It's more complicated than that. A device that only has the ability to infringe copyright is illegal under the copyright act in most countries. This tends to cover anything with a trivial exception that might otherwise be used to circumvent the law.
Couldn't find details but presumably the lower court felt that ability to play imported discs, backups and homebrew software was a trivial exception, and the higher court disagreed.
Let's suppose I sell you a car for $2000. It breaks immediately but someone offers you $500 for some of the parts. You sue me for selling you a faulty car. If you win, you'd only be able to claim $1500. The award is meant toput you in the situation you would otherwise have been in.
This is a civil compensation award. The "board and lodgings" is not what the deduction is for; that's just media spin. It's just an accountant pedantically pointing out that if part of the award is for loss of earnings, then it's just as valid to make a deduction for reduced expenditure.
Yes! You know who else was part of that fine tradition? Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini.
They didn't have an elected body to keep them in check.
It's a system that works reasonably well. Countries with two elected chambers have their own set of problems. Generalyl you end up with decisions that represent what the people want.
I think a lot of it is about distance. There's a lot of space in the US. People will live further away from work and have larger houses. Most people would. Americans can.
I'll bet New York compares reasonable well with London. I imagine most American cities would be the same if you exclude cars (they do like gas guzzlers. Until recently running costs have been a minor factor).
Honestly, I think most of your problems could be solved with a medium sized car with good suspension. 6'3" is tall but not freakishly so. If you do a lot of hauling, get a trailer. How much is a high driving position really worth compared with a 50% saving in fuel? So there's just the getting in and out that's a problem. This could be made easier with changes to the door and seat design rather than trying to make an overweight car lighter.
Actually, all of them could be solved with a minivan but they're uncool and image is important.
As far as I understand, the hash values in file sharing networks are to identify identical files so that the client can download from multiple peers. Doesn't matter to the network when they were generated or what software was used as long as they have the same output, so there's no need to distinguish between these.
So if they do mean that files have a GUID, they're wrong.
Okay - Virgin are just going to be sending letters for now. Thing is, it's not really in their interest to cut anyone off. Each person they cut off will cost them at least £9 a month, more likely £15-30. And people tend to stick with the cable company for several years.
Will the BPI be covering Virgin for the costs of anyone they cut off? I think this is unlikely. Virgin will make it clear that they're doing something, to mollify the BPI but they're not going to do anything that will cost them money.
I still don't feel really comfortable with jurors making decisions based on "looking into people's eyes", as one of the jurors was saying; given how many people believe in astrology, mind reading, new age, and other supernatural stuff, I think there there's a lot of potential for bad decision making there.
I totally agree. Mainly because it's way too easy to deceive. A while ago Tomorrow's World (the BBC's pop-science show) did a series of experiments called "megalab". One of them involved getting a someone to tell the truth and a lie on TV, radio and in print and see in which medium the public were most likely to be able to distinguish. People were worst with TV, better with radio and best with print.
Here's a link to a paper refencing it
Okay, I only skim read it, but I couldn't find a clause that would outlaw P2P. And the clause about circumvention measures would not require signatories to legislate against circumvention of region coding.
It's getting close though. Skin isn't quite perfect, and hair looks not quite right.
Something I've noticed is that photoshop filters make real things less realistic. Compare a photo of Marilyn Monroe with any star today and you'll probably see a big difference. Since they're targetting a less realistic image, it should probably be easier.
That and we're not just talking about computer generated. Computers can modify images as well. Not sure if they could make an 18 year old model look 12, but it will be a lot harder to tell.
The point - piracy isn't going to cost you more than sales no matter how you work things out. The only way is if piracy displaces paper sales, but you can usually get popular books off the internet anyway.
Not quite sure what the change is going to be, except health care, but we're going to see some change.
Yes, CHANGE! There's going to be some things happening in a different way that before and things that weren't happening are going to start happening and things that were are going to stop. Because it's all about change! Yay!
It comes from sea water, using energy from centralised power stations which can draw power from renewable sources,
Most Hydrogen apparently currently comes from fossil fuels and the manufacture produces carbon dioxide.
You could make it from sea water, and eventually this may even be cheaper. The problem with it is that it requires quite a lot of electricity. If you're using renewable energy, it would usually make as much sense to pipe that into the grid and close down some oil or coal based power stations. You certainly wouldn't want to use fossil fuel power stations for the manufacture from salt water. The conversion to electricity will be less efficient than conversion to hydrogen.
I guess it's because this is just yet another option. You do have to return the discs to Netflix still, and some people don't like the way the pricing works so there probably is a benefit to those people.
Unless they are hoping for purely impulse buys,
I imagine this is going to be 80-90% of their market.
Or are you suggesting that my being a Flexdisk employee (I'm not, but let's assume I am), this somehow affects whether or not discs have to be returned, or that rental discs cost a lot of money if they get damaged.
You can also download it from the internet, rent it and rip it, borrow from a fiend and rip it, buy a pirated movie and rip it, or just steal the original.
Their target market is people who aren't going to do this. That would be most people.
You have to return it. Not everyone lives near a video rental store.
you will be charged if the disk gets damaged or lost.
If you buy a self destructing DVD
You can buy it on spec and watch it some other time (these have a shelf life)
You just throw it out when you're done with it.
The maximum cost is the cost of a disposable DVD.
The environmental damage isn't as big a problem as people seem to think. Much smaller than takeout, and probably less than the waste from a day's food for most people. That and they're recyclable.
The main problem is making people realise that this is a rental and not a purchase. When they own the physical media they think they own it. Prices are also a little high, but they don't need a vast number of customers. Just enough movie fans for stores to justify the shelf space.
It's especially likely that people will make copies of music and videos for friends, and not even consider that they might be doing anything wrong. The law should reflect this general consensus.
That said, there is a difference between sharing with friends and peer to peer networks. Although they don't cause major harm, I still don't think it's right for them to be encouraged. And there is a lot less public support for file sharing networks, apart from the file sharers.
Any draconian punishment should be entirely ruled out. Most of the pirates are kids who will grow out of it anyway. Any punishment that creates widespread sympathy for the perpetrator is generally too harsh. You could charge very small but easy to prove damages (parking ticket type amounts) for people who allow their internet connection to be used for illegal file sharing, or a levy on internet connections. The latter is rather unfair on those who don't share copyrighted media, and the former has potential privacy implications. Still, it seems a worthwhile starting point.
Slashdot Mirror
It's more complicated than that. A device that only has the ability to infringe copyright is illegal under the copyright act in most countries. This tends to cover anything with a trivial exception that might otherwise be used to circumvent the law.
Couldn't find details but presumably the lower court felt that ability to play imported discs, backups and homebrew software was a trivial exception, and the higher court disagreed.
:)
To be fair though, compared with a lot of other software, Microsoft is actually amongst the best.
Okay - it's not a proper analogy without a car.
Let's suppose I sell you a car for $2000. It breaks immediately but someone offers you $500 for some of the parts. You sue me for selling you a faulty car. If you win, you'd only be able to claim $1500. The award is meant toput you in the situation you would otherwise have been in.
This is a civil compensation award. The "board and lodgings" is not what the deduction is for; that's just media spin. It's just an accountant pedantically pointing out that if part of the award is for loss of earnings, then it's just as valid to make a deduction for reduced expenditure.
Yes! You know who else was part of that fine tradition? Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini.
They didn't have an elected body to keep them in check.
It's a system that works reasonably well. Countries with two elected chambers have their own set of problems. Generalyl you end up with decisions that represent what the people want.
Speaking as a software engineer who worked in microchip architecture, I totally agree. I didn't have a clue on whta to focus on for optimisation.
Wasn't until we incorporated a RISC processor and I started working on a compiler and some test tools that I showed my worth.
I think a lot of it is about distance. There's a lot of space in the US. People will live further away from work and have larger houses. Most people would. Americans can.
I'll bet New York compares reasonable well with London. I imagine most American cities would be the same if you exclude cars (they do like gas guzzlers. Until recently running costs have been a minor factor).
Honestly, I think most of your problems could be solved with a medium sized car with good suspension. 6'3" is tall but not freakishly so. If you do a lot of hauling, get a trailer. How much is a high driving position really worth compared with a 50% saving in fuel? So there's just the getting in and out that's a problem. This could be made easier with changes to the door and seat design rather than trying to make an overweight car lighter.
Actually, all of them could be solved with a minivan but they're uncool and image is important.
As far as I understand, the hash values in file sharing networks are to identify identical files so that the client can download from multiple peers. Doesn't matter to the network when they were generated or what software was used as long as they have the same output, so there's no need to distinguish between these.
So if they do mean that files have a GUID, they're wrong.
Ooops. Thanks.. Should have rad it rather than relying on my memory from so long ago.
Okay - Virgin are just going to be sending letters for now. Thing is, it's not really in their interest to cut anyone off. Each person they cut off will cost them at least £9 a month, more likely £15-30. And people tend to stick with the cable company for several years.
Will the BPI be covering Virgin for the costs of anyone they cut off? I think this is unlikely. Virgin will make it clear that they're doing something, to mollify the BPI but they're not going to do anything that will cost them money.
Stealing? I'll return their property then. What's their email address?
I still don't feel really comfortable with jurors making decisions based on "looking into people's eyes", as one of the jurors was saying; given how many people believe in astrology, mind reading, new age, and other supernatural stuff, I think there there's a lot of potential for bad decision making there.
I totally agree. Mainly because it's way too easy to deceive. A while ago Tomorrow's World (the BBC's pop-science show) did a series of experiments called "megalab". One of them involved getting a someone to tell the truth and a lie on TV, radio and in print and see in which medium the public were most likely to be able to distinguish. People were worst with TV, better with radio and best with print. Here's a link to a paper refencing it
Okay, I only skim read it, but I couldn't find a clause that would outlaw P2P. And the clause about circumvention measures would not require signatories to legislate against circumvention of region coding.
It's getting close though. Skin isn't quite perfect, and hair looks not quite right.
Something I've noticed is that photoshop filters make real things less realistic. Compare a photo of Marilyn Monroe with any star today and you'll probably see a big difference. Since they're targetting a less realistic image, it should probably be easier.
That and we're not just talking about computer generated. Computers can modify images as well. Not sure if they could make an 18 year old model look 12, but it will be a lot harder to tell.
Make ebook available - Minimum sales = 1.
Don't make ebook available - Maximum sales = 0.
The point - piracy isn't going to cost you more than sales no matter how you work things out. The only way is if piracy displaces paper sales, but you can usually get popular books off the internet anyway.
Hours of relentless researching to find the flaws (hacks) in the target.
Yeah! The only film I've ever seen where we get a hacking montage.
Most hacker movies give us a line like "try the tech with the babble on the jargon". No indication that hacking actually requires work.
And Bill Gates once declared that the average person would never have a need for more than 640 kilobytes of memory in a personal computer, too.'"
No. He actually never said that. Not once.
Not quite sure what the change is going to be, except health care, but we're going to see some change.
Yes, CHANGE! There's going to be some things happening in a different way that before and things that weren't happening are going to start happening and things that were are going to stop. Because it's all about change! Yay!
Horay for non-specific policies!
Only the Mission Impossible discs do that.
It comes from sea water, using energy from centralised power stations which can draw power from renewable sources,
Most Hydrogen apparently currently comes from fossil fuels and the manufacture produces carbon dioxide.
You could make it from sea water, and eventually this may even be cheaper. The problem with it is that it requires quite a lot of electricity. If you're using renewable energy, it would usually make as much sense to pipe that into the grid and close down some oil or coal based power stations. You certainly wouldn't want to use fossil fuel power stations for the manufacture from salt water. The conversion to electricity will be less efficient than conversion to hydrogen.
Why not just use Netflix then?
I guess it's because this is just yet another option. You do have to return the discs to Netflix still, and some people don't like the way the pricing works so there probably is a benefit to those people.
Unless they are hoping for purely impulse buys,
I imagine this is going to be 80-90% of their market.
Thank you, Captain Logical Fallacy.
Or are you suggesting that my being a Flexdisk employee (I'm not, but let's assume I am), this somehow affects whether or not discs have to be returned, or that rental discs cost a lot of money if they get damaged.
You can also download it from the internet, rent it and rip it, borrow from a fiend and rip it, buy a pirated movie and rip it, or just steal the original.
Their target market is people who aren't going to do this. That would be most people.
- You have a limitted time in which to view it.
- You have to return it. Not everyone lives near a video rental store.
- you will be charged if the disk gets damaged or lost.
If you buy a self destructing DVD- You can buy it on spec and watch it some other time (these have a shelf life)
- You just throw it out when you're done with it.
- The maximum cost is the cost of a disposable DVD.
The environmental damage isn't as big a problem as people seem to think. Much smaller than takeout, and probably less than the waste from a day's food for most people. That and they're recyclable.The main problem is making people realise that this is a rental and not a purchase. When they own the physical media they think they own it. Prices are also a little high, but they don't need a vast number of customers. Just enough movie fans for stores to justify the shelf space.
It's especially likely that people will make copies of music and videos for friends, and not even consider that they might be doing anything wrong. The law should reflect this general consensus.
That said, there is a difference between sharing with friends and peer to peer networks. Although they don't cause major harm, I still don't think it's right for them to be encouraged. And there is a lot less public support for file sharing networks, apart from the file sharers.
Any draconian punishment should be entirely ruled out. Most of the pirates are kids who will grow out of it anyway. Any punishment that creates widespread sympathy for the perpetrator is generally too harsh. You could charge very small but easy to prove damages (parking ticket type amounts) for people who allow their internet connection to be used for illegal file sharing, or a levy on internet connections. The latter is rather unfair on those who don't share copyrighted media, and the former has potential privacy implications. Still, it seems a worthwhile starting point.