Not picking a fight either, just looking more in depth to your reply;)
(1) News reporting is expressely written as being allowed, as it's not the copy which is used to make money, but the report in itself.
(2) As specified in the first post, the fact that the work is unpublished does not substract it from fair use.
(3) From TFA, I had skimmed through it and I remember reading that he could have copied it all but didn't because he didn't have the time or space
(4) The effects can be very varying. For those who didn't knew that they could get it from the web (there are still people who don't know ?), since he didn't gave any information on how he obtained it, I don't think they could leverage it to obtain a copy easily. But since the review it itself was good, it can help a lot of people to chose to go see the movie, rather than wait to rent it at a 1$ per day automated dvd rental system.
Don't get me wrong, I don't give a damn that he lost his job about it, and that's totally fine by me (it's understandable considering the way the company it itself sees copyright), but I was just pointing to the other people that the reason they gave as having done something illegal, might not be so illegal after all -- at least for him, not for those who let him leech this copy off...
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
So, it would be useable, provided it's done for such reasons :
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
Since he's a reporter, using a small part of the movie, even if it's not yet published, it's a fair use of the material and is not protected under the copyright law..
Actually, you only have to 'offer' the french version, it doesn't need to be in stock at all time. Your point 2 is moot, since there are a lot of quebecers who will only play the original language version provided they understand it. That includes english for a lot of us, and spanish / dutch for many too.
Having them forced to sell the french version provided it exists is for the quebecers who aren't able to understand english (or whatever else) enough to enjoy the game. Those people will not even try buying the english version. For resellers, it's not hard to know how many of his average customer get the french version, and to plan accordingly.
Then, for your point 1, we know that if we want the games fast, we might need to get the english version. So we just buy it here, because the resellers will not delay the game for that kind of reason.
The delays we heard of (like that guitar game) were caused by another bill, where if you sell an english only version without a french one available, then your documentation & presentation must include a french translation.
This is understandable, because sadly, a lot of quebecers still don't read english.
If you had taken the time to read about this specific thing, you'd learn that not only is this old news (this was done in 2007!), but that the CANADIAN association of video game signed this bill.
Also, any computer game has been subject to this exact bill since october 2007. The only difference is that now, console games are also covered.
If you took the time to read the description, you'd have learned that distributor are mandated to offer the french version of a game provided that it already exists somewhere else.
The bill specifies that any reseller can sell the english version as long as they also offer the french version if it exists. I'm a french quebecer and I kept buying english computer games without noticing anything.
The only problem that I heard about caused by this bill so far has been with world of warcraft, for which the french version was originally built for playing on european servers, so you could not play with a friend who bought the english version...
I'm not sure on how to analyze that post after reading TFA. It seems that the radeon beat the nvidia in most of the cases, even at the $ per average FPS..
Thus why is this tagged with nvidia as the winner ?
Actually, the traffic from TPB site is not illegal in most country I would say. There is no parts of the transfer of any copyrighted material going through TPB so far..
I've read that some hard drive use a magnetic stabilisation inside, a little like the digital cameras who moves the sensors along with the user movement, thus, if the hard drive is powered, it can sustain bigger vibrations without being damaged.
And I believe your blu-ray was still only 1920x1200... What will you do for those of us playing in 2560x1600, on two or three monitors, you insensitive clod!
That's your filesystem definition. Even there, I can guarantee you it can't be built, thus, from your point of view, no file system will ever not be bugged.
How come ?
I open a file I write one byte I close the file
Data is not on disk BECAUSE IT WAS FULL and you failed to plan for intercepting errors / warnings.
The filesystems needs to be used along with their specifications, not the way you'd want them to work.
They proved that your internet connection was used to do something that infringe the copyrights of somebody else. It does not matter who really did it, since you are responsible for the use of your internet connection...
Well, that totally depend on where you live. One of my friend here received such a letter. They had the packet size, had the content of some of them (too bad he had not used any encryption on that connection) showing that he had downloaded a movie.
I should have RTFA, but I expected them to move parts of the proof process so that they have to validate the logs provided, at least. IE, has the user reported as infringing actually ever downloaded from there.
In this case I presume you would upload the content toward the judges& lawmakers, thus they would not be caught downloading but being uploaded to. Does it still count ?:)
Hurry up! We need to hit them before they read your comment and know that we will hit them thus launching sooner than your pre-emptive strike unpre-emptived;)
Unless you send missiles to already destroy all their installations before posting your message ?
Gun #1: Kills each and every gunman when they don't expect it. You are not even pressing the trigger. But you sure as hell do know they kill the gunman.
Gun #2: You know that a gunman can be killed once in a while, but when it happens somebody will deliver you with upgraded guns preventing it from happening again in a small amount of time.
Server Error in '/SKILLS' Application. Object reference not set to an instance of an object. Description: An unhandled exception occurred during the execution of the current web request. Please review the stack trace for more information about the error and where it originated in the code.
Exception Details: System.NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object.
Source Error:
An unhandled exception was generated during the execution of the current web request. Information regarding the origin and location of the exception can be identified using the exception stack trace below.
Stack Trace:
[NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object.]
Skills.Suggestion.doTheSend() in C:\Documents and Settings\qeuc34\My Documents\Visual Studio 2005\Projects\Skills\Skills\Suggestion.aspx.vb:137
Skills.Suggestion.sendEmailLink_Click(Object sender, EventArgs e) in C:\Documents and Settings\qeuc34\My Documents\Visual Studio 2005\Projects\Skills\Skills\Suggestion.aspx.vb:127
System.Web.UI.WebControls.LinkButton.OnClick(EventArgs e) +90
System.Web.UI.WebControls.LinkButton.RaisePostBackEvent(String eventArgument) +76
System.Web.UI.WebControls.LinkButton.System.Web.UI.IPostBackEventHandler.RaisePostBackEvent(String eventArgument) +7
System.Web.UI.Page.RaisePostBackEvent(IPostBackEventHandler sourceControl, String eventArgument) +11
System.Web.UI.Page.RaisePostBackEvent(NameValueCollection postData) +177
System.Web.UI.Page.ProcessRequestMain(Boolean includeStagesBeforeAsyncPoint, Boolean includeStagesAfterAsyncPoint) +1746
Version Information: Microsoft.NET Framework Version:2.0.50727.1433; ASP.NET Version:2.0.50727.1433
Slashdot Mirror
Not picking a fight either, just looking more in depth to your reply ;)
(1) News reporting is expressely written as being allowed, as it's not the copy which is used to make money, but the report in itself.
(2) As specified in the first post, the fact that the work is unpublished does not substract it from fair use.
(3) From TFA, I had skimmed through it and I remember reading that he could have copied it all but didn't because he didn't have the time or space
(4) The effects can be very varying. For those who didn't knew that they could get it from the web (there are still people who don't know ?), since he didn't gave any information on how he obtained it, I don't think they could leverage it to obtain a copy easily. But since the review it itself was good, it can help a lot of people to chose to go see the movie, rather than wait to rent it at a 1$ per day automated dvd rental system.
Don't get me wrong, I don't give a damn that he lost his job about it, and that's totally fine by me (it's understandable considering the way the company it itself sees copyright), but I was just pointing to the other people that the reason they gave as having done something illegal, might not be so illegal after all -- at least for him, not for those who let him leech this copy off...
Humm actually, from the fair use point:
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
So, it would be useable, provided it's done for such reasons :
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
Since he's a reporter, using a small part of the movie, even if it's not yet published, it's a fair use of the material and is not protected under the copyright law..
At least that's what I understand out of this.
Actually, you only have to 'offer' the french version, it doesn't need to be in stock at all time. Your point 2 is moot, since there are a lot of quebecers who will only play the original language version provided they understand it. That includes english for a lot of us, and spanish / dutch for many too.
Having them forced to sell the french version provided it exists is for the quebecers who aren't able to understand english (or whatever else) enough to enjoy the game. Those people will not even try buying the english version. For resellers, it's not hard to know how many of his average customer get the french version, and to plan accordingly.
Then, for your point 1, we know that if we want the games fast, we might need to get the english version. So we just buy it here, because the resellers will not delay the game for that kind of reason.
The delays we heard of (like that guitar game) were caused by another bill, where if you sell an english only version without a french one available, then your documentation & presentation must include a french translation.
This is understandable, because sadly, a lot of quebecers still don't read english.
If you had taken the time to read about this specific thing, you'd learn that not only is this old news (this was done in 2007!), but that the CANADIAN association of video game signed this bill.
Also, any computer game has been subject to this exact bill since october 2007. The only difference is that now, console games are also covered.
If you took the time to read the description, you'd have learned that distributor are mandated to offer the french version of a game provided that it already exists somewhere else.
The bill specifies that any reseller can sell the english version as long as they also offer the french version if it exists. I'm a french quebecer and I kept buying english computer games without noticing anything.
The only problem that I heard about caused by this bill so far has been with world of warcraft, for which the french version was originally built for playing on european servers, so you could not play with a friend who bought the english version...
You might find this interesting:
http://www.oqlf.gouv.qc.ca/francisation/consommateurs/secteur/jeux_video/jeuxvideo.html
I'm not sure on how to analyze that post after reading TFA. It seems that the radeon beat the nvidia in most of the cases, even at the $ per average FPS..
Thus why is this tagged with nvidia as the winner ?
Are our wow char achievement points added to our slashdot ones ?
Actually, the traffic from TPB site is not illegal in most country I would say. There is no parts of the transfer of any copyrighted material going through TPB so far ..
I've read that some hard drive use a magnetic stabilisation inside, a little like the digital cameras who moves the sensors along with the user movement, thus, if the hard drive is powered, it can sustain bigger vibrations without being damaged.
And I believe your blu-ray was still only 1920x1200... What will you do for those of us playing in 2560x1600, on two or three monitors, you insensitive clod!
They can blow up the corpses after they die of the poison ..
And actually, Mt. Doom could be personallized (?) as a time lapse after which the patent dies anyway.
Well he didn't have much to start with if he would have managed to copy all of it in less than 2 minutes..
That's your filesystem definition. Even there, I can guarantee you it can't be built, thus, from your point of view, no file system will ever not be bugged.
How come ?
I open a file
I write one byte
I close the file
Data is not on disk BECAUSE IT WAS FULL and you failed to plan for intercepting errors / warnings.
The filesystems needs to be used along with their specifications, not the way you'd want them to work.
They still could charge you back for the missing amount of money since they know who was seated where... It's still unprobable they will do, though.
The easy solution would be to only apply the limitation on account creation. Just have to prove once that you live in the area!
Well now if it's not what they did, they are certainly planning the next one!
If it was your son, most likely. If the one who was 'really' driving ran away and they have no proof it wasn't you, then you are fucked.
They proved that your internet connection was used to do something that infringe the copyrights of somebody else. It does not matter who really did it, since you are responsible for the use of your internet connection...
Well, that totally depend on where you live. One of my friend here received such a letter. They had the packet size, had the content of some of them (too bad he had not used any encryption on that connection) showing that he had downloaded a movie.
I should have RTFA, but I expected them to move parts of the proof process so that they have to validate the logs provided, at least. IE, has the user reported as infringing actually ever downloaded from there.
In this case I presume you would upload the content toward the judges& lawmakers, thus they would not be caught downloading but being uploaded to. Does it still count ? :)
Hurry up! We need to hit them before they read your comment and know that we will hit them thus launching sooner than your pre-emptive strike unpre-emptived ;)
Unless you send missiles to already destroy all their installations before posting your message ?
The correct comparison would be this.
Gun #1: Kills each and every gunman when they don't expect it. You are not even pressing the trigger. But you sure as hell do know they kill the gunman.
Gun #2: You know that a gunman can be killed once in a while, but when it happens somebody will deliver you with upgraded guns preventing it from happening again in a small amount of time.
TY, I'll keep FF
Just use an email where dots are ignored. Gmail comes to mind.
I tried to leave a comment :
Server Error in '/SKILLS' Application.
Object reference not set to an instance of an object.
Description: An unhandled exception occurred during the execution of the current web request. Please review the stack trace for more information about the error and where it originated in the code.
Exception Details: System.NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object.
Source Error:
An unhandled exception was generated during the execution of the current web request. Information regarding the origin and location of the exception can be identified using the exception stack trace below.
Stack Trace:
[NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object.]
Skills.Suggestion.doTheSend() in C:\Documents and Settings\qeuc34\My Documents\Visual Studio 2005\Projects\Skills\Skills\Suggestion.aspx.vb:137
Skills.Suggestion.sendEmailLink_Click(Object sender, EventArgs e) in C:\Documents and Settings\qeuc34\My Documents\Visual Studio 2005\Projects\Skills\Skills\Suggestion.aspx.vb:127
System.Web.UI.WebControls.LinkButton.OnClick(EventArgs e) +90
System.Web.UI.WebControls.LinkButton.RaisePostBackEvent(String eventArgument) +76
System.Web.UI.WebControls.LinkButton.System.Web.UI.IPostBackEventHandler.RaisePostBackEvent(String eventArgument) +7
System.Web.UI.Page.RaisePostBackEvent(IPostBackEventHandler sourceControl, String eventArgument) +11
System.Web.UI.Page.RaisePostBackEvent(NameValueCollection postData) +177
System.Web.UI.Page.ProcessRequestMain(Boolean includeStagesBeforeAsyncPoint, Boolean includeStagesAfterAsyncPoint) +1746
Version Information: Microsoft .NET Framework Version:2.0.50727.1433; ASP.NET Version:2.0.50727.1433
LOL ?!?