Besides which, when I was at college (in the UK age 16-18 normally) they didn't take register
I'm guessing you're about the same age as me (~30), or maybe even older. Health and safety regulations started getting really serious a few years after I left school, and now schools have a legal obligation to know who is in their buildings at all times.
I'm sure the students support because it saves them about 40 mins a day sitting their whilst a teacher goes through the register
I may be misremembering, but I don't remember it taking this long at my school. Nor do I think somebody was spending "an hour and a half a day" recording data. In fact, I think 1.5 seconds per student is pretty freaking slow; you could easily get that down to 1 second each using a "shout out name and check box" system, I'm sure. But that wouldn't be "cool". And wouldn't cost the taxpayer anywhere near as much.
"Only today (Thursday, 05 March) we had a fire alarm test and the administration staff were able to quickly and effectively print data off from the system showing who was on site."
Of course, in my day the records were held on paper anyway, so there was no nead to "quickly and effectively print data off the system": just pick up the already-existing record sheet. I see no compelling reason why this needs to change.
The list he's talking about can be found at Fictionwise eBooks: Multiformat eBooks. That's the same link used in the original blog post Salacious content driving the adoption of ebooks? Under multiformat, 6 of the 10 listed are Erotica/Romance, 3 others are listed as Erotica, Erotica/Fantasy and Erotica/Dark Fantasy and #2 is Dark Fantasy/Fantasy.
So all this tells us is that porn is available in multiple formats, whereas most popular books are only available in one format. Which isn't all that interesting, really.
The fact that he co-wrote the music makes no difference, except that it might also be a breach of contract.
Actually, I suspect it's only a breach of contract. Signing an exclusive distribution licence doesn't invalidate your copyright, or transfer it to the other party. Sure, Lars is contractually bound not to do anything that might constitute distributing his music without his label's permission, but he can legally violate that contract in order to authorise himself to download the music. Assuming the copyrights haven't actually been entirely signed over, that is.
The same applies to published authors, BTW. That's pretty much what "published" means: your work in someone else's hands.
The book publishing industry is substantially more enlightened. Many publishers do not demand electronic distribution rights from their authors, and almost none demand the author turn over their copyright. Also, publishing contracts are usually region-specific (e.g. North America, UK & Ireland, Australia, etc.), leaving the original author to do anything he wants in a region that the publisher doesn't operate in. If a published author wants to download an illegal ebook of his work, all he has to do to avoid breaching his contract is to do it from a user in a country his publisher doesn't operate in (the distribution will have taken place there; there is probably nothing in his contract to prevent him from importing the copy once the distribution has taken place).
A. Piracy is theft, and since Metallica owns the rights to their own stuff, it's ok for any of them to pirate any of their music or walk into a store and grab one of their CDs.
A (2). Piracy is theft, and since Metallica owns the rights to their own stuff, it's ok for any of them to pirate any of their music. They have, however, already sold the CDs in any store to somebody else, so it isn't OK for them to just walk in and grab one.
(Note I don't actually stand behind this statement: piracy is an emotive, manipulative word that should not be used in rational debates about this subject, and copyright infringement is not theft as the definition of theft requires the victim to be deprived of their original possession, which doesn't happen here, but just saying you missed a logical option.)
If you take something without the intent to pay for it, you are a thief.
"Theft n 1. (Law) The act of stealing; specifically, the felonious taking and removing of personal property, with an intent to deprive the rightful owner of the same; larceny.
Note: To constitute theft there must be a taking without the owner's consent, and it must be unlawful or felonious; every part of the property stolen must be removed, however slightly, from its former position; and it must be, at least momentarily, in the complete possession of the thief."
A publisher pays 10% for a book....I guess you have not written anything lately then [...] writers are grossly underpaid something like 1$ (max) per book
I haven't published anything, no, but I do have several friends who have, and some who are in the publishing industry themselves. 10% is only common for ebooks, as I said, and ebooks are for the most part priced well below the $10 figure where the 10% would approach the $1 limit you're talking about. Most of those with print books are getting 6%, which typically works out much less than $1.
Depends on the contract, I would say though, that even if something like this cost x amount of dollars to produce on print, ebooks cost nothing, they take up room on a server for download, and cost x amount to create from a written copy (from the writer) to a digital copy, which is always done anyways for backup purposes. So again nothing costs money there, no R&D, no materials, nothing, so an ebook can be sold for 1$ and still make money!
Yes and no. Sure, it's possible to try to sell ebooks without spending any money on them. Generally, you won't get very far. You need to attract buyers, and as the book isn't going to be in front of them in a bookshop, that means advertising, which can get very costly very quickly. Yes, the marketing costs of an ebook are less than the manufacturing and distribution costs of a printed book, but if we're talking enough marketing to be moderately successful (shifting 10,000 copies, say), the costs are going to be comparable (maybe 25-50% as high).
As a relative of an author, I happen to know that the proper union is the Writer's Guild of America, West" (WGAW).
From their web site's description tag: "The WGAw represents writers in the motion picture, broadcast, cable and new media industries." The WGAW is only the proper union if you're a screenwriter.
Thats not to see that a publisher shouldn't get something; after all, they bind, market and distribute the books
Printers bind and distribute boks. Publishers don't normally do a lot to market books. But what they do do is provide the author with assistance in improving the book via constructive feedback, and then provide a list of books that they have chosen because they think they will sell well to distributors and book shops. Being on that list is the key to getting your book in front of people to have them consider whether or not to buy it, and it is the primary service that publishers provide.
I could download an ebook off the publisher's website for pennies compared to 20$ book from chapter's, and guess what the writer would still make his 2 cents.
This is not normally true. Most publishers pay about 10% on ebooks and about 6% on print books, meaning that generally the author is paid less for ebooks.
its been a long time since I did Win32, but I remember when they changed it so applications couldn't "steal" focus from another application if the focused application hadn't seen mouse or keyword activity in X seconds (X configurable through the registry). The number of times the taskbar window flashed was also a configurable registry setting... somehow, though, applications like Outlook could ALWAYS steal focus. I always wondered what API call they used to do that, because I could never find it, and I scoured MSDN.
They used this one (recently documented as part of MS's antitrust settlement with the EU, AIUI).
Linux's NTFS support is a joke? When did it stop working? I've been using it without problems for a couple of years now.
I've tried three different systems for supporting NTFS. One of them, the original, all the documentation has large warnings that enabling write access can corrupt your filesystem. This is clearly not a viable choice. Another requires a copy of ntfs.sys from a windows install. This is clearly not viable for an embedded system supplier. The third had appallingly slow performance, with most file operations taking 2-3 times as long as they did for other filesystems, including FAT32 which is known for its slow performance. It works, so I've ended up using it, but I'm far from happy with it, and would recommend to anyone who needs to share files between Linux and Windows systems that having a FAT system is still the best way of doing it.
I'll grant I'm using Debian Etch, so I'm probably a little behind the curve in terms of what's available in cutting-edge Linux, but given that we're talking about systems that were released to market in 2005 (and probably therefore designed in 2004 or even 2003), cutting edge isn't exactly an option for TomTom either.
Short filenames doesn't seem like a "Linux" issue to me since Linux doesn't do this. If Linux does have a driver that does this, then there may be some validity toward their claims. Perhaps that driver should be removed from Linux.
Linux's FAT32 driver does this. Removing the FAT32 driver would cause a lot of interoperability problems that would make Linux unsuitable for huge volumes of applications, e.g. accessing pictures stored on digital cameras (off the top of my head). TomTom needs this driver because they store the system on an SD card with the aim that systems can be upgraded/fixed by directly accessing the filesystem from a Windows PC, so they have to use either FAT32 or NTFS, and as Linux's support of NTFS is essentially a joke FAT32 is the only real option, therefore distributing a version without the offending driver compiled in is not an option for them.
It seems to me that he has no legal standing. IANAL, but if his supervisor tells him to give them the passwords, it is not his place to decide who it is 'safe' to give them to and who is not safe. That is his employers decision.
Yes, and the fact he did not follow his employer's request gives his employer a right to fire him for gross professional misconduct. Not institute criminal proceedings against him.
He was following orders. He had a legal agreement with the company not to share his passwords with ANYONE which presumably included his boss. What his boss was asking contradicted that agreement.
Probably not, no. Unless the NDA was very unusual, it only prevents disclosure to third parties. A representative of his employer is not a third party. The way it looks to me misinterpreted its scope, and tried to apply it in a situation it wasn't intended to cover.
Sorry. I'm a lawyer and you're only partly right. Passwords may not be "property" but it can still be potentially harmful to withhold them. If a plaintiff could prove harm or even better, immediate irreparable injury, a court would say give 'em up or go to jail, go directly to jail, do not pass go, do not collect two hundred dollars.
Why should I be under any obligation to do something for an organisation that is no longer my employer to prevent harm from coming to them? Sure, if it's my job I have to do what they ask me to, and if my negligence causes them harm then I could be in trouble. But if I'm no longer under contract, why should I do anything? Why, in fact, can I not say, "Oh, those passwords? Well, when I left my job with you they were no longer useful to me so I destroyed my copies of them, as security best practices dictate I should do with any confidential information I no longer require?"
The situation is bad, but it isn't quite as bad as this:
it looks like the writing is on the wall for unfiltered, uncensored Internet connections in the UK
They're only talking about broadband solutions marketed to consumers. Most ISPs offer "home office" broadband for just a few pounds per month more that isn't marketed to consumers, and hence would probably not fall under any legislation they may impose.
But there are a few things that people seem to forget when making the argument that the internet will kill media as we know it.
1. Local news. Sorry, but unless a plane drops out of the sky, CNN isn't remotely interested in in Ballarat, Australia - nor do most CNN readers care about the local government elections, or which local VIP has just been arrested for DUI, or who won the district football on the weekend - but I do, and so does our local newspaper. While they don't have the circulations of the major world newspapers...the bulk of print news is still regionally based.
I don't know about the local internet news in your area, but I have icCoventry and Coventry & Warwickshire Network to provide local news for my area. The first is a digital edition of a newspaper, and the second isn't, which means it provides more detail on some subjects and less on others. They complement each other nicely.
2. Local Advertising. The local plumber doesn't need to or want to advertise to the entire state, country or to the world writ large. He wants to target the people in his immediate area, and the larger newspapers, and TV, are cost prohibitive, and online sites (mostly) don't meet that need. Local businesses and small businesses need a centralised local vehicle to push their message.
It's quite possible to advertise locally on the Internet. There are sites like those above, or you can use IP/geographic lookup to regionally target adverts on national-interest sites, like all those adultfriendfinder adverts I keep seeing that say "meet hot singles in Birmingham" or whatever (ahem).
2. Content. Someone, somewhere has to generate it. Someone has to follow up on leads and stories, and get the word out. Sure, once the word IS OUT, there is no limit to the number of places online where you can find out about it, but someone had to go out and get the story in the first place, check the facts, and filter it down to a piece that most people can digest. THIS is where newspapers must head if they want to survive. They need to be going out and getting the in-depth investigations and stories that their competitors don't have, and stop relying on regurgitating the same stories that everyone else has.
Yes. But saying newspapers will die doesn't mean that journalists will die. They'll simply shift to different revenue models than selling a sheet of paper with adverts stuck on it. They'll move to special-interest web sites and content-indexing organisations that bring attention to the stories they think their readers will want to look at (kind of like slashdot is, only for all kinds of different readers, probably with a wider focus -- imagine a slashdot-like site for your local area, for example).
As long as people still want to sit down with a coffee to read through the week's news, local, national, international, and do the crosswords, read the comics etc., newspapers will be around. People enjoy sitting down and flicking through a paper at their leisure, and you can't do that online.
As handheld computers become more common and easier to use, more and more people will find them more convenient for this purpose. Physically, something like a kindle or an iliad or another similar device is way more convenient than a newspaper. Connectivity issues are disappearing; it seems like it won't be long before we have ubiquitous free-or-nearly-free wifi. The price of such computers is dropping, while their battery life expands. Once we get to the point where we can take these items anywhere we want to go and read relevant, targeted stories on the Internet, I doubt many of us will look back on the days we used to lug huge sheets of folded paper around with us.
The response from makomk is correct - downloading is not only illegal, but considered "making". The case was R v. Bowden.
Yes, I am aware of this distinction (I was actually present in court for some of the Operation Ore convictions, so saw first hand how the cases are handled), but it's only "making" because the bits that correspond to the image are stored, presumably on a permanent storage medium. It's "making" in the same way that taking a physical photo and photocopying it would be. Which seems reasonable enough: a new copy comes into existence.
But if the copy is only transitory, it may well not be considered "making". It certainly can't be considered "possessing", which is also an offence. I don't believe that any such case has been tried, despite claims to the contrary. I haven't found anybody who can point me to a case where a successful prosecution was made and the image was not stored on a permanent storage medium of some kind. I am aware that some of the Operation Ore prosecutions abandoned charges of making indecent images on the basis that no permanent copies of the images had been kept, yet proceded on charges of incitement to make indecent images, which heavily suggests that the CPS agrees with me.
So, I'll stand by my original theory: downloading and viewing such images would not be illegal if done with a browser that does not store a copy of the image.
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/memory.html#stackclass - Objects in D are not always allocated on the heap.
No, but making it an attribute of the class where they are allocated makes no sense at all. A general-purpose class cannot be defined to use stack allocation, and because D doesn't support multiple inheritance I can't mix the trait in without reimplementing it for each class I want to use that way.
Private use includes giving a copy for a friend or to your family.:)
I've thought before about the possibility of a file-sharing network where nodes would be set up in a kind of social networking system (probably it would have an associated facebook app to import your facebook friends lists), and you would only share files with your friends. To search for a file, first it would search all your friends who were online, then it would perform a breadth-first search of their friends, their friends' friends, etc. The file would be relayed from friend to friend, never being copied between two people who didn't know each other, and the identity of the original source never being revealed to anyone who wasn't on their friends list.
That way, if anyone was going to be prosecuted for copyright infringement, it could only be people on the *AA's friends list.
This would probably cancel the "making available" argument in a case like this one, because you're only making it available to your friends, probably a relatively small list of people.
How do the IWF identify websites with "child porn" on anyway..? As another comment said, viewing child porn is illegal.. do they have some exclusion from the law or what? They must have some grounds to "ban" a website, and the only way I can see possible, is for them to check themselves..
Actually, only possessing it is illegal. I haven't heard of any legal cases where porn held in computer RAM has been held to be an infringement of the law, so it would probably be legal to view it on a browser that had been modified to not cache data to a physical disk.
Slashdot Mirror
I can sign my name in 1.5 seconds, and type it even faster.
Or, I'm guessing, shout "here" in response to somebody calling your name faster still.
Besides which, when I was at college (in the UK age 16-18 normally) they didn't take register
I'm guessing you're about the same age as me (~30), or maybe even older. Health and safety regulations started getting really serious a few years after I left school, and now schools have a legal obligation to know who is in their buildings at all times.
I'm sure the students support because it saves them about 40 mins a day sitting their whilst a teacher goes through the register
I may be misremembering, but I don't remember it taking this long at my school. Nor do I think somebody was spending "an hour and a half a day" recording data. In fact, I think 1.5 seconds per student is pretty freaking slow; you could easily get that down to 1 second each using a "shout out name and check box" system, I'm sure. But that wouldn't be "cool". And wouldn't cost the taxpayer anywhere near as much.
"Only today (Thursday, 05 March) we had a fire alarm test and the administration staff were able to quickly and effectively print data off from the system showing who was on site."
Of course, in my day the records were held on paper anyway, so there was no nead to "quickly and effectively print data off the system": just pick up the already-existing record sheet. I see no compelling reason why this needs to change.
The list he's talking about can be found at Fictionwise eBooks: Multiformat eBooks. That's the same link used in the original blog post Salacious content driving the adoption of ebooks? Under multiformat, 6 of the 10 listed are Erotica/Romance, 3 others are listed as Erotica, Erotica/Fantasy and Erotica/Dark Fantasy and #2 is Dark Fantasy/Fantasy.
So all this tells us is that porn is available in multiple formats, whereas most popular books are only available in one format. Which isn't all that interesting, really.
The fact that he co-wrote the music makes no difference, except that it might also be a breach of contract.
Actually, I suspect it's only a breach of contract. Signing an exclusive distribution licence doesn't invalidate your copyright, or transfer it to the other party. Sure, Lars is contractually bound not to do anything that might constitute distributing his music without his label's permission, but he can legally violate that contract in order to authorise himself to download the music. Assuming the copyrights haven't actually been entirely signed over, that is.
The same applies to published authors, BTW. That's pretty much what "published" means: your work in someone else's hands.
The book publishing industry is substantially more enlightened. Many publishers do not demand electronic distribution rights from their authors, and almost none demand the author turn over their copyright. Also, publishing contracts are usually region-specific (e.g. North America, UK & Ireland, Australia, etc.), leaving the original author to do anything he wants in a region that the publisher doesn't operate in. If a published author wants to download an illegal ebook of his work, all he has to do to avoid breaching his contract is to do it from a user in a country his publisher doesn't operate in (the distribution will have taken place there; there is probably nothing in his contract to prevent him from importing the copy once the distribution has taken place).
IANAL, but I have studied this shit quite a bit.
A. Piracy is theft, and since Metallica owns the rights to their own stuff, it's ok for any of them to pirate any of their music or walk into a store and grab one of their CDs.
A (2). Piracy is theft, and since Metallica owns the rights to their own stuff, it's ok for any of them to pirate any of their music. They have, however, already sold the CDs in any store to somebody else, so it isn't OK for them to just walk in and grab one.
(Note I don't actually stand behind this statement: piracy is an emotive, manipulative word that should not be used in rational debates about this subject, and copyright infringement is not theft as the definition of theft requires the victim to be deprived of their original possession, which doesn't happen here, but just saying you missed a logical option.)
If you take something without the intent to pay for it, you are a thief.
"Theft n 1. (Law) The act of stealing; specifically, the felonious taking and removing of personal property, with an intent to deprive the rightful owner of the same; larceny.
Note: To constitute theft there must be a taking without the owner's consent, and it must be unlawful or felonious; every part of the property stolen must be removed, however slightly, from its former position; and it must be, at least momentarily, in the complete possession of the thief."
(Webster's unabridged)
Doesn't sound like downloading's theft to me.
But they are lawyers and will do whatever is in the best interest of their clients/employers, just as ethics dictates.
Except, of course, giving up using p2p to download their shit, which would also be in the interests of their clients.
But, hey, you can't expect people to have, you know, standards or anything.
A publisher pays 10% for a book....I guess you have not written anything lately then [...] writers are grossly underpaid something like 1$ (max) per book
I haven't published anything, no, but I do have several friends who have, and some who are in the publishing industry themselves. 10% is only common for ebooks, as I said, and ebooks are for the most part priced well below the $10 figure where the 10% would approach the $1 limit you're talking about. Most of those with print books are getting 6%, which typically works out much less than $1.
Depends on the contract, I would say though, that even if something like this cost x amount of dollars to produce on print, ebooks cost nothing, they take up room on a server for download, and cost x amount to create from a written copy (from the writer) to a digital copy, which is always done anyways for backup purposes. So again nothing costs money there, no R&D, no materials, nothing,
so an ebook can be sold for 1$ and still make money!
Yes and no. Sure, it's possible to try to sell ebooks without spending any money on them. Generally, you won't get very far. You need to attract buyers, and as the book isn't going to be in front of them in a bookshop, that means advertising, which can get very costly very quickly. Yes, the marketing costs of an ebook are less than the manufacturing and distribution costs of a printed book, but if we're talking enough marketing to be moderately successful (shifting 10,000 copies, say), the costs are going to be comparable (maybe 25-50% as high).
As a relative of an author, I happen to know that the proper union is the Writer's Guild of America, West" (WGAW).
From their web site's description tag: "The WGAw represents writers in the motion picture, broadcast, cable and new media industries." The WGAW is only the proper union if you're a screenwriter.
Thats not to see that a publisher shouldn't get something; after all, they bind, market and distribute the books
Printers bind and distribute boks. Publishers don't normally do a lot to market books. But what they do do is provide the author with assistance in improving the book via constructive feedback, and then provide a list of books that they have chosen because they think they will sell well to distributors and book shops. Being on that list is the key to getting your book in front of people to have them consider whether or not to buy it, and it is the primary service that publishers provide.
I could download an ebook off the publisher's website for pennies compared to 20$ book from chapter's, and guess what the writer would still make his 2 cents.
This is not normally true. Most publishers pay about 10% on ebooks and about 6% on print books, meaning that generally the author is paid less for ebooks.
its been a long time since I did Win32, but I remember when they changed it so applications couldn't "steal" focus from another application if the focused application hadn't seen mouse or keyword activity in X seconds (X configurable through the registry). The number of times the taskbar window flashed was also a configurable registry setting... somehow, though, applications like Outlook could ALWAYS steal focus. I always wondered what API call they used to do that, because I could never find it, and I scoured MSDN.
They used this one (recently documented as part of MS's antitrust settlement with the EU, AIUI).
Linux's NTFS support is a joke? When did it stop working? I've been using it without problems for a couple of years now.
I've tried three different systems for supporting NTFS. One of them, the original, all the documentation has large warnings that enabling write access can corrupt your filesystem. This is clearly not a viable choice. Another requires a copy of ntfs.sys from a windows install. This is clearly not viable for an embedded system supplier. The third had appallingly slow performance, with most file operations taking 2-3 times as long as they did for other filesystems, including FAT32 which is known for its slow performance. It works, so I've ended up using it, but I'm far from happy with it, and would recommend to anyone who needs to share files between Linux and Windows systems that having a FAT system is still the best way of doing it.
I'll grant I'm using Debian Etch, so I'm probably a little behind the curve in terms of what's available in cutting-edge Linux, but given that we're talking about systems that were released to market in 2005 (and probably therefore designed in 2004 or even 2003), cutting edge isn't exactly an option for TomTom either.
Short filenames doesn't seem like a "Linux" issue to me since Linux doesn't do this. If Linux does have a driver that does this, then there may be some validity toward their claims. Perhaps that driver should be removed from Linux.
Linux's FAT32 driver does this. Removing the FAT32 driver would cause a lot of interoperability problems that would make Linux unsuitable for huge volumes of applications, e.g. accessing pictures stored on digital cameras (off the top of my head). TomTom needs this driver because they store the system on an SD card with the aim that systems can be upgraded/fixed by directly accessing the filesystem from a Windows PC, so they have to use either FAT32 or NTFS, and as Linux's support of NTFS is essentially a joke FAT32 is the only real option, therefore distributing a version without the offending driver compiled in is not an option for them.
It seems to me that he has no legal standing. IANAL, but if his supervisor tells him to give them the passwords, it is not his place to decide who it is 'safe' to give them to and who is not safe. That is his employers decision.
Yes, and the fact he did not follow his employer's request gives his employer a right to fire him for gross professional misconduct. Not institute criminal proceedings against him.
He was following orders. He had a legal agreement with the company not to share his passwords with ANYONE which presumably included his boss. What his boss was asking contradicted that agreement.
Probably not, no. Unless the NDA was very unusual, it only prevents disclosure to third parties. A representative of his employer is not a third party. The way it looks to me misinterpreted its scope, and tried to apply it in a situation it wasn't intended to cover.
Sorry. I'm a lawyer and you're only partly right. Passwords may not be "property" but it can still be potentially harmful to withhold them. If a plaintiff could prove harm or even better, immediate irreparable injury, a court would say give 'em up or go to jail, go directly to jail, do not pass go, do not collect two hundred dollars.
Why should I be under any obligation to do something for an organisation that is no longer my employer to prevent harm from coming to them? Sure, if it's my job I have to do what they ask me to, and if my negligence causes them harm then I could be in trouble. But if I'm no longer under contract, why should I do anything? Why, in fact, can I not say, "Oh, those passwords? Well, when I left my job with you they were no longer useful to me so I destroyed my copies of them, as security best practices dictate I should do with any confidential information I no longer require?"
The situation is bad, but it isn't quite as bad as this:
it looks like the writing is on the wall for unfiltered, uncensored Internet connections in the UK
They're only talking about broadband solutions marketed to consumers. Most ISPs offer "home office" broadband for just a few pounds per month more that isn't marketed to consumers, and hence would probably not fall under any legislation they may impose.
But there are a few things that people seem to forget when making the argument that the internet will kill media as we know it.
1. Local news. Sorry, but unless a plane drops out of the sky, CNN isn't remotely interested in in Ballarat, Australia - nor do most CNN readers care about the local government elections, or which local VIP has just been arrested for DUI, or who won the district football on the weekend - but I do, and so does our local newspaper.
While they don't have the circulations of the major world newspapers...the bulk of print news is still regionally based.
I don't know about the local internet news in your area, but I have icCoventry and Coventry & Warwickshire Network to provide local news for my area. The first is a digital edition of a newspaper, and the second isn't, which means it provides more detail on some subjects and less on others. They complement each other nicely.
2. Local Advertising. The local plumber doesn't need to or want to advertise to the entire state, country or to the world writ large. He wants to target the people in his immediate area, and the larger newspapers, and TV, are cost prohibitive, and online sites (mostly) don't meet that need. Local businesses and small businesses need a
centralised local vehicle to push their message.
It's quite possible to advertise locally on the Internet. There are sites like those above, or you can use IP/geographic lookup to regionally target adverts on national-interest sites, like all those adultfriendfinder adverts I keep seeing that say "meet hot singles in Birmingham" or whatever (ahem).
2. Content. Someone, somewhere has to generate it. Someone has to follow up on leads and stories, and get the word out. Sure, once the word IS OUT, there is no limit to the number of places online where you can find out about it, but someone had to go out and get the story in the first place, check the facts, and filter it down to a piece that most people can digest. THIS is where newspapers must head if they want to survive.
They need to be going out and getting the in-depth investigations and stories that their competitors don't have, and stop relying on regurgitating the same stories that everyone else has.
Yes. But saying newspapers will die doesn't mean that journalists will die. They'll simply shift to different revenue models than selling a sheet of paper with adverts stuck on it. They'll move to special-interest web sites and content-indexing organisations that bring attention to the stories they think their readers will want to look at (kind of like slashdot is, only for all kinds of different readers, probably with a wider focus -- imagine a slashdot-like site for your local area, for example).
As long as people still want to sit down with a coffee to read through the week's news, local, national, international, and do the crosswords, read the comics etc., newspapers will be around. People enjoy sitting down and flicking through a paper at their leisure, and you can't do that online.
As handheld computers become more common and easier to use, more and more people will find them more convenient for this purpose. Physically, something like a kindle or an iliad or another similar device is way more convenient than a newspaper. Connectivity issues are disappearing; it seems like it won't be long before we have ubiquitous free-or-nearly-free wifi. The price of such computers is dropping, while their battery life expands. Once we get to the point where we can take these items anywhere we want to go and read relevant, targeted stories on the Internet, I doubt many of us will look back on the days we used to lug huge sheets of folded paper around with us.
The response from makomk is correct - downloading is not only illegal, but considered "making". The case was R v. Bowden.
Yes, I am aware of this distinction (I was actually present in court for some of the Operation Ore convictions, so saw first hand how the cases are handled), but it's only "making" because the bits that correspond to the image are stored, presumably on a permanent storage medium. It's "making" in the same way that taking a physical photo and photocopying it would be. Which seems reasonable enough: a new copy comes into existence.
But if the copy is only transitory, it may well not be considered "making". It certainly can't be considered "possessing", which is also an offence. I don't believe that any such case has been tried, despite claims to the contrary. I haven't found anybody who can point me to a case where a successful prosecution was made and the image was not stored on a permanent storage medium of some kind. I am aware that some of the Operation Ore prosecutions abandoned charges of making indecent images on the basis that no permanent copies of the images had been kept, yet proceded on charges of incitement to make indecent images, which heavily suggests that the CPS agrees with me.
So, I'll stand by my original theory: downloading and viewing such images would not be illegal if done with a browser that does not store a copy of the image.
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/memory.html#stackclass - Objects in D are not always allocated on the heap.
No, but making it an attribute of the class where they are allocated makes no sense at all. A general-purpose class cannot be defined to use stack allocation, and because D doesn't support multiple inheritance I can't mix the trait in without reimplementing it for each class I want to use that way.
Private use includes giving a copy for a friend or to your family. :)
I've thought before about the possibility of a file-sharing network where nodes would be set up in a kind of social networking system (probably it would have an associated facebook app to import your facebook friends lists), and you would only share files with your friends. To search for a file, first it would search all your friends who were online, then it would perform a breadth-first search of their friends, their friends' friends, etc. The file would be relayed from friend to friend, never being copied between two people who didn't know each other, and the identity of the original source never being revealed to anyone who wasn't on their friends list.
That way, if anyone was going to be prosecuted for copyright infringement, it could only be people on the *AA's friends list.
This would probably cancel the "making available" argument in a case like this one, because you're only making it available to your friends, probably a relatively small list of people.
How do the IWF identify websites with "child porn" on anyway..? As another comment said, viewing child porn is illegal.. do they have some exclusion from the law or what? They must have some grounds to "ban" a website, and the only way I can see possible, is for them to check themselves..
Actually, only possessing it is illegal. I haven't heard of any legal cases where porn held in computer RAM has been held to be an infringement of the law, so it would probably be legal to view it on a browser that had been modified to not cache data to a physical disk.
Anyone wanna check the "virgin killer" image at this site? Is it blocked in UK?
Works for me, and my ISP supposedly blocked the wikipedia article (although it had unblocked it by the time I heard about the controversy).