Again, you misunderstand what "costs" are. These are court costs and associated fees, not the other sides' lawyers time.
Thanks for correcting me. I'll be sure to pass on that information to my professor in Civil Procedure II, at law school. He'll be sad to know that he's been teaching the law of costs wrong for 25 years now. And of course the Bay Street firm he works for as well will have to be told too.
Please do so - he'll agree with me that "costs" are not necessarily what you think they are.
the disc will last hundreds if not thousands of years
Even if it did, that wouldn't matter - how much longer do you think spinning optical media readers will be around?
Audio went from 12" 78 rpm to 10" 78 rpm to 12" 33-1/3 rpm and 7" 45rpm disks to tape, which went from reel-to-reel to 8 track to cassette to DAT, to hard drive/flash memory.
CD *tried* to go from 5" redbook to SACD (failed) and mini-cd singles (failed).
Video recording went from celluloid to reel-to-reel tape to tape cassettes / dvd / hard drive / solid state devices / bluray
Still photos went from celluloid to digital.
Most homes can no longer play audio records on vinyl, or reel-to-reel, or 8 track, or cassette, or DAT - just what's stored on a file in a device.
Most homes don't have movie projectors, or even functioning VCRs any more.
Cameras that use film? How quaint.
Optical media will be the next to go over the next 2 decades, same as all the others.
So you're a liar. You said you'd answer the question, and now you don't have the courage to actually answer it "because it's a trap." Boo hoo! You are SO busted!
Hypocrite.
Most of the spam, and around 90% of the bogus spam registrations, are gmail accounts. Why do you think gmail is able to filter spam? It's because they're the #1 source world-wide.
Actually, you did NOT answer MY questions - you answered yours.
Here it is again:
who can a male-to-female transsexual marry without sinning?
[_] They can only marry a man, because they are now legally a woman;
[_] They can only marry a woman, because God made them XY;
[_] They can marry either, because they are both male and female;
[_] They can marry neither, because they are neither male nor female.
This is relevant because one same-sex couple has bypassed California law to get a marriage certificate by the simple expedient of the transsexual not having a revised birth certificate, even though her drivers license, etc., all show her as female. The same logic should apply to a church that looks only at birth sex.
"Shit or get off the pot" , as my mother used to say. Say what you mean, and mean what you say. Quit the equivocating, and the hiding behind bible quotes. The bible has no legal standing, no moral or ethical basis, and no proof that it is the "word of god."
Also, your definition of what is lawful and unlawful is flawed. Something that is not specifically stated to be unlawful is lawful - there is no law against it. According to your definition, eating spaghetti is unlawful, since it isn't specifically allowed. So is using the Internet.
Further, Jesus does not have the authority to state what is lawful to anyone. Dead people have no vote, and he is very much dead, if he ever existed.
Sorry, I was tired when I replied... I was so busy reading groklaw (it's REALLY awesome what's going on in the SCO trial finally), that I only realized my mistake after I posted. I figured I owe you a personal apology, rather than just a quick "oops."
Random tangent: back in the day there were "analog" computers with multiple logic levels per "bit", but that sort of dead-ended when binary hardware was able to scale frequency more rapidly. I wonder if multi-level electronic logic will make a comeback when we finally do hit a miniaturization wall when producing/designing chips...
It has to. Multi-level logic would prevent a lot of the security problems we see now, like only having 1 bit to represent a logic state meaning there's no way to indicate uninitialized data in the data itself. Even a tribit is better.
Intent only comes into play when you are prosecuted via indictment. When prosecuted as a summary offence, your intent (mens rea) is totally irrelevant.
You'll see plenty of "dual-mode" offences in the Canadian Criminal Code, so don't think that you can get off just by saying "they can't prove I intended to do it."
The simple solution is to just stop doing it. If you need the music that badly, pay for it. After all, would you argue that "identity theft" shouldn't be a crime because you still have your identity, or that they should be excused because you can't prove "intent" for their subsequent actions when they first stole your identity?
Again, you misunderstand what "costs" are. These are court costs and associated fees, not the other sides' lawyers time.
You'll often see in motions this phrase "the whole without costs against [other side], except in event of contestation." It is referring to the awarding of the filing fees, court stamp tax, cost of service, and fees for witness tax at the current legal rate.
It is very rare to get anything over that, except in the most abusive of cases. I've seen people spend $20k on legal fees, win, be awarded costs in the decision, and get less than $200.
Read the rest - if you're using p2p, you're also uploading, which is distribution. And you're making an additional copy on your computer. AND you're making a 3rd copy when you copy it to your mp3 player, which is further distribution.
Also, you (intentionally?) failed to account for this:
distributes infringing copies of a work or other subject-matter in which copyright subsists, either for the purpose of trade or to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright,
In other words, not just sale or rent. but anything that affects the owner's rights. For example, lost profits due to unsold copies, loss of reputation due to poor quality of the copies in comparison to the original, etc.
The "but I woldn't have bought it anyway" argument doesn't wash - it's a hypothetical, and if you couldn't download ANY music, you'd have to buy SOMETHING, so at least some of the copyright holders have lost out.
Yes, my preference is that people who have, as you said, "demonstrated that they're not to be trusted with credit not be able to get a car", rather than get themselves further into the hole, use alternatives, such as public transit, bicycles, cheaper used cars, etc. You know - BMW - Bus, Metro, Walk.
Section 2b and 2d make it clear that you cannot take the copy you download and either further distribute it (by copying it onto another device) or play it in public (no speakers).
p2p software is not illegal in Canada. You can use it to share linux distros, etc.
downloading copyright music w/o the copyright owners' permission has always been a civil copyright violation. The "making private copies" is copies that YOU already have legal access to (eg: format-shifting, an extension of time-shifting from the vcr days).
it is NOT a "loser pay legal system" in the sense you think. The loser is only responsible for certain costs, such as filing fees. Even if you lose, you don't pay the other sides lawyers fees, since those costs were entirely at their discretion. You would have to sue them.
paying the levy doesn't give you the rights to the song any more than paying a fine for shoplifting means you keep the goods, or doing the time for bank robbery means you get to keep the money, or doing community service for stealing a car means you get to keep the car.
42. (1) Every person who knowingly
(a) makes for sale or rental an infringing copy of a work or other subject-matter in which copyright subsists,
(b) sells or rents out, or by way of trade exposes or offers for sale or rental, an infringing copy of a work or other subject-matter in which copyright subsists,
(c) distributes infringing copies of a work or other subject-matter in which copyright subsists, either for the purpose of trade or to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright,
(d) by way of trade exhibits in public an infringing copy of a work or other subject-matter in which copyright subsists, or
(e) imports for sale or rental into Canada any infringing copy of a work or other subject-matter in which copyright subsists
is guilty of an offence and liable
(f) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding twenty-five thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to both, or
(g) on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding one million dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to both.
You are "distributing" the music when you copy it from your computer to the mp3 player. You are no longer just a downloader, you are uploading it to the player.
They don't stop a running engine - hey just prevent the starter from engaging. Plus, most slashdotters could probably remove the system in 5 minutes, or just bypass it with a jumper cable from the positive terminal to the side of the starter solenoid leading towards the starter. At $100 to the car dealer, they're not very sophisticated.
Absolutely not true: If your car radio was on while the FBI snooped, the only indicator was a little light in the radio saying that "Car Recovery Mode" was disabled - NOT that the microphone was active. If the radio was off, it would beep - not to tell you the microphone was active, but again that "Car Recovery Mode" was disabled.
Nobody's saying that people have a "right" to "bend the rules". What I am saying is that the people who fall prey to these scams need help in learning how to do basic things like make a budget, and that people in general need to get out of the "I can make the payments" mentality.
Among those whose illnesses led to bankruptcy, out-of-pocket costs averaged $11,854 since the start of illness; 75.7 percent had insurance at the onset of illness. Medical debtors were 42 percent more likely than other debtors to experience lapses in coverage. Even middle-class insured families often fall prey to financial catastrophe when sick.
and
Debtors with private insurance at the onset of their illnesses had even higher out-of-pocket costs than those with no insurance (Exhibit 5). This paradox is explained by the very high costs--$18,005--incurred by patients who initially had private insurance but lost i
Just look at the "out-of-pocket" expenses - and keep in mind that this doesn't include having to continue to pay insurance premiums while losing revenue because you're ill,,, url:http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/vol0/issue2005/images/data/hlthaff.w5.63/DC1/Himmelstein_Ex5.gif?
That's pretty cheap, especially since the customer is billed extra for the system each month, as an "anti-theft device" so it not only doesn't cost the dealer anything - it's another profit center.
To be fair, there are plenty of used car dealers who don't overcharge but do sell to not-terribly-reliable clients. They need a way to get their vehicle back when those clients quit paying.
Here, let me fix that for you:
"To be fair, there are plenty of used car dealers who overcharge when they sell not-terribly-reliable cars to not-terribly-reliable clients. They need a way to get their vehicle back when those clients quit paying so they can flip them to the next sucker."
40% or more a year interest, extra fees, inflated "deposits" that are inevitably forfeited as soon as the sucker is one day late, the car repoed and the customer STILL owes the full amount as damages, "it's not a sale, it's a lease - at the end you can buy it for $100.00" - when at the end it's $100 + fees.
Slashdot Mirror
Please do so - he'll agree with me that "costs" are not necessarily what you think they are.
Even if it did, that wouldn't matter - how much longer do you think spinning optical media readers will be around?
Audio went from 12" 78 rpm to 10" 78 rpm to 12" 33-1/3 rpm and 7" 45rpm disks to tape, which went from reel-to-reel to 8 track to cassette to DAT, to hard drive/flash memory.
CD *tried* to go from 5" redbook to SACD (failed) and mini-cd singles (failed).
Video recording went from celluloid to reel-to-reel tape to tape cassettes / dvd / hard drive / solid state devices / bluray
Still photos went from celluloid to digital.
Most homes can no longer play audio records on vinyl, or reel-to-reel, or 8 track, or cassette, or DAT - just what's stored on a file in a device.
Most homes don't have movie projectors, or even functioning VCRs any more.
Cameras that use film? How quaint.
Optical media will be the next to go over the next 2 decades, same as all the others.
So you're a liar. You said you'd answer the question, and now you don't have the courage to actually answer it "because it's a trap." Boo hoo! You are SO busted! Hypocrite.
Most of the spam, and around 90% of the bogus spam registrations, are gmail accounts. Why do you think gmail is able to filter spam? It's because they're the #1 source world-wide.
The problem is that gmail is the #1 source of spam that I'm seeing, as well as the #1 source of bogus spam registration attempts.
Do you REALLY want to solve the spam problem in 3 easy steps? It's simple.
Spammers move offshore, their country gets dropped off the net until it cleans up its act.
Tell that to SCO.
Actually, you did NOT answer MY questions - you answered yours.
Here it is again: who can a male-to-female transsexual marry without sinning?
[_] They can only marry a man, because they are now legally a woman;
[_] They can only marry a woman, because God made them XY;
[_] They can marry either, because they are both male and female;
[_] They can marry neither, because they are neither male nor female.
This is relevant because one same-sex couple has bypassed California law to get a marriage certificate by the simple expedient of the transsexual not having a revised birth certificate, even though her drivers license, etc., all show her as female. The same logic should apply to a church that looks only at birth sex.
"Shit or get off the pot" , as my mother used to say. Say what you mean, and mean what you say. Quit the equivocating, and the hiding behind bible quotes. The bible has no legal standing, no moral or ethical basis, and no proof that it is the "word of god."
Also, your definition of what is lawful and unlawful is flawed. Something that is not specifically stated to be unlawful is lawful - there is no law against it. According to your definition, eating spaghetti is unlawful, since it isn't specifically allowed. So is using the Internet.
Further, Jesus does not have the authority to state what is lawful to anyone. Dead people have no vote, and he is very much dead, if he ever existed.
I've done that way back in the '90s (okay, it was true, false, and uninitialized). It avoids a lot of error-checking.
Sorry, I was tired when I replied ... I was so busy reading groklaw (it's REALLY awesome what's going on in the SCO trial finally), that I only realized my mistake after I posted. I figured I owe you a personal apology, rather than just a quick "oops."
It has to. Multi-level logic would prevent a lot of the security problems we see now, like only having 1 bit to represent a logic state meaning there's no way to indicate uninitialized data in the data itself. Even a tribit is better.
Intent only comes into play when you are prosecuted via indictment. When prosecuted as a summary offence, your intent (mens rea) is totally irrelevant.
You'll see plenty of "dual-mode" offences in the Canadian Criminal Code, so don't think that you can get off just by saying "they can't prove I intended to do it."
The simple solution is to just stop doing it. If you need the music that badly, pay for it. After all, would you argue that "identity theft" shouldn't be a crime because you still have your identity, or that they should be excused because you can't prove "intent" for their subsequent actions when they first stole your identity?
Again, you misunderstand what "costs" are. These are court costs and associated fees, not the other sides' lawyers time.
You'll often see in motions this phrase "the whole without costs against [other side], except in event of contestation." It is referring to the awarding of the filing fees, court stamp tax, cost of service, and fees for witness tax at the current legal rate.
It is very rare to get anything over that, except in the most abusive of cases. I've seen people spend $20k on legal fees, win, be awarded costs in the decision, and get less than $200.
Read the rest - if you're using p2p, you're also uploading, which is distribution. And you're making an additional copy on your computer. AND you're making a 3rd copy when you copy it to your mp3 player, which is further distribution.
Also, you (intentionally?) failed to account for this:
In other words, not just sale or rent. but anything that affects the owner's rights. For example, lost profits due to unsold copies, loss of reputation due to poor quality of the copies in comparison to the original, etc.
The "but I woldn't have bought it anyway" argument doesn't wash - it's a hypothetical, and if you couldn't download ANY music, you'd have to buy SOMETHING, so at least some of the copyright holders have lost out.
Yes, my preference is that people who have, as you said, "demonstrated that they're not to be trusted with credit not be able to get a car", rather than get themselves further into the hole, use alternatives, such as public transit, bicycles, cheaper used cars, etc. You know - BMW - Bus, Metro, Walk.
42 is already valid in systems modeled to recognize only two states - it's in int with a value of TRUE.
Try it in c.
Section 2b and 2d make it clear that you cannot take the copy you download and either further distribute it (by copying it onto another device) or play it in public (no speakers).
Once we get into quantum computing, we're going to have to drop the whole binary "yes"-"no" thing for "yes", "no", "maybe", "uninitialized", "42"
You are "distributing" the music when you copy it from your computer to the mp3 player. You are no longer just a downloader, you are uploading it to the player.
They don't stop a running engine - hey just prevent the starter from engaging. Plus, most slashdotters could probably remove the system in 5 minutes, or just bypass it with a jumper cable from the positive terminal to the side of the starter solenoid leading towards the starter. At $100 to the car dealer, they're not very sophisticated.
>url:http://news.cnet.com/2100-1029_3-5109435.html>
Absolutely not true: If your car radio was on while the FBI snooped, the only indicator was a little light in the radio saying that "Car Recovery Mode" was disabled - NOT that the microphone was active. If the radio was off, it would beep - not to tell you the microphone was active, but again that "Car Recovery Mode" was disabled.
Nobody's saying that people have a "right" to "bend the rules". What I am saying is that the people who fall prey to these scams need help in learning how to do basic things like make a budget, and that people in general need to get out of the "I can make the payments" mentality.
They were pulling numbers out of their asses. The Harvard study says it's a lot worse. http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/hlthaff.w5.63/DC1
and
Just look at the "out-of-pocket" expenses - and keep in mind that this doesn't include having to continue to pay insurance premiums while losing revenue because you're ill ,,, url:http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/vol0/issue2005/images/data/hlthaff.w5.63/DC1/Himmelstein_Ex5.gif?
they already got it - billions of it. Bail-out bux.
between $100 and $200.00 http://www.payteck.cc/news.html
That's pretty cheap, especially since the customer is billed extra for the system each month, as an "anti-theft device" so it not only doesn't cost the dealer anything - it's another profit center.
Here, let me fix that for you:
"To be fair, there are plenty of used car dealers who overcharge when they sell not-terribly-reliable cars to not-terribly-reliable clients. They need a way to get their vehicle back when those clients quit paying so they can flip them to the next sucker."
40% or more a year interest, extra fees, inflated "deposits" that are inevitably forfeited as soon as the sucker is one day late, the car repoed and the customer STILL owes the full amount as damages, "it's not a sale, it's a lease - at the end you can buy it for $100.00" - when at the end it's $100 + fees.
It's the auto equivalent of pay-day loans.