You do realize of course, that as these things become more popular, (as is claimed) more law enforcement will be carrying devices to detect jammers, (which should be trivial, since jammers basic function is to put out a large amount of radio frequency interference in the band in which the phones normally operate.
Only takes a few seconds to drop a call. It would take much longer to narrow down the source of a jamming signal. You'd probably notice someone moving around with a device used to detect jammers on top of that.
therefore the owner, really easy to spot with the right equipment.
If they keep it running, yes. But I don't think your prediction will have much effect if it does happen.
Yes, but against this are some European court decisions which have clearly indicated that websites have no duty to monitor whether their users post infringing content.
Not really, because the examples in these decisions have nothing to do with "deliberately indexing copyrighted content" that is intended to encourage "copyright infringement".
If the process of indexing is automated, then I would suggest there is no "deliberately" involved.
The thing about what was considered "deliberate" in the Newzbin case was Newzbin's categories for "CAM," "screener," "telesync," "DVD,"R5 retail","Blu-ray," and "HD DVD", the court found claims that this did not indicate a deliberate move to encourage "copyright infringement" as "simply not credible".
The Swedish authorities already raided The Pirate Bay and found nothing, zip, zitch, zero infringing files on their servers. So how can it breach any copyright laws?
My guess is that it's to do with the precedent where Newzbin was blocked from ISPs in the UK for "deliberately indexing copyrighted content" and the site was intended to encourage "copyright infringement".
Possibly infringing files are not transferred through The Pirate Bay in any way and yet it must be banned?
Based on the precedent it's not possibly any more, it's "deliberately indexing copyrighted content" that is intended to encourage "copyright infringement".
This is why I absolutely do not treat Slashdot as a real news source or as a place of intelligent discussion. This place is basically a fanboy-fest.
Did you know that msn.com and live.com use the same technique Google uses?
Also, I have used the exact same technique to workaround issues with a certain browser (name begins with an 'i') where the only way to get embedded elements to work properly (such as iframes), from the same website, which the spec doesn't prevent, but that specific browser does!
What Google is doing certainly is outside the spirit of the P3P system. They clearly are doing it on purpose.
I remember having to break P3P the EXACT same way Google did to make things embedded elements like iframes work properly from the same site, which should have worked properly to begin with according to the spec, but guess which browser failed at doing that...
You'd think being the IE team, they'd know about some of the really bad workarounds created to deal with their browser.
The entire point of P3P is that it's an honor system, and when companies abuse the system, bad (not security holes, mind you, but use of cookie data outside of user-specified preferences) things can happen depending on circumstances.
What's the point if following P3P to the letter if browsers like IE is going to break things like iframes from the same website and the only way you can get them to work is to break the spec in order to get something to work that should be working to begin with?
I say this from previous experience.
In this case, it's Google blatantly abusing the system for commercial gain.
Guess you never ran into my problem with iframes on the same site.
However, this is a good excuse to make more people aware of how unethical Sony is. Bring this up,then mention that it is a continuation of a pattern of bad behavior on Sony's part.
So, how do you bring this up?
I'm having a hard time:
Hey, this company called Sony is unethical, you see, they use this thing called economics, and raise their prices when there is greater demand for a product to make more money, even increasing the prices of when an artist dies, because as we know, artist works don't become more valuable when they die, oh wait... This in turn stimulates the economy as they can then invest in future products, hire new people for these products, continue paying their existing staff. Such an unethical company. You should boycott them.
We live in a free society, but this lowest common denominator crap is just becoming a simple excuse to be free of social responsibility, dignity, compassion or accountability for one's own actions.
I still don't see what was wrong with what Sony did.
True freedom implies taking responsibility for a complex world of interactions where the price of your freedom is responsibility for the freedom of those around you.
Increasing prices to turn a bigger profit because of larger demand doesn't take away people's freedoms.
All take and no give, is the beginning of a free-for-all that ends in a stinking dung heap where a workable society once stood.
So... What you're saying is, Sony doesn't employ people and pay them? What.
Maybe its time to teach ethics to our children so perhaps they avoid the stupid mistakes we're making?
Sure, just not your ethics in this context, they just don't make any sense.
That's probably the point. So-called 'IP' lawyers often tout the benefits of 'intellectual property', but the legal system has a huge free culture ecosystem, using the precedents set by other judges (convinced by other lawyers) as well as many other things. If such systems really promote innovation, then perhaps we should get lawyers to deal with them in their primary business
The reason why you can't have a copyright on these documents is to prevent people from employing rights, laws, agreements where the original law/agreement/contract cannot be reproduced and thus people being at a disadvantage of being unable to access the document to review etc.
Have you ever used that phrase in a contract that you charged a client money for? It (or some minor variation) appears in license agreements from Microsoft, Adobe, Apple and Sony. And I'm pretty sure they don't all use the same lawyer. *I* would never have come up with that phrasing, but perhaps it's obvious to you, someone skilled in the art of contract law.
You're making an assumption that you can have a copyright over legal texts and thus can't reuse it. Guess what...
Windows 2000 still is probably the best OS Microsoft has released.
It isn't, because it lacks many APIs that applications use in newer versions of Windows. The lack of API support is not the developer's fault, it's the operating system's fault.
Just use Firefox 3.6.26 (http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/all-older.html) until Firefox and Mozilla figure out what the hell is going on and stop the insanity..
What insanity? I upgraded to 10 and it works fine?
Do you realize how many rare anime series or games were on megaupload? Do you understand how impossible it is to find out of print manga, or how insanely expensive it is to buy rare material from overseas if you can even find it?
I suspect the people that uploaded that content didn't even have permission to redistribute that content too.
I agree with you, the database should be kept for further prosecution of the people who uploaded the copyright infringing material.
UK doesn't want to be cut off with trading with the rest of the world and certainly not cut off from commonwealth countries.
If the UK is separated, there is nothing but the European Union preventing trade agreements with the UK and other EU countries. This sort of secularism is not brought on by the UK and you don't need the EU to have a trade agreement.
Write to your MP and MEP right now: WriteToThem.org. Tell them what ACTA is, why you disagree with it, why it is damaging to the country's industries and how you don't appreciate having legislation drafted in secret and forced through in the interests of foreign business.
No. There are far more damaging things to deal with right now. ACTA is the least of our problems. EU's accounting practices are terrible, if it was a corporation, enterprise, it would have been shut down 9 years ago.
There are other issues like the Euro project, they are taking money from other countries, increasing their national debt to prevent Greece from collapsing instead of taking them out of the Euro, letting them have their own currency and devalue it.
There are horrible regulatory legislation coming in against farmers that increase the costs of being a farmer exponentially for no reason and won't provide what the bill actually intends to do.
There is the European Union trying to push legislation over the London economic sector, in order to regulate it for no good reason. The same people who are currently causing huge economical issues for Europe by putting pointless funds into Greece, only delaying the inevitable.
Sorry. I think ACTA is the least of the British worries when it comes economical issues from the European Union. We need to be focusing on the other issues, as well as leaving the EU (since we don't even have any ability to barter, despite paying stupid amounts of tax payer money per day - wtf is the pont?) rather than ACTA.
Wouldn't Google help the Artist on this type of issues. Small independent artists are probably bringing more money to Google than large labels.
Google is making money off the advertisements they put on infringing videos that they share with the copyright holder. They are also making money off their dedicated youtube channels that serve Google's advertising.
I think people go for more mainstream stuff on youtube than independents currently, so, I don't believe Youtube is making more money on independents.
Slashdot Mirror
What if I pushed alot of the buttons?
Only takes a few seconds to drop a call. It would take much longer to narrow down the source of a jamming signal. You'd probably notice someone moving around with a device used to detect jammers on top of that.
If they keep it running, yes. But I don't think your prediction will have much effect if it does happen.
Congratulations, you just justified cell phone jamming too.
Why not 112?
Not really, because the examples in these decisions have nothing to do with "deliberately indexing copyrighted content" that is intended to encourage "copyright infringement".
The thing about what was considered "deliberate" in the Newzbin case was Newzbin's categories for "CAM," "screener," "telesync," "DVD,"R5 retail","Blu-ray," and "HD DVD", the court found claims that this did not indicate a deliberate move to encourage "copyright infringement" as "simply not credible".
My guess is that it's to do with the precedent where Newzbin was blocked from ISPs in the UK for "deliberately indexing copyrighted content" and the site was intended to encourage "copyright infringement".
Based on the precedent it's not possibly any more, it's "deliberately indexing copyrighted content" that is intended to encourage "copyright infringement".
Did you know that msn.com and live.com use the same technique Google uses?
Also, I have used the exact same technique to workaround issues with a certain browser (name begins with an 'i') where the only way to get embedded elements to work properly (such as iframes), from the same website, which the spec doesn't prevent, but that specific browser does!
I remember having to break P3P the EXACT same way Google did to make things embedded elements like iframes work properly from the same site, which should have worked properly to begin with according to the spec, but guess which browser failed at doing that...
You'd think being the IE team, they'd know about some of the really bad workarounds created to deal with their browser.
What's the point if following P3P to the letter if browsers like IE is going to break things like iframes from the same website and the only way you can get them to work is to break the spec in order to get something to work that should be working to begin with?
I say this from previous experience.
Guess you never ran into my problem with iframes on the same site.
So, how do you bring this up?
I'm having a hard time:
Hey, this company called Sony is unethical, you see, they use this thing called economics, and raise their prices when there is greater demand for a product to make more money, even increasing the prices of when an artist dies, because as we know, artist works don't become more valuable when they die, oh wait... This in turn stimulates the economy as they can then invest in future products, hire new people for these products, continue paying their existing staff. Such an unethical company. You should boycott them.
Mmm, no. This just doesn't make sense to me.
If that was the case, it would make waves in the media and people would boycott over it.
I still don't see what was wrong with what Sony did.
Increasing prices to turn a bigger profit because of larger demand doesn't take away people's freedoms.
So... What you're saying is, Sony doesn't employ people and pay them? What.
Sure, just not your ethics in this context, they just don't make any sense.
I don't even see it of being any sort of degree of 'bad' or 'good'. You have weird ethics.
Oh dear God, a company used simple economics to turn a profit much like any other company. Let's boycott them more!!!
Seriously, LOL.
The reason why you can't have a copyright on these documents is to prevent people from employing rights, laws, agreements where the original law/agreement/contract cannot be reproduced and thus people being at a disadvantage of being unable to access the document to review etc.
You're making an assumption that you can have a copyright over legal texts and thus can't reuse it. Guess what...
I was born in 1984 actually *insert obvious joke*. Seems you lost all your arguments now.
In the wise words of my generation: You lost the game.
It isn't, because it lacks many APIs that applications use in newer versions of Windows. The lack of API support is not the developer's fault, it's the operating system's fault.
Explain.
What insanity? I upgraded to 10 and it works fine?
Not unless it's copyright infringement.
I'm sure there are plenty that wouldn't. One only needs to see places like /t/.
Oh no, we don't get to do copyright infringement on something, it's the instead of society as we know it.
I suspect the people that uploaded that content didn't even have permission to redistribute that content too.
I agree with you, the database should be kept for further prosecution of the people who uploaded the copyright infringing material.
As opposed to the new trade agreements that will cut us off from other non-European countries, such as commonwealth countries?
UK doesn't want to be cut off with trading with the rest of the world and certainly not cut off from commonwealth countries.
If the UK is separated, there is nothing but the European Union preventing trade agreements with the UK and other EU countries. This sort of secularism is not brought on by the UK and you don't need the EU to have a trade agreement.
No. There are far more damaging things to deal with right now. ACTA is the least of our problems. EU's accounting practices are terrible, if it was a corporation, enterprise, it would have been shut down 9 years ago.
There are other issues like the Euro project, they are taking money from other countries, increasing their national debt to prevent Greece from collapsing instead of taking them out of the Euro, letting them have their own currency and devalue it.
There are horrible regulatory legislation coming in against farmers that increase the costs of being a farmer exponentially for no reason and won't provide what the bill actually intends to do.
There is the European Union trying to push legislation over the London economic sector, in order to regulate it for no good reason. The same people who are currently causing huge economical issues for Europe by putting pointless funds into Greece, only delaying the inevitable.
Sorry. I think ACTA is the least of the British worries when it comes economical issues from the European Union. We need to be focusing on the other issues, as well as leaving the EU (since we don't even have any ability to barter, despite paying stupid amounts of tax payer money per day - wtf is the pont?) rather than ACTA.
Google is making money off the advertisements they put on infringing videos that they share with the copyright holder. They are also making money off their dedicated youtube channels that serve Google's advertising.
I think people go for more mainstream stuff on youtube than independents currently, so, I don't believe Youtube is making more money on independents.