or being superceded by the same printer under a different model number that uses totally different replacement cartridges (HP).
Uh... One of my two printers is an HP Deskjet 560C that I originally got back when I had a DOS 6.x/Windows 3.11 system. I can still buy HP cartridges for the thing in normal stores...
Wrong. You can (and in fact must) keep the copy, but you may not make further copies of it, nor may you lend or give it to anyone - including the friend from whom you borrowed the original.
Well, to be fair, you can make as many copies of it as you want... you just can't give them to anyone else... they have to be for your own personal use. The law makes no mention of the source needing to be an original, just what your rights as a copier are.
Making a copy is from a original, or legal copy in this instance requireing you to OWN the legal original.
No... They were quite aware at the time that it allowed people to copy other's music for their own personal use... That's the whole point. I can wander off and copy my friend's CD, and it's all fine.
The distribution part of Peer to Peer trading of copyrighted music is most definitely illegal in Canada. The actual downloading of it, isn't, as you're making your own personal copy of the music. If you copy with an intent to distribute or transmit via telecommunications, then you're violating copyright law. If you copy, for your own use, no matter the source, you aren't.
No... Ontario has no legitimate laws on the books regarding simple possession, at the moment... They were effectively struck down after the Government didn't comply with the 1 year time span that the courts gave them to fix a law that was deemed unconstitutional.
Using that precident, a BC court has accepted, just this week, that the law does not exist, as a defense for possession. That ruling can still go up to a higher judge, however.
General reference to the Canadian Constitution refers to a number of document, including a number of Constitution Acts that were enacted in different years (Rather, in most cases, were enacted as British North America Act, and renamed Constitution Act, *year* with the enactment of the Constitution Act of 1982)
However, in this case, I'm assuming he's actually refering to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is part of the Constitution Act of 1982...
Section 2 of the Charter is about fundamental freedoms, and really doesn't apply... Section 15 is the section that talks about discrimination, and even then it doesn't make a great deal of sense.
I'd also use the Canadian government site... The Department of Justice has a wonderful website: http://laws.justice.gc.ca
I'm somewhat curious about your sources... I know there are a number of sources on Canadian military deaths in World War II, including some as low as 39 000. The ones I trust more, however, are around 42 000. This is somewhat arguable, though.
I am not sure where you got the number 500 000 for US Military Deaths... Granted, I don't know a great deal about American military history, and was forced to check on various websites, but I haven't managed to find an estimation above 290 000 - 300 000 deaths.
Most would still buy it (and I bet lots of them would think you were nuts)... normal people don't give a damn.
Quite seriously, if I bought an X-Box, I think it'd be rather neat if it self-patched. Normal customers buy it to play games on, and it's a perfectly good platform for that. I certainly wouldn't buy it for something else, so really, I don't particularly care. I can see the angle some people are coming from, and I understand it... but this isn't really an issue where you can get the normal customer outraged, because it doesn't affect what they actually bought the product to do.
Well, it makes perfect sense looking at it from 1997 and before... it legalized the copying that most people did, while not legalizing the large scale, organized stuff. At the time, the peer to peer stuff we see now wasn't a huge thing, so it wouldn't really be a consideration when they were originally working out the act...
Yeah, it's almost definitely legal for the downloader. It isn't particularly legal for the distributer, probably, however. You're allowed to make personal copies of an audio recording. There are no provisions in the act limiting the source that one copies from. There are limitations with what your intent for the copy is. Intent to distribute, and intent to transmit via telecommunications are not allowed. So, downloading music and then not sharing it out is probably legal, while sharing it is not.
If you take a look at the Copyright Act (don't actually remember the full name... it's got copyright in there somewhere) it's article 80, IIRC.
Of course, if his friend had, then the poster shouldn't have been told details, hence why it makes sense that someone who didn't sign it would be unwilling to mention the details. If the poster were to know, then that's proof that his friend violated the terms of the contract.
I'll just point out that making a song available for download on, say, Kazaa probably isn't entrapment either. You aren't being enticed into downloading it. If you know you have no rights to the file, and you go out and look for it and do it, then it's your fault. Honeypots aren't entrapment.
Assuming prostitution is illegal in the area, a cop can wander around and try and get people to ask them for sex for money. If they're asked, the cop can then arrest the guy for attempting to pay for sex. The cop can't wander around asking people if they want to pay them for sex. *That* would be entrapment.
Wing Commander 4 branched... but it tended to branch because of dialogue choices, more than mission performance. Even then, there was still a degree of mission based branching. They didn't do this because players didn't like the branching in WC3, though. Roberts just wanted to make a more movie-like game.
Either way, there was quite a bit of branching based on your mission success in both Prophecy and Secret Ops.
Sorry guys, rights are not given by the governement and any constitution that implies they are is for shit. Rights are natural.
Bullshit. You have no 'natural' rights. You have what rights your social contract provides you with. You may thing, for example, that you have a right to live, and I may agree with you. This doesn't mean that it's a natural right. It's something that you have accepted as a right for yourself and have, in exchange, granted to others in your society.
"subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society"
Guess what? That's exactly what happens with the US constitution and your right to go around yelling 'FIRE!' in crowded areas.
Anyway, S.33 of the charter, the 'notwithstanding' clause, is the real embodiment of the above sentiment. It allows the government to invoke the clause and create legislation that goes against certain areas of the charter. It's limited, though, in that all legislation passed using the clause expires after 5 years and has to be re-enacted. The not-withstanding clause also doesn't apply to the ability to vote, the duration of a government, or mobility rights.
The clause acts as a protection against a hijacking of the system by the judicial branch (and was also a way to get the provinces to agree to accepting the charter). Governments can work contrary to the charter, but aren't able to abridge rights such that people can't remove them from office.
Even discussion of using the clause tends to piss people off, so it's only used in rather exceptional cases (excepting the 'protest' in Quebec where they used the clause in every piece of legislation for three years, to protest the Charter, which was put through without their agreement). It's not exactly a governmental measure that allows them to do incredibly insane things and survive as a government.
Canada is a very government oriented socialist country. In the US, organizations like IEEE don't make laws they only make recommendations and suggestions. In the US the judges can also overturn laws that they determine to be unconstitutional, as these surely are.
What the hell are you talking about?
The provincial engineering bodies and the CCPE can't make laws... They can make their own bylaws, as directed by the respective governmental acts that brought them into existance, or empowered them as the engineering body of record in their juristiction, but that's it.
I have no idea how this would even approach being a constitutional issue in the United States. I'm sure that at least the term 'Doctor' is protected to a degree in the United States, and probably the term 'Lawyer' or 'Attorney' as well. This would be established by an act of law. Obviously, in Canada, we're evil socialists that have our country governed by appointed bureaucrats, or some such thing, as this is much too civilized a system for us!
Wait... no...
We have, in British Columbia, the 'Engineer's and Geoscientists Act' which, oddly, spells out the way various terms can be used, as well as laying out the guidelines behind the self regulation of the profession that is done by APEGBC (Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia). APEGBC doesn't have the power to set laws. It is a certification and standard setting body that works within the legislation that created it.
I'll also point out that the Canadian Judicial system is more than capable of dealing with unjust laws and violations of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as demonstrated by the somewhat recent revoking of Ontario's marijuana laws because they made it impossible for a sick man to have both "liberty and security of person," which are two of the fundamental rights that the Charter guarantees
As a final point, I'll mention that I have no knowledge of laws regarding accountants in Canada, or I would have commented on those as well.
Easiest way to check if they'll badmouth you when a future employer checks up on your history is to just call Human Resources and pretend you're from HR at some company that's just been reviewing your resume.
Slashdot Mirror
How is this, in any way, ironic?
And this is, apparantly, another reason why Winnipeg sucks...
In Vancouver, let's see...
1) You walk into a bar...
2) You order a drink...
3) You then, maybe, get asked to show ID.
Clubs tend to check on the way in, and a couple have metal detectors..
Basically, my stance is, anyone who asks to take my picture before I can go into a club, can fuck themselves.
What I'm wondering is, how they managed to find two people to subpoena from AOL
Maybe they sent subpoenas for the firewalls, those dastardly individuals downloading terabytes of music files!
or being superceded by the same printer under a different model number that uses totally different replacement cartridges (HP).
Uh... One of my two printers is an HP Deskjet 560C that I originally got back when I had a DOS 6.x/Windows 3.11 system. I can still buy HP cartridges for the thing in normal stores...
I can't think of any number system in which you can actually use the digit 3 where 10^3 != 1000...
Wrong. You can (and in fact must) keep the copy, but you may not make further copies of it, nor may you lend or give it to anyone - including the friend from whom you borrowed the original.
Well, to be fair, you can make as many copies of it as you want... you just can't give them to anyone else... they have to be for your own personal use. The law makes no mention of the source needing to be an original, just what your rights as a copier are.
No, the larger price is an ammendment to the pricing that's been on the tables for a while... It'll piss so many people off, it won't even be funny.
Making a copy is from a original, or legal copy in this instance requireing you to OWN the legal original.
No... They were quite aware at the time that it allowed people to copy other's music for their own personal use... That's the whole point. I can wander off and copy my friend's CD, and it's all fine.
The distribution part of Peer to Peer trading of copyrighted music is most definitely illegal in Canada. The actual downloading of it, isn't, as you're making your own personal copy of the music. If you copy with an intent to distribute or transmit via telecommunications, then you're violating copyright law. If you copy, for your own use, no matter the source, you aren't.
No... Ontario has no legitimate laws on the books regarding simple possession, at the moment... They were effectively struck down after the Government didn't comply with the 1 year time span that the courts gave them to fix a law that was deemed unconstitutional.
Using that precident, a BC court has accepted, just this week, that the law does not exist, as a defense for possession. That ruling can still go up to a higher judge, however.
General reference to the Canadian Constitution refers to a number of document, including a number of Constitution Acts that were enacted in different years (Rather, in most cases, were enacted as British North America Act, and renamed Constitution Act, *year* with the enactment of the Constitution Act of 1982)
However, in this case, I'm assuming he's actually refering to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is part of the Constitution Act of 1982...
Section 2 of the Charter is about fundamental freedoms, and really doesn't apply... Section 15 is the section that talks about discrimination, and even then it doesn't make a great deal of sense.
I'd also use the Canadian government site... The Department of Justice has a wonderful website: http://laws.justice.gc.ca
Populations - 1940
US - 132,122,446
Canada - 11,381,000
I'm somewhat curious about your sources... I know there are a number of sources on Canadian military deaths in World War II, including some as low as 39 000. The ones I trust more, however, are around 42 000. This is somewhat arguable, though.
I am not sure where you got the number 500 000 for US Military Deaths... Granted, I don't know a great deal about American military history, and was forced to check on various websites, but I haven't managed to find an estimation above 290 000 - 300 000 deaths.
I'm sure it's rather easy to argue that any bug that allows you to execute arbitrary code is a possible vector for cheating.
Most would still buy it (and I bet lots of them would think you were nuts)... normal people don't give a damn.
Quite seriously, if I bought an X-Box, I think it'd be rather neat if it self-patched. Normal customers buy it to play games on, and it's a perfectly good platform for that. I certainly wouldn't buy it for something else, so really, I don't particularly care. I can see the angle some people are coming from, and I understand it... but this isn't really an issue where you can get the normal customer outraged, because it doesn't affect what they actually bought the product to do.
Well, it makes perfect sense looking at it from 1997 and before... it legalized the copying that most people did, while not legalizing the large scale, organized stuff. At the time, the peer to peer stuff we see now wasn't a huge thing, so it wouldn't really be a consideration when they were originally working out the act...
Yeah, it's almost definitely legal for the downloader. It isn't particularly legal for the distributer, probably, however. You're allowed to make personal copies of an audio recording. There are no provisions in the act limiting the source that one copies from. There are limitations with what your intent for the copy is. Intent to distribute, and intent to transmit via telecommunications are not allowed. So, downloading music and then not sharing it out is probably legal, while sharing it is not.
If you take a look at the Copyright Act (don't actually remember the full name... it's got copyright in there somewhere) it's article 80, IIRC.
Drugs destroy millions of people's lives.
So does furniture...
Darl, Darl, Darl...haven't you ever heard the adage "When you are in a hole, stop digging"?
Homer: We'll dig our way out!
Wiggum: No, no, dig up, stupid!
Of course, if his friend had, then the poster shouldn't have been told details, hence why it makes sense that someone who didn't sign it would be unwilling to mention the details. If the poster were to know, then that's proof that his friend violated the terms of the contract.
I'll just point out that making a song available for download on, say, Kazaa probably isn't entrapment either. You aren't being enticed into downloading it. If you know you have no rights to the file, and you go out and look for it and do it, then it's your fault. Honeypots aren't entrapment.
Assuming prostitution is illegal in the area, a cop can wander around and try and get people to ask them for sex for money. If they're asked, the cop can then arrest the guy for attempting to pay for sex. The cop can't wander around asking people if they want to pay them for sex. *That* would be entrapment.
Wing Commander 4 branched... but it tended to branch because of dialogue choices, more than mission performance. Even then, there was still a degree of mission based branching. They didn't do this because players didn't like the branching in WC3, though. Roberts just wanted to make a more movie-like game.
Either way, there was quite a bit of branching based on your mission success in both Prophecy and Secret Ops.
What the hell else would I mean? Who thinks you can't yell that there's a fire when there is one?
Sorry guys, rights are not given by the governement and any constitution that implies they are is for shit. Rights are natural.
Bullshit. You have no 'natural' rights. You have what rights your social contract provides you with. You may thing, for example, that you have a right to live, and I may agree with you. This doesn't mean that it's a natural right. It's something that you have accepted as a right for yourself and have, in exchange, granted to others in your society.
"subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society"
Guess what? That's exactly what happens with the US constitution and your right to go around yelling 'FIRE!' in crowded areas.
Anyway, S.33 of the charter, the 'notwithstanding' clause, is the real embodiment of the above sentiment. It allows the government to invoke the clause and create legislation that goes against certain areas of the charter. It's limited, though, in that all legislation passed using the clause expires after 5 years and has to be re-enacted. The not-withstanding clause also doesn't apply to the ability to vote, the duration of a government, or mobility rights.
The clause acts as a protection against a hijacking of the system by the judicial branch (and was also a way to get the provinces to agree to accepting the charter). Governments can work contrary to the charter, but aren't able to abridge rights such that people can't remove them from office.
Even discussion of using the clause tends to piss people off, so it's only used in rather exceptional cases (excepting the 'protest' in Quebec where they used the clause in every piece of legislation for three years, to protest the Charter, which was put through without their agreement). It's not exactly a governmental measure that allows them to do incredibly insane things and survive as a government.
Canada is a very government oriented socialist country. In the US, organizations like IEEE don't make laws they only make recommendations and suggestions. In the US the judges can also overturn laws that they determine to be unconstitutional, as these surely are.
What the hell are you talking about?
The provincial engineering bodies and the CCPE can't make laws... They can make their own bylaws, as directed by the respective governmental acts that brought them into existance, or empowered them as the engineering body of record in their juristiction, but that's it.
I have no idea how this would even approach being a constitutional issue in the United States. I'm sure that at least the term 'Doctor' is protected to a degree in the United States, and probably the term 'Lawyer' or 'Attorney' as well. This would be established by an act of law. Obviously, in Canada, we're evil socialists that have our country governed by appointed bureaucrats, or some such thing, as this is much too civilized a system for us!
Wait... no...
We have, in British Columbia, the 'Engineer's and Geoscientists Act' which, oddly, spells out the way various terms can be used, as well as laying out the guidelines behind the self regulation of the profession that is done by APEGBC (Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia). APEGBC doesn't have the power to set laws. It is a certification and standard setting body that works within the legislation that created it.
I'll also point out that the Canadian Judicial system is more than capable of dealing with unjust laws and violations of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as demonstrated by the somewhat recent revoking of Ontario's marijuana laws because they made it impossible for a sick man to have both "liberty and security of person," which are two of the fundamental rights that the Charter guarantees
As a final point, I'll mention that I have no knowledge of laws regarding accountants in Canada, or I would have commented on those as well.
Easiest way to check if they'll badmouth you when a future employer checks up on your history is to just call Human Resources and pretend you're from HR at some company that's just been reviewing your resume.
It's being a bit of a jerk to bypass a measure they've obviously put in place to avoid horrible rape by the slashot hordes. :(