Again, if you'd bothered to read the ruling you'd know that:
1) The ISPs do have an obligation to keep their users information private, however, that does not exempt them from providing that information when a warrant is obtained from a judge 2) The judge recognized that there was no way to tie a specific individual to a specific account or IP address. If they were able to tie someone to a static IP address that does not preclude the use of home routers, guests in the home, etc.
Law enforcement/civil suits simply have no way of providing definitive proof that any individual is linked to a specific case of infringement and even if they do the other tests of "authorization" apply.
You are missing the point. This is not about the booth babes. I don't care about the booth babes. It is about how companies view women.
Would you take your 15 year old daughter who happens to be interested in computers and science to one of these conventions? If you say no, is it because she would be exposed to an industry that shamelessly objectifies women? Could you imagine your daughter wanting to work in one of these companies?
It's not about how companies view women it's how the world sees beautiful women. Men are aroused by them which creates positive feelings which are then associated with a product. Women idolize beautiful women in the sense that the majority of women want to be as beautiful as they can be and humans tend to emulate eachother. The difference is that *you* see a booth babe and think something negative where a photo of a model wearing far less on the cover of a magazine may illicit an entirely different response (I don't know).
If these professions were so offensive they would not find women to fill them. Those women that do should really not complain about a job that gives you 3 hours off every 8 hours worked just because they have to smile and choose to wear uncomfortable shoes. I know women (and men) who are paid 1/10th the wage to work in a factory and come home with sore feet, hands so swollen that they take an hour to open the next morning, and permanent wrist damage from repetitive strain. Funny thing is, I've never heard one of them complain even though they have far more reason to.
Bill C-11 (formerly C-32) strikes a pretty good balance with the exception of the digital lock rules. There will be a constitutional challenge to the digital lock section of the bill and it will most likely be struck down. The rest of the bill is actually fairly well balanced and clarifies exceptions for satire/education/etc which were previously in a legal grey area but generally accepted to be fair use.
You are correct you do not have to provide proof of ownership or even have ownership, it's all about the intent to distribute / authorization of infringement.
The ads/restrictions on what operations I can perform/etc are the reason I pirate. I still have a legally purchased DVD collection of over 1200 titles but in each case is a burned copy with that crap stripped out and I previewed just about everyone (either via rental or pirating) prior to purchase.
onto an audio recording medium for the private use of the person who makes the copy does not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the musical work, the performer's performance or the sound recording.
[25]Thus, downloading a song for personal use does not amount to infringement. See Copyright Board's, Private Copying 2003-2004 Decision, 12 December, 2003, at page 20.
ie: As a private citizen you can download whatever you want and it is not infringement.
The mere fact of placing a copy on a shared directory in a computer where that copy can be accessed via a P2P service does not amount to distribution. Before it constitutes distribution, there must be a positive act by the owner of the shared directory, such as sending out the copies or advertising that they are available for copying.
ie: You can share what you want so long as you don't advertise it
[29]Lastly, while the plaintiffs allege that there was secondary infringement contrary to subsection 27(2) [snip] Such evidence of knowledge is a necessary condition for establishing infringement under that section.
ie: the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff to show that the individual knowingly authorized infringement.
It is an infringement of copyright for any person to
(a) sell or rent out,
(b) distribute to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright,
(c) by way of trade distribute, expose or offer for sale or rental, or exhibit in public,
(d) possess for the purpose of doing anything referred to in paragraphs (a) to (c),
ie: unless you're trying to profit/seriously harm the copyright holder/use the material in a public forum it does not constitute infringement.
The ruling was very clear, Canadians (and that's not to say Canadian organizations) cannot be held liable unless they meet one of three specific criteria which are more commercial in nature. This ruling is why there haven't been any lawsuits. Check you facts before spouting off about idiocy.
C-11 is dead. C-32 is the new version of it and with the exception of the digital lock rules isn't that bad. The great thing is that the digital lock rules are likely to be constitutionally impermissible and the "authorization of infringement" ruling will still apply so nothing will really change.
The cables, from the U.S. Embassy in Ottawa, even have a policy director for then industry minister Tony Clement suggesting it might help U.S. demands for a tough copyright law if Canada were placed among the worst offenders on an international piracy watch list. Days later, the U.S. placed Canada alongside China and Russia on the list.
Canadians face similar limitations when it comes to sharing music that other nations do. For example, it is illegal to share music covered by copywrite. While I believe the receiver is not considered to be at fault, the sender is. Those using bittorrent are just as guilty in Canada as they are in the US.
First, it's copyright. Second no they don't. In the above linked court decision the judge equated placing copyrighted music in a publicly shared folder (specifically citing P2P) is the equivalent of a library placing a photocopier in a room full of copyrighted books. The library is not authorizing you to copy a book, if you do that's on you. However, if you do copy something digital from a P2P network (or any other source) you have no way of knowing if the source is a legal one or not so you cannot be held libel for it.
The studies suggest that piracy leads to more purchases of the same type of material (music, movies, etc) so it can be true that we both pirate and purchase at the same time.
The original decision made it clear that downloading and seeding does not constitute authorization of infringement. That's not to say it protects those who engage in infringement and then distribute. ie: If I place a song I own in a shared folder that's not infringement, but if I do the same thing with something I do not own then the law doesn't protect me. The kicker here (and why it's not often pursued) is that the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to show how the material was obtained. If I downloaded something from a person in a country without copyprotection laws, or if I record a TV show on my computer to watch later, etc these are legal but if I upload a cam of a movie with a unique embedded ID then they may be able to prove I am the source of the infringement and go after me.
Net 30 is a little aggressive for IT, typically they run on Net 90.
Typically what I've seen (and do) is:
- 20-30% of the estimated contract price (which is billed hourly) up front as a good faith deposit (you're not going to start a multi-thousand/million dollar project for someone before they can show they can pony up)
- milestones every 25% of the estimated contract time (with that % becoming smaller the larger the project is). These milestones can be anything from "it's tuesday" to final delivery and anything in between.
- the final payment should be the same as the good faith deposit so it shows them that you are taking the same risk as they are when they first pay you.
- At each payment stage the project time lines are re-evaluated and adjusted if need be and the client informed in detail of exactly what's going on in the project and must sign off on the changes/updates before work continues. In this way if there are any mid-stream changes, unexpected delays, etc the client is aware, there's a paper trail, and there's no confusion as to what's going on and what the obligations are/will be.
If they want any other payment terms then the answer is: "Thank you for your interest, I can recommend several high school students who may be willing to accept your project"
Piracy = increased sales? Canadians are one of the few who are protected under the law and can download as much pirated product as they like. The studies suggest that piracy leads to more purchases of the same type of material (music, movies, etc) so it can be true that we both pirate and purchase at the same time.
^This. Just cause it's on the big scary "internet" doesn't mean laws don't apply.
In addition, any freelance web designer who doesn't get partial payment up front and interim payments for hitting specified milestones shouldn't be accepting contracts.
I do, but plugins I still find it better than the Win7 setup for several reasons
1) Better, customizable, interface 2) Control over what directories it uses in its search 3) Unused terms become internet searches 4) Being able to control other programs (example I use it to add items to my calendar/todo list) 5) customizable access key (alt+space for me)
I can't remember the last time I used the windows button.... Launchy did away with that ages ago. alt+space, type a couple letters at most, hit enter... there's my program/search/etc
While this report is complete crap, Canada's internet blows chunks for the most part, Bhell and Robbers did not succeed - Teksavvy is still unlimited but prices did go up for it.
The sad thing is that a reasonable connection now costs $40 at minimum. There's simply no possibility for the $10 connections found in other countries.
I'm sure there are many improvements, top on my list would be Snap Links Plus improvements. However, I did an analysis a while back and FF3.6 configured with file menu + small icons + search + address bar on one row and 2 toolbars takes up less space than the new FF UI and actually keeps functionality instead of burying it. A few things can be reverted back but overall it just feels like they expect you to want less functionality available via the mouse.
The whole point of a rapid release is that version numbers don't really matter. It's news if FF adds a major new feature or finally passes an Acid test. It's just not news worthy.
I'm not keeping my head in the sand, I just hate the new UI and am testing alternatives for 3.6's EOL
Slashdot Mirror
Again, if you'd bothered to read the ruling you'd know that:
1) The ISPs do have an obligation to keep their users information private, however, that does not exempt them from providing that information when a warrant is obtained from a judge
2) The judge recognized that there was no way to tie a specific individual to a specific account or IP address. If they were able to tie someone to a static IP address that does not preclude the use of home routers, guests in the home, etc.
Law enforcement/civil suits simply have no way of providing definitive proof that any individual is linked to a specific case of infringement and even if they do the other tests of "authorization" apply.
You are missing the point. This is not about the booth babes. I don't care about the booth babes. It is about how companies view women.
Would you take your 15 year old daughter who happens to be interested in computers and science to one of these conventions? If you say no, is it because she would be exposed to an industry that shamelessly objectifies women? Could you imagine your daughter wanting to work in one of these companies?
It's not about how companies view women it's how the world sees beautiful women. Men are aroused by them which creates positive feelings which are then associated with a product. Women idolize beautiful women in the sense that the majority of women want to be as beautiful as they can be and humans tend to emulate eachother. The difference is that *you* see a booth babe and think something negative where a photo of a model wearing far less on the cover of a magazine may illicit an entirely different response (I don't know).
If these professions were so offensive they would not find women to fill them. Those women that do should really not complain about a job that gives you 3 hours off every 8 hours worked just because they have to smile and choose to wear uncomfortable shoes. I know women (and men) who are paid 1/10th the wage to work in a factory and come home with sore feet, hands so swollen that they take an hour to open the next morning, and permanent wrist damage from repetitive strain. Funny thing is, I've never heard one of them complain even though they have far more reason to.
Bill C-11 (formerly C-32) strikes a pretty good balance with the exception of the digital lock rules. There will be a constitutional challenge to the digital lock section of the bill and it will most likely be struck down. The rest of the bill is actually fairly well balanced and clarifies exceptions for satire/education/etc which were previously in a legal grey area but generally accepted to be fair use.
You are correct you do not have to provide proof of ownership or even have ownership, it's all about the intent to distribute / authorization of infringement.
The ads/restrictions on what operations I can perform/etc are the reason I pirate. I still have a legally purchased DVD collection of over 1200 titles but in each case is a burned copy with that crap stripped out and I previewed just about everyone (either via rental or pirating) prior to purchase.
(a) a musical work embodied in a sound recording,
. . .
onto an audio recording medium for the private use of the person who makes the copy does not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the musical work, the performer's performance or the sound recording.
[25]Thus, downloading a song for personal use does not amount to infringement. See Copyright Board's, Private Copying 2003-2004 Decision, 12 December, 2003, at page 20.
ie: As a private citizen you can download whatever you want and it is not infringement.
The mere fact of placing a copy on a shared directory in a computer where that copy can be accessed via a P2P service does not amount to distribution. Before it constitutes distribution, there must be a positive act by the owner of the shared directory, such as sending out the copies or advertising that they are available for copying.
ie: You can share what you want so long as you don't advertise it
[29]Lastly, while the plaintiffs allege that there was secondary infringement contrary to subsection 27(2) [snip] Such evidence of knowledge is a necessary condition for establishing infringement under that section.
ie: the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff to show that the individual knowingly authorized infringement.
It is an infringement of copyright for any person to
(a) sell or rent out,
(b) distribute to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright,
(c) by way of trade distribute, expose or offer for sale or rental, or exhibit in public,
(d) possess for the purpose of doing anything referred to in paragraphs (a) to (c),
ie: unless you're trying to profit/seriously harm the copyright holder/use the material in a public forum it does not constitute infringement.
The ruling was very clear, Canadians (and that's not to say Canadian organizations) cannot be held liable unless they meet one of three specific criteria which are more commercial in nature. This ruling is why there haven't been any lawsuits. Check you facts before spouting off about idiocy.
100% correct sir.
oops... got C-11 and C-32 backwards. My bad!
C-11 is dead. C-32 is the new version of it and with the exception of the digital lock rules isn't that bad. The great thing is that the digital lock rules are likely to be constitutionally impermissible and the "authorization of infringement" ruling will still apply so nothing will really change.
Well, there's this:
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6456/125/
But did you also know that the Conservative Party of Canada lobbied the US government to bump up Canada's position on that list?
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/1048993--leaks-show-u-s-swayed-canada-on-copyright-bill
The cables, from the U.S. Embassy in Ottawa, even have a policy director for then industry minister Tony Clement suggesting it might help U.S. demands for a tough copyright law if Canada were placed among the worst offenders on an international piracy watch list. Days later, the U.S. placed Canada alongside China and Russia on the list.
Facts are fun!
Canadians face similar limitations when it comes to sharing music that other nations do. For example, it is illegal to share music covered by copywrite. While I believe the receiver is not considered to be at fault, the sender is. Those using bittorrent are just as guilty in Canada as they are in the US.
First, it's copyright. Second no they don't. In the above linked court decision the judge equated placing copyrighted music in a publicly shared folder (specifically citing P2P) is the equivalent of a library placing a photocopier in a room full of copyrighted books. The library is not authorizing you to copy a book, if you do that's on you. However, if you do copy something digital from a P2P network (or any other source) you have no way of knowing if the source is a legal one or not so you cannot be held libel for it.
The studies suggest that piracy leads to more purchases of the same type of material (music, movies, etc) so it can be true that we both pirate and purchase at the same time.
You're jumping to conclusions. [snip]
No, there are actual studies like: http://www.scribd.com/doc/93891327/Hammond-File-Sharing-Leak
The original decision made it clear that downloading and seeding does not constitute authorization of infringement. That's not to say it protects those who engage in infringement and then distribute. ie: If I place a song I own in a shared folder that's not infringement, but if I do the same thing with something I do not own then the law doesn't protect me. The kicker here (and why it's not often pursued) is that the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to show how the material was obtained. If I downloaded something from a person in a country without copyprotection laws, or if I record a TV show on my computer to watch later, etc these are legal but if I upload a cam of a movie with a unique embedded ID then they may be able to prove I am the source of the infringement and go after me.
http://reports.fja.gc.ca/eng/2004/2004fc488/2004fc488.html
Net 30 is a little aggressive for IT, typically they run on Net 90.
Typically what I've seen (and do) is:
- 20-30% of the estimated contract price (which is billed hourly) up front as a good faith deposit (you're not going to start a multi-thousand/million dollar project for someone before they can show they can pony up)
- milestones every 25% of the estimated contract time (with that % becoming smaller the larger the project is). These milestones can be anything from "it's tuesday" to final delivery and anything in between.
- the final payment should be the same as the good faith deposit so it shows them that you are taking the same risk as they are when they first pay you.
- At each payment stage the project time lines are re-evaluated and adjusted if need be and the client informed in detail of exactly what's going on in the project and must sign off on the changes/updates before work continues. In this way if there are any mid-stream changes, unexpected delays, etc the client is aware, there's a paper trail, and there's no confusion as to what's going on and what the obligations are/will be.
If they want any other payment terms then the answer is: "Thank you for your interest, I can recommend several high school students who may be willing to accept your project"
Piracy = increased sales? Canadians are one of the few who are protected under the law and can download as much pirated product as they like. The studies suggest that piracy leads to more purchases of the same type of material (music, movies, etc) so it can be true that we both pirate and purchase at the same time.
^This. Just cause it's on the big scary "internet" doesn't mean laws don't apply.
In addition, any freelance web designer who doesn't get partial payment up front and interim payments for hitting specified milestones shouldn't be accepting contracts.
wow, some people can't take a joke.
The wet ones cause rainbows too! ;)
Wrong. God farted.
I do, but plugins I still find it better than the Win7 setup for several reasons
1) Better, customizable, interface
2) Control over what directories it uses in its search
3) Unused terms become internet searches
4) Being able to control other programs (example I use it to add items to my calendar/todo list)
5) customizable access key (alt+space for me)
I can't remember the last time I used the windows button.... Launchy did away with that ages ago. alt+space, type a couple letters at most, hit enter... there's my program/search/etc
If you can get Bhell DSL you can get Teksavvy.
While this report is complete crap, Canada's internet blows chunks for the most part, Bhell and Robbers did not succeed - Teksavvy is still unlimited but prices did go up for it.
The sad thing is that a reasonable connection now costs $40 at minimum. There's simply no possibility for the $10 connections found in other countries.
I'm sure there are many improvements, top on my list would be Snap Links Plus improvements. However, I did an analysis a while back and FF3.6 configured with file menu + small icons + search + address bar on one row and 2 toolbars takes up less space than the new FF UI and actually keeps functionality instead of burying it. A few things can be reverted back but overall it just feels like they expect you to want less functionality available via the mouse.
You can only partially revert it.
The whole point of a rapid release is that version numbers don't really matter. It's news if FF adds a major new feature or finally passes an Acid test. It's just not news worthy.
I'm not keeping my head in the sand, I just hate the new UI and am testing alternatives for 3.6's EOL
How about realizing that it's a money grab.
http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-news/4210649/Kinect-s-BOM-roughly--56--teardown-finds-