They hold the software company's Power of Attorney over copyrights. So they effectively are the software company when they write to you.
The most they can do is threaten you and rat you out to the real authorities
They can start civil legal action for breach of copyright and in the process get court orders to search your premises.
the FBI needn't come into it.
unlike the BSA, the government actually has to produce enough evidence to convince a judge to grant a search warrent.
Is this arse about . Irregardless of this its unlikely they would take a case if there wasn't sufficient evidence form other sources that the company had insufficient licences.
So don't worry, you can safely ignore any messages from the BSA
No, you aren't a lawyer. I hope also that you aren't in control of other peoples money or assets in any meaningful way.
They have appointment as Power of Attorney to the software company's copyright rights. So they efectively are the various software companies coming to look for pirated software.
In Australia at least they can obtain a Court Order to enable them to do this in most cases where they have sufficient other evidence of copyright infractions eg a 1000 person company with 10 copies of MS Office.
A.Yes, the BSAA can be granted an Anton Piller order which is similar to a search and seizure warrant. If a Vendor has reasonable grounds for believing that illegal software copying is occurring within an organisation and that evidence may be destroyed if notice is given, then the Vendor may apply to the Court for an Anton Piller Order.
This is an order which requires persons in charge of the premises to allow the Vendor and representatives of the Vendor to enter company property for the purpose of searching for and seizing illegal copies of software, manuals and other documents which indicate that software theft has occurred.
For obvious reasons, no advance notice is given of when the Vendor's representatives and solicitors arrive at the premises for the purpose of carrying out the search.
Material seized on the search is used as evidence in the proceedings for infringement of copyright.
So it can be perfectly legal when they break down the door. Generally they will have some police with them I believe.
I think Anton Piller was a ship that had stuff on it that was going to flee to avoid civil action and the Court Order to keep it here was used as a basis for actions like the BSAA raids.
I don't think his father said "find a job you don't really enjoy" and I don't think he would have meant to.
I suspect he said something like "Don't get hung up on finding your perfect job. Find something you can do that supports you and look for meaning in life somewhere other than solely at work".
If the father had any insight into his sons abilities he might well have said "Son, you have a great future as a writer even though it doesn't pay well so you go for it" if in fact people talk like that outside of novels but he may well have been realistic about it.
In any case I do a number of things that I enjoy but could not possibly make a living out of no matter how much luck I make for myself.
That particular nugget of wisdom suggests that hard work is a necessary and sufficient condition for success in any field. And that is obviously not true.
Depends what you consider materialistic. Just buying expensive stuff isn't materialistic. But maybe buying stuff as a social activity or to display your wealth (and thereby your relative worth and status) are wasteful exercises and indicative of a lack of imagination. How hard is it to spend money if you've got it.
The poster didn't say that at all. The issue you have raised is one of migration from depressed areas because there is NOTHING to do and no prospect of improving things. The book is dealing with people who want to move on because in spite of the appearance of a successful life, they are unfilfilled.
The poster is suggesting that some people who say they are unfillfilled are in fact escaping from a situation that will follow them where ever they go. Bitter and twisted doesn't come into it.
You need to be a balanced person to move about successfully.
But if you've got a high-stress job, a pointy-haired boss, and a bad commute
But that's not a question of existential angst associated with your life direction. That's just the same sort of day to day crap that everyone has to deal with in one form or another. And you're right, relocation would fix a lot of those problems.
And then you'd find the new day to day crap that you have to deal with.
It doesn't do me any good to lie my way into a job I don't want.
There's you and then there's all the other idiots who will.
you have no business deciding that I don't really want it for me.
But I do have a business deciding if I will take the chance that it will not work out. In many businesses these days loyalty is a thing of the past and promises cannot rationally be accepted at face value.
As an employer who is going to spend a lot of money acquiring and training up an employee I have to go with the percentages. It's not fair or right maybe and the same thing happens to people based on age.
Light emitting diodes (LEDs) on the ceiling behind a valance cast rich colours on the wall that change as she reads and sound effects are added accordingly. A faint ring plays in the background when she says the word telephone and the walls turn green, then red to correspond with the colours in the story. When the fictional cow jumps over the moon, a simple image of a cow in full flight appears on the television screen.
Have these people ever actually read to a child. I mean part of the idea at least is for children to use their imagination but if you're going to swamp them with colours, sounds, and animation (on the TV fer chrissake) why bother reading. The sound just becomes another input.
It's like "Here kid, this is what it's supposed to look like OK. Whadayamean you want the cow to be a whitwe with black spots? Microsoft cows are brown."
We're both just equal partners accepting one person's services or products for the bartered exchange for another.
I do not accept this as a general proposition. If we are discussing a marketplace consisting entirely of individual humans it might be acceptable but not where one party is an incorporated entity (and maybe even partnerships). In saying Keep the government out of it I presume you are not in favour of these legislative creations.
If money can collectivize as incorporated entities why can't labour or consumers do the same thing.
That won't help you much. The Real tick boxes fit that criteria perfectly. Just because some are ticked and some not would be irrelevant. You would still be expected to read it all and make a decision. All the law adds is the requirement that each email have an opt out link.
IANAL but if I remember a contract is a semi-sacred thing in commom law. It will be upheld in the very teeth of reason to avoid the destruction of the basis of market relationships.
I did contract law at an Australian Uni 20 years ago and I distinctly remenber a case where a person signed a contract when it was largely hidden from sight (deliberately by the other party because some additional clauses had been added) but they knew it was a contract for X and the court held them to it. They said basically "well you knew you were signing a contract for X with the other party and you voluntarily signed it in those conditions (covered up). We can't stop you from being an poor business person and not reading what you signed. You lose." That's the fact situation you outlined in your page 2 example. One where the existence of a contract term is disputed.
That is fundamentally different from what a given contract term "means". But even then the courts give high weighting to the ordinary meaning of terms.
If there is a serious, deliberate, and successful attempt to mislead someone into what the terms of a contract means, the contract is very rarely valid.
I'm not sure an Australian court would accept that a contract should be set aside because a party didn't take the time to understand what they were signing. In fact theres a long line of cases to say you should take legal advice before you sign. There have been cases on foreign currency loans where the borrower did not understand the downsides sufficiently and relied on the "trusted" banker and the courts found the bankers to have been negligent in their duty of care to clients to advise them of the risks but that did not negate the contract as far as I know.
my understanding of the current debate is that there may be some non-dead plant generation of oil but it can't explain all the oil so most are sticking with the dead plant theory as the general rule.
its all moot anyway because its the greenhouse gases given off by burning hydrocarbons that cause the problems not the fact that its oil per se.
Probably an extension of the general rules most places have of getting ID from people selling to second hand and pawn shops. So when the 40 year old guy comes in with 2000 copies of britneys latest you don't have to decide if he's really just sick of listening to it and into the more mature stuff from jlo or he in fact burned them in a warehouse on 4th street. as long as he gives you id you're right.
Are there conferences on billboard ads? Do people lose sleep over magazine ads? Is there an anti-TV commercial movement?
Of course there are idiot. Its called culture jamming and its alive and well all round the world. Its not all left wing polemic. A lot of people are just tired of the overwhwlming amount of and stupidity of the ads that assult them from billboards, magazines and tv's.
As well, there are laws about where you can put billboards and how offensive you can be in tv and print ads. And if the public complain enough about ads the CEO listens and takes them off.
Why should spam be any different to other advertising.
If they could do that they wouldn't be a scientist.
Reminds me of the time Feynman was asked by an TV interviewer for a short explanation of QED for the lay audience to which he replied "If I could do that I wouldn't have got a Nobel Prize for it"
I don't get it. I believe 80% of what mr A tells me and he believes 50% of what Mr C tells him so I can accept (or not) something from Mr C via Mr B at 40 % level of confidence.
Isn't my 80% level of confidence based largely on whether Mr A has been wrong in the past which might be related to his believing Mr C or people like him. Don't I double count if I add Mr C to the mix.
I mean I trust Mr B not to lie to me but I'm not sure about people he hears things from.
I think I'll stick to the regular channels. At least I'm sure that they're lying to me except for the bits that can be checked.
A fair trial is a process where each party has the opportunity to present their case to an appropriate tribunal which decides whether the accused has done the deed alleged and whether that means they have broken the law in question. This determination is based on a reasoned consideration of all the facts and circumstances as presented in the trial. I suspect that this occurs in the vast majority of cases.
nowhere in that is there any mention of the fairness of the law itself or the outcome.
In any case your statement that laws are not inherently fair seems to be based on an idea that it is not fair to be held accountable for your actions in any way. On that basis please tell us what is unfair about the laws against murder (as an extreme example)
Slashdot Mirror
They hold the software company's Power of Attorney over copyrights. So they effectively are the software company when they write to you.
The most they can do is threaten you and rat you out to the real authorities
They can start civil legal action for breach of copyright and in the process get court orders to search your premises.
the FBI needn't come into it.
unlike the BSA, the government actually has to produce enough evidence to convince a judge to grant a search warrent.
Is this arse about . Irregardless of this its unlikely they would take a case if there wasn't sufficient evidence form other sources that the company had insufficient licences.
So don't worry, you can safely ignore any messages from the BSA
No, you aren't a lawyer. I hope also that you aren't in control of other peoples money or assets in any meaningful way.
In Australia at least they can obtain a Court Order to enable them to do this in most cases where they have sufficient other evidence of copyright infractions eg a 1000 person company with 10 copies of MS Office.
Does BSAA raid premises?
A.Yes, the BSAA can be granted an Anton Piller order which is similar to a search and seizure warrant. If a Vendor has reasonable grounds for believing that illegal software copying is occurring within an organisation and that evidence may be destroyed if notice is given, then the Vendor may apply to the Court for an Anton Piller Order. This is an order which requires persons in charge of the premises to allow the Vendor and representatives of the Vendor to enter company property for the purpose of searching for and seizing illegal copies of software, manuals and other documents which indicate that software theft has occurred.
For obvious reasons, no advance notice is given of when the Vendor's representatives and solicitors arrive at the premises for the purpose of carrying out the search.
Material seized on the search is used as evidence in the proceedings for infringement of copyright.
So it can be perfectly legal when they break down the door. Generally they will have some police with them I believe.
I think Anton Piller was a ship that had stuff on it that was going to flee to avoid civil action and the Court Order to keep it here was used as a basis for actions like the BSAA raids.
I suspect he said something like "Don't get hung up on finding your perfect job. Find something you can do that supports you and look for meaning in life somewhere other than solely at work".
If the father had any insight into his sons abilities he might well have said "Son, you have a great future as a writer even though it doesn't pay well so you go for it" if in fact people talk like that outside of novels but he may well have been realistic about it.
In any case I do a number of things that I enjoy but could not possibly make a living out of no matter how much luck I make for myself.
That particular nugget of wisdom suggests that hard work is a necessary and sufficient condition for success in any field. And that is obviously not true.
If you are more than 15 years old what did you do before the net.
Depends what you consider materialistic. Just buying expensive stuff isn't materialistic. But maybe buying stuff as a social activity or to display your wealth (and thereby your relative worth and status) are wasteful exercises and indicative of a lack of imagination. How hard is it to spend money if you've got it.
The poster is suggesting that some people who say they are unfillfilled are in fact escaping from a situation that will follow them where ever they go. Bitter and twisted doesn't come into it.
You need to be a balanced person to move about successfully.
But that's not a question of existential angst associated with your life direction. That's just the same sort of day to day crap that everyone has to deal with in one form or another. And you're right, relocation would fix a lot of those problems.
And then you'd find the new day to day crap that you have to deal with.
There's you and then there's all the other idiots who will.
you have no business deciding that I don't really want it for me.
But I do have a business deciding if I will take the chance that it will not work out. In many businesses these days loyalty is a thing of the past and promises cannot rationally be accepted at face value.
As an employer who is going to spend a lot of money acquiring and training up an employee I have to go with the percentages. It's not fair or right maybe and the same thing happens to people based on age.
Have these people ever actually read to a child. I mean part of the idea at least is for children to use their imagination but if you're going to swamp them with colours, sounds, and animation (on the TV fer chrissake) why bother reading. The sound just becomes another input.
It's like "Here kid, this is what it's supposed to look like OK. Whadayamean you want the cow to be a whitwe with black spots? Microsoft cows are brown."
It's not supposed to be entertainment.
A year is real quick. Some of the SA Public Servants have probably got wind burn from moving so fast.
I do not accept this as a general proposition. If we are discussing a marketplace consisting entirely of individual humans it might be acceptable but not where one party is an incorporated entity (and maybe even partnerships). In saying Keep the government out of it I presume you are not in favour of these legislative creations.
If money can collectivize as incorporated entities why can't labour or consumers do the same thing.
That won't help you much. The Real tick boxes fit that criteria perfectly. Just because some are ticked and some not would be irrelevant. You would still be expected to read it all and make a decision. All the law adds is the requirement that each email have an opt out link.
I did contract law at an Australian Uni 20 years ago and I distinctly remenber a case where a person signed a contract when it was largely hidden from sight (deliberately by the other party because some additional clauses had been added) but they knew it was a contract for X and the court held them to it. They said basically "well you knew you were signing a contract for X with the other party and you voluntarily signed it in those conditions (covered up). We can't stop you from being an poor business person and not reading what you signed. You lose." That's the fact situation you outlined in your page 2 example. One where the existence of a contract term is disputed.
That is fundamentally different from what a given contract term "means". But even then the courts give high weighting to the ordinary meaning of terms.
If there is a serious, deliberate, and successful attempt to mislead someone into what the terms of a contract means, the contract is very rarely valid.
I'm not sure an Australian court would accept that a contract should be set aside because a party didn't take the time to understand what they were signing. In fact theres a long line of cases to say you should take legal advice before you sign. There have been cases on foreign currency loans where the borrower did not understand the downsides sufficiently and relied on the "trusted" banker and the courts found the bankers to have been negligent in their duty of care to clients to advise them of the risks but that did not negate the contract as far as I know.
Its the d)etc. that everyone seems to be worried about.
its all moot anyway because its the greenhouse gases given off by burning hydrocarbons that cause the problems not the fact that its oil per se.
how much do you think BIG OIL paid to get that second law of thermodynamics passed?
tell that to the dinosaurs
after all id is un-pirateable.
Of course there are idiot. Its called culture jamming and its alive and well all round the world. Its not all left wing polemic. A lot of people are just tired of the overwhwlming amount of and stupidity of the ads that assult them from billboards, magazines and tv's.
As well, there are laws about where you can put billboards and how offensive you can be in tv and print ads. And if the public complain enough about ads the CEO listens and takes them off.
Why should spam be any different to other advertising.
Reminds me of the time Feynman was asked by an TV interviewer for a short explanation of QED for the lay audience to which he replied "If I could do that I wouldn't have got a Nobel Prize for it"
Your post is certainly pesuasive though I am still strongly attracted the theory that you were born an idiot and will always be one.
Isn't my 80% level of confidence based largely on whether Mr A has been wrong in the past which might be related to his believing Mr C or people like him. Don't I double count if I add Mr C to the mix.
I mean I trust Mr B not to lie to me but I'm not sure about people he hears things from.
I think I'll stick to the regular channels. At least I'm sure that they're lying to me except for the bits that can be checked.
A fair trial is a process where each party has the opportunity to present their case to an appropriate tribunal which decides whether the accused has done the deed alleged and whether that means they have broken the law in question. This determination is based on a reasoned consideration of all the facts and circumstances as presented in the trial. I suspect that this occurs in the vast majority of cases.
nowhere in that is there any mention of the fairness of the law itself or the outcome.
In any case your statement that laws are not inherently fair seems to be based on an idea that it is not fair to be held accountable for your actions in any way. On that basis please tell us what is unfair about the laws against murder (as an extreme example)
Have you ever met anyone addicted to long distance running? How does that fit into your simple little worldview.