Article 6 Article 6 as a whole deals with the provision of legal protection for technological measures used by right holders to protect their works against unauthorised reproduction and other copyright infringements. As noted above under Article 1, Article 6 cannot apply to computer programs and Article 7.1(c) of Directive 91/250/ECC continues to have effect. The existing provision in the Act (s.296 as amended by SI 1992 No.3233) is therefore retained in respect of computer programs only (paragraph 5.1 of Annex A). (emphasis added)
That's really interesting. I wonder what it means - I can't find Directive 91/250/ECC anywhere.
So tell me then, what would you prefer, some kind of mathematical formula? Maybe a computer program that determines whether you're guilty? The entire legal system hangs on terms like these. If you're up in court for just about anything, they have to decide whether or not you did it 'beyond reasonable doubt'. What's 'reasonable doubt'? Well, it's up to the jury, or the judge if you were bullied into foregoing a jury trial. It's a bit late to start challenging the fundamental basis of western justice, on the basis that it relies on reasoning.
By that I presume (after a bit of searching, "Netscape+E17" didn't turn up many hits) you mean Enlightenment. Why would Netscape be interested in putting their resources behind a window manager for X? In what way is that anything to do with their business? Like I said, these aren't sparetimers, they're doing their job, what they're paid for, i.e. developing Netscape's software.
There is a big difference. A business that puts up a poster will have received it from the copyright holder or their agent, as promotional materials, and any court in the land would agree that there is an expected right to display promotional material. You might actually be in trouble already if you just buy a movie poster at Forbidden Planet, and stick it up in your front window, as you have no reasonable expectation of permission to display to the public.
In any case, setting up a computer that will transmit copyrighted data is very different, as the dissemination is active. With the poster, you are merely allowing photons to reflect off the surface, which is a natural part of what photons do. If I capture those photons in a camera, it's me that's the only active party. If I initiate a download from your Kazaa share, then we are both active parties, as you set up the share in the first place.
There's the added point that a digital copy is perfect, whereas my 35mm snap of Sarah Michelle Gellar is very much inferior to the 5'3" cardboard cutout.
So what other FS/OSS project would you expect Netscape employees to work on? Even if these were independent spare-timers, it'd still be their choice what FS/OSS project they work on. Flaming them for choosing to develop a bloat-free stand-alone mail client is simply bad form.
The people who are whining about the patent are the ones who whine about ALL patents.Can you find any posts complaining about the patent per se? I see complaints about Intel stopping overclockers, I see complaints that this technology might prevent underclocking, I see people complaining about people complaining about patents, but I don't actually see people complaining about this patent from an anti-ridiculous-patent POV.
What you probably didn't know was it was a pentium 133 that was already overclocked by Intel and sold to you:)
A processor that Intel sells as a 233, that works reliably at 233MHz, is a 233. They don't make them on different machines, they just test the batches and label them at the speed that they are reliable at. It's as simple as that.
For most people, their payments and receipts would probably balance out,
What would be really neat is the option to donate your stamp money to charity. The balance could go up and down as you receive and send email, but if you find that it is rising, just click "Donate to..." and get a list of charities that accept estamp money. That should cut down on the administrative cost of the system too, because there would be fewer actual cash payouts to handle. IMO, the money should be split between the stamp issuing authority, the receiving ISP (they have to do some admin) and the recipient. I don't think this system would be widely accepted if the costs were over 10c per email. The $1 mentioned in the article is way too high.
especially as they usually advertise something other than "Enlarge Your Penis" and often in fact target their ads
Really that's the main problem IMO - the offensive nature of a large portion of spam. There's no way I would even try to persuade my mum to use email unless I could protect her from ever seeing this kind of crap.
I can't give you a grand total, but here's a quote from an article with some numbers.
Greenpeace researchers discovered records listing Pepsi as the exporter of about 4,500 tons of plastic scrap in 23 shipments during 1993... Much of the waste was dumped at the site of a factory owned by Futura Industries in Tiruvallur, outside of Madras... The senior manager of the Futura plant, Dr. L.R. Subbaraman,... reports that Futura has imported a total of 10,000 metric tons of plastic waste from Pepsi and other companies since 1992."
[article written in September 1994]
Much of the waste was dumped at the site of a factory owned by Futura Industries in Tiruvallur, outside of Madras. "As we came over the hill in our auto-rickshaw, we saw a mountain of plastic waste," recounts Madras environmentalist Satish Vangal, one of the researchers who discovered the site. "Piles and piles of used soda bottles stacked behind a wall. When we got closer to the factory, we found many bottles and plastic scrap along the road and blowing in the wind. Every bottle we saw said 'California Redemption Value.' They were all from California's recycling program and now they are sitting in a pile in India!" explains Vangal. "We have enough problems dealing with our own plastic wastes; why should we import other peoples's rubbish?"
Of course I haven't been to India and seen it myself, so I'm relying on the article's author, and the reputation of organisations such as Greenpeace. I found the article through a reference in Michael Moore's book "Stupid White Men", where he also talks about recycle bags being dumped in landfill in the U.S.
What do you think - that you are smart enough to realize that TV has some bad ideas, but your poor defenseless kids are morons???? No. The kids are ignorant, not stupid. If their parents are making SENSE, they are far more effected by what their parents say than anything said by TV.
A foreign DVD offered for sale in the UK is likely to be illegal under the Video Recordings Act (VRA) 1984 unless its content (including any additional material) has been classified by the BBFC.
bother you?
I suppose it should, but the law isn't enforced. There's a good little shop in central London that stocks R1 DVDs, and I can order them from play.com in Jersey (the British island, not New Jersey) as well.
I'm simply speculating here, but whatsay I had a movie that "exposed the seamy underside of the British film industry"? Could this board simply refuse to classify it and thereby block its distribution for weeks or months or whatever?
The court didn't seem concerned with whether or not the games were commercial, just with whether or not they were influential. You brought up commercial.
Fair enough, my bad. It doesn't change my opinion, though, that with great power should come great responsibility.
You personally may thing that this clearly political statement is wrong and skewed, but that does not change the fact that it IS a political statement.
What offends me is that powerful groups with undemocratic influence use their power to put across their message in overwhelmingly effective ways. Parents can't compete with Fox.
While I do not think Violence is neccesarily evil, I definitely think not allowing the other side to speak IS evil.
Anyone has the right to speak, but not everyone has the capability of beaming their opinions into half the homes in the country, and those that have that power must wield it responsibly.
What I mean is, if NYT filled their pages with pornography, I would not defend their right to sell their publication to minors on a "freedom of speech" defence. Publishing a newspaper is speech, that is not a contradiction of my earlier assertion that "investing millions of dollars in a commercial product...isn't 'speech'". Humans are mammals. Mammals aren't humans.
I'm not sure if its correct but I will compare it to the recent case of people being kicked out of a mall...
The owner of private property, including shopping malls (in some states), can enforce a dress code. The owner of a web site cannot enforce what I do with the results of http get commands that I send to their web server, unless copyright law grants them exclusive reproduction rights over that data. It seems that price lists and timetables aren't subject to copyright, so the analogy is not valid. The internet isn't a place, and someone's web site isn't private land.
Slashdot Mirror
So tell me then, what would you prefer, some kind of mathematical formula? Maybe a computer program that determines whether you're guilty? The entire legal system hangs on terms like these. If you're up in court for just about anything, they have to decide whether or not you did it 'beyond reasonable doubt'. What's 'reasonable doubt'? Well, it's up to the jury, or the judge if you were bullied into foregoing a jury trial. It's a bit late to start challenging the fundamental basis of western justice, on the basis that it relies on reasoning.
There is a big difference. A business that puts up a poster will have received it from the copyright holder or their agent, as promotional materials, and any court in the land would agree that there is an expected right to display promotional material. You might actually be in trouble already if you just buy a movie poster at Forbidden Planet, and stick it up in your front window, as you have no reasonable expectation of permission to display to the public.
In any case, setting up a computer that will transmit copyrighted data is very different, as the dissemination is active. With the poster, you are merely allowing photons to reflect off the surface, which is a natural part of what photons do. If I capture those photons in a camera, it's me that's the only active party. If I initiate a download from your Kazaa share, then we are both active parties, as you set up the share in the first place.
There's the added point that a digital copy is perfect, whereas my 35mm snap of Sarah Michelle Gellar is very much inferior to the 5'3" cardboard cutout.
So what other FS/OSS project would you expect Netscape employees to work on? Even if these were independent spare-timers, it'd still be their choice what FS/OSS project they work on. Flaming them for choosing to develop a bloat-free stand-alone mail client is simply bad form.
The people who are whining about the patent are the ones who whine about ALL patents.Can you find any posts complaining about the patent per se? I see complaints about Intel stopping overclockers, I see complaints that this technology might prevent underclocking, I see people complaining about people complaining about patents, but I don't actually see people complaining about this patent from an anti-ridiculous-patent POV.
Obviously that image is just misnamed, it should be "lying_logo.gif".
So, RadioheadKid, why haven't you switched to Light mode then? You save bandwidth, and there are no tables. Standards compliance, though ... dream on!
My fave is this one. Damn, the link's broken, try this instead.
What I mean is, if NYT filled their pages with pornography, I would not defend their right to sell their publication to minors on a "freedom of speech" defence. Publishing a newspaper is speech, that is not a contradiction of my earlier assertion that "investing millions of dollars in a commercial product...isn't 'speech'". Humans are mammals. Mammals aren't humans.
It'll take some time to do the numbers, but superflex's post is a good start.