"the law was financed and pushed by the United States"
and pushed through on the back of legislation for assisting those affected by the Christchurch earthquake. So anyone opposing this bit of the bill would also be denying help to those who really needed it.
I wish that was how our supplier did it, but thay have their own naming standard based on location by country, city, server identifier and operating system. Great for them when they want to apply OS and security patches, but of no help to us when we get change records or problem records assigned to us because the name is similar to a server we do look have to look after, which serves a different function.
Some people are trying to lead us to believe that NASA is a waste of time and money too. $DEITY help us if we start believing them. Your comment would lead me to belive that you already have.
Yeah - my bad. I was reading through the comments and didn't notice the original link in the summary. I thought I was being helpful, but I was beaten to it. Rather than modding my original post as insightful mod it as redundant. Meanwhile I'll get me coat.
Just say that to my face, directly in front of me so I can read your lips, cos my hearing is shot to buggery, as I have frequented too many venues that have judged quality not on what they play, but how loud they can play it. Did I have a good time though, how should I know, I was popping too many pills and smoking too much weed to notice.
Seriously, if the.xxx tld is passed, then all it does is grant the domain registrar a licence to print money. Any company or organisation wishing to protect its brand/image may be unwillingly forced to pay for registration in the.xxx namespace purely to stop others from putting up things they do not want to be associated with. While some here might say that that is tough, and I'd be inclined to agree with them, the only one guaranteed to be making any money from all of this will be the domain registrar.
A few landsharks may also make money from litigation and suing domain squatters, but it does not necessarily mean they are going to make any money.
I were to apply for a patent detailing how to apply for a patent, and it were granted? Could I sue everyone who applies for a patent using my process? Could I sue the FTC for using my patented process that they granted me the patent for?
There is a lesson to be learned here. There's no economic loss to record companies when people copy their own CDs to MP3s or some other digital format. However, it will cost the government millions to enforce a law that prevents that.
Any law preventing people from doing so, does not benefit the people so could it be regarded as unjust. No-one is losing out financially if I were (hypothetically speaking of course) to rip my CDs to another audio format, providing I did not distribute them.
Interestingly, suppose I lent one of my CDs to a friend to listen to, and they were to make a copy of it, without my knowledge. Where would I stand in the eyes of the law here in NZ. I know it says, or used to say, on the insert that lending was forbidden, along with public broadcasting, without the express permission of the record label. But then most CDs here are pressed, labelled and distributed in Australia, so what may apply there may not apply here. And if your taste in music is obscure, you end up having to get items shipped from the US or EU. In that instance what could a record company do here, when they choose not to distribute the product that's being copied.
FWIW here in NZ there is no 'fair use' clause allowing people to make copies for their own use. So in effect anyone who does rip any tracks from any CDs they happen to own is breaking the law. The record company execs are worried that by allowing some form of copying the floodgates will be opened. In the article, Micheal Glading, the MD of Sony NZ mentions that he is opposed to the move.
Paradoxically, Sony NZ sell MiniDisc players here in NZ and also sell the blank MiniDiscs. No doubt, if you were to visit one of their retail outlets and enquire as to what you could use them for, you would probably be told by their reps that you can use them to copy CDs (I might even give it a go tomorrow).
The law here in NZ is an ass, because it is perfectly legal to buy devices for playback of ripped cds and also legal to buy the software for ripping cds.
Your logic is seriously flawed if you think virus writers are providing a service. More often than not they are exploiting a flaw someone else discovered, but has been prevented from making the general public aware of until the software provider has a fix available. This makes the software company look good, because they can say "Oh a problem was found with our product, but a fix is available from here (link to appropriate URL)."
In reality what they should be telling us is "Yeah we stuffed up and anyone could have used your computer for whatever purpose they wanted. We were told about it months ago by these guys link to appropriate URL), but made them sign an NDA forbidding them from telling anyone else."
Slashdot Mirror
The guy was a felon
No he was an alleged felon. He had not been convicted of any of the crimes he allegedly committed.
But then since you're posting anonymously, you don't appear to me to be prepared to stand behind the statement you made.
Having read your post and seeing the ToS you apply I was wanting to know how to make the payment.
Please can you post the following details so payment can made most quickly
Full Name
SSID Number
Address
Bank Account Details
Credit Card Details
Email Address
Telephone Number(s) - both landline and cellphone
Thanks in advance
"the law was financed and pushed by the United States"
and pushed through on the back of legislation for assisting those affected by the Christchurch earthquake. So anyone opposing this bit of the bill would also be denying help to those who really needed it.
I wish that was how our supplier did it, but thay have their own naming standard based on location by country, city, server identifier and operating system. Great for them when they want to apply OS and security patches, but of no help to us when we get change records or problem records assigned to us because the name is similar to a server we do look have to look after, which serves a different function.
Some people are trying to lead us to believe that NASA is a waste of time and money too. $DEITY help us if we start believing them. Your comment would lead me to belive that you already have.
Yeah - my bad. I was reading through the comments and didn't notice the original link in the summary. I thought I was being helpful, but I was beaten to it. Rather than modding my original post as insightful mod it as redundant. Meanwhile I'll get me coat.
Go to the following URL http://www.nokia.com/batteryreplacement/en/ to check if you are affected
Just say that to my face, directly in front of me so I can read your lips, cos my hearing is shot to buggery, as I have frequented too many venues that have judged quality not on what they play, but how loud they can play it. Did I have a good time though, how should I know, I was popping too many pills and smoking too much weed to notice.
The mind can only boggle.
.xxx tld is passed, then all it does is grant the domain registrar a licence to print money. Any company or organisation wishing to protect its brand/image may be unwillingly forced to pay for registration in the .xxx namespace purely to stop others from putting up things they do not want to be associated with. While some here might say that that is tough, and I'd be inclined to agree with them, the only one guaranteed to be making any money from all of this will be the domain registrar.
Seriously, if the
A few landsharks may also make money from litigation and suing domain squatters, but it does not necessarily mean they are going to make any money.
And radiactivity shall now be known as Magic Moon Beams (Not The Nine O'clock News sketch, IIRC)
I were to apply for a patent detailing how to apply for a patent, and it were granted? Could I sue everyone who applies for a patent using my process?
Could I sue the FTC for using my patented process that they granted me the patent for?
I think my brain is about to explode
Any law preventing people from doing so, does not benefit the people so could it be regarded as unjust. No-one is losing out financially if I were (hypothetically speaking of course) to rip my CDs to another audio format, providing I did not distribute them.
Interestingly, suppose I lent one of my CDs to a friend to listen to, and they were to make a copy of it, without my knowledge. Where would I stand in the eyes of the law here in NZ. I know it says, or used to say, on the insert that lending was forbidden, along with public broadcasting, without the express permission of the record label. But then most CDs here are pressed, labelled and distributed in Australia, so what may apply there may not apply here. And if your taste in music is obscure, you end up having to get items shipped from the US or EU. In that instance what could a record company do here, when they choose not to distribute the product that's being copied.
FWIW here in NZ there is no 'fair use' clause allowing people to make copies for their own use. So in effect anyone who does rip any tracks from any CDs they happen to own is breaking the law. The record company execs are worried that by allowing some form of copying the floodgates will be opened.
In the article, Micheal Glading, the MD of Sony NZ mentions that he is opposed to the move.
Paradoxically, Sony NZ sell MiniDisc players here in NZ and also sell the blank MiniDiscs. No doubt, if you were to visit one of their retail outlets and enquire as to what you could use them for, you would probably be told by their reps that you can use them to copy CDs (I might even give it a go tomorrow).
The law here in NZ is an ass, because it is perfectly legal to buy devices for playback of ripped cds and also legal to buy the software for ripping cds.
Your logic is seriously flawed if you think virus writers are providing a service. More often than not they are exploiting a flaw someone else discovered, but has been prevented from making the general public aware of until the software provider has a fix available. This makes the software company look good, because they can say "Oh a problem was found with our product, but a fix is available from here (link to appropriate URL)."
In reality what they should be telling us is "Yeah we stuffed up and anyone could have used your computer for whatever purpose they wanted. We
were told about it months ago by these guys link to appropriate URL), but made them sign an NDA forbidding them from telling anyone else."