I'm far from a supporter of long-copyrights but you have to consider the differences due to tangibility of the products:
If doors lasted forever (as data can) then you might well attempt to build in some means to make the doors have a limited lifetime so as to enable repeat custom which in turn enables you to keep fitting doors. In a very real way charging for old content (that is out of fashion) is intended to make newer content comparatively better value than it would otherwise be. If I can download any movie >7 years old for free then personally I doubt if I'd ever pay for a movie again. Royalties are almost a side-effect of this market manipulation.
A better comparison might be whether you'd charge someone to fit an old door or whether you'd provide your services free?
"The later model disc drives did not feature faster load times but protected against piracy somewhat since some CD-R and CD-RW discs would not load on these drives, while discs burned at certain speeds will not load at all."
Also wasn't it the poor reputation garnered from previous Sega consoles plus the anticipated arrival of the PS2 that killed the Dreamcast?
http://www.poptel.org.uk/panap/pest/pe-gly.htm appears to be a pretty good review of papers concerning potential harmful effects (and lack of expected harmful effects) across all areas of the ecosystem due to glyphosate use.
Excerpts:
"Cancer:
There is still considerable controversy over the carcinogenic potential of glyphosate. The conclusion generally reached by regulators is that glyphosate, and glyphosate-containing products, are not carcinogenic to humans. IPCS has concluded that "bioassays in mice and rats did not indicate that technical glyphosate was carcinogenic". It discounted a study that it said constituted evidence of cancer because a more recent study, at higher doses, did not show the same effect. (IPCS,1994)
The US EPA has concluded that glyphosate is probably not carcinogenic to humans. However, this was based on the results of three studies which showed a variety of carcinogenic effects, all of which were considered not statistically significant: [...]"
[...]
"Water
Glyphosate is moderately persistent in water and not removed by normal drinking water processing. It is more likely to occur in surface waters than groundwaters. Glyphosate is soluble in water, but resistant to hydrolysis. It moves from water into sediment or suspended particles with a half-life ranging from a few days to 91 days. After a year, 0.1ppm of glyphosate was still found in the sediment of a farm pond. Glyphosate was calculated to have a half-life of 120 days in sediment. (Agriculture Canada 1991; IPCS, 1994; US EPA, 1993)
Glyphosate has been found in surface waters in Canada and in ground waters in the Netherlands and USA. One study detected glyphosate in a watershed 4 months after application. (Edwards et al., 1980; Frank, 1990; IPCS, 1994; US EPA, 1992) "
"Residues in food
Glyphosate and its metabolite AMPA are translocated throughout plant tissue, residues are unlikely to be completely removed from produce by washing, peeling or removing the outer leaves. Minimal breakdown of glyphosate occurs in plant tissue and pre-harvest use can result in significant levels of residues; in grains they are not destroyed by milling and much of it remains in the bran. Baking does not remove these residues. Residues in malting barley are transferred to beer. Use of glyphosate on forage and animal feed can result in residues in the kidneys, meat, milk and eggs. Residues are stable for up to one year in plant materials and in water, and two years in animal products, in storage. In the wild, residues of glyphosate can persist for a long time (45mg/kg found in lichens 270 days after application). Sampling of wild berries after forest spraying operations showed that residues remained above 0.1ppm for at least 61 days. (Roy et al 1989; Agriculture Canada 1991; IPCS 1994; US EPA 1993)"
>so I prefer my food to be clearly labeled and my politicians to be unbiased, so I can make an informed choice for me. You can eat whatever you want.
This is the whole of it for me. The scientific arguments don't matter in a way - this is about democracy.
If I choose to eat GM because I think it'll turn me into a superhero that's my choice; if I choose to avoid it, that's my choice. Why are we being dictated to on this - greed.
Considering the science: if this global open (as in uncontained) experiment goes wrong we can't put GMOs back in the box and move on, it's done, the ecosystem - particularly the parts closest to human food production - have been irrevocably altered. This should be the longest most drawn out trial in the history of science. We have very little to gain (except richer capitalists and even more imbalance of wealth distribution and power in global food production) and everything to lose.
My blog had 280357 visits in the last year - that means if it were a gov site it would have cost £3.3 Million GBP to upkeep.
Actual costs assuming I'm paid £20 per hour, so est. £40 per hour employer costs, would be less than £2k for sure. If you assume those costs include all background research and what have you then maybe it would be as much £4k.
>Is £11.78 inherently too much to spend for a web site visitor? When I need to renew my vehicle registration, a web site visit that let's me do it online is certainly worth more than that to me rather than spending half a day at the DMV.
The comparison should be with you doing the same by phone - will it cost the DMV less via the website than if you ring their call centre for 5 minutes. If it costs more (with high uptake and after settling in) then the website should be reverted to displaying the contact phone number - mind you if it costs more to do this via the website then they've completely messed up (again).
It's not the contradiction that gets me - it's that anyone in gov thinks that it's necessary to promote eating chips.
Every town has several chip shops, most pubs and restaurants serve them, all the supermarkets sell them surveys show that people are eating them several times a week and some people at every (non-breakfast) meal time. They are considerably less healthy than other options... so government are spending money promoting them and hiring (C-list) celebs to do videos and such.
There can be no one in Britain that lacks knowledge of chips.
The other more general issue I have is that the gov do individual tendering and have individual web departments to manage all those sites - they should just use a standard couple of CMSs across gov. They don't need to brand everything or have bespoke sites all the time. They should be providing information not marketing things to us.
But Fedora, Mandriva, PClinux, SUSE, etc., even Slackware all distribute 2.6 kernels now and have for some time. The fact that support for 2.4 is in it's last throes doesn't appear to be a reason to actively resist upgrading.
Also, at least one big name music label is on record saying they won't prosecute people for format shifting.
It should be legal not in the purview of the media moguls to overlook our taking of this scrap or liberty if they wish. Sony, Apple, others clearly have a balance sheet reason for wanting us to buy more tech and put our music on it - I'm sure this/laissez-faire/ position is not for liberty but for profit.
However, and this is important, they uploaded the movie to others. If you insist on using increasingly outdated brick-and-mortar analogies, it's like stealing the movie, making a hundred copies, and then getting all your friends together to stand on every street corner and hand out free copies.
Well if it's bit torrent then it's more like giving a short clip of 1/100th of the movie to each of 100 friends for their own personal use.
Whether that friend chooses to compile the whole movie from that 1/100th is their business.
Also, at least in the US, not everyone downloading a torrented movie lacks [moral] license to do so - they are allowed to format shift it if they've bought it, torrenting it is simply saving time and resources to achieve the same end result.
It's still not thievery even if one physically distributes full copies however.
They're asking the courts to prevent them from downloading their stuff again... How would you implement that? Ban the people from the Internets entirely? (Including at the local coffee shop?) Short of stuffing them in jail, I don't see how you could actually do that. So what do you think they have in mind here?
In the UK they're going to cut off the geographical location associated by IP address with alleged tortuous infringement.
Big media to your ISP: "Connection to a foreign terminated VPS, looks like they might be a copyright infringer, sever them, bleed them,... err, I mean cut them off from the internet."
There are no details that I've been able to find about people sued by the BPI. Try it; the trail always goes cold. Maybe a few settled out of court, possibly nobody was actually ever threatened; they just announced they had threatened people in order to ride on the backs of the RIAA's climate of fear without risking the backlash.
Certainly people have been sued, but I think you mean private individuals. The BPI tend to stick to hassling small businesses who play background music or police forces that have commercial radio playing in their offices, that's more profitable for them I guess.
However a simple first google turns up: http://www.out-law.com/page-4957 with reports of 28 UK individuals being sued. (out-law is a very good source for such things IMO).
You could almost certainly make a strong defence against such charges if the content was mis-represented (I don't mean if it's labelled "Not the latest blockbuster movie, lolz", I mean "Videos of my cat") and you stopped once aware of the true nature of the content, but if you're knowingly copying (by requesting YouTube send you a copy) copyrighted content that you do not have a right to, it's illegal.
It's known that companies have uploaded content to YouTube in the guise of unauthorised content, as leaked previews, etc., in order to market their media offerings. There's no way for us to tell on YouTube if something is being distributed legally or not.
If personal copies are allowed like here in the Netherlands, or some form of fair use exists and the person downloading Generic Movie #24 also has a matching copy of the DVD he or she legally bought but feels too lazy to make a rip off (or wants a rip of the Blu-Ray version... another huge grey legal patch).
We don't have the US American fair use exclusions in the UK. Making a personal copy for format shifting is illegal [tortuous] in the UK. Ditto for downloading a rip.
Slashdot Mirror
Aren't all areas of life related to economics in some way?
Isn't that just the location of the ISP's server farm?
>I mean if you switch on a UK soap opera and you see a radio in the background it's a DAB one.
Ever heard of product placement?
I'm far from a supporter of long-copyrights but you have to consider the differences due to tangibility of the products:
If doors lasted forever (as data can) then you might well attempt to build in some means to make the doors have a limited lifetime so as to enable repeat custom which in turn enables you to keep fitting doors. In a very real way charging for old content (that is out of fashion) is intended to make newer content comparatively better value than it would otherwise be. If I can download any movie >7 years old for free then personally I doubt if I'd ever pay for a movie again. Royalties are almost a side-effect of this market manipulation.
A better comparison might be whether you'd charge someone to fit an old door or whether you'd provide your services free?
$60k pa isn't enough to enable you to make games?
From wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreamcast :
"The later model disc drives did not feature faster load times but protected against piracy somewhat since some CD-R and CD-RW discs would not load on these drives, while discs burned at certain speeds will not load at all."
Also wasn't it the poor reputation garnered from previous Sega consoles plus the anticipated arrival of the PS2 that killed the Dreamcast?
http://www.poptel.org.uk/panap/pest/pe-gly.htm appears to be a pretty good review of papers concerning potential harmful effects (and lack of expected harmful effects) across all areas of the ecosystem due to glyphosate use.
Excerpts:
"Cancer:
There is still considerable controversy over the carcinogenic potential of glyphosate. The conclusion generally reached by regulators is that glyphosate, and glyphosate-containing products, are not carcinogenic to humans. IPCS has concluded that "bioassays in mice and rats did not indicate that technical glyphosate was carcinogenic". It discounted a study that it said constituted evidence of cancer because a more recent study, at higher doses, did not show the same effect. (IPCS ,1994)
The US EPA has concluded that glyphosate is probably not carcinogenic to humans. However, this was based on the results of three studies which showed a variety of carcinogenic effects, all of which were considered not statistically significant: [...]"
[...]
"Water
Glyphosate is moderately persistent in water and not removed by normal drinking water processing. It is more likely to occur in surface waters than groundwaters. Glyphosate is soluble in water, but resistant to hydrolysis. It moves from water into sediment or suspended particles with a half-life ranging from a few days to 91 days. After a year, 0.1ppm of glyphosate was still found in the sediment of a farm pond. Glyphosate was calculated to have a half-life of 120 days in sediment. (Agriculture Canada 1991; IPCS, 1994; US EPA, 1993)
Glyphosate has been found in surface waters in Canada and in ground waters in the Netherlands and USA. One study detected glyphosate in a watershed 4 months after application. (Edwards et al., 1980; Frank, 1990; IPCS, 1994; US EPA, 1992) "
"Residues in food
Glyphosate and its metabolite AMPA are translocated throughout plant tissue, residues are unlikely to be completely removed from produce by washing, peeling or removing the outer leaves. Minimal breakdown of glyphosate occurs in plant tissue and pre-harvest use can result in significant levels of residues; in grains they are not destroyed by milling and much of it remains in the bran. Baking does not remove these residues. Residues in malting barley are transferred to beer. Use of glyphosate on forage and animal feed can result in residues in the kidneys, meat, milk and eggs. Residues are stable for up to one year in plant materials and in water, and two years in animal products, in storage. In the wild, residues of glyphosate can persist for a long time (45mg/kg found in lichens 270 days after application). Sampling of wild berries after forest spraying operations showed that residues remained above 0.1ppm for at least 61 days. (Roy et al 1989; Agriculture Canada 1991; IPCS 1994; US EPA 1993)"
>so I prefer my food to be clearly labeled and my politicians to be unbiased, so I can make an informed choice for me. You can eat whatever you want.
This is the whole of it for me. The scientific arguments don't matter in a way - this is about democracy.
If I choose to eat GM because I think it'll turn me into a superhero that's my choice; if I choose to avoid it, that's my choice. Why are we being dictated to on this - greed.
Considering the science: if this global open (as in uncontained) experiment goes wrong we can't put GMOs back in the box and move on, it's done, the ecosystem - particularly the parts closest to human food production - have been irrevocably altered. This should be the longest most drawn out trial in the history of science. We have very little to gain (except richer capitalists and even more imbalance of wealth distribution and power in global food production) and everything to lose.
>Guns are actually a most inefficient way to kill humans, poison is better
Home-owner to potential robber: "Stop or I'll ask you to ingest toxic chemicals!"
My blog had 280357 visits in the last year - that means if it were a gov site it would have cost £3.3 Million GBP to upkeep.
Actual costs assuming I'm paid £20 per hour, so est. £40 per hour employer costs, would be less than £2k for sure. If you assume those costs include all background research and what have you then maybe it would be as much £4k.
>Is £11.78 inherently too much to spend for a web site visitor? When I need to renew my vehicle registration, a web site visit that let's me do it online is certainly worth more than that to me rather than spending half a day at the DMV.
The comparison should be with you doing the same by phone - will it cost the DMV less via the website than if you ring their call centre for 5 minutes. If it costs more (with high uptake and after settling in) then the website should be reverted to displaying the contact phone number - mind you if it costs more to do this via the website then they've completely messed up (again).
>A less informed public is a public with less rights and say in it's government.
I'm pretty sure that they won't be depleting the information available - lovechips.co.uk is hardly a dissertation on chips as a food option.
It's not the contradiction that gets me - it's that anyone in gov thinks that it's necessary to promote eating chips.
Every town has several chip shops, most pubs and restaurants serve them, all the supermarkets sell them surveys show that people are eating them several times a week and some people at every (non-breakfast) meal time. They are considerably less healthy than other options ... so government are spending money promoting them and hiring (C-list) celebs to do videos and such.
There can be no one in Britain that lacks knowledge of chips.
The other more general issue I have is that the gov do individual tendering and have individual web departments to manage all those sites - they should just use a standard couple of CMSs across gov. They don't need to brand everything or have bespoke sites all the time. They should be providing information not marketing things to us.
>Not everyone runs Ubuntu.
But Fedora, Mandriva, PClinux, SUSE, etc., even Slackware all distribute 2.6 kernels now and have for some time. The fact that support for 2.4 is in it's last throes doesn't appear to be a reason to actively resist upgrading.
Also, at least one big name music label is on record saying they won't prosecute people for format shifting.
It should be legal not in the purview of the media moguls to overlook our taking of this scrap or liberty if they wish. Sony, Apple, others clearly have a balance sheet reason for wanting us to buy more tech and put our music on it - I'm sure this /laissez-faire/ position is not for liberty but for profit.
Thanks for your comments though.
However, and this is important, they uploaded the movie to others. If you insist on using increasingly outdated brick-and-mortar analogies, it's like stealing the movie, making a hundred copies, and then getting all your friends together to stand on every street corner and hand out free copies.
Well if it's bit torrent then it's more like giving a short clip of 1/100th of the movie to each of 100 friends for their own personal use.
Whether that friend chooses to compile the whole movie from that 1/100th is their business.
Also, at least in the US, not everyone downloading a torrented movie lacks [moral] license to do so - they are allowed to format shift it if they've bought it, torrenting it is simply saving time and resources to achieve the same end result.
It's still not thievery even if one physically distributes full copies however.
They're asking the courts to prevent them from downloading their stuff again... How would you implement that? Ban the people from the Internets entirely? (Including at the local coffee shop?) Short of stuffing them in jail, I don't see how you could actually do that. So what do you think they have in mind here?
In the UK they're going to cut off the geographical location associated by IP address with alleged tortuous infringement.
akin to "hdparm --dco-restore /dev/$DRIVE" ??
Big media to your ISP: "Connection to a foreign terminated VPS, looks like they might be a copyright infringer, sever them, bleed them, ... err, I mean cut them off from the internet."
I've been using his open wifi for years to download stuff
But you'll be getting punished when his family and anyone else at his address gets cut off for life, so what's the problem.
There are no details that I've been able to find about people sued by the BPI. Try it; the trail always goes cold. Maybe a few settled out of court, possibly nobody was actually ever threatened; they just announced they had threatened people in order to ride on the backs of the RIAA's climate of fear without risking the backlash.
Certainly people have been sued, but I think you mean private individuals. The BPI tend to stick to hassling small businesses who play background music or police forces that have commercial radio playing in their offices, that's more profitable for them I guess.
However a simple first google turns up: http://www.out-law.com/page-4957 with reports of 28 UK individuals being sued. (out-law is a very good source for such things IMO).
You could almost certainly make a strong defence against such charges if the content was mis-represented (I don't mean if it's labelled "Not the latest blockbuster movie, lolz", I mean "Videos of my cat") and you stopped once aware of the true nature of the content, but if you're knowingly copying (by requesting YouTube send you a copy) copyrighted content that you do not have a right to, it's illegal.
It's known that companies have uploaded content to YouTube in the guise of unauthorised content, as leaked previews, etc., in order to market their media offerings. There's no way for us to tell on YouTube if something is being distributed legally or not.
If personal copies are allowed like here in the Netherlands, or some form of fair use exists and the person downloading Generic Movie #24 also has a matching copy of the DVD he or she legally bought but feels too lazy to make a rip off (or wants a rip of the Blu-Ray version... another huge grey legal patch).
We don't have the US American fair use exclusions in the UK. Making a personal copy for format shifting is illegal [tortuous] in the UK. Ditto for downloading a rip.
Presumably one of the ISP's can just sign up 399,999 people and then start a new sister company and sign up 399,999 more, etc., rinse-repeat.
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=time+dilation+at+17km%2Fs&a=*FS-_**RelativisticTimeDilationFormula.t-.*RelativisticTimeDilationFormula.to--&f2=33+years&x=0&y=0&f=RelativisticTimeDilationFormula.to_33+years
Apparently V'ger is now from the future by about 1.7 seconds.