Did they predict that governments will attempt to crack down on free speech on the internet by dreaming up fake terror threats and copyright nonsense to control the internet, and thus please the governments corporate whore masters?
I'm sure if you paid Peter Mandelson* some brown envelope money then he would amend the law. But as it is, I think he's more interested in the kind of money that media moguls have when he goes mixing with them on yachts in the South of France for a "friendly chat." The man and the current UK government are evil.
* the chief architect of this whole bastard Digital Economy law
So Apple is to give a new code of conduct for it's suppliers, I too have a code of conduct, "Don't buy Apple products." I think mine trumps Apple's code of conduct, whatever their PR department says.
Maybe someone should tell the politicians that merely visiting ANY website on the internet you will download copywritten material. And that doesn't even begin to deal with "file sharing" sites like Youtube.
When will we get politicians that actually have brains instead of them sitting on them all day long?
There's a difference between this ACTA treaty and terrorism? They both aim to control and / or destroy economic activity, and keep control of it in the hands of the few.
According to this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyager_1 , it better happen before 2025 or the probes power will run out. (We never did get to six such probes).
The RIAA / MPAA force through laws via easily bought politicians that benefit the dinosaur music / film industries. They will therefore not benefit from using the argument that stripping DRM dives more sales.
A reason that BluRay has not taken off in the way they hoped is the attempt to stop the discs playing on non-authorised drives (didn't pay the bribes), region locking / cartel protection etc. etc, and you can't back up the content to a different device (in theory, and not easily). The record industry sells fake audio CD's, taking off the CDDA logo and putting in "copy protection", breaking the Red-Book standard.
If they roll this out to the satellite transmissions of BBC HD as well, Arrrgghhh!
I bought a Analogue / DVB-T / DVB-S combi-card that can decode DVB-S HD transmissions, and of course a HD pc monitor* to watch / edit on. I know that the BBC and ITV are pushing people for the "Freesat" service, their locked-in satellite box... they get a cut from the sales you see. I suspect vendor lock-in is one reason they want to scramble the transmissions.
Having a FTA card allows me to watch from whatever terrestrial or satellite I can pick up from. Using Linux as well to do it is no mean feat, some HD channels have changed the spec on how to receive their signals, and it messes with the audio stream (BBC-HD implicated).
Having the Freeview HD signal scrambled is not a great loss, the bit rate for terrestrial HD is as predicted appallingly low and unwatchable. The problem is the masses will look at that bad picture and think it is acceptable, because they've not seen anything else, ie. the satellite HD signal (which has also had it's bit rate downgraded recently). The same thing happened with the roll out and push for Freeview terrestrial digital television, the bit rate has been dropping all the time, it is pretty bad, analogue beats it hands down for picture and audio quality.
For a supposed free to air channel (subject to paying the BBC tax), the BBC have acted appallingly. For a regulator of UK television that was started up by the current corrupt government, they are acting exactly to type, bought off by corporate interests instead of viewers interests.
* Strangely the pc Full HD monitor costs less than a regular HD-TV, even though the size is the same, and the pc monitor deals with a higher refresh rates than a regular TV does.
Look, what happened between Betamax and VHS is well know, Sony were full of themselves with their better format, and didn't want to license it to anyone whereas VHS was licensed to anyone that wanted to build that platform.
But since then it's been easier to figure out which format will win. It's not which is technically better for consumers (ie. less / no DRM), but which company has the biggest pocket to give the biggest backhanders. Follow the money.
Obviously rather than dipping the phone in water, it was put into a solution of sodium pentothal, and the phone barked "Enough of this torture, I'll give you the contacts list". And thus the phone was "broken."
I actually watched this debate live, lets see what the useless freedom hating Home Secretary said on th issue of privacy with these scanners... transcript taken from House of Commons records
5 Jan 2010 : Column 35
The issue of privacy will be important, but all the images are destroyed immediately and the person responsible for the scanning is in a completely separate room, as anybody who has seen the system in Manchester or the version in Glasgow operating will know, so there is no immediate contact between the person doing the imaging and the person being imaged. Privacy considerations are important, but I believe that we can ensure that those who have concerns can be satisfied. I do not foresee a situation in which people can simply object to a body scan. We need to use the scanners perhaps not as the first line of our defence but as the second line, on a random basis.
Now after reading that, two questions come to mind. 1. Why are anyone's images being stored anywhere in the first place, 2. What definition does the word "immediately" deleted mean, one second, one day, one week, one year? Knowing government, the longer the timeframe the better.
It sounds even worse, the person doing the scanning is a locked room by themselves, paedo heaven!
AuDA is the epitome of an organization that is operating outside its moral guidelines.
Governments and government departments around the world have no concept of morals, so don't expect anything like that from them. Money talks! You can just sit there and be a good person and pay the taxes they take from you for their bent pet projects and backhanders.
Slashdot Mirror
Did they predict that governments will attempt to crack down on free speech on the internet by dreaming up fake terror threats and copyright nonsense to control the internet, and thus please the governments corporate whore masters?
Did it make any more sense than current txt spk?
I'm sure if you paid Peter Mandelson* some brown envelope money then he would amend the law. But as it is, I think he's more interested in the kind of money that media moguls have when he goes mixing with them on yachts in the South of France for a "friendly chat." The man and the current UK government are evil. * the chief architect of this whole bastard Digital Economy law
So Apple is to give a new code of conduct for it's suppliers, I too have a code of conduct, "Don't buy Apple products." I think mine trumps Apple's code of conduct, whatever their PR department says.
I read the summary (and the articles).
A human life is priceless (to someone), an object that can be knocked down and built again is not priceless.
I smell a Mythbusters style investigation coming up to prove or disprove the theory.
Copyright = copywrong
Maybe someone should tell the politicians that merely visiting ANY website on the internet you will download copywritten material. And that doesn't even begin to deal with "file sharing" sites like Youtube.
When will we get politicians that actually have brains instead of them sitting on them all day long?
It wasn't even a back door, the front door was wide open!
There's a difference between this ACTA treaty and terrorism? They both aim to control and / or destroy economic activity, and keep control of it in the hands of the few.
According to this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyager_1 , it better happen before 2025 or the probes power will run out. (We never did get to six such probes).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V'ger
I can give one long term prediction. The government will not be able to use "climate change" as an excuse for a orgy of tax rises.
I don't know why it was anon posted, but I claim this as mine damn it!
Don't expect a sudden rash of common sense to be replicated around the world by judges.
I'm sure there are plenty of judges that will give the "correct" verdict for the media companies for an appropriate "compensation package."
This is why we need business method patents!
The Mafia would have prior art claims over the RIAA and MPAA.
Brake pumping? Didn't that go out with ABS?
The RIAA / MPAA force through laws via easily bought politicians that benefit the dinosaur music / film industries. They will therefore not benefit from using the argument that stripping DRM dives more sales.
A reason that BluRay has not taken off in the way they hoped is the attempt to stop the discs playing on non-authorised drives (didn't pay the bribes), region locking / cartel protection etc. etc, and you can't back up the content to a different device (in theory, and not easily). The record industry sells fake audio CD's, taking off the CDDA logo and putting in "copy protection", breaking the Red-Book standard.
Consumers have had enough of being shafted.
If you've ever complained to the BBC, I think you'll find that complaining to them is like writing a complaint and sending it to /dev/null.
They don't listen, they don't care, they are completely unaccountable, due to the unique way they are funded - by a compulsory tax.
If they roll this out to the satellite transmissions of BBC HD as well, Arrrgghhh!
I bought a Analogue / DVB-T / DVB-S combi-card that can decode DVB-S HD transmissions, and of course a HD pc monitor* to watch / edit on. I know that the BBC and ITV are pushing people for the "Freesat" service, their locked-in satellite box... they get a cut from the sales you see. I suspect vendor lock-in is one reason they want to scramble the transmissions.
Having a FTA card allows me to watch from whatever terrestrial or satellite I can pick up from. Using Linux as well to do it is no mean feat, some HD channels have changed the spec on how to receive their signals, and it messes with the audio stream (BBC-HD implicated).
Having the Freeview HD signal scrambled is not a great loss, the bit rate for terrestrial HD is as predicted appallingly low and unwatchable. The problem is the masses will look at that bad picture and think it is acceptable, because they've not seen anything else, ie. the satellite HD signal (which has also had it's bit rate downgraded recently). The same thing happened with the roll out and push for Freeview terrestrial digital television, the bit rate has been dropping all the time, it is pretty bad, analogue beats it hands down for picture and audio quality.
For a supposed free to air channel (subject to paying the BBC tax), the BBC have acted appallingly. For a regulator of UK television that was started up by the current corrupt government, they are acting exactly to type, bought off by corporate interests instead of viewers interests.
* Strangely the pc Full HD monitor costs less than a regular HD-TV, even though the size is the same, and the pc monitor deals with a higher refresh rates than a regular TV does.
Q: Who controls the vital information systems? A: The botnets? :o
The problem is if you stand up, it's harder to type anything in reply to a Slashdot posting.
Your Honor, Microsoft will comply with the courts wishes, I give you my Word.... bundled with Excel and Powerpoint and....
Look, what happened between Betamax and VHS is well know, Sony were full of themselves with their better format, and didn't want to license it to anyone whereas VHS was licensed to anyone that wanted to build that platform.
But since then it's been easier to figure out which format will win. It's not which is technically better for consumers (ie. less / no DRM), but which company has the biggest pocket to give the biggest backhanders. Follow the money.
Obviously rather than dipping the phone in water, it was put into a solution of sodium pentothal, and the phone barked "Enough of this torture, I'll give you the contacts list". And thus the phone was "broken."
5 Jan 2010 : Column 35 The issue of privacy will be important, but all the images are destroyed immediately and the person responsible for the scanning is in a completely separate room, as anybody who has seen the system in Manchester or the version in Glasgow operating will know, so there is no immediate contact between the person doing the imaging and the person being imaged. Privacy considerations are important, but I believe that we can ensure that those who have concerns can be satisfied. I do not foresee a situation in which people can simply object to a body scan. We need to use the scanners perhaps not as the first line of our defence but as the second line, on a random basis.
Now after reading that, two questions come to mind. 1. Why are anyone's images being stored anywhere in the first place, 2. What definition does the word "immediately" deleted mean, one second, one day, one week, one year? Knowing government, the longer the timeframe the better.
It sounds even worse, the person doing the scanning is a locked room by themselves, paedo heaven!
AuDA is the epitome of an organization that is operating outside its moral guidelines.
Governments and government departments around the world have no concept of morals, so don't expect anything like that from them. Money talks! You can just sit there and be a good person and pay the taxes they take from you for their bent pet projects and backhanders.