I agree that this plant should be closed down now.
But tell me how it is possible that an enviromental disaster like tmi is happening every day but the press haven't picked it up. Are they stupid. Are you wrong. Perhaps with all the radioactivity lying around from years of testing no-one noticed this new stuff.
Or more likely doesn't anyone care because it's Utah.
Hey, thanks for that newamericancentury site. How can they actually say we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles. without sniggering behind their hands.
Oh, that's right, they feel that Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. Well that's alright then. I feel safer now.
then why aren't all these 'pirates' being charged with theft.
I acquired my enormous mp3 collection by ignoring copyright restrictions on some sound recordings. That opens me to potential legal action by the coyright holder and by the law. I would not be charged with theft.
Obviously it's a coincidence. They were waiting for the eToilet to arrive from MS UK so they could flush the paper away in a highly symbolic ceremony but found out it didn't exist, it was a marketing exercise only so they had to resort to the shredder.
Of course it had nothing to do with the fact that the case is over and there is no legal reason to keep 6 tons of paper in the back room (most of which is copies of other documents or printouts of electronic files)
Yeah, like you would be happy if an operating system didn't let you try something. MS release the X-Box and the first thing PLU bitch and moan about is how they won't let you load an entirely different operating system onto it let alone hack the one that's there.
Is there nothing linux can't do? Can I just keep adding to your list of programs running with no negative effect on speed or usability.
I suspect that MS release an OS that will be stable under normal loads for most users. The list you have is probably a little longer than most. You forget that most Windows users aren't like you.
Re:Have faith in the Erm�chtigungsgesetz!
on
The Searchable Life
·
· Score: 1
I disagree.
He didn't actually use the N word and use it as a mindless argument stopper. Rather he provided a valid historical analogy that shows how an erstwhile democratic country can legislate totalitarianism.
The word of a Supreme Court that says that it has no jurisdiction over what happens in an official American installation on leased foreign territory. Presumably it accepts that the Executive arm of government has such jurisdiction or someone could ask the Court to require the Executive to comply with basic rules of American law.
This is the principle of separation of powers separated from reality.
I'll take the word of the Supreme Court over yours any day of the week.
I have serious issues with laws that are interpreted so broadly and so dangerously and rely solely on the good nature of the executive and judicial branch not to nail me with those penalties for an act for which I had absolutely no foreknowledge.
I would too if we were talking about hanging offences but we live with it every day in other areas of life so I'm not concerned that the tactical response team will kick in my doors anytime soon. Not about music copying at least.
And don't quote tell me about slipery slopes please. I'm more concerned that the police will get all excited about speeding and set up hundreds more speed traps and I'll lose my licence because I inadvertently go 5km over the limit a couple of times a week. Another one of those penalties that is applied with no defense available, you do the speed, you pay the ticket.
you can't tell me that if I snuck a microphone into a recording studio that I wouldn't be considered a sound thief.
The Copyright Act (at least in Australia) gives the Artist a copyright over recording or broadcasting of a live performance. In other words , you can't make a recording of a performance without permission.
If you have a license to listen to the music, then it doesn't matter what the media is.
Did you miss the point of copyright altogether. A recording of X exists so a copyright holder is initially the only one with a right to make a copy of that recording. They or their licencee can make 1 mill copies on CD and sell the CDs. You can buy one of the CDs and you own it and it's your CD and you can do anything you like with it except broadcast it, publicly perform it, or make a copy of the recording.
Whatever you think might be fair, none of the 7 things you mentioned are in fact allowed under the Copyright Act without the copyright holders consent. A copyright holder might not be too upset if everyone who did those things also owned a copy of the track.
The plain fact is that most who do, don't.
So the uncomfortable fact remains that even if you do own it and you do any of those things without permission you are breaching the copyright act.
That's because the information sheet being quoted from deals specifically with music cds and doesn't deal with penalties or remedies, merely what constitutes breach of copyright. The stuff on penalties and software is on other sheets.
As for balanced, why would you expect balanced. They are an industry group. You don't expect balanced on/.
The modchip case was lost by SONY for reasons other than the right to backup software.
Yes it's illegal to play a CD in Australia unless it plays directly to the speaker with no buffering. This is why there are only 5 CD players in Australia and they are owned by rich and powerful radio stations and one by a government department. Fortunately they are so inefficient that they manage to buy more than 45 million CDs a year to play on the 5 players. This keeps many musicians and record company employees in work.
Either that or you are easily confused by long words and complex ideas.
Give me a break. What do you think the licence you have is for- to look at the frigging CD. The CD in Australia says in reasonably readable type "Unauthorized public performance, broadcasting and copying of this recording prohibited"
Also AFAIK you don't copyright a sound but the recording.
A backup is of course a copy. The law is not referring directly to a copy of the CD you purchased but to operational backups of a hard disk which would contain copies of programs. Technically this is a copy and to avoid problems with securing permission for an essential operational issue as well as to avoid evil software licences that required fees for each backup, the law ensures that you can copy copyright material as part of a backup.
It has come to be accepted that a copy of a CD used instead of the original one to avoid damage in use can be considered a backup (though I don't know if it has been decided by a Court).
Music CD's aren't subject to this type of use as a general rule. But I understand Radio Stations actually do pay a royalty for burning tracks to the CD's that are put together for DJ's to use on air. Most don't use the retail CD's for regular airplay to avoid damage.
But you run the risk of this every time you buy anything. With hard goods like a car or even a CD you can usually assume that the person offering it to you has good title. You might have different levels of trust between Tower Records and the guy selling you a CD with photocopied cover in Indonesian from his car boot at the flea market. But at either level if they don't have good title you run the risk of the real owner coming looking for their stuff and taking it back. You may have an action against the guy who sold it to you but the owner gets his CD or car back. If the police don't accept your story that you honestly believed that you were buying the car from its true owner then you may have a problem with receiving stolen goods.
If someone gives you a URL, and you visit that URL and retrieve a copyrighted work
Apart from the fact that p2p works on ip addresses and doesn't need DNS lookups there is no effective difference between p2p and http, they are just protocols for accessing remote files. And the web is full of mp3 warez sites. So yes the same applies there.
Seriously, most, if not all p2p users are looking for copyrighted works and it's difficult to believe otherwise. Realk copyright music owners don't operate in p2p space and if you come across a web site of a record company and the address isn't in Kahzatskstan or somewhere you'll be safe.
The problem seems to be that people want absolute certainty in everything. It doesn't exist anywhere. Get over that soon and you can get on with living.
As a matter of interest I use subscription News Servers to access music. I can get whole albums (if i want singles i can listen to the radio). I can't usually get an album I want even if I have to wait for someone to post it. But I also find lots of stuff I didn't know I wanted.
So I'm actually happy to pay for mp3 grade music at a reasonable price. And I'd be happy to pay more if it was legal or at least the artists got something. The news servers give me variety and depth. Being from outside the US I don't know what the Apple site is like but I doubt I can get what I'm after there.
You seem to be overlooking the server's role in this.
No. I said that a good start would be to ask the bartender. That was the analogous step to asking the p2p trader if there was copyright clearance on material they were making available for you to access. Of course I'd trust the bartender more than the p2p trader because he has more to lose as you say. So i wouldn't pull out my detection kit if he told me which was which.
are you suggesting that by being "ignorant" of what I'm requesting I deserve what I get?
Not at all. Though that's a common misunderstanding when someone suggests that a person did something they shouldn't.
Doctor: Did you look both ways before you used the Zebra Crossing.
Patient: It was a Zebra Crossing. I had the right of way. Are you suggesting that this is my fault. That I deserve a broken leg because I didn't look both ways.
Doctor: No-one deserve a broken leg. I'm just checking to see if you learnt anything form this experience or if you're likely to do it again and waste my time when I could be helping someone who needs help rather than someone who's here because they are ignorant.
but this interpretation does eliminate all usefulness from P2P networks
Well the short answer to that is "So what. If its use is illegal, its usefulness merely makes it worse."
But a more common argument is that closing down p2p networks will kill a lot of useful and entirely legal file sharing. Are you telling me that basically all p2p network usefulness arises from transfers of copyrighted material. Who's side are you on.
This explains why so many popular movies aren't great movies. I mean they aren't bad movies but they aren't anything special as movies.
Titanic and Gladiators are perfect examples. They pretty much follow the template (though I don't remember a single joke from either movie) but they aren't exactly intense experiences that push the boundaries of moviemaking.
How do you get an American court to have jurisdiction over a company that does not sell products to US consumers - since it does not sell anything - and does not have any divisions in the US?
The American legal system will find a way, don't you worry about that.
After all this is the legal system that thought that it should arrest a russian who did something in Russia (Skylarov) that was illegal in the USA but couldn't believe the temerity of Russians wanting to arrest Americans (the FBI) who did something in the USA that was illegal in Russia.
American law seems to admit no boundaries on the reach of its law but does not like to accept judgement by any other jurisdiction on its citizens or interests. Only an American legal system could persuade a free Court to accept the Camp X-Ray bullshit.
Put yourself in this scenario: you go to a bar (web site/P2P network) and are given a choice of two drinks (songs) by two different distillers (artists). One of the distillers (artists/labels) produces low alcohol drinks (released their song for free on the Internet). The other is in fact moonshine and of sufficient strength to kill an elephant (had their song ripped from a CD illegally and posted). You've never heard of either distiller (artist). What do you do? Is it your obligation at this point to call up both distillers (artists) and see if this drink is safe to have before you drive home (song is legally redistributable to you before you can even download it)? Or is that something that needs to be up to the person actually doing the redistribution (by posting it or sharing it)?
Ask the distributor could be a good start. Think about it for a second is always a good backup plan.
How bout a less artificial or at least more common situation where I download a new britney album from some unknown site on a p2p network. I don't give a rats whose is was and I sure as hell don't expect that ms anonymous at the other end of the p2p connection is actually britney in disguise advancing the cause of ip destruction.
Ignorance is no excuse and generally even less of a defence especially if you are willfully ignorant.
Basically to me it seems unreasonable that the law is meant to be interpreted like this
I agree, but many people in the court room will laugh at your protestations as you are dragged away to the cell.
Slashdot Mirror
That's just the kind of wooley headed thinking that got us into this mess in the first place.
But tell me how it is possible that an enviromental disaster like tmi is happening every day but the press haven't picked it up. Are they stupid. Are you wrong. Perhaps with all the radioactivity lying around from years of testing no-one noticed this new stuff.
Or more likely doesn't anyone care because it's Utah.
Oh, that's right, they feel that Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. Well that's alright then. I feel safer now.
The Normans were Danes about as much as the Americans are English.
I acquired my enormous mp3 collection by ignoring copyright restrictions on some sound recordings. That opens me to potential legal action by the coyright holder and by the law. I would not be charged with theft.
That might have made me want to go and see it. Nicole Kidman killing herself almost had me in the door.
Of course it had nothing to do with the fact that the case is over and there is no legal reason to keep 6 tons of paper in the back room (most of which is copies of other documents or printouts of electronic files)
Yeah, like you would be happy if an operating system didn't let you try something. MS release the X-Box and the first thing PLU bitch and moan about is how they won't let you load an entirely different operating system onto it let alone hack the one that's there.
Is there nothing linux can't do? Can I just keep adding to your list of programs running with no negative effect on speed or usability.
I suspect that MS release an OS that will be stable under normal loads for most users. The list you have is probably a little longer than most. You forget that most Windows users aren't like you.
He didn't actually use the N word and use it as a mindless argument stopper. Rather he provided a valid historical analogy that shows how an erstwhile democratic country can legislate totalitarianism.
This is the principle of separation of powers separated from reality.
I'll take the word of the Supreme Court over yours any day of the week.
That's what Bush and Co are relying on.
a society where no one has to hide behind pseudonyms to speak their mind
is what we are aiming at. Noone is there yet.
one where people feel the need not to compromise themselves or something by saying their opinion
is where all societies are at present. Some societies allow you to give your opinion with less retribution than others.
then I'll be happy to give you my name.
Don't you think a soulless industructible monster endowed with rat cunning and an instinctive fear of humans like Valance will be a little biased.
I would too if we were talking about hanging offences but we live with it every day in other areas of life so I'm not concerned that the tactical response team will kick in my doors anytime soon. Not about music copying at least.
And don't quote tell me about slipery slopes please. I'm more concerned that the police will get all excited about speeding and set up hundreds more speed traps and I'll lose my licence because I inadvertently go 5km over the limit a couple of times a week. Another one of those penalties that is applied with no defense available, you do the speed, you pay the ticket.
The Copyright Act (at least in Australia) gives the Artist a copyright over recording or broadcasting of a live performance. In other words , you can't make a recording of a performance without permission.
If you have a license to listen to the music, then it doesn't matter what the media is.
Did you miss the point of copyright altogether. A recording of X exists so a copyright holder is initially the only one with a right to make a copy of that recording. They or their licencee can make 1 mill copies on CD and sell the CDs. You can buy one of the CDs and you own it and it's your CD and you can do anything you like with it except broadcast it, publicly perform it, or make a copy of the recording.
Whatever you think might be fair, none of the 7 things you mentioned are in fact allowed under the Copyright Act without the copyright holders consent. A copyright holder might not be too upset if everyone who did those things also owned a copy of the track.
The plain fact is that most who do, don't.
So the uncomfortable fact remains that even if you do own it and you do any of those things without permission you are breaching the copyright act.
As for balanced, why would you expect balanced. They are an industry group. You don't expect balanced on /.
The modchip case was lost by SONY for reasons other than the right to backup software.
Either that or you are easily confused by long words and complex ideas.
Also AFAIK you don't copyright a sound but the recording.
It has come to be accepted that a copy of a CD used instead of the original one to avoid damage in use can be considered a backup (though I don't know if it has been decided by a Court).
Music CD's aren't subject to this type of use as a general rule. But I understand Radio Stations actually do pay a royalty for burning tracks to the CD's that are put together for DJ's to use on air. Most don't use the retail CD's for regular airplay to avoid damage.
If someone gives you a URL, and you visit that URL and retrieve a copyrighted work
Apart from the fact that p2p works on ip addresses and doesn't need DNS lookups there is no effective difference between p2p and http, they are just protocols for accessing remote files. And the web is full of mp3 warez sites. So yes the same applies there.
Seriously, most, if not all p2p users are looking for copyrighted works and it's difficult to believe otherwise. Realk copyright music owners don't operate in p2p space and if you come across a web site of a record company and the address isn't in Kahzatskstan or somewhere you'll be safe.
The problem seems to be that people want absolute certainty in everything. It doesn't exist anywhere. Get over that soon and you can get on with living.
As a matter of interest I use subscription News Servers to access music. I can get whole albums (if i want singles i can listen to the radio). I can't usually get an album I want even if I have to wait for someone to post it. But I also find lots of stuff I didn't know I wanted.
So I'm actually happy to pay for mp3 grade music at a reasonable price. And I'd be happy to pay more if it was legal or at least the artists got something. The news servers give me variety and depth. Being from outside the US I don't know what the Apple site is like but I doubt I can get what I'm after there.
No. I said that a good start would be to ask the bartender. That was the analogous step to asking the p2p trader if there was copyright clearance on material they were making available for you to access. Of course I'd trust the bartender more than the p2p trader because he has more to lose as you say. So i wouldn't pull out my detection kit if he told me which was which.
are you suggesting that by being "ignorant" of what I'm requesting I deserve what I get?
Not at all. Though that's a common misunderstanding when someone suggests that a person did something they shouldn't.
Doctor: Did you look both ways before you used the Zebra Crossing.
Patient: It was a Zebra Crossing. I had the right of way. Are you suggesting that this is my fault. That I deserve a broken leg because I didn't look both ways.
Doctor: No-one deserve a broken leg. I'm just checking to see if you learnt anything form this experience or if you're likely to do it again and waste my time when I could be helping someone who needs help rather than someone who's here because they are ignorant.
but this interpretation does eliminate all usefulness from P2P networks
Well the short answer to that is "So what. If its use is illegal, its usefulness merely makes it worse."
But a more common argument is that closing down p2p networks will kill a lot of useful and entirely legal file sharing. Are you telling me that basically all p2p network usefulness arises from transfers of copyrighted material. Who's side are you on.
Titanic and Gladiators are perfect examples. They pretty much follow the template (though I don't remember a single joke from either movie) but they aren't exactly intense experiences that push the boundaries of moviemaking.
The American legal system will find a way, don't you worry about that.
After all this is the legal system that thought that it should arrest a russian who did something in Russia (Skylarov) that was illegal in the USA but couldn't believe the temerity of Russians wanting to arrest Americans (the FBI) who did something in the USA that was illegal in Russia.
American law seems to admit no boundaries on the reach of its law but does not like to accept judgement by any other jurisdiction on its citizens or interests. Only an American legal system could persuade a free Court to accept the Camp X-Ray bullshit.
Ask the distributor could be a good start. Think about it for a second is always a good backup plan.
How bout a less artificial or at least more common situation where I download a new britney album from some unknown site on a p2p network. I don't give a rats whose is was and I sure as hell don't expect that ms anonymous at the other end of the p2p connection is actually britney in disguise advancing the cause of ip destruction.
Ignorance is no excuse and generally even less of a defence especially if you are willfully ignorant.
Basically to me it seems unreasonable that the law is meant to be interpreted like this
I agree, but many people in the court room will laugh at your protestations as you are dragged away to the cell.
I dreamed about her asking me what the fuck I was doing, but it had nothing to do with music.