means that if you file a lawsuit with 10 infringers and 1000 songs each, if you elect stat damages you're limited to at most $5k for all the infringers. Which is kinda nifty. And very very tricky. Stat max for commercial infringers if you take this option is $20k.
Maybe I should get into copyright law.
I think you're essentially correct, with the caveat that I don't know whether the cap is per infringer or per infringing song. I'm sure you can appreciate the difference. It's still better than minimum statutory damages.
Er, the cap is $5000, and the injured party has to prove actual damages.
Bunch of commies.
Ahem, excuse me sir, but I believe the proper term is "Canuckistanis". Sorry to bother you.
From the article:
"At the moment, Canada is arguably more restrictive than even the U.S., though the digital lock rules do not carry significant penalties for individuals. Under Canadian law, it is not an infringement to possess tools or software that can be used to circumvent digital locks and liability is limited to actual damages in non-commercial cases."
The liability limitation will likely take some of the sting out of the lock provision, as will the $5000 cap on damages for non-commercial infringement. Looks like a bit of a legislative hack, but I suspect that if you're ripping your dvds to stream them around your house you won't have much to worry about (no damages to speak of), and even if you're torrenting your rip, the damages would be pretty low (less than $5000), which is not going to make a big inviting target for the CRIA to attack. Of course, YMMV, I am not your lawyer, etc etc.
This.
Well, I'd rather mess with my body as little as possible when it comes to stuff like this. Vaccines aren't always a sure fire bet, and something like AIDS warrants extra circumspection. I'll wait for version 1.5 or 2.0, or 3.0, thanks.
See, this is why they're doing phase I trials on people who are already infected with HIV. You know, like it says in the summary?
This also mitigates the risk of unwanted kids as well as the unjust pressure feminist law has foisted on society in the context of relationships.
What the fuck are you talking about, and what the fuck does it have to do with the article? You know what? Never mind, I don't want to know.
Why do people hate us Americans? New survey reveals it's because we're bombing them! Apparently, 100% of the respondents stated they didn't like getting blown up.
That's a great .sig, right there.
Not that micro-USB standards are all that standard. I just got a Blackberry Playbook through work to go with my BB phone. Imagine my surprise when my micro-USB charger and USB cable for the phone don't work to charge the Playbook. All the sins great and small attributed to Apple have been committed by RIM on its users since time immemorial.
Apple's been doing this with (some of) their software titles for years. This is nothing new to them at all. The only thing that's new is that expectations are higher for Apple now, and they can't release a product without the eyes of the world scrutinizing every tiny thing they do.
Everyone's making a big deal about Apple Map software, but nobody seems to remember that Safari, iTunes, and a half-dozen other Apple applications are steaming piles of shit, and that to make a proper operating system, they had to buy one that was based on BSD. This isn't about Apple adopting a bad software dev strategy, it's about Apple's bad software dev strategy biting them in the ass for the first time.*
*Disclosure and notice to the flame-warriors: I say these terrible things about Apple not because I'm an Apple hater, but because I've been using Apple products almost exclusively for many years now, and have much experience with Apple's flaws as well as its finer qualities.
Funny, I checked out the big three providers in Canada, and not only do they all offer Visual Voicemail, they offer it for all smartphones.
Visual voicemail is available on Telus in Canada. Maybe on the other carriers too.
Not for offending someone, for inciting the very predictable violence that resulted in the deaths of the Ambassador and his staff. There is a difference, you know.
Yeah, you're probably right. My point above was that there are so many people and groups who benefit from this video that sorting out who might have funded it (if anybody) is virtually impossible. And there's no reason to think that there are any secret backers at all, other than the suspicious timing and the increasing tensions between Iran and the US and Israel. Suggestive, but nowhere near proof of anything other than that we live in a shitty world where fanatics of all stripes seem to get all the attention.
Maybe. If you're a militant atheist who wants to demonstrate the "inherent harmfulness" of religions, then stirring up a bunch of extremists of various religions might be to your benefit. I don't think Dawkins put up any money for this, but I bet that wherever he is, when he hears this story he smiles.
Canada also has hate-crime laws (which I'm pretty sure this video would fall under), and those laws have been tested against our constitutional protections of freedom of expression. Not all speech should be protected speech.
And what if some anti-Israel powers funded it, hoping that Israel would be pinned for the job? I'm not saying there wasn't Israeli funding behind it, they certainly are not above this kind of thing, but neither are parties like the Government of Iran, who stand more to gain by inciting anti-US riots in other countries than Israel does.
I'm not saying you're wrong, just that there are a lot of people and powers with motivation to get the fringes and fanatics riled up in the Middle East.
Cui bono?
--
I've been asking myself this same question since the story broke. Sadly, far too many disparate groups are benefitting from this, including but not limited to Israel, Al Qaida (whatever that really means), fundamentalist Christians, Salafists and Wahabbists in the Middle East, the idiot who made the film, and possibly others. And this doesn't count people or groups who may have thought they'd benefit from it, but aren't, like Mitt Romney's campaign team, and the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt.
So yeah, pick your motive, take your chances. This mess is benefitting someone, somehow. I wonder if the US based creators of this film can be charged with negligent homicide. I sure hope so.
It's probably not anything like American politics. I don't think there's anything in the world like American politics. Which is not to say that they won't forget their promises.
by the time it gets through all the pollution it should be no bigger than a Chihuahua's head.