Canadians can damn well get upset about this.... if it turns out they are going after people who are only engaged in "leeching", which has been ruled legal in Canada.
Personally, as a SHAW customer, I say "bring it on". Since I can honestly say I've never shared one bit of mp3, but have downloaded many, I almost hope that I get one. Of course, legal fees would break me, but I'm pretty sure I can find a lawyer looking to make a name for himself to work pro bono
Re:So if 99% of people say 'supposably'...
on
Hackers Hall of Fame
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
A perfectly accurate gender neutral pronoun exists... "it".
However, people see it as somehow implying "non-person". Rubbish.
That was exactly my first thought. It can't work on the phone account purchaser, since adults might buy a phone for a minor, or even just use one (and then be banned from seeing content) so it almost has to be an opt-in system.
That's no protection whatsoever. Seems to be a case of "Look at us, we're taking steps to block objectionable content, we're the good guys.... now give us all your money."
That's not even getting into who defines what's blocked, or what happens if I'm roaming in their area.
That's not the point. The point is that "industry" uses protectionism when it suits them, and decries it when it doesn't.
Take the US/Canada softwood lumber dispute.
Canada has a richer supply of lumber, and our wages are slightly lower in terms of what it costs to harvest said lumber. American companies want to buy our lumber, because it's cheaper and they kill on the exchange rate. "Hold on", the US Lumber Lobby says, "they are kicking our ass all over town because they are obviously being unfairly subsidised by the Canadian government. Please Mr. US Government, slap a huge import tariff on their products, so they aren't cheaper than ours so our poor lumberjacks can keep their jobs."
Now, it turns out that the Canadian Government is doing no such thing as directly subsidizing Canadian lumber companies... but we have long ago set up a different system of rights and fees here which result in it being cheaper to harvest Canadian lumber. The US Government, at the behest of the lobbyists decides that a different method of running their industry is tantamout to subsidies because -- it's not the way we do things -- and on goes the huge tariff which drives Canadian lumber out of the market.
The monopoly is not allowed to exist, because the US acts to protect it's own interests. They aren't doing it in tech "yet"...
That's what kills me about the Tech industry claiming they don't want government intervention at this point.
It's all well and good for them to claim that they should be free to make a profit, yet when they are being nailed by foreign companies who can sell goods at a better price, THEN they scream for market tariffs.
See, softwood lumber. See, fishing. See, banking.
Classic case of "I only want what's best for me, the rest of you can go hang"
The problem of course is that the bigger picture is that the government appears unconcerned with any previously extant legal definitions.
The law itself basically rewrites the rule book to take financial information out of the realm of private (by any definition) and into the realm of semi-public.
But, I'll try anyway...
From the RIPA (Restrictions to Investigatory Powers Act - which granted is from the UK, but it was the first, best source I could google)
Private information
Section 26(10) of RIPA: In relation to a person, includes any information relating to his private or family life.
[It is helpful to have regard to the judgment in the case of Amann v Switzerland Feb 2000.
In relation to Article 8 it said "....respect for private life comprises the right to establish and develop relationships with other human beings; there appears, furthermore, to be no reason in principle why this understanding of the notion of "private life" should be taken to exclude activities of a professional or business nature.]
Fairly clear and to the point - in as much as legalese can get. Private Information about a person includes their professional and business relationships.
See, that's the thing..."Traditional Project Management Methods" - aren't any longer.
Perhaps you're referring back to the old "big iron" days where projects were measured in man-years, but no one manages projects like that any more. A "time to market" of several months qualifies as long-range planning these days, and the incorporation of "class level" estimates with their corresponding degrees of accuracy (not java classes, but class "zero" being +/- 100%, class 1 being +/- 50%, etc) at various points during a project's lifespan mean that the process described (which predate any of the fashionalbe new age names being applied to them by years) are simply recognized as "the right way of doing things".
The "rules" for this or that isn't much more than an attempt to cash in on the obvious. "You must do thing this way, because our book says so. BTW, buy more stuff!".
However, the development cycle != the project - and vice versa, so while it's fine to say SCRUM or XP is the way to run projects, it completely misses the big picture of activities (like training, support, marketing, procurement) in which the actual production of the product is only one stream of activity required to successfully introduce a new product on the unsuspecting masses.
an excellent review. It was only missing the declaration that "The Emperor has no clothes".
As my own company goes through this same process (and I'm hoping we get out there before the 10 ton elephant that is the Google IPO hits the market and soaks up all the cash) I can tell you that only VP-level and above are subject to the six month lockout.
The line level peons are not subject to the same restriction.
In fact, the company founder resigned his position from the board -- which was a good thing anyway -- so that he would not be subject to the restriction on cashing out.
They specifically rule against this using --- gasp! --- common sense.
It might contravene common sense if one
could avoid payment of the levy through
testing procedures designed to ensure that a
medium can record sounds as intended.
I'm busy wading through the document right now, and at 97 pages, it'll take a while.
They specifically address this issue.
Making a copy for personal use is allowed. Irrespective of where the original was obtained from, or whether the rights-holder gave specific permission to make a copy or not. It also doesn't matter whether the media you are making the copy on to (for your personal use) is covered by the levy, or was obtained under the "zero-rating" program run by CPCC. Still legal.
Making a copy available for distribution is not allowed.
No matter whether you've purchased the original legally or not.
So, that seems to me that Canadians have just become exempt from RIAA-style "piracy lawsuits" as long as they restrict themselves to only being "consumers" on P2P networks of pirated music, and not sharing it out to others.
In a less globally-wired world, that in and of itself could be used to end music sharing across the Canadian portion of the Internet - however, we Canadians just need to rely on our friends and neighbours around the world to put music up for us to share.
In the long run, who does that hurt? Canadian artists who are popular within our borders, but haven't yet made the jump to a broader audience because the rest of the world won't get to hear them.
Wasn't this levy concept supposed to be helping those artists?
Photo radar tickets are mailed to the registered owner of the car, not the driver at the time. They don't have to prove you yourself were driving, just that you allowed your car to be driven over the speed limit.
No points on your license, but it's up to you to collect from whoever you might have lent your car to.
As the rules currently stand in Canada, the owner of the car is charged for breaking the speed limit, but not the driver.
You, as the owner, pay a fine. You, as the driver, don't pay in terms of demerits attached to your driving record. This is specifically because they cannot prove who was driving the car. Several people have successfully defended the fine by producing records that their car was in the shop on the date & time in question -- allowing them to prove that they were NOT in face driving, and therefore NOT in fact responsible for its operation over the speed limit.
I think that is the precedent which has merit here. You'll be presumed guilty, unless you can specifically prove that you didn't know, and that you didn't have the knowledge to produce the Trojan in the first place.
Of course, proving you can't do something which involves intelligence is quite difficult. I'm reminded of a "Kids in the Hall" sketch. Guy is on trial for murder and takes the stand. Prosecutor: Did you in fact kill the deceased? Guy: No. Prosecutor: May I remind you that you are under oath, that the police found you standing over the body with the bloody knife in your hands. And I ask you again, did you kill the deceased? Guy: No. [aside to his friend in the audience] heh. This is easy. [to the Prosecutor] Go ahead, ask me again.
But you're not getting any more information about the student who ditched class mid-day. In fact, the system will be taken as a false sense of security since there was no mention of "forced touch screen" to open the exit doors or anything.
If I'm ditching class, I certainly don't advertise that fact by logging myself out. I piggyback on someone else, then claim "must be a bug in the system" when it shows me "in" already when I arrive for school the next day.
Yeah, you get less paperwork to do, but you also lose the automatic acountability that the human touch brings.
Its about the money, its ALWAYS about the money. In the case of Canadian banks (as reflective of our national inferiority complex) it's also about being seen to be a player at "the big tables".
I'm sure that the 'wigs at RBC were seduced because some of the major US Banks were involved in the SCO investment, and they're playing "me too!" with our money.
Slashdot Mirror
Canadians can damn well get upset about this .... if it turns out they are going after people who are only engaged in "leeching", which has been ruled legal in Canada.
Personally, as a SHAW customer, I say "bring it on". Since I can honestly say I've never shared one bit of mp3, but have downloaded many, I almost hope that I get one. Of course, legal fees would break me, but I'm pretty sure I can find a lawyer looking to make a name for himself to work pro bono
A perfectly accurate gender neutral pronoun exists ... "it".
However, people see it as somehow implying "non-person". Rubbish.
You can have all the copyright to facts you want, from now on, I'm just making up my own as I go along...
From the article ... in an attempt to protect children from online grooming.
Because, heaven knows, we certainly wouldn't want a bunch of ungroomed cell-phone using teenagers running around.
But "owner" does not necessarily equal "user"
That was exactly my first thought. It can't work on the phone account purchaser, since adults might buy a phone for a minor, or even just use one (and then be banned from seeing content) so it almost has to be an opt-in system.
.... now give us all your money."
That's no protection whatsoever. Seems to be a case of "Look at us, we're taking steps to block objectionable content, we're the good guys
That's not even getting into who defines what's blocked, or what happens if I'm roaming in their area.
although, admittedly, I haven't RFTA just yet....
That's not the point. The point is that "industry" uses protectionism when it suits them, and decries it when it doesn't.
... but we have long ago set up a different system of rights and fees here which result in it being cheaper to harvest Canadian lumber. The US Government, at the behest of the lobbyists decides that a different method of running their industry is tantamout to subsidies because -- it's not the way we do things -- and on goes the huge tariff which drives Canadian lumber out of the market.
Take the US/Canada softwood lumber dispute.
Canada has a richer supply of lumber, and our wages are slightly lower in terms of what it costs to harvest said lumber. American companies want to buy our lumber, because it's cheaper and they kill on the exchange rate. "Hold on", the US Lumber Lobby says, "they are kicking our ass all over town because they are obviously being unfairly subsidised by the Canadian government. Please Mr. US Government, slap a huge import tariff on their products, so they aren't cheaper than ours so our poor lumberjacks can keep their jobs."
Now, it turns out that the Canadian Government is doing no such thing as directly subsidizing Canadian lumber companies
The monopoly is not allowed to exist, because the US acts to protect it's own interests. They aren't doing it in tech "yet"...
That's what kills me about the Tech industry claiming they don't want government intervention at this point.
It's all well and good for them to claim that they should be free to make a profit, yet when they are being nailed by foreign companies who can sell goods at a better price, THEN they scream for market tariffs.
See, softwood lumber. See, fishing. See, banking.
Classic case of "I only want what's best for me, the rest of you can go hang"
Whoops. That's the "Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act". My bad....
The problem of course is that the bigger picture is that the government appears unconcerned with any previously extant legal definitions.
The law itself basically rewrites the rule book to take financial information out of the realm of private (by any definition) and into the realm of semi-public.
But, I'll try anyway...
From the RIPA (Restrictions to Investigatory Powers Act - which granted is from the UK, but it was the first, best source I could google)
Private information Section 26(10) of RIPA: In relation to a person, includes any information relating to his private or family life.
[It is helpful to have regard to the judgment in the case of Amann v Switzerland Feb 2000. In relation to Article 8 it said "....respect for private life comprises the right to establish and develop relationships with other human beings; there appears, furthermore, to be no reason in principle why this understanding of the notion of "private life" should be taken to exclude activities of a professional or business nature.]
Fairly clear and to the point - in as much as legalese can get. Private Information about a person includes their professional and business relationships.
That's pretty weak semantics.
The information the bank has about me is created by my actions with the bank.
It's not created out of whole cloth by the bank about me, they are reporting on actions by me.
Next!
What changed is he became a threat to the US. It's all well and good to be propping up the monster when he's somebody else's pain in the ass.
"Once he's OUR pain in the ass, then he's gotta go."
It's the American Way after all...
See, that's the thing..."Traditional Project Management Methods" - aren't any longer.
Perhaps you're referring back to the old "big iron" days where projects were measured in man-years, but no one manages projects like that any more. A "time to market" of several months qualifies as long-range planning these days, and the incorporation of "class level" estimates with their corresponding degrees of accuracy (not java classes, but class "zero" being +/- 100%, class 1 being +/- 50%, etc) at various points during a project's lifespan mean that the process described (which predate any of the fashionalbe new age names being applied to them by years) are simply recognized as "the right way of doing things".
The "rules" for this or that isn't much more than an attempt to cash in on the obvious. "You must do thing this way, because our book says so. BTW, buy more stuff!".
However, the development cycle != the project - and vice versa, so while it's fine to say SCRUM or XP is the way to run projects, it completely misses the big picture of activities (like training, support, marketing, procurement) in which the actual production of the product is only one stream of activity required to successfully introduce a new product on the unsuspecting masses.
an excellent review. It was only missing the declaration that "The Emperor has no clothes".
As my own company goes through this same process (and I'm hoping we get out there before the 10 ton elephant that is the Google IPO hits the market and soaks up all the cash) I can tell you that only VP-level and above are subject to the six month lockout.
The line level peons are not subject to the same restriction.
In fact, the company founder resigned his position from the board -- which was a good thing anyway -- so that he would not be subject to the restriction on cashing out.
Yeah, I was THINKING it ... but my dignity is still intact. ;-)
Well, that's closer to the truth than my first guess
"I Am Not Even A Proctologist"
Given that this was an SCO story, I could see how that would need clarification...
They specifically rule against this using --- gasp! --- common sense.
It might contravene common sense if one could avoid payment of the levy through testing procedures designed to ensure that a medium can record sounds as intended.
I'm busy wading through the document right now, and at 97 pages, it'll take a while.
They specifically address this issue.
Making a copy for personal use is allowed.
Irrespective of where the original was obtained from, or whether the rights-holder gave specific permission to make a copy or not. It also doesn't matter whether the media you are making the copy on to (for your personal use) is covered by the levy, or was obtained under the "zero-rating" program run by CPCC. Still legal.
Making a copy available for distribution is not allowed.
No matter whether you've purchased the original legally or not.
So, that seems to me that Canadians have just become exempt from RIAA-style "piracy lawsuits" as long as they restrict themselves to only being "consumers" on P2P networks of pirated music, and not sharing it out to others.
In a less globally-wired world, that in and of itself could be used to end music sharing across the Canadian portion of the Internet - however, we Canadians just need to rely on our friends and neighbours around the world to put music up for us to share.
In the long run, who does that hurt? Canadian artists who are popular within our borders, but haven't yet made the jump to a broader audience because the rest of the world won't get to hear them.
Wasn't this levy concept supposed to be helping those artists?
Not so.
Photo radar tickets are mailed to the registered owner of the car, not the driver at the time. They don't have to prove you yourself were driving, just that you allowed your car to be driven over the speed limit.
No points on your license, but it's up to you to collect from whoever you might have lent your car to.
These would be enforced the same way...
Because certainly no one has EVER said anything on /. that w't true just to make a point or to get a rise out of the community.
Look at photo radar.
As the rules currently stand in Canada, the owner of the car is charged for breaking the speed limit, but not the driver.
You, as the owner, pay a fine. You, as the driver, don't pay in terms of demerits attached to your driving record. This is specifically because they cannot prove who was driving the car.
Several people have successfully defended the fine by producing records that their car was in the shop on the date & time in question -- allowing them to prove that they were NOT in face driving, and therefore NOT in fact responsible for its operation over the speed limit.
I think that is the precedent which has merit here. You'll be presumed guilty, unless you can specifically prove that you didn't know, and that you didn't have the knowledge to produce the Trojan in the first place.
Of course, proving you can't do something which involves intelligence is quite difficult. I'm reminded of a "Kids in the Hall" sketch. Guy is on trial for murder and takes the stand.
Prosecutor: Did you in fact kill the deceased?
Guy: No.
Prosecutor: May I remind you that you are under oath, that the police found you standing over the body with the bloody knife in your hands. And I ask you again, did you kill the deceased?
Guy: No. [aside to his friend in the audience] heh. This is easy. [to the Prosecutor] Go ahead, ask me again.
I nominate "Bleak House" by Charles Dickens as being wordy and a difficult read.
LOTR is a walk in the park because at least its exciting.
Er, or so I've been told anyway. ;-)
But you're not getting any more information about the student who ditched class mid-day. In fact, the system will be taken as a false sense of security since there was no mention of "forced touch screen" to open the exit doors or anything.
If I'm ditching class, I certainly don't advertise that fact by logging myself out. I piggyback on someone else, then claim "must be a bug in the system" when it shows me "in" already when I arrive for school the next day. Yeah, you get less paperwork to do, but you also lose the automatic acountability that the human touch brings.
Its about the money, its ALWAYS about the money. In the case of Canadian banks (as reflective of our national inferiority complex) it's also about being seen to be a player at "the big tables". I'm sure that the 'wigs at RBC were seduced because some of the major US Banks were involved in the SCO investment, and they're playing "me too!" with our money.