Tempting other people into crime is bad! The victim is the thief who was forced by his impulses and the owners carelessness into committing the crime and having to pay a fine/spend time in prison.
Cute, but the thief is still only potentially a victim, (s)he might be walking down the an other street that day.
I suspect that the 'victims' here were the insurance companies and that their lobbyists had a little word in the Premier's ear. But hey, don't listen to me, I'm just a cynical old bastard.
It's also a bit nuts when some Australian court can say, "Cartoons of children having sex is illegal." No victims; no crime.
If you insist on maintaining the equation between "crime" and the existence of victims while trying to come to grips with Australian (or any other jurisdiction's) Criminal Law you will end up with an ulcer. Remember in NSW it is a crime to leave your car unlocked when parking on a public street! Victimless crimes (including crimes that have merely potential victims, think: drug importation, traffic offences etc.) form the overwhelming majority of crimes.
In any case, you are in a tiny minority in not being offended by child pornography. Even in the US, where SCOTUS has found that CP per se is protected speech (and the offenders are the personae you refer to), the law of obscenity, which is determined by local "community values," will almost always criminalise CP.
If you are beholden to the EULA than the software publisher has ultimate control over "how copies are used".
Yes but this control arises out of you agreement to be bound by the terms of the contract, not from the exclusive rights arisiong out of copyright.
If you want further evidence that EULA's are unenforceable...
EULA's are enforcable.
... remember Windows Refund Day? Computer users asked Microsoft for a refund of unwanted Windows installations, as specified under the EULA. Microsoft ignored them.
That's too silly for words, really. For a start how could "something specified under the EULA" be enforcable if the parties didn't reach agreement in relation to the EULA? Secondly, even if you have a right, how does the other party "ignoring" you prove your right is "unenforcable"?
When you read this comment and the cases cited therein, you will begin to see the licence agreements for software are not only enforcable, but are regarded as the norm. I'm outta here.
Obviously, the part of the parent's post that you were emphatically agreeing to, obviously:
Not obvious at all! Could you repost and put a em tag on the "how copies are used" (or whatever you think implies it), because I simply cannot see it.
If there is actually some point you are trying to make here, you are failing to communicate it. Explicit is better than implicit.
If I was going to be persnickety I'd point at that that copyright holder retains their exclusive rights, even if an licence exists, they just allow you to excercise them too (or promise not to sue if you do). And that you don't necessarily get sued, you are just liable. I also pointed out later that the post was probably incorrect as far as DVDs go, but apart from the what you quote would seem to reflect the law as it is practised in relation to software licensing.
Uh, no. The copyright holder has exclusive rights over making copies of a product, not in how copies are used.
Yes it is absolutely correct that the copyright holder has exclusive rights and that if you infringe those rights which are exclusive the the copyright holder you are liable to be sued. Where did the "how copies are used" come from?!
Dealing with this first. It was cited to show that you don't need to know the identity of the party with whom you are contracting in order to be bound. All joking aside, what do you mean "it clearly doesn't apply!?" Not only does it show that, it shows that you should have learnt this in your very first contracts lecture!
The right to run the software is not one of the exclusive rights included in copyright (see 17 USC 106).
Not contested.
Furthermore, the right to make copies incidental to executing the software is specifically permitted to the owner of a copy of the software (17 USC 117).
Indeed under 117(1) "the owner of a copy of a computer program" is allowed to make a copy for "as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner." Thus images contained on one medium (eg. disk) that are loaded (copied) into another (eg. RAM) do not constitute the making of an infringing copy. As poor as the drafting may be, this at least is the clear intent of the provision.
I agree, at first glance, this would also appear to permit the purchaser of physical medium containing an OS to install (copy) the OS sans licence. You have to remember, however, the 117 only protects the owner of the copy. And you probably don't have unfettered ownership of it. Have a look at that cardboard box, does it anywhere contain indicating that your use for the product is subject to entering into a licence agreement? Being the careful guy you are, when you bought that box, you of course read that licence agreement. I mean who would hand over their money knowing that use was subject to an agreement without first checking it out, right?;) Pay especial attention to the first clause!
This very point of law is currently before the court in Apple v Pystar. However, both you and Pystar face the same problem: there is ample authority suggesting that purchasers of physical media containing software, the use of which is expressed as being subject to licence, are not owners, but mere licencees, and are thus not protected by 117 (eg. Wall Data, MAI Systems, Adobe v Stargate, the last not being about 117 itself, but about the licencee status of purchaser.)
This, in turn, is the point of law on which MDY will be appealing in MDY v Blizzard. One should of course never second guess a court's decision, but it would be surprising if either MDY or Psystar were able to prevail against what appears to be the established authority. One thing I will predict, however, is that if these cases end as previous authority suggests they will, there will be a howl of idignation from slashdotters who have at best read the statutory provisions, but are otherwise bosltered only by their ignorance of the law surrounding them.
The shiny plastic disc is a copy of the software (17 USC 101).
Agreed, but note also under 202 that "Ownership of a copyright... is distinct from ownership of any material object in which the work is embodied." It would seem a strange result if a specific exception such as 117 were able to be used as a backdoor to undermine this basic principle of copyright law! This is why 117, in speaking of "owner[s] of cop[ies]," confuses matters. It should have been preferred to grant exceptions to lawful users of said computer programs, irregardles of whether they are owners or mere licencees. Which only goes to show that one should never elect a non-lawyer into the legislature!;)
Without any agreement otherwise, the copyright holder has exclusive rights over the product. If you don't make an agreement, or violate the license, you get sued for copyright infringement just as you do with copies of unauthorized copies of DVDs.
That is absolutely correct. You were correct also in pointing above out that the a signature is not required to enter into a EULA. In fact if the vast majority of contracts were not entered into without signing out lives should become intolerable. The example you chose, however, somewhat muddied the waters: You wrote: "Good luck explaining to the court that making copies of it is OK because you never signed a contract." which might be read, as the GP read it, to imply that you thought the basis of suit was that you "agreed to an implicit 'license agreement' when they purchased the original which forbids them from making copies."
Obviously you didn't mean that. As you clearly state above, the very opposite is the case. You are sued because you don't have a license to copy. After all a license is the granting or permission to do what is the exclusive right of the holder, and the setting of limits as that what is permitted, not the imposition of prohibitions per se.
I don't know if you can see how your example lent itself to being misread, but I think a more general example pertaining to the requirement of signatures might have made the point more forcefully, eg. "Did you sign a contract the last time you entered into an agreement with McDonalds for the provision of a burger? Yet you still handed over your money, and you still got your burger."
And by the way - you do agree to an implicit license agreement when you buy a DVD. That's what the copyright warning before the film is - it outlines the conditions of use that you must follow. Exactly the same as a EULA.
I don't think it is clear that you do enter into, even and implicit, license with the copyright holder in that case. After all, nothing that is the exclusive right of the holder has been granted to you when you purchase a DVD, has it? You can't copy it, perform it in public, etc. The better view is that the copyright warning, is precisely that, a warning as to your statutory liability should you perform any action which is the exclusive right of the holder.
OTOH, the situation with regard to explicitly (via dialog box) agreeing with the holder to licence conditions and then doing something which is the exclusive right of the licensor, as in the case of installing software and EULAs, clearly does involve entering into a contract.
As far as I know, nobody has ever been successfully sued for violating a license agreement (as opposed to copyright law itself, or the DMCA)...
I'm getting the feeling YANAL, so I'll go easy on you (yeah right I will). What you have written is something akin to "AFAIK nobody has ever been locked out of their house because they have lost their key (as opposed to not being able to unlock the door)."
Here's the deal. A licence (in relation to IP rights) is an agreement (contract) between the holder of IP rights and the licensee whereby the IP holder permits the licensee to exercise certain rights otherwise exclusively reserved for the holder, such as the making of a copy (eg. installing the software) of copyrighted material. "Permits" here means: agrees not to sue the licensee for IP infringment, subject to the terms of the license agreement. If you violate your license agreement to the point where it no longer subsits you lose your protection from suit and the consequence is that you are liable to be sued in copyright (or whatever other IP right).
Do you understand yet why being "successfully sued for violating a license agreement" is not "as opposed to" being sued under "copyright law itself?"
I bought a copy of it. A nice shiny disc in a shrink-wrapped cardboard package.
Agreed! You are perfectly within your rights to put it on your shelf (or to use it as a paper weight etc.) and admire the nice shiny disc (or the cardboard package if that is your thing).
Apple doesn't even know who has it... So I can't possibly have entered into a contract with Apple.
Long established that you don't have to know with whom you have contracted for a contract to be enforcable. The very first contract case most law students read at law school shows this.
I didn't buy it from them.
You bought a nice shiny disc from a vendor, without any right to run the software on it (which the vendor has no right to sell). So, yes look at it by all means.
If you didn't press a button reading "I AGREE" in response to a message sent to you from Apple, offering you a license actually to use the software contained on that nice shiny disc, then yes, you have probably not entered into a contract with Apple.
I've got some advice for you. If you like looking at nice shiny discs so much, there are less expensive ways to get them than to purchase them with an OS, for which you have no intention of entering into a licensing agreement, on them. Really.
...the hacker guy tried to be funny but only made things worse for himself.
Yup that was my first reaction too. They let you on a box to install a prison-wide TV system so what do you do?
A. Install the system, get the props from your fellow inmates who know you are responsible for keeping their new toy running; get props from the authorities, increasing your chances of an early release; build enough trust that maybe in the future you'll be allowed somewhere near a box to do other fun stuff,
OR,
B. SNAFU the system, volunteer as the authorities' punching bag; blow your chances of an early release; and ensure you will not be allowed anywhere near anything more advanced than a transistor radio for the next 5 years?
Which just goes to show that intelligence doesn't immunise you against stupidity.
Interesting question you pose. An original thought, or something you picked up elsewhere?
I'm not sure which particular question you are referring to, but since almost all my thoughts are interesting, chances are it was original.;)
This is the book that recites the modern events. It's clear from a reading that sexual abuse has been an issue on Pitcairn for far longer than Steve Christian and his father have been around.250 years may be a slight exaggeration, but 100 years is supported by at least one account from the turn of the last century (referenced in the book).
Props for coming up with a reference, props for admitting the rhetorical hyperbole. The fact that sexual abuse is not entirely new on Pitcairn should hardly come as a surprise, given it's remoteness and relative lack of government. Nor is sexual abuse necessarily limited to the remote and ungoverned corners of the world. In any case I think we can both agree now, that this is unlikely to be caused by the genetic legacy of the mutineers. Now just reversing your next observations:
One must also look at his crossing to Timor (?? I can't remember if that's where he went after the mutiny) as an indicator of a set of skills that you and I certainly do not possess. IIRC, he continued his mapping mission while this was underway as well.
Oh I agree that he was a skilled mariner. As I wrote "[h]e was a pretty nifty sailor." Indeed my dig about Aspergers in the changed subject was to imply a certain geekishness, that is to say, technical skills: high, interpersonal skills: low.
Now, on the the question of governorship: how does an inability to govern an island while London is undermining you support a claim that Bligh was inept at captaining a naval vessel.
Because the skill set for being an extra-ordinary captain, as Cook apparently was, are the combination of technical and people skills. As I said, one mutiny could be forgiven, two (and the second far better documented) reveals how terrible was his lack of political and managerial skills. Skills, in addition to Bligh's nautical expertise, you and I also don't necessarily have.
You have to understand that from the point of view of an historian living in NSW, the Bounty episode was trivial in comparison to his governorship. Accordingly you'll note in my original post, I pay hardly any attention to his naval career, focussing instead on the more important events. Macquarie found himself in a situation hardly less difficult (admittedly the reformation of the troops helped tremendously), and by a variety of strategies was able, if not quite break the back of the elite, at least diminish their power tremendously. In part (and only in part, Macquarie could be quite the despot when required), he did this by advancing men (sic) of talent, even (or perhaps) especially ex-convicts. Moreover Macquarie was able to advance the colony tremendously. His genius puts in sharp relief Bligh's lack thereof.
What source is putting 2005 at a higher temperature than 1998?
When you read the article linked to you will see that the issue here is not whether two selected years are hotter and colder than each other (eg. 1850 vs 2005), it's whether the decadal trend is rising, steady or falling. Do you already understand why even if the trend over the last decade were falling (it wasn't) that would not necessarily be significant when viewed against all of the data from the instrumental, a fortiori the extra-instrumental, record?
I read quite a few actually, but there's one book I'd particularly like to read, namely the one you are citing to establish your claim that the Pitcairn Islands have seen 250 years of continuous child rape. Or was that merely defamatory? (And yes I'm familiar with the more recent events).
Seeing Mel Gibson as Christian, while I'm sure it gave you a stiffy, is not an accurate portrayal.
What do you base this certainty on? I'm sorry, I don't share your homo-erotic attraction to Mel Gibson. I haven't actually seen the movie you are referring to, but I'm glad you enjoyed it. But look Bligh was not the first, nor would he be the last captain to suffer mutiny. It's his subsquent career that reveals the full extent of his ineptitude. And once familiar with his failings, that particular mutiny will be seen in a different light.
As far as the rebellion, your own link provides plenty of information indicating that success on the part of Bligh was nearly impossible given how many factors were stacked against him.
You're right. Bligh was never going to achieve what he sent out to do. He simply lacked any political or interpersonal skills. To carry out his ambitions would have required both of these in abundance. Apparently he also lacked any realistic understanding of his limitations or even the ability to learn from his past mistakes in mishandling command. He was a pretty nifty sailor though, it's a shame they let him anywhere near any position that required people skills. What legacy (apart from the street bearing his name) did he leave behind in NSW?
Compare and contrast Bligh's litany of failure with the tenure his successor Macquarie who eventually was recalled because London became alarmed at his being too successful and, not to mention, independent (a la Douglas MacArthur in Japan).
For the last decade there has been no global warming, at all, while producing more CO2 than ever.
1. 10 years of noisy data is not significant enough to reverse the significance of the warming trend over the entire instrumental record. 2. The last decade as shown a warming trend of 0.11C/decade.
Scientifically, this _necessarily_ throws global warming into serious doubt.
So long as science relies on whacky stuff like statistics, no it doesn't.
... but all stem from the fact that Fletcher Christian's family was reasonably well off...
I agree that the Christian Family were reasonably well off and more than that, Bligh managed not only to inspire his men to munity against his command of the Bounty, he also caused the colony he was sent to govern to rise up in armed rebellion. The real question is not whether Bligh was despotic or not, it's why the British authorities saw fit to appoint a man, who had proven himself a singuarly ungifted commander, to be the governor of it's most far flung colony. If you were on a board of directors, would you appoint the CEO of one of your failed subsidiaries to the same position in the principal company?
You'd think that after 1775 they would have realised that the heavy handed approach to colonial government wasn't going to work. OTOH the choice of Bligh's successor (Lachlan Macquarie) shows that maybe, just maybe, London did learn that appointing a talentless despot like Bligh to a position of authority had been dumb move.
Still, I did enjoy your revisionism quite a bit. It would be amusing to see you try to save... I dunno... say Saddam Hussein's reputation. If you are feeling up for the challenge that is.;)
Quite the opposite! For a fanboi it would be extremely retarded to mistake the Woolies logo for the Apple logo. I mean, they have the Apple one plastered all over their lives. It's the people less intimate with Apple that who might be "not retarded" if they confused the two.
There is enough similarity that Apple is obligated to fight for its trademark. I know that U.S. trademark law *requires* you to actively protect your trademark or you could end up losing the trademark completely. Not sure how it applies to international logos, but could be that if they don't protect it internationally, it has the same consequence.
But it is definitely more than just a "stylized W" as Woolworth claims. I have never seen a "W" with a stem. From a distance, it could be mistaken for an Apple and that is enough reason for Apple to take steps to protect it's trademark.
Yes, and everyone knows it's a W stylised as an apple, Woolworths marketing slogan is "Woolworths the fresh fruit people." You have to defend your trademark in Australia, or risk losing it, as well.
The question is if, when presented with the two, would I be confused into thinking that a Woolworth's branded product is an Apple product,
Not you, but an abstract reasonable consumer. The question is better put as "is there sufficient similarity to cause reasonable confusion as the the origin of the goods."
... and is it the intention of Woolworth's for this to be the case.
No, intent is not relevant here. This is a challenge to the registration of a mark, not a criminal proceeding.
The answer is no.
Possibly. However it does not fall to you to give it.
Personally, and my opinion every bit as impertinent as yours, I reacted to this with a big "WTF! How could anyone in their right mind confuse Wollies with Apple?!!" Upon reflecting that as a supermarket Wollies does sell own-brand electrical goods and may want to move into computers I starting thinking, "OK if a new entrant into the market for computers were to use this logo, could it cause confusion as to origin?" Hmmm.
I still think Apple should lose this, but I no longer confident it's entirely B&W.
I think that has some role to play, yes. And probably even orthorgraphy plays a role. In left->right European languages we use right->left Arabic numerals. For instance we wrote "four and twenty" as '24' and then over time compounded the confusion by eventually using the words "twenty four" in speech. I'm led to believe that in Asian languages the numbers flow from lowest to highest, in the same direction as the general orthography.
For example, in Japanese, in order to count to 100, a person needs to know about... 11 different words. In English, the amount is greater than 20, probably close to 30.
Moreover it might be the case that the Japanese arrangement is not only more parsimonious, but models the number system in an instrumentally more efficient manner.
Since linguistic representation at least informs the internal models we use to manipulate numbers, I'm sure language must be playing some role. That being said, there will be many other cultural factors (such as inter alia the relative merit a society attributes to sporting vs academic prowess as discussed above, or competing pedagogical theories --"making math fun!" or is it "dumbing down?" --etc.), that will influence the difference in performance across countries. All of these considerations aside, the number of days at school, the number of hours in a school day, cannot fail but to have some impact, one way or the other.
Porn causes psych issues? Perhaps it just exposes them...
I agree that OP overstated the case by calling them "psych issues" and it's clear that the actual problems relate to the ideas about sex, and our relating to the opposite sex (for most of us) that result from having our ideas about sex informed by the discourses that usually accompany porn. Of course some guys would prefer to be porn users instead of having healthy sexual relationships with women, and that's OK too.
I guess this is a cultural thing, as you pointed out: because this state of affairs hasn't grown up in a vacuun, and society here does value achievement in these subject areas. Kids are rewarded for doing well, and even more amazingly respected by their peers who don't get results which are as good.
You know the other day I took my eldest (8 yr old) son for a walk throught UNSW campus, known locally (Sydney.au) as the "University of Hong Kong," for the unusually low number of caucasian faces you will encounter there. My kid asked me, "does this mean the universities in China are full of Australians?":)
"No it means something else altogether. Think about this... How many Chinese are there in the Australian Cricket team?"
"None."
"Right, and how many Chinese are there in the Socceroos?"
"None."
"And how many Asians are there in the Wallabies &tc. &tc. ...
"You see what this means is that while Australians [by which I mean Anglo-Australians, but I'm talking to an 8yr old] only value sports, Asians actually value learning!:o So when you get teased at school for not being good at sport and for being too good at school, just think about that, and think about what they'll be doing when you're at Uni."
[Actually I didn't have the heart to tell him the truth: They'll be training to become tradespeople... the gross, lazy and overpaid ruling class of the Australian idiocracy.]
Slashdot Mirror
Tempting other people into crime is bad! The victim is the thief who was forced by his impulses and the owners carelessness into committing the crime and having to pay a fine/spend time in prison.
Cute, but the thief is still only potentially a victim, (s)he might be walking down the an other street that day.
I suspect that the 'victims' here were the insurance companies and that their lobbyists had a little word in the Premier's ear. But hey, don't listen to me, I'm just a cynical old bastard.
It's also a bit nuts when some Australian court can say, "Cartoons of children having sex is illegal." No victims; no crime.
If you insist on maintaining the equation between "crime" and the existence of victims while trying to come to grips with Australian (or any other jurisdiction's) Criminal Law you will end up with an ulcer. Remember in NSW it is a crime to leave your car unlocked when parking on a public street! Victimless crimes (including crimes that have merely potential victims, think: drug importation, traffic offences etc.) form the overwhelming majority of crimes.
In any case, you are in a tiny minority in not being offended by child pornography. Even in the US, where SCOTUS has found that CP per se is protected speech (and the offenders are the personae you refer to), the law of obscenity, which is determined by local "community values," will almost always criminalise CP.
If you are beholden to the EULA than the software publisher has ultimate control over "how copies are used".
Yes but this control arises out of you agreement to be bound by the terms of the contract, not from the exclusive rights arisiong out of copyright.
If you want further evidence that EULA's are unenforceable ...
EULA's are enforcable.
That's too silly for words, really. For a start how could "something specified under the EULA" be enforcable if the parties didn't reach agreement in relation to the EULA? Secondly, even if you have a right, how does the other party "ignoring" you prove your right is "unenforcable"?
When you read this comment and the cases cited therein, you will begin to see the licence agreements for software are not only enforcable, but are regarded as the norm. I'm outta here.
Obviously, the part of the parent's post that you were emphatically agreeing to, obviously:
Not obvious at all! Could you repost and put a em tag on the "how copies are used" (or whatever you think implies it), because I simply cannot see it.
If there is actually some point you are trying to make here, you are failing to communicate it. Explicit is better than implicit.
If I was going to be persnickety I'd point at that that copyright holder retains their exclusive rights, even if an licence exists, they just allow you to excercise them too (or promise not to sue if you do). And that you don't necessarily get sued, you are just liable. I also pointed out later that the post was probably incorrect as far as DVDs go, but apart from the what you quote would seem to reflect the law as it is practised in relation to software licensing.
Uh, no. The copyright holder has exclusive rights over making copies of a product, not in how copies are used.
Yes it is absolutely correct that the copyright holder has exclusive rights and that if you infringe those rights which are exclusive the the copyright holder you are liable to be sued. Where did the "how copies are used" come from?!
I beg your pardon. s/irregardles/irrespective/
Incorrect.
My! Aren't we intrepid.
As for Carbolic Smoke, it clearly doesn't apply
Dealing with this first. It was cited to show that you don't need to know the identity of the party with whom you are contracting in order to be bound. All joking aside, what do you mean "it clearly doesn't apply!?" Not only does it show that, it shows that you should have learnt this in your very first contracts lecture!
The right to run the software is not one of the exclusive rights included in copyright (see 17 USC 106).
Not contested.
Furthermore, the right to make copies incidental to executing the software is specifically permitted to the owner of a copy of the software (17 USC 117).
Indeed under 117(1) "the owner of a copy of a computer program" is allowed to make a copy for "as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner." Thus images contained on one medium (eg. disk) that are loaded (copied) into another (eg. RAM) do not constitute the making of an infringing copy. As poor as the drafting may be, this at least is the clear intent of the provision.
I agree, at first glance, this would also appear to permit the purchaser of physical medium containing an OS to install (copy) the OS sans licence. You have to remember, however, the 117 only protects the owner of the copy. And you probably don't have unfettered ownership of it. Have a look at that cardboard box, does it anywhere contain indicating that your use for the product is subject to entering into a licence agreement? Being the careful guy you are, when you bought that box, you of course read that licence agreement. I mean who would hand over their money knowing that use was subject to an agreement without first checking it out, right? ;) Pay especial attention to the first clause!
This very point of law is currently before the court in Apple v Pystar. However, both you and Pystar face the same problem: there is ample authority suggesting that purchasers of physical media containing software, the use of which is expressed as being subject to licence, are not owners, but mere licencees, and are thus not protected by 117 (eg. Wall Data , MAI Systems , Adobe v Stargate , the last not being about 117 itself, but about the licencee status of purchaser.)
This, in turn, is the point of law on which MDY will be appealing in MDY v Blizzard. One should of course never second guess a court's decision, but it would be surprising if either MDY or Psystar were able to prevail against what appears to be the established authority. One thing I will predict, however, is that if these cases end as previous authority suggests they will, there will be a howl of idignation from slashdotters who have at best read the statutory provisions, but are otherwise bosltered only by their ignorance of the law surrounding them.
The shiny plastic disc is a copy of the software (17 USC 101).
Agreed, but note also under 202 that "Ownership of a copyright ... is distinct from ownership of any material object in which the work is embodied." It would seem a strange result if a specific exception such as 117 were able to be used as a backdoor to undermine this basic principle of copyright law! This is why 117, in speaking of "owner[s] of cop[ies]," confuses matters. It should have been preferred to grant exceptions to lawful users of said computer programs, irregardles of whether they are owners or mere licencees. Which only goes to show that one should never elect a non-lawyer into the legislature! ;)
Therefore I have the right to run it.
I feel for you dude! That must have fe
Without any agreement otherwise, the copyright holder has exclusive rights over the product. If you don't make an agreement, or violate the license, you get sued for copyright infringement just as you do with copies of unauthorized copies of DVDs.
That is absolutely correct. You were correct also in pointing above out that the a signature is not required to enter into a EULA. In fact if the vast majority of contracts were not entered into without signing out lives should become intolerable. The example you chose, however, somewhat muddied the waters: You wrote: "Good luck explaining to the court that making copies of it is OK because you never signed a contract." which might be read, as the GP read it, to imply that you thought the basis of suit was that you "agreed to an implicit 'license agreement' when they purchased the original which forbids them from making copies."
Obviously you didn't mean that. As you clearly state above, the very opposite is the case. You are sued because you don't have a license to copy. After all a license is the granting or permission to do what is the exclusive right of the holder, and the setting of limits as that what is permitted, not the imposition of prohibitions per se.
I don't know if you can see how your example lent itself to being misread, but I think a more general example pertaining to the requirement of signatures might have made the point more forcefully, eg. "Did you sign a contract the last time you entered into an agreement with McDonalds for the provision of a burger? Yet you still handed over your money, and you still got your burger."
And by the way - you do agree to an implicit license agreement when you buy a DVD. That's what the copyright warning before the film is - it outlines the conditions of use that you must follow. Exactly the same as a EULA.
I don't think it is clear that you do enter into, even and implicit, license with the copyright holder in that case. After all, nothing that is the exclusive right of the holder has been granted to you when you purchase a DVD, has it? You can't copy it, perform it in public, etc. The better view is that the copyright warning, is precisely that, a warning as to your statutory liability should you perform any action which is the exclusive right of the holder.
OTOH, the situation with regard to explicitly (via dialog box) agreeing with the holder to licence conditions and then doing something which is the exclusive right of the licensor, as in the case of installing software and EULAs, clearly does involve entering into a contract.
As far as I know, nobody has ever been successfully sued for violating a license agreement (as opposed to copyright law itself, or the DMCA) ...
I'm getting the feeling YANAL, so I'll go easy on you (yeah right I will). What you have written is something akin to "AFAIK nobody has ever been locked out of their house because they have lost their key (as opposed to not being able to unlock the door)."
Here's the deal. A licence (in relation to IP rights) is an agreement (contract) between the holder of IP rights and the licensee whereby the IP holder permits the licensee to exercise certain rights otherwise exclusively reserved for the holder, such as the making of a copy (eg. installing the software) of copyrighted material. "Permits" here means: agrees not to sue the licensee for IP infringment, subject to the terms of the license agreement. If you violate your license agreement to the point where it no longer subsits you lose your protection from suit and the consequence is that you are liable to be sued in copyright (or whatever other IP right).
Do you understand yet why being "successfully sued for violating a license agreement" is not "as opposed to" being sued under "copyright law itself?"
I didn't license the software.
Hence you have no right to run it.
I bought a copy of it. A nice shiny disc in a shrink-wrapped cardboard package.
Agreed! You are perfectly within your rights to put it on your shelf (or to use it as a paper weight etc.) and admire the nice shiny disc (or the cardboard package if that is your thing).
Apple doesn't even know who has it ... So I can't possibly have entered into a contract with Apple.
Long established that you don't have to know with whom you have contracted for a contract to be enforcable. The very first contract case most law students read at law school shows this.
I didn't buy it from them.
You bought a nice shiny disc from a vendor, without any right to run the software on it (which the vendor has no right to sell). So, yes look at it by all means.
If you didn't press a button reading "I AGREE" in response to a message sent to you from Apple, offering you a license actually to use the software contained on that nice shiny disc, then yes, you have probably not entered into a contract with Apple.
I've got some advice for you. If you like looking at nice shiny discs so much, there are less expensive ways to get them than to purchase them with an OS, for which you have no intention of entering into a licensing agreement, on them. Really.
Yup that was my first reaction too. They let you on a box to install a prison-wide TV system so what do you do?
A. Install the system, get the props from your fellow inmates who know you are responsible for keeping their new toy running; get props from the authorities, increasing your chances of an early release; build enough trust that maybe in the future you'll be allowed somewhere near a box to do other fun stuff,
OR,
B. SNAFU the system, volunteer as the authorities' punching bag; blow your chances of an early release; and ensure you will not be allowed anywhere near anything more advanced than a transistor radio for the next 5 years?
Which just goes to show that intelligence doesn't immunise you against stupidity.
The word 'tremendously' really got away from me in that last paragraph %(
Interesting question you pose. An original thought, or something you picked up elsewhere?
I'm not sure which particular question you are referring to, but since almost all my thoughts are interesting, chances are it was original. ;)
This is the book that recites the modern events. It's clear from a reading that sexual abuse has been an issue on Pitcairn for far longer than Steve Christian and his father have been around.250 years may be a slight exaggeration, but 100 years is supported by at least one account from the turn of the last century (referenced in the book).
Props for coming up with a reference, props for admitting the rhetorical hyperbole. The fact that sexual abuse is not entirely new on Pitcairn should hardly come as a surprise, given it's remoteness and relative lack of government. Nor is sexual abuse necessarily limited to the remote and ungoverned corners of the world. In any case I think we can both agree now, that this is unlikely to be caused by the genetic legacy of the mutineers. Now just reversing your next observations:
One must also look at his crossing to Timor (?? I can't remember if that's where he went after the mutiny) as an indicator of a set of skills that you and I certainly do not possess. IIRC, he continued his mapping mission while this was underway as well.
Oh I agree that he was a skilled mariner. As I wrote "[h]e was a pretty nifty sailor." Indeed my dig about Aspergers in the changed subject was to imply a certain geekishness, that is to say, technical skills: high, interpersonal skills: low.
Now, on the the question of governorship: how does an inability to govern an island while London is undermining you support a claim that Bligh was inept at captaining a naval vessel.
Because the skill set for being an extra-ordinary captain, as Cook apparently was, are the combination of technical and people skills. As I said, one mutiny could be forgiven, two (and the second far better documented) reveals how terrible was his lack of political and managerial skills. Skills, in addition to Bligh's nautical expertise, you and I also don't necessarily have.
You have to understand that from the point of view of an historian living in NSW, the Bounty episode was trivial in comparison to his governorship. Accordingly you'll note in my original post, I pay hardly any attention to his naval career, focussing instead on the more important events. Macquarie found himself in a situation hardly less difficult (admittedly the reformation of the troops helped tremendously), and by a variety of strategies was able, if not quite break the back of the elite, at least diminish their power tremendously. In part (and only in part, Macquarie could be quite the despot when required), he did this by advancing men (sic) of talent, even (or perhaps) especially ex-convicts. Moreover Macquarie was able to advance the colony tremendously. His genius puts in sharp relief Bligh's lack thereof.
What source is putting 2005 at a higher temperature than 1998?
When you read the article linked to you will see that the issue here is not whether two selected years are hotter and colder than each other (eg. 1850 vs 2005), it's whether the decadal trend is rising, steady or falling. Do you already understand why even if the trend over the last decade were falling (it wasn't) that would not necessarily be significant when viewed against all of the data from the instrumental, a fortiori the extra-instrumental, record?
Go read a book.
I read quite a few actually, but there's one book I'd particularly like to read, namely the one you are citing to establish your claim that the Pitcairn Islands have seen 250 years of continuous child rape. Or was that merely defamatory? (And yes I'm familiar with the more recent events).
Seeing Mel Gibson as Christian, while I'm sure it gave you a stiffy, is not an accurate portrayal.
What do you base this certainty on? I'm sorry, I don't share your homo-erotic attraction to Mel Gibson. I haven't actually seen the movie you are referring to, but I'm glad you enjoyed it. But look Bligh was not the first, nor would he be the last captain to suffer mutiny. It's his subsquent career that reveals the full extent of his ineptitude. And once familiar with his failings, that particular mutiny will be seen in a different light.
As far as the rebellion, your own link provides plenty of information indicating that success on the part of Bligh was nearly impossible given how many factors were stacked against him.
You're right. Bligh was never going to achieve what he sent out to do. He simply lacked any political or interpersonal skills. To carry out his ambitions would have required both of these in abundance. Apparently he also lacked any realistic understanding of his limitations or even the ability to learn from his past mistakes in mishandling command. He was a pretty nifty sailor though, it's a shame they let him anywhere near any position that required people skills. What legacy (apart from the street bearing his name) did he leave behind in NSW?
Compare and contrast Bligh's litany of failure with the tenure his successor Macquarie who eventually was recalled because London became alarmed at his being too successful and, not to mention, independent (a la Douglas MacArthur in Japan).
For the last decade there has been no global warming, at all, while producing more CO2 than ever.
1. 10 years of noisy data is not significant enough to reverse the significance of the warming trend over the entire instrumental record. 2. The last decade as shown a warming trend of 0.11C/decade.
Scientifically, this _necessarily_ throws global warming into serious doubt.
So long as science relies on whacky stuff like statistics, no it doesn't.
I agree that the Christian Family were reasonably well off and more than that, Bligh managed not only to inspire his men to munity against his command of the Bounty, he also caused the colony he was sent to govern to rise up in armed rebellion. The real question is not whether Bligh was despotic or not, it's why the British authorities saw fit to appoint a man, who had proven himself a singuarly ungifted commander, to be the governor of it's most far flung colony. If you were on a board of directors, would you appoint the CEO of one of your failed subsidiaries to the same position in the principal company?
You'd think that after 1775 they would have realised that the heavy handed approach to colonial government wasn't going to work. OTOH the choice of Bligh's successor (Lachlan Macquarie) shows that maybe, just maybe, London did learn that appointing a talentless despot like Bligh to a position of authority had been dumb move.
Still, I did enjoy your revisionism quite a bit. It would be amusing to see you try to save ... I dunno ... say Saddam Hussein's reputation. If you are feeling up for the challenge that is. ;)
i>Not for a fanboy its not retarded ...
Quite the opposite! For a fanboi it would be extremely retarded to mistake the Woolies logo for the Apple logo. I mean, they have the Apple one plastered all over their lives. It's the people less intimate with Apple that who might be "not retarded" if they confused the two.
Actually, the slogan appears to be "Woolworths the fresh food people." No fruit.
Yeah, you're right. See the confusion caused by the apple peel logo! ;)
There is enough similarity that Apple is obligated to fight for its trademark. I know that U.S. trademark law *requires* you to actively protect your trademark or you could end up losing the trademark completely. Not sure how it applies to international logos, but could be that if they don't protect it internationally, it has the same consequence. But it is definitely more than just a "stylized W" as Woolworth claims. I have never seen a "W" with a stem. From a distance, it could be mistaken for an Apple and that is enough reason for Apple to take steps to protect it's trademark.
Yes, and everyone knows it's a W stylised as an apple, Woolworths marketing slogan is "Woolworths the fresh fruit people." You have to defend your trademark in Australia, or risk losing it, as well.
The question is if, when presented with the two, would I be confused into thinking that a Woolworth's branded product is an Apple product,
Not you, but an abstract reasonable consumer. The question is better put as "is there sufficient similarity to cause reasonable confusion as the the origin of the goods."
No, intent is not relevant here. This is a challenge to the registration of a mark, not a criminal proceeding.
The answer is no.
Possibly. However it does not fall to you to give it.
Personally, and my opinion every bit as impertinent as yours, I reacted to this with a big "WTF! How could anyone in their right mind confuse Wollies with Apple?!!" Upon reflecting that as a supermarket Wollies does sell own-brand electrical goods and may want to move into computers I starting thinking, "OK if a new entrant into the market for computers were to use this logo, could it cause confusion as to origin?" Hmmm.
I still think Apple should lose this, but I no longer confident it's entirely B&W.
Yes but Penn & Teller are experts at making stuff disappear. ;)
It may even be as simple as the language.
I think that has some role to play, yes. And probably even orthorgraphy plays a role. In left->right European languages we use right->left Arabic numerals. For instance we wrote "four and twenty" as '24' and then over time compounded the confusion by eventually using the words "twenty four" in speech. I'm led to believe that in Asian languages the numbers flow from lowest to highest, in the same direction as the general orthography.
For example, in Japanese, in order to count to 100, a person needs to know about... 11 different words. In English, the amount is greater than 20, probably close to 30.
Moreover it might be the case that the Japanese arrangement is not only more parsimonious, but models the number system in an instrumentally more efficient manner.
Since linguistic representation at least informs the internal models we use to manipulate numbers, I'm sure language must be playing some role. That being said, there will be many other cultural factors (such as inter alia the relative merit a society attributes to sporting vs academic prowess as discussed above, or competing pedagogical theories --"making math fun!" or is it "dumbing down?" --etc.), that will influence the difference in performance across countries. All of these considerations aside, the number of days at school, the number of hours in a school day, cannot fail but to have some impact, one way or the other.
Porn causes psych issues? Perhaps it just exposes them ...
I agree that OP overstated the case by calling them "psych issues" and it's clear that the actual problems relate to the ideas about sex, and our relating to the opposite sex (for most of us) that result from having our ideas about sex informed by the discourses that usually accompany porn. Of course some guys would prefer to be porn users instead of having healthy sexual relationships with women, and that's OK too.
I guess this is a cultural thing, as you pointed out: because this state of affairs hasn't grown up in a vacuun, and society here does value achievement in these subject areas. Kids are rewarded for doing well, and even more amazingly respected by their peers who don't get results which are as good.
You know the other day I took my eldest (8 yr old) son for a walk throught UNSW campus, known locally (Sydney.au) as the "University of Hong Kong," for the unusually low number of caucasian faces you will encounter there. My kid asked me, "does this mean the universities in China are full of Australians?" :)
"No it means something else altogether. Think about this ... How many Chinese are there in the Australian Cricket team?"
... :o So when you get teased at school for not being good at sport and for being too good at school, just think about that, and think about what they'll be doing when you're at Uni."
"None."
"Right, and how many Chinese are there in the Socceroos?"
"None."
"And how many Asians are there in the Wallabies &tc. &tc.
"You see what this means is that while Australians [by which I mean Anglo-Australians, but I'm talking to an 8yr old] only value sports, Asians actually value learning!
[Actually I didn't have the heart to tell him the truth: They'll be training to become tradespeople ... the gross, lazy and overpaid ruling class of the Australian idiocracy.]