The page I linked to addresses that. You can't sign away your right. If you are required to sign a contract saying you won't you are free to ignore that part of the contract (or license).
Solar, Wind and Nuclear are here right now. We could all stop using fossil fuels tomorrow if someone would come up with an economic way to power our cars using electricity. As it stands, paying 10x as much for fuel as we are now is still cheaper than using battery technology. Fuel cells are even more expensive due to their need for platinum group metals. Putting electric rails on all our roads is impractical.
Of course, now someone is going to spray me with numbers that prove that battery or hydrogen powered cars are more economical than gasoline and that it's all just a big conspiracy.
Have to agree, and the new breeder reactors being built in China and elsewhere result in very little nuclear waste that is easier to handle than waste produced by today's reactors and they're safer. So yeah, great, keep doing research into nuclear fusion but don't hail it as the solution to the world's energy problems. Nuclear fission is the answer and it's high time that countries like Australia stop burning coal and use their 40% of the world's supply of uranium before someone invades us to get it.
The difference with all those things is that Kazza can (and do) monitor what files are being transfered over their network. If they refused to log anything (as many ISPs do in Australia) they could claim they were ignorant of the illict use of their network. But yeah, it is precident setting. If Kazza doesn't just shut its doors and actually starts threatening to disconnect people who are using the network for copyright infringement, that opens the door for the labels to sue ISPs for failing to do the same.
And have done. I was involved with the people who managed to push through the 1999 Copyright Amendment (Computer Programs) Act which makes it legal to reverse engineer software for interoperability, security analysis, to correct errors or just to learn how it works. It took the support of a dedicated team of lawyers and academics but, frankly, the law got changed simply because the people who were voting on it didn't really understand what we were asking for and didn't see the harm in giving it to us. Which really boils down to the lobbyists of proprietary software (like the BSA) not being nearly as organised as the lobbyists of the music industry.
Well ya know, we already have a whole bunch of car advertisements here in Australia that are questionable. They advocate speeding (zoom zoom) and they advocate antisocial behaviour (get in or get out of the way). But this isn't going to result in a court decision because there's no big vested interest that this is stomping on. If some kid gets killed by a soccer mum in her SUV his parents won't sue the car manufacturer because they won't have a chance in hell of winning against a big corporation. Of course, if those parents managed to kick up enough of a stink the corporation might sue the parents for slander.. but that's hardly going to change anything.
Welcome to Australia. We don't even have the legal right to tape shows off tv. Rather than challenge rediculous things like that, it's the way of the Australian legal community to just ignore the problem.
It's the same as any high risk high cost project, you just gotta find the right sucker, err, investor. Look at the launch loop. Could be done with today's technology (in fact, 20 year old technology) and needs no major breakthroughs.. so where is it? On the drawing board.
Which any half decent lawyer would find out in discovery and ask the witness about under oath. Then what? The witness lies in open court. The RIAA would wanna be paying him a lot of money for those IPs dude. If he gets caught he'll be doin' 30 years.
Which means it's just as good as someone from the ISP testifying that the IP was assigned to that MAC address at that time. You couldn't get away with "faking" the data unless the RIAA had people who were willing to lie on the stand for them. Lots of luck.
As for the speed camera cases. It's simply a matter of proving that you weren't driving the car.
I guess the argument is that you're responsible for the use of that IP address. Which is debatable. If my car goes through a speed camera and it nabs the number plate, all I have to do is prove that I was somewhere else at the time and I'll easily get the charges dismissed. Maybe this woman can do something similar. Chances are she was at work for a large amount of the time that her kids were using the Internet.
If you own a car and your 14yo kid takes it for a joyride, are you responsible? Legally, I mean. Are you liable for the actions of your child? Honest question, I don't know how this works.
If people want to give stuff away for free then there is nothing wrong with taking it. If they don't want to give it away for free then they shouldn't. There are people who spend a lifetime making sculptures that no-one likes. Doesn't mean we have to support them. If you can't find an honest, voluntary, way to make money from your art, get a real job. Copyright isn't voluntary, it's the butt of a gun.
In Australia we have the right to reverse engineer for interoperability, regardless of whether or not we have entered into a contract that says we won't.
Slashdot Mirror
The page I linked to addresses that. You can't sign away your right. If you are required to sign a contract saying you won't you are free to ignore that part of the contract (or license).
Solar, Wind and Nuclear are here right now. We could all stop using fossil fuels tomorrow if someone would come up with an economic way to power our cars using electricity. As it stands, paying 10x as much for fuel as we are now is still cheaper than using battery technology. Fuel cells are even more expensive due to their need for platinum group metals. Putting electric rails on all our roads is impractical.
Of course, now someone is going to spray me with numbers that prove that battery or hydrogen powered cars are more economical than gasoline and that it's all just a big conspiracy.
Have to agree, and the new breeder reactors being built in China and elsewhere result in very little nuclear waste that is easier to handle than waste produced by today's reactors and they're safer. So yeah, great, keep doing research into nuclear fusion but don't hail it as the solution to the world's energy problems. Nuclear fission is the answer and it's high time that countries like Australia stop burning coal and use their 40% of the world's supply of uranium before someone invades us to get it.
It "amazes" you because you're not a nuclear physicist.
The difference with all those things is that Kazza can (and do) monitor what files are being transfered over their network. If they refused to log anything (as many ISPs do in Australia) they could claim they were ignorant of the illict use of their network. But yeah, it is precident setting. If Kazza doesn't just shut its doors and actually starts threatening to disconnect people who are using the network for copyright infringement, that opens the door for the labels to sue ISPs for failing to do the same.
And have done. I was involved with the people who managed to push through the 1999 Copyright Amendment (Computer Programs) Act which makes it legal to reverse engineer software for interoperability, security analysis, to correct errors or just to learn how it works. It took the support of a dedicated team of lawyers and academics but, frankly, the law got changed simply because the people who were voting on it didn't really understand what we were asking for and didn't see the harm in giving it to us. Which really boils down to the lobbyists of proprietary software (like the BSA) not being nearly as organised as the lobbyists of the music industry.
Well ya know, we already have a whole bunch of car advertisements here in Australia that are questionable. They advocate speeding (zoom zoom) and they advocate antisocial behaviour (get in or get out of the way). But this isn't going to result in a court decision because there's no big vested interest that this is stomping on. If some kid gets killed by a soccer mum in her SUV his parents won't sue the car manufacturer because they won't have a chance in hell of winning against a big corporation. Of course, if those parents managed to kick up enough of a stink the corporation might sue the parents for slander.. but that's hardly going to change anything.
Welcome to Australia. We don't even have the legal right to tape shows off tv. Rather than challenge rediculous things like that, it's the way of the Australian legal community to just ignore the problem.
Sure, if cutesy kids games are your thing, go for Nintendo.
Yep, where we can play the latest incarnation of Mario in a photorealistic setting.
It's the same as any high risk high cost project, you just gotta find the right sucker, err, investor. Look at the launch loop. Could be done with today's technology (in fact, 20 year old technology) and needs no major breakthroughs.. so where is it? On the drawing board.
like you maybe. I personally don't break into fits of rage at the slightest provokation.
You take the money, go to the next town, buy supplies, bring them back to feed your family whilst they guard your house from other looters.
The only disgusting thing here is the fact that they didn't burn New Orleans to the ground when the French surrendered it.
Which any half decent lawyer would find out in discovery and ask the witness about under oath. Then what? The witness lies in open court. The RIAA would wanna be paying him a lot of money for those IPs dude. If he gets caught he'll be doin' 30 years.
Which means it's just as good as someone from the ISP testifying that the IP was assigned to that MAC address at that time. You couldn't get away with "faking" the data unless the RIAA had people who were willing to lie on the stand for them. Lots of luck.
As for the speed camera cases. It's simply a matter of proving that you weren't driving the car.
I hope you got the bitch brought up on federal charges.
Wow. Imagine if they find that she was "negligently entrusting" a computer to a minor. That would be precident setting.
I guess the argument is that you're responsible for the use of that IP address. Which is debatable. If my car goes through a speed camera and it nabs the number plate, all I have to do is prove that I was somewhere else at the time and I'll easily get the charges dismissed. Maybe this woman can do something similar. Chances are she was at work for a large amount of the time that her kids were using the Internet.
Sure. here ya go.
You're kidding right? If someone steals your car and runs someone down, you're liable? WTF?
If you own a car and your 14yo kid takes it for a joyride, are you responsible? Legally, I mean. Are you liable for the actions of your child? Honest question, I don't know how this works.
If people want to give stuff away for free then there is nothing wrong with taking it. If they don't want to give it away for free then they shouldn't. There are people who spend a lifetime making sculptures that no-one likes. Doesn't mean we have to support them. If you can't find an honest, voluntary, way to make money from your art, get a real job. Copyright isn't voluntary, it's the butt of a gun.
In Australia we have the right to reverse engineer for interoperability, regardless of whether or not we have entered into a contract that says we won't.
The stats still show that the vast majority of people who visit Slashdot are running Windows. But yeah, it is an ad.