Website or high-street branch, if it's a bank in the UK, we have plenty of rights.
See: FSA.
In most cases like this though, a "one off" (hopefully), complaints would be forwarded to the FOS. Simple maladministration - coupled with the obvious security implications of employees playing with passwords should net him a good £300 ($600) compensation at least. And Lloyds would be charged approximately £700 ($1400) for the privilege of having the ombudsman review the complaint - regardless of the outcome.
You know the only thing I'll be annoyed about if the LHC were to initiate another bigbang and destroy us all? The fact that afterwards I wouldn't get the chance to go; "wow, that was cooool."
IANAA, but I understand (sorry I don't have a citation) that the US nixed Nasa research / development into projects solely focused on manned mars missions. If they can work in some other line of research into a manned mars programme then I imagine they can get away with it...
Erm, if I'm the defendant in a libel case then my written comments are the proof that overrides the innocent part and show's me to be potentially guilty.
If I wish to exonerate myself, I have to provide justification of my reasoning; to be honest this makes perfect sense.
It's no different to any other case really (apart from being civil not criminal); "We say you murdered X because we can place you at the scene of the crime blah blah blah" Am I going to try and justify my whereabouts? Hell yes.
Ah, I should've said; I'm from the UK. I have the right to a court hearing even for a speeding ticket... As for the jury, you'd need to escalate up the court system for this to take place (something hard to do with a speeding ticket though:D ) and to be honest, I'm a advocate for a non-jury system anyway (a group of people with no legal training that can be swayed by elaborate counsell? That have shown to be wrong in many instances in appeal courts? No thanks. Give me a single judge deciding anyday).
Forfeiture I understood as being the clause in a legal contract (such as a mortgage loan) which states that the bank can reclaim your assets (e.g. house) in the event of breach of contract (i.e. you forfeit them!).
I freely admit that IANAL but our entire legal system is built on the principle of innocent until proven guilty and that burden of proof lies with the prosecutor. Traffic offences over here are almost never based on rhetorical evidence; rather speed camera photos / police capture car videos / etc. are provided and can be hard to disprove! (Over methods of getting round them exist though:D )
Completely agree. However that's not the real problem. It's that they don't have to prove you're guilty to confiscate and auction your kit.
They seem to be trying to change the legal system (as far as copyright goes anyway) to "guilty until proven innocent"; something extremely scary.
Keeping in mind the difficulty the mafiaa are avoiding in actually proving copyright infringement ("you made it available" != "others downloaded" in my book) it's not surprising that they're going this way.
Something else I neglected to mention. I work for the Safety, Standard and Research section of the Highways Agency. Responsible for technology projects with regard to the major road network in England; part of the Department for Transport.
A project has been looked at and is undergoing further discussion (into whether it's DfT's, SatNav companies' or Haulage companies' responsibility) on a separate SatNav system specifically for haulage. I.e. a system that only uses roads with sufficient capacity for lorries. Should this come about it would solve this issue and many of other villages' issues.
Sounds like a great opportunity for the law enforcement officers of Barrow Gurney to make some money issuing fines.
Just to clarify things a little...
I've lived most of my life in the village next door to Barrow Gurney. It's barely a village, approximately 400 people... As for law enforcement, it's the local Women's Institute, frowning upon any anti-social behaviour and gossiping people to death.
I used to visit the abbattoir there regularly for fresh meat (braaaiinnns....) but since it shut down, there's no longer and point to visit. Should it disappear off the map, I'm not sure anyone else would mind (apparently including those who live there).:)
In regard to the actual situation in hand, I can confirm that it's a great shortcut for getting round the area "off-piste". The road section in the main part of Barrow Gurney is very, very wide and would fit several lorries in no problem. The only difficulty is that the rest of the village and all access to it is via narrow lanes (for you Americans read: tarmac'd footpaths) and can get a little hairy even in a car.
Whilst you make several interesting points, coming from the UK it's even more interesting to note that you seem to solely attribute the fall of the IRA to the lack of US funding.
In the days after 9/11 everything changed. It was no longer hip to support the IRA. Rudy attended a NORAID fundraiser immediately after 9/11 but only after the IRA agreed the money would go to the 9/11 victims. After that US funding for NORAID disappeared entirely and the IRA finally accepted the demands that they had long resisted to disarm.
I mean, the UK powers-that-be have only spend many years and suffered many attacks in the attempt for peace, meanwhile various US people have funded (if not necessarily directly) the IRA. But, hey, thanks US, now you've stopped funding the IRA, it's gone away! I guess it was nothing to do with our efforts after all!
I appreciate that the majority of/.ers do not take the view that everything revolves around the US, yet this particular view is a good example exactly why a lot of Brits find the American 'general public' nauseating. Posting this on a predominately US site will, I imagine irritate a lot of you and for that I'd just like to say; I get equally disheartened by the British 'general public' and I wouldn't class/. as the typical American 'general public', just this AOL user I'm replying to.
Re Gallileo, I meant more in lines that his ideas were banned rather than judged on the merit on them, but hey.
So in true/. style, I'll attempt to qualify my previous sweeping statement...
I agree with your sentiment that not all fund-winning research is valuable (igNobel prize-wineers for example), however I would say that simply disallowing any avenue of research in a particular area is the wrong way forward and precludes us from finding out whether any of said research may be valuable.
Just what is it you find morally unacceptable about using cells for research?
This particular group of scientists are usually outraged because some weak politician panders to the religious right and bans research for "ethical" reasons (read: God *sigh*). I personally feel this kind of research is especially valuable to our understanding of "nature" as you call it.
Wouldn't it be a better idea to let the various research groups vie for funding and thus ensure that the winning piece of research is valuable, rather than just ban it all because we don't think it's any good? I seem to remember Gallileo having the same problem. Some nonsense about the sun.
Yeah, classify more people as terrorists and you have higher levels of terrorism...
Like another interesting case in the UK; in order to lower NHS Waiting Lists, the lists that qualified as the "relevant" waiting lists were redefined. Surprisingly waiting times were lowered! *cough*
Was great fun when I was a kid, many a happy hour was spent making homemade fireworks out of household ingredients...
When my dad was a kid however, he was able to pop round to local chemical factories and buy all sorts of interesting stuff over the counter. This resulted in the demolition of his garden wall... fantastic.
I wonder how much terrorism levels have actually declined as a result of banning texts and substances. If someone really wants to commit acts of terrorism, I can't imagine it's hard to figure out ways to do so. All that we've done is make it slightly more difficult to obtain ready-made ingredients. In that light, how exactly does possesion of a (rather innacurate yet very popular amongst teenagers) text make it any more likely that the individual concerned will actually go out and commit acts of terror (disregarding Halloween of course)?
Not being Canadian I have no idea as to whether the CBC are supposedly unbiased or whatever. But this article shows a strong lean towards the opinion of the recording industry and less towards reporting the unbiased truth behind it (a problem also inherent in the BBC right now with their lack of strong leadership and swing to the left, but I digress).
That less people are buying CDs because more and more people are choosing to legally download instead. I imagine the number of illegal downloads has remained reasonably constant over recent years and that mp3 player market penetration has reached such a level that the effects to the CD retail industry are only now becoming clear.
I freely admit I have no clue, but I do have a question re this topic that one of you copyright gurus may be able to answer...
So I understand that it's likely that Viacom had no right to use the video without permission (my understanding is that YouTube may only sublicence for marketing purposes, under which description the TV show is unlikely to be classified). Thus they do not hold copyright privileges for the piece of video in question as they have not obtained said rights from the copyright owner (e.g. me rebroadcasting Star Wars without permission does not mean I can sue people who henceforth copy it from me).
Under US "Fair Use" policy, quoting the odd line of text et cetera as an "illustration" of a point / piece of journalism or whatever is acceptable. However utilising large portions of the media in question, such as a putting your own commentary on Star Wars and reselling is unacceptable.
Hence the point I'm vaguely ambling around is;
If the show was a news channel and displayed a small clip of the video in question with a commentary, this would constitute fair use and Viacom would gain copyright on the segment. If a large enough clip was used so that viewing the original became unnecessary, simply putting your own commentary on it does not make you the copyright owner.
Indeed, how can you establish point of copyright on a piece of media that you have obtained illegally?
Slashdot Mirror
Website or high-street branch, if it's a bank in the UK, we have plenty of rights.
See: FSA.
In most cases like this though, a "one off" (hopefully), complaints would be forwarded to the FOS. Simple maladministration - coupled with the obvious security implications of employees playing with passwords should net him a good £300 ($600) compensation at least. And Lloyds would be charged approximately £700 ($1400) for the privilege of having the ombudsman review the complaint - regardless of the outcome.
You know the only thing I'll be annoyed about if the LHC were to initiate another bigbang and destroy us all? The fact that afterwards I wouldn't get the chance to go; "wow, that was cooool."
IANAA, but I understand (sorry I don't have a citation) that the US nixed Nasa research / development into projects solely focused on manned mars missions. If they can work in some other line of research into a manned mars programme then I imagine they can get away with it...
Erm, if I'm the defendant in a libel case then my written comments are the proof that overrides the innocent part and show's me to be potentially guilty.
If I wish to exonerate myself, I have to provide justification of my reasoning; to be honest this makes perfect sense.
It's no different to any other case really (apart from being civil not criminal); "We say you murdered X because we can place you at the scene of the crime blah blah blah" Am I going to try and justify my whereabouts? Hell yes.
Ah, I should've said; I'm from the UK. I have the right to a court hearing even for a speeding ticket... As for the jury, you'd need to escalate up the court system for this to take place (something hard to do with a speeding ticket though :D ) and to be honest, I'm a advocate for a non-jury system anyway (a group of people with no legal training that can be swayed by elaborate counsell? That have shown to be wrong in many instances in appeal courts? No thanks. Give me a single judge deciding anyday).
:D )
Forfeiture I understood as being the clause in a legal contract (such as a mortgage loan) which states that the bank can reclaim your assets (e.g. house) in the event of breach of contract (i.e. you forfeit them!).
I freely admit that IANAL but our entire legal system is built on the principle of innocent until proven guilty and that burden of proof lies with the prosecutor. Traffic offences over here are almost never based on rhetorical evidence; rather speed camera photos / police capture car videos / etc. are provided and can be hard to disprove! (Over methods of getting round them exist though
Completely agree. However that's not the real problem. It's that they don't have to prove you're guilty to confiscate and auction your kit.
They seem to be trying to change the legal system (as far as copyright goes anyway) to "guilty until proven innocent"; something extremely scary.
Keeping in mind the difficulty the mafiaa are avoiding in actually proving copyright infringement ("you made it available" != "others downloaded" in my book) it's not surprising that they're going this way.
Something else I neglected to mention. I work for the Safety, Standard and Research section of the Highways Agency. Responsible for technology projects with regard to the major road network in England; part of the Department for Transport.
A project has been looked at and is undergoing further discussion (into whether it's DfT's, SatNav companies' or Haulage companies' responsibility) on a separate SatNav system specifically for haulage. I.e. a system that only uses roads with sufficient capacity for lorries. Should this come about it would solve this issue and many of other villages' issues.
Problem with this is that it's primarily a farming community so tractors are always pottering around.
Just to clarify things a little...
I've lived most of my life in the village next door to Barrow Gurney. It's barely a village, approximately 400 people... As for law enforcement, it's the local Women's Institute, frowning upon any anti-social behaviour and gossiping people to death.
I used to visit the abbattoir there regularly for fresh meat (braaaiinnns....) but since it shut down, there's no longer and point to visit. Should it disappear off the map, I'm not sure anyone else would mind (apparently including those who live there).
In regard to the actual situation in hand, I can confirm that it's a great shortcut for getting round the area "off-piste". The road section in the main part of Barrow Gurney is very, very wide and would fit several lorries in no problem. The only difficulty is that the rest of the village and all access to it is via narrow lanes (for you Americans read: tarmac'd footpaths) and can get a little hairy even in a car.
They want their computer back.
And pop down our local pub for a quick fruit-machine session...
In the days after 9/11 everything changed. It was no longer hip to support the IRA. Rudy attended a NORAID fundraiser immediately after 9/11 but only after the IRA agreed the money would go to the 9/11 victims. After that US funding for NORAID disappeared entirely and the IRA finally accepted the demands that they had long resisted to disarm.
I mean, the UK powers-that-be have only spend many years and suffered many attacks in the attempt for peace, meanwhile various US people have funded (if not necessarily directly) the IRA. But, hey, thanks US, now you've stopped funding the IRA, it's gone away! I guess it was nothing to do with our efforts after all!
I appreciate that the majority of
This probably means that my intention to patent my shopping system of opening a 2nd checkout in busy periods will fail.
Re Gallileo, I meant more in lines that his ideas were banned rather than judged on the merit on them, but hey.
/. style, I'll attempt to qualify my previous sweeping statement...
So in true
I agree with your sentiment that not all fund-winning research is valuable (igNobel prize-wineers for example), however I would say that simply disallowing any avenue of research in a particular area is the wrong way forward and precludes us from finding out whether any of said research may be valuable.
2010 apparently - imdb
No cast list, they haven't been engineered yet.
Just what is it you find morally unacceptable about using cells for research? This particular group of scientists are usually outraged because some weak politician panders to the religious right and bans research for "ethical" reasons (read: God *sigh*). I personally feel this kind of research is especially valuable to our understanding of "nature" as you call it. Wouldn't it be a better idea to let the various research groups vie for funding and thus ensure that the winning piece of research is valuable, rather than just ban it all because we don't think it's any good? I seem to remember Gallileo having the same problem. Some nonsense about the sun.
not only do they get to go to space, but free rollercoaster rides aswell.
Yeah, classify more people as terrorists and you have higher levels of terrorism... Like another interesting case in the UK; in order to lower NHS Waiting Lists, the lists that qualified as the "relevant" waiting lists were redefined. Surprisingly waiting times were lowered! *cough*
Was great fun when I was a kid, many a happy hour was spent making homemade fireworks out of household ingredients...
When my dad was a kid however, he was able to pop round to local chemical factories and buy all sorts of interesting stuff over the counter. This resulted in the demolition of his garden wall... fantastic.
I wonder how much terrorism levels have actually declined as a result of banning texts and substances. If someone really wants to commit acts of terrorism, I can't imagine it's hard to figure out ways to do so. All that we've done is make it slightly more difficult to obtain ready-made ingredients. In that light, how exactly does possesion of a (rather innacurate yet very popular amongst teenagers) text make it any more likely that the individual concerned will actually go out and commit acts of terror (disregarding Halloween of course)?
Not being Canadian I have no idea as to whether the CBC are supposedly unbiased or whatever. But this article shows a strong lean towards the opinion of the recording industry and less towards reporting the unbiased truth behind it (a problem also inherent in the BBC right now with their lack of strong leadership and swing to the left, but I digress). That less people are buying CDs because more and more people are choosing to legally download instead. I imagine the number of illegal downloads has remained reasonably constant over recent years and that mp3 player market penetration has reached such a level that the effects to the CD retail industry are only now becoming clear.
I freely admit I have no clue, but I do have a question re this topic that one of you copyright gurus may be able to answer...
So I understand that it's likely that Viacom had no right to use the video without permission (my understanding is that YouTube may only sublicence for marketing purposes, under which description the TV show is unlikely to be classified). Thus they do not hold copyright privileges for the piece of video in question as they have not obtained said rights from the copyright owner (e.g. me rebroadcasting Star Wars without permission does not mean I can sue people who henceforth copy it from me).
Under US "Fair Use" policy, quoting the odd line of text et cetera as an "illustration" of a point / piece of journalism or whatever is acceptable. However utilising large portions of the media in question, such as a putting your own commentary on Star Wars and reselling is unacceptable.
Hence the point I'm vaguely ambling around is;
If the show was a news channel and displayed a small clip of the video in question with a commentary, this would constitute fair use and Viacom would gain copyright on the segment. If a large enough clip was used so that viewing the original became unnecessary, simply putting your own commentary on it does not make you the copyright owner.
Indeed, how can you establish point of copyright on a piece of media that you have obtained illegally?