Actually, I think the journalist might have got it wrong as well.
This sounds a lot like an overpayment scam. It's a common type of scam, and frequently involves car purchases over the internet.
A fake car dealership simply seems too unlikely to work compared with a tried and tested scam. If the reporter simply wasn't aware of the overpayment scam, he could easily make invalid assumptions.
It probably would have worked out cheaper for them:)
Given that they didn't directly obstruct the activity, and they're presumably not habitual criminals, they'd have been fined at the lower end of the scale. Cheaper than several hundred dollars worth of damage
In the case of the guy visiting China, if the Chinese authorities refused him entry, I think the airline would have been responsible for taking him back, at their expense. Airlines can be fined for letting passengers on without valid passports.
Given this, it's sort of understandable that they're a little bit careful.
10k is pretty cheap for a lot of specialised software. The support you get tends to involve having an engineer actually solve your problem.
Whether it's cheap for video editing software depends on what useful features it has, and whether that can save several days' work over the course of a year
Someone else's property being on your property doesn't give you ownership of it. Just because someone uses my driveway to turn around in doesn't mean I get to destroy their car.
The problem is that The Pirate Bay offered no reason to believe it existed for any purpose other than aiding piracy. It's even called "The Pirate Bay". Even if we ignore that, it should have been obvious to the founders that such a service is likely to be used largely for copyright infringement. Legal opinion is that this is harmful (if you disagree then your objection is to copyright law, and not its application in this case). Running a service that you know is harmful to others tends to be viewed poorly by the courts, especially if you make absolutely no effort to deal with the harm done
If you're actually profiting from it, then it seems a lot more likely that you're not dealing with the problem because of the profits.
Exists, apparently, for the sole purpose of assisting copyright infringement, and sends mocking replies to anyone who complains.
It's more what Google does that The Pirate Bay doesn't. Has a substantial portion of links to legitimate content, and takes down links to obviously pirated content when requested.
There's no major advantage to big spacecraft. You have the extra cost of getting them up there, you have a bigger target, you have less flexibility. And once you do enough damage the whole thing is out of commission.
For the cost of a capital ship you can have several small missile boats. They're more manoeuvrable, able to spread themselves out and taking one out doesn't do any harm to the others.
The Honor Harrington and Star Trek style battles are cool and all, but it's based on ship to ship battles because that's what we know.
there is a "sin" tax on blank media that goes to the local recording artist association.
Yes there is.
This doesn't make it legal to copy music. Why would it? The blank media levy is a part of tax law. It makes it legal to sell blank media. Downloading music is covered by copyright law. It's still illegal even though the victims are compensated for it. That's not how it works.
Hackers? This wouldn't be the first time a hacker has changed the content of a website. And at the moment, it's only 8:30am here. They could be waiting for someone to get into the office (possibly at their ISP) before this can be fixed.
If it is hackers, then this is actually unusually creative, but it's possible.
It's probably not legal to download music in your country.
It's simply legal to sell the blank media that enables the infringement. This is taxed because it's pretty obvious that some people are going to use it unlawfully.
Yes you can. You just need something to negotiate with. New contracts that supercede existing contracts are signed all the time for all sorts of reasons. If they want to hang on to their employee and it costs them nothing then they'll probably be willing to sign a waiver.
So, we have loool, lolololol and lollll. The acronyms seem to break. Especially the first one.
Laugh Out Out Out Loud, Laugh Out Loud Out Loud Out Loud Out Loud, and Laugh Out Loud Loud Loud Loud Loud.
I suppose the middle one could be Laugh Out Loud Out Laugh Out Loud Out Laugh, or possibly the recursive Lololol Out Loud (where Lololol is Lolol Out Loud and Lolol is Lol Out Loud),
While I'm not in any way suggesting Singapore is exactly a free country, they do have a constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religion, and since I saw Christian, Hindu, Buddhist and Muslim temples there, I assume there's at least a certain amount of religious freedom.
As for the penalties for littering and drug trafficking, there does seem to be a reasonable way to avoid those. How many countries fully permit all drugs, and how many have made littering legal?
It's a pretty subjective thing. I'll willingly tell anyone who really wants to know all sorts of things that others consider private (the colour of my underwear, various sex related things), but feel a little protective of all sorts of things. I'll rarely share my Slashdot username with anyone who knows my real name and vice versa.
I'll readily accept that some people really genuinely don't care at all about being spied on, and as long as they accept that I do, I have no quarrel with these people. I also understand that some people object vigorously to what I might consider some fairly minor infringements. I respect that as well, and feel that there should be no collection of personal information without a very compelling reason.
However, if people willingly give it away, and the deal can be clearly considered an honest and open agreement then who are we to tell them they shouldn't.
I'll not argue that politicians are routinely taking liberties with the nature of the constitution. Don't think this is explicitly covered though. I very much doubt that the authors even considered a situation that would approximate to remote drones.
Even if they did, I suspect they assumed some sort of basic morality on the part of lawmakers, assuming they would be kept in check by the electorate, and predicting and covering every possible thing that congress might do would be futile.
This in itself is not unreasonable. I can see many potential legitimate uses for pilotless drones both for law enforcement and such things as disaster recovery. In itself there's nothing wrong with this law.
What is unreasonable is law enforcements desire to spy on everyone all the time. This is something that needs to be addressed, but it needs to be addressed directly. Not by attacking legislation that happens to enable it. We need to fight for legislation that explicitly sets limits on where the police are allowed to watch us.
They probably were. Not sure about US copyright law, but a lot of countries have explicit language covering licenses offering exclusive rights to a territory. Typically this only covers import for reasons of resale.
You may have an issue with the law itself, but the interpretation is valid.
By this logic, the public should have no method of determining their local police forces typical response times, how well or under staffed they are, etc.
Why should we?
Being able to not reveal a thing to the public might do wonders for the security of the police, but without some oversight how can you tell if the police are doing their job well or not?
Ahh.
But detailed radio traffic isn't going to provide that much more information
The EULA that comes with the software *guarantees* a refund if you don't want it.
Great. So return the computer and get a refund. You paid â400 (or whatever) to buy a PC running windows. You don't want a PC running Windows, so you return the PC running Windows to the seller and but a PC not running windows as a replacement.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, I think the journalist might have got it wrong as well.
This sounds a lot like an overpayment scam. It's a common type of scam, and frequently involves car purchases over the internet.
A fake car dealership simply seems too unlikely to work compared with a tried and tested scam. If the reporter simply wasn't aware of the overpayment scam, he could easily make invalid assumptions.
You can get them for £20 from a supermarket. Okay - pretty expensive for a DVD but we're not talking major investment here.
It probably would have worked out cheaper for them:)
Given that they didn't directly obstruct the activity, and they're presumably not habitual criminals, they'd have been fined at the lower end of the scale. Cheaper than several hundred dollars worth of damage
Except they sort of are...
In the case of the guy visiting China, if the Chinese authorities refused him entry, I think the airline would have been responsible for taking him back, at their expense. Airlines can be fined for letting passengers on without valid passports.
Given this, it's sort of understandable that they're a little bit careful.
10k is pretty cheap for a lot of specialised software. The support you get tends to involve having an engineer actually solve your problem.
Whether it's cheap for video editing software depends on what useful features it has, and whether that can save several days' work over the course of a year
Really?
Where I live, that would be considered theft. If you damaged it it would be criminal damage.
Someone else's property being on your property doesn't give you ownership of it. Just because someone uses my driveway to turn around in doesn't mean I get to destroy their car.
Maybe.
The problem is that The Pirate Bay offered no reason to believe it existed for any purpose other than aiding piracy. It's even called "The Pirate Bay". Even if we ignore that, it should have been obvious to the founders that such a service is likely to be used largely for copyright infringement. Legal opinion is that this is harmful (if you disagree then your objection is to copyright law, and not its application in this case). Running a service that you know is harmful to others tends to be viewed poorly by the courts, especially if you make absolutely no effort to deal with the harm done
If you're actually profiting from it, then it seems a lot more likely that you're not dealing with the problem because of the profits.
Exists, apparently, for the sole purpose of assisting copyright infringement, and sends mocking replies to anyone who complains.
It's more what Google does that The Pirate Bay doesn't. Has a substantial portion of links to legitimate content, and takes down links to obviously pirated content when requested.
There's no major advantage to big spacecraft. You have the extra cost of getting them up there, you have a bigger target, you have less flexibility. And once you do enough damage the whole thing is out of commission.
For the cost of a capital ship you can have several small missile boats. They're more manoeuvrable, able to spread themselves out and taking one out doesn't do any harm to the others.
The Honor Harrington and Star Trek style battles are cool and all, but it's based on ship to ship battles because that's what we know.
there is a "sin" tax on blank media that goes to the local recording artist association.
Yes there is.
This doesn't make it legal to copy music. Why would it? The blank media levy is a part of tax law. It makes it legal to sell blank media. Downloading music is covered by copyright law. It's still illegal even though the victims are compensated for it. That's not how it works.
Does SOCA have a 24 hour press office?
Hackers? This wouldn't be the first time a hacker has changed the content of a website. And at the moment, it's only 8:30am here. They could be waiting for someone to get into the office (possibly at their ISP) before this can be fixed.
If it is hackers, then this is actually unusually creative, but it's possible.
It's probably not legal to download music in your country.
It's simply legal to sell the blank media that enables the infringement. This is taxed because it's pretty obvious that some people are going to use it unlawfully.
After the contract has been signed.
Yes you can. You just need something to negotiate with. New contracts that supercede existing contracts are signed all the time for all sorts of reasons. If they want to hang on to their employee and it costs them nothing then they'll probably be willing to sign a waiver.
So, we have loool, lolololol and lollll. The acronyms seem to break. Especially the first one.
Laugh Out Out Out Loud, Laugh Out Loud Out Loud Out Loud Out Loud, and Laugh Out Loud Loud Loud Loud Loud.
I suppose the middle one could be Laugh Out Loud Out Laugh Out Loud Out Laugh, or possibly the recursive Lololol Out Loud (where Lololol is Lolol Out Loud and Lolol is Lol Out Loud),
While I'm not in any way suggesting Singapore is exactly a free country, they do have a constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religion, and since I saw Christian, Hindu, Buddhist and Muslim temples there, I assume there's at least a certain amount of religious freedom.
As for the penalties for littering and drug trafficking, there does seem to be a reasonable way to avoid those. How many countries fully permit all drugs, and how many have made littering legal?
It's a pretty subjective thing. I'll willingly tell anyone who really wants to know all sorts of things that others consider private (the colour of my underwear, various sex related things), but feel a little protective of all sorts of things. I'll rarely share my Slashdot username with anyone who knows my real name and vice versa.
I'll readily accept that some people really genuinely don't care at all about being spied on, and as long as they accept that I do, I have no quarrel with these people. I also understand that some people object vigorously to what I might consider some fairly minor infringements. I respect that as well, and feel that there should be no collection of personal information without a very compelling reason.
However, if people willingly give it away, and the deal can be clearly considered an honest and open agreement then who are we to tell them they shouldn't.
I'll not argue that politicians are routinely taking liberties with the nature of the constitution. Don't think this is explicitly covered though. I very much doubt that the authors even considered a situation that would approximate to remote drones.
Even if they did, I suspect they assumed some sort of basic morality on the part of lawmakers, assuming they would be kept in check by the electorate, and predicting and covering every possible thing that congress might do would be futile.
This in itself is not unreasonable. I can see many potential legitimate uses for pilotless drones both for law enforcement and such things as disaster recovery. In itself there's nothing wrong with this law.
What is unreasonable is law enforcements desire to spy on everyone all the time. This is something that needs to be addressed, but it needs to be addressed directly. Not by attacking legislation that happens to enable it. We need to fight for legislation that explicitly sets limits on where the police are allowed to watch us.
They probably were. Not sure about US copyright law, but a lot of countries have explicit language covering licenses offering exclusive rights to a territory. Typically this only covers import for reasons of resale.
You may have an issue with the law itself, but the interpretation is valid.
Why should we?
Ahh.
But detailed radio traffic isn't going to provide that much more information
.or get you a job....
Well, pretty certain I've worked with the winner of this.
Since I want to install Linux, I don't want an antivirus or to pay for it - why should I pay for MS' past design mistakes in windows' security?
No idea. You paid for a machine that came with this. Obviously you felt that this was a better deal than one that didn't come with it.
The EULA that comes with the software *guarantees* a refund if you don't want it.
Great. So return the computer and get a refund. You paid â400 (or whatever) to buy a PC running windows. You don't want a PC running Windows, so you return the PC running Windows to the seller and but a PC not running windows as a replacement.