It was actually a layman that said that after the meeting, not a scientist. He claimed it was said during the meeting but no record of it was in the minutes.
You neglect to mention that it was a politician not one of the scientists that made that suggestion, inaccurately representing the conclusions of the committee of scientists.
It's not the privatized health care that would be the problem (in this case) but rather the privatized medical research companies. Health care companies would prefer a cure, that way they get to keep the money that you keep paying them rather than give it to someone else. Plus they could probably find a reason to treat you as having a higher risk for other kinds of cancer or other conditions afterwards.
What I actually meant was essentially the right to sue for infringement rather than the right to make copies. In the country I was picturing the author could sell the right to make copies and sell them to a company but only the original author would be able to sue those that made copies without permission.
I'd say it's actually a bit of both. Before when people had minor allergies that weren't recognized they would eventually overcome them through exposure. Now we recognize those allergies and avoid them, resulting in stronger reactions when they are eventually encountered.
When it comes up, I describe myself as a pretty conservative guy. But I have to say, I haven't seen a Republican that even remotely represents my world view, and I know there are others out there like me. It's a miserable position to be in... unable to find any candidate that represents you.
The vast majority of the population are in the same position, politicians represent themselves and their own interests, not the interests of the voters. (though the two may coincide) Many people don't notice because they vote for their party without paying any attention to what their party is doing, others notice but vote for the one they see as having a chance of winning who is only the second worst candidate.
The Berne Convention makes it so copyright is recognized elsewhere, but as far as I know it doesn't have any requirements that rights be transferable. I don't know the laws in Germany but I could certainly imagine that a country could give those rights only to the original author. In such a country only the author or a lawyer representing him personally would be able to sue for infringement. From what I can tell GEMA seems to do exactly that.
Most likely it's because there is little incentive to use encryption. While there is the potential for public release, any supposedly private communications with your lawyer are subject to legal protections and can't be used in court.
To use security cameras in non-public places you are generally required to post the fact that the area is monitored by camera, anyone entering the area gives implicit agreement to be filmed.
In some states the security camera footage is considered a violation of their rights and is inadmissible in court unless it is clearly posted that the grounds are monitored by camera.
Well, if the extra stuff is just going to go in a box and take up space, you aren't really getting more. As for cheaper, I just checked the prices and they have roughly the same price (2$ more on amazon for new, 2$ less for used) not including shipping and handling. Lastly, if you download (legally or not) you don't have to wait nearly as long.
If Walmart started printing up media ignoring copyright they would be sued for copyright violations. They would not have their front door blockaded by police without due process.
Encryption is irrelevant to the end points, which is where the copyright holders will be detecting infringement. The ISPs won't be looking for pirates, they will just be cracking down on anyone they're told is pirating.
ISPs are in a special category where they are not responsible for the content as if they were a common carrier without the requirement that they not filter anything.
Slashdot Mirror
For another, you have to actually be tried under those provisions to challenge them in court.
Yes, but what does the legal department get out of it?
Now you can spend $5 on a cup of fuel instead of a gallon. :P
That is, assuming their security is flawless, and no one ever gets their account broken into. I'm sure there's nothing to worry about.
It was actually a layman that said that after the meeting, not a scientist. He claimed it was said during the meeting but no record of it was in the minutes.
You neglect to mention that it was a politician not one of the scientists that made that suggestion, inaccurately representing the conclusions of the committee of scientists.
It's not the privatized health care that would be the problem (in this case) but rather the privatized medical research companies. Health care companies would prefer a cure, that way they get to keep the money that you keep paying them rather than give it to someone else. Plus they could probably find a reason to treat you as having a higher risk for other kinds of cancer or other conditions afterwards.
What I actually meant was essentially the right to sue for infringement rather than the right to make copies. In the country I was picturing the author could sell the right to make copies and sell them to a company but only the original author would be able to sue those that made copies without permission.
I'd say it's actually a bit of both. Before when people had minor allergies that weren't recognized they would eventually overcome them through exposure. Now we recognize those allergies and avoid them, resulting in stronger reactions when they are eventually encountered.
When it comes up, I describe myself as a pretty conservative guy. But I have to say, I haven't seen a Republican that even remotely represents my world view, and I know there are others out there like me. It's a miserable position to be in... unable to find any candidate that represents you.
The vast majority of the population are in the same position, politicians represent themselves and their own interests, not the interests of the voters. (though the two may coincide) Many people don't notice because they vote for their party without paying any attention to what their party is doing, others notice but vote for the one they see as having a chance of winning who is only the second worst candidate.
The Berne Convention makes it so copyright is recognized elsewhere, but as far as I know it doesn't have any requirements that rights be transferable. I don't know the laws in Germany but I could certainly imagine that a country could give those rights only to the original author. In such a country only the author or a lawyer representing him personally would be able to sue for infringement. From what I can tell GEMA seems to do exactly that.
When I was in college those three questions would've gotten three different answers.
Most likely it's because there is little incentive to use encryption. While there is the potential for public release, any supposedly private communications with your lawyer are subject to legal protections and can't be used in court.
They'll just get someone else to tell them what the truth is, then they won't be lying. Not too different from what we have now actually.
It's not so much that they expect the court to admit its mistake, it's that they want the request to the lower court to be on record when they appeal.
To use security cameras in non-public places you are generally required to post the fact that the area is monitored by camera, anyone entering the area gives implicit agreement to be filmed.
In some states the security camera footage is considered a violation of their rights and is inadmissible in court unless it is clearly posted that the grounds are monitored by camera.
Well, if the extra stuff is just going to go in a box and take up space, you aren't really getting more. As for cheaper, I just checked the prices and they have roughly the same price (2$ more on amazon for new, 2$ less for used) not including shipping and handling. Lastly, if you download (legally or not) you don't have to wait nearly as long.
In the US at least, contempt of court has a prison term of 'until you comply with the court order.'
A bible-thumper uses the bible as a blunt instrument, there is no requirement that they understand the writings within.
They patents would probably still be issued, prior art isn't relevant until someone tries to enforce their patent.
If Walmart started printing up media ignoring copyright they would be sued for copyright violations. They would not have their front door blockaded by police without due process.
And will lose both.
Encryption is irrelevant to the end points, which is where the copyright holders will be detecting infringement. The ISPs won't be looking for pirates, they will just be cracking down on anyone they're told is pirating.
ISPs are in a special category where they are not responsible for the content as if they were a common carrier without the requirement that they not filter anything.