So what do you, as a creator, if the ai stubbornly concludes that your explanation of it's origins is unacceptable... After all, if you could evolve, why could it not have also evolved, and in turn rejects the notion that you created it at all?
Of course it would really be commercial.... but with no official documentation stating that is what one might be getting paid to do, the case would instead only be considered as non-commercial infringement, and a maximum 5k for... and this is from the wording of the bill here... *ALL* infringements. As you said, the onus may be on the crown to prove it, of course, but in reality, this sort of thing is generally not going to be provable.without any official documentation that affirms it. This effectively creates a loophole that allows an unscrupulous company to undermine their competitors ability to control their copyrights under a pretext of "non-commercial" infringement with a corresponding maximum penalty when such penalties could be much milder than actually appropriate.
No, in the case of stolen property, buying it is still against the law. Your only defense would necessarily have to be that you were unaware of the illegitimate source of what you've acquired. Whether or not you are still prosecuted depends on whether or not your claim of ignorance is convincing. You'll have to give up the property, at your own expense, regardless.
Knowingly downloading infringing content isn't something that's currently explicitly covered under Canadian law. Even at best, it's certainly highly suspect. I would not be the least bit surprised if an amendment to C-11 in this regard appears within the next 2 to 3 years.
Only if it were the commercial entity doing it directly. If they simply hired somebody to do this from their residence, however, then there wouldn't be anything to officially link the infringement back to the company. They could thus undermine their competitor's business by distributing the competitor's work for free, knowing that the maximum penalty they'd have to pay is only $5k.
That's kind of my point... if no commercial connection is provable, then the noncommercial damage limit applies. This makes it possible to infringe on copyright with commercial intent, but not pay commercial damages.
I'd say it's a pretty good bet, IMO, that this $25 OS update won't actually work stand-alone, much like service pack updates are today, and you'll probably still have to front the $200 or so for a full version, unless you get it bundled in with a brand new PC.
What would happen if a publisher decided that they wanted to undermine another publisher's profits on competing works by distributing them for free, under the pretext of "non-commercial infringement"?
In particular, what if they hired somebody to distribute them from his or her home? With nothing to officially trace the reason for the distribution to the company that did this, there'd be no reason to assume commercial infringement, and so the very worst that could happen is a $5,000 fine... evidently, according to what I'm reading here, for *ALL* infringement. This effectively, if I understand this law correctly, allows the person to commit as much "non-commercial" copyright infringement as he or she wants without further penalty.
I wonder how long it will be before they plug that hole?
Knowingly possessing content that is infringing on copyright,. even if somebody else had to break the law to make it, can still have legal ramifications for you. The consequences are rarely as severe as copyright infringement, however... but it can include having your computer equipment confiscated, at your expense. So no.... not a good defense. It's about on par with the defense that knowingly trying to pass off a counterfeit bill as genuine shouldn't result in charges against you because you didn't make the counterfeit.
Your next-to-best defense would be to claim you didn't know it was infringing... although the circumstances surrounding how and where you got it, as well as your own circumstances and likelihood that you could have realized its true nature would probably be weighed in context of such a claim, so it's certainly not automatic that they'd believe it.
I didn't add anything to the meaning. In fact, there's nothing I said, above, which is not either explicitly mentioned in the copyright act, or else otherwise tautologically true.
I also didn't mention the word "media", so I'm unsure why you would expect me to define it for you.
Only a very naive person would contend that copyright infringement equates a lost sale. It is not.... especially since the same copyright penalties can apply even to infringement on free content, where no "sale" is even applicable.
Private copying is defined as copying which occurs for the personal and private use of the person that is making the copy.
So making making a backup copy for yourself constitutes private copying.. Giving or in any way distributing said copy to somebody else negates the private copying privilege, and is infringement.
If the same person keeps passing counterfeit bills, and whenever he's caught, he keeps claiming that he didn't know... eventually there's going to be an investigation... and they might just stop believing the person.
Probably won't be... but one might risk assuming liability for the activities on your open AP, unless you have explicit authorization from your provider to further distribute the service that they are providing you with.
The content you get from your library or that is put online by networks does not infringe on copyright. In all but extremely specific examples, however, any of the same content that you'd be able to download via pirate bay is infringing. Good luck trying to argue that you didn't realize that.
No. This is a very common misunderstanding. The levy existed to compensate for private copying, not piracy.
It's quite the stretch, however, to think that something one puts into their shared documents folder for other people to download, is genuinely only for one's own private purposes.
Not that it matters... private copying rights have been blasted to hell by C-11. The private copying levy will probably disappear soon enough.
You may want to review bill C-11... which became law just this fall. Specifically, note that the prohibitions on copy protection circumvention extend even to the point of preventing personal and private use.
Oddly enough, bill C-11 makes the levy illegal, since it is charging Canadians for something that they cannot generally lawfully do.
Only for the time being. I believe that it's just a matter of time before the laws governing copyright infringement are amended so that simply knowingly making a copy of any infringing content, regardless of the purpose of the copy, is illegal too.
The levy that you pay on blank media in Canada exists to compensate Canadian artists for private copying. It might alleviate the impact of piracy as side effect, but that is not the purpose of the levy.
Under C-11, however, which is now evidently law in Canada, practically all private copying of newer media forms is illegal, since for many newer media forms, copying can necessitate bypassing some forms of copy protection, which under C-11 is illegal, without exceptions for private copying (the law is even explicitly says so, in fact). Therefore, the levy applies to an activity that Canadians cannot even generally lawfully participate in, as an ever increasing amount of content is published on digital media.
This makes the levy illegal, for all practical intents and purposes. The Conservative Party of Canada has tried scrap the levy before, before they had a majority government, but they have not brought the issue up since the last Federal election.
It's certainly not a bad thing for a game to be fun, and certainly preferable to a game that isn't fun, but the *really* important thing, even more important than being fun, is to make a game that is profitable
Funny thing, though... is that if the game is fun enough, it will generally tend to have the longest lived profitability. So it's often possible to target profit indirectly by reaching instead for fun. The correlation between fun and net profitability is certainly pretty strong, but not ubiquitous, however. In the end, however, the only thing that matters is whether or not the revenues generated from the title will pay the salaries of the dozens or hundreds of people who worked on it, so the ultimately important factor is not so much how fun it is, as much as whether or not the game will make money.
Okay, but a school dress code that applies equally to everybody isn't actually discriminating against anybody because of their religion. From where I'm sitting, it looks like she's deliberately playing the "discrimination" card to get some attention, and from the looks of things, she's getting what she wanted.
Besides, employers aren't allowed to discriminate based on religion either, but if a company policy requires that a person wear a company-issued ID tag while they are at work, and it's somehow a violation of that person's religion to wear such an ID, then it does not automatically follow that the employer is discriminating against those religions.
And her school isn't discriminating against her religion either. The notion that they are exists nowhere except in her own deluded mind. The school hasn't wronged her here... she's only victimizing herself.
Requiring that students wear ID tags whilo on school property is no more an infringement on their privacy that the requirement that professionals wear company ID's while they are at work is an infringement on their's.
The fact that the ID has an RFID chip in it is immaterial... RFID's can only be read by scanners in quite close proximity, and in this case, could not ever be used to locate somebody who was not already on school property.
It's just a friggen dress code requirement, and it's not one that is remotely uncivil or unprofessional. This sophomore is making a big deal over nothing.
Slashdot Mirror
So what do you, as a creator, if the ai stubbornly concludes that your explanation of it's origins is unacceptable... After all, if you could evolve, why could it not have also evolved, and in turn rejects the notion that you created it at all?
Of course it would really be commercial.... but with no official documentation stating that is what one might be getting paid to do, the case would instead only be considered as non-commercial infringement, and a maximum 5k for... and this is from the wording of the bill here... *ALL* infringements. As you said, the onus may be on the crown to prove it, of course, but in reality, this sort of thing is generally not going to be provable.without any official documentation that affirms it. This effectively creates a loophole that allows an unscrupulous company to undermine their competitors ability to control their copyrights under a pretext of "non-commercial" infringement with a corresponding maximum penalty when such penalties could be much milder than actually appropriate.
Knowingly downloading infringing content isn't something that's currently explicitly covered under Canadian law. Even at best, it's certainly highly suspect. I would not be the least bit surprised if an amendment to C-11 in this regard appears within the next 2 to 3 years.
Only if it were the commercial entity doing it directly. If they simply hired somebody to do this from their residence, however, then there wouldn't be anything to officially link the infringement back to the company. They could thus undermine their competitor's business by distributing the competitor's work for free, knowing that the maximum penalty they'd have to pay is only $5k.
That's kind of my point... if no commercial connection is provable, then the noncommercial damage limit applies. This makes it possible to infringe on copyright with commercial intent, but not pay commercial damages.
I'd say it's a pretty good bet, IMO, that this $25 OS update won't actually work stand-alone, much like service pack updates are today, and you'll probably still have to front the $200 or so for a full version, unless you get it bundled in with a brand new PC.
What would happen if a publisher decided that they wanted to undermine another publisher's profits on competing works by distributing them for free, under the pretext of "non-commercial infringement"?
In particular, what if they hired somebody to distribute them from his or her home? With nothing to officially trace the reason for the distribution to the company that did this, there'd be no reason to assume commercial infringement, and so the very worst that could happen is a $5,000 fine... evidently, according to what I'm reading here, for *ALL* infringement. This effectively, if I understand this law correctly, allows the person to commit as much "non-commercial" copyright infringement as he or she wants without further penalty.
I wonder how long it will be before they plug that hole?
Knowingly possessing content that is infringing on copyright,. even if somebody else had to break the law to make it, can still have legal ramifications for you. The consequences are rarely as severe as copyright infringement, however... but it can include having your computer equipment confiscated, at your expense. So no.... not a good defense. It's about on par with the defense that knowingly trying to pass off a counterfeit bill as genuine shouldn't result in charges against you because you didn't make the counterfeit.
Your next-to-best defense would be to claim you didn't know it was infringing... although the circumstances surrounding how and where you got it, as well as your own circumstances and likelihood that you could have realized its true nature would probably be weighed in context of such a claim, so it's certainly not automatic that they'd believe it.
I didn't add anything to the meaning. In fact, there's nothing I said, above, which is not either explicitly mentioned in the copyright act, or else otherwise tautologically true.
I also didn't mention the word "media", so I'm unsure why you would expect me to define it for you.
Only a very naive person would contend that copyright infringement equates a lost sale. It is not.... especially since the same copyright penalties can apply even to infringement on free content, where no "sale" is even applicable.
So making making a backup copy for yourself constitutes private copying.. Giving or in any way distributing said copy to somebody else negates the private copying privilege, and is infringement.
If the same person keeps passing counterfeit bills, and whenever he's caught, he keeps claiming that he didn't know... eventually there's going to be an investigation... and they might just stop believing the person.
Probably won't be... but one might risk assuming liability for the activities on your open AP, unless you have explicit authorization from your provider to further distribute the service that they are providing you with.
The content you get from your library or that is put online by networks does not infringe on copyright. In all but extremely specific examples, however, any of the same content that you'd be able to download via pirate bay is infringing. Good luck trying to argue that you didn't realize that.
No. This is a very common misunderstanding. The levy existed to compensate for private copying, not piracy.
It's quite the stretch, however, to think that something one puts into their shared documents folder for other people to download, is genuinely only for one's own private purposes.
Not that it matters... private copying rights have been blasted to hell by C-11. The private copying levy will probably disappear soon enough.
You may want to review bill C-11... which became law just this fall. Specifically, note that the prohibitions on copy protection circumvention extend even to the point of preventing personal and private use.
Oddly enough, bill C-11 makes the levy illegal, since it is charging Canadians for something that they cannot generally lawfully do.
Only for the time being. I believe that it's just a matter of time before the laws governing copyright infringement are amended so that simply knowingly making a copy of any infringing content, regardless of the purpose of the copy, is illegal too.
You are mistaken.
The levy that you pay on blank media in Canada exists to compensate Canadian artists for private copying. It might alleviate the impact of piracy as side effect, but that is not the purpose of the levy.
Under C-11, however, which is now evidently law in Canada, practically all private copying of newer media forms is illegal, since for many newer media forms, copying can necessitate bypassing some forms of copy protection, which under C-11 is illegal, without exceptions for private copying (the law is even explicitly says so, in fact). Therefore, the levy applies to an activity that Canadians cannot even generally lawfully participate in, as an ever increasing amount of content is published on digital media.
This makes the levy illegal, for all practical intents and purposes. The Conservative Party of Canada has tried scrap the levy before, before they had a majority government, but they have not brought the issue up since the last Federal election.
So... pretty far, then?
that could be a little difficult if they are not actually hosting the download.
The summary explicitly said that people download the software from one of "many free download sites".
It's certainly not a bad thing for a game to be fun, and certainly preferable to a game that isn't fun, but the *really* important thing, even more important than being fun, is to make a game that is profitable
Funny thing, though... is that if the game is fun enough, it will generally tend to have the longest lived profitability. So it's often possible to target profit indirectly by reaching instead for fun. The correlation between fun and net profitability is certainly pretty strong, but not ubiquitous, however. In the end, however, the only thing that matters is whether or not the revenues generated from the title will pay the salaries of the dozens or hundreds of people who worked on it, so the ultimately important factor is not so much how fun it is, as much as whether or not the game will make money.
Okay, but a school dress code that applies equally to everybody isn't actually discriminating against anybody because of their religion. From where I'm sitting, it looks like she's deliberately playing the "discrimination" card to get some attention, and from the looks of things, she's getting what she wanted.
Besides, employers aren't allowed to discriminate based on religion either, but if a company policy requires that a person wear a company-issued ID tag while they are at work, and it's somehow a violation of that person's religion to wear such an ID, then it does not automatically follow that the employer is discriminating against those religions.
And her school isn't discriminating against her religion either. The notion that they are exists nowhere except in her own deluded mind. The school hasn't wronged her here... she's only victimizing herself.
Your recitation of the exact wording of the amendment didn't exactly address any of what I said.
[nt]
The fact that the ID has an RFID chip in it is immaterial... RFID's can only be read by scanners in quite close proximity, and in this case, could not ever be used to locate somebody who was not already on school property.
It's just a friggen dress code requirement, and it's not one that is remotely uncivil or unprofessional. This sophomore is making a big deal over nothing.