Actually, it'd be quite interesting if they auctioned the naming rights on eBay... then again, Planet GoldenPalaceCasino.com doesn't quite have the right ring to it.
Yeah, so it should only harm your defence in a relevant criminal trial not to reveal encryption keys. This is proposing to not just harm your defense, but make an entirely new crime against not revealing relevant information. Therefore the police don't require any other criminal charge to bring against you in order to threaten you with this.
Google's stuff is static pictures that are months old. Are there real-time satellite images that show various parts of the USA at the level of seeing actual buildings?
I remember that there was once such images available on the web, but I forgot the URL.
No. There never was. The technology doesn't exist to photograph at this detail at real time, for the whole USA, and stream it over the web. The nearest you get to 'real time' in satellite images are MODIS images you can get (and pipe into WorldWind), which photographs the entire earth over a period of about 3 days (but not to a very high level of detail)
Why is it some people seem to think of the RIAA as a police force who can 'only operate in their jurisdiction'. The RIAA are a trade association, they have no 'legal powers' other than upholding their legal rights in court.
If the RIAA wanted, they could sue a British person for violation of copyright in the UK. They'd be suing under british law rather than american law, but when it comes to copyright there's not all that much difference.
Then maybe you should stop watching Fox News and look at a decent News service.
Granted, probably not the best day to post this considering the top headlines are about the Royal Wedding and the Grand National, but, eh, it's usually better:P
Incidentally, detector vans don't exist. At least, there's no way of them detecting if someone is receiving TV signals. What they usual do is go to a house without a TV license and listen for a TV.
It's a TV show... they broadcast it for free anyhow.
No, legally you have to pay, since it's the BBC. If you watch it on [insert international TV station here], it's because they paid for the rights to broadcast it, which means noone else can.
Does this mean we can't record a publicly televised show for later viewing?
Wll I'm not sure about in the US, but in the UK you're only allowed to tape things for 'timeshifting purposes', so really you're only allowed to tape the things you watched once.
1) If you want to put license fees on PCs, put them directly on the TV-cards. I'm using my computer for programming, haven't started my TV in months (although I own one) and I don't forsee mainboards with integrated TV tuners in the near future. So why should I pay this fee?
Actually, at present you have to pay the fee if you use a TV tuner card on your PC.
2) If BBC - or any other television station for that matter - will start making shows available for free as BitTorrents, for instance, I "could" be persuaded to pay said fee. Although it would make more sense to pay it together with your ISP subscription - where ISPs are seen (from a legal point of view) as cable companies. Frankly, I don't know why BBC doesn't do it; they don't get revenue from commercials, so that reason is out, and I'd really REALLY love to be able to see shows like Coupling or The Office available online - even for a nominal fee.
They're actually developing this, trying to find a decent way of distributing TV content over the internet. Recent changes have lowered the priority of this project, but it's still on the backburner. However, they said they're only be able to distribute fully-owned BBC content - a lot of programmes (such as The Office) is produced by external companies - and these companies make money selling their programmes to other channels, and might not like anyone being able to download it. There's still a lot of content that could be made avaliable, though.
As for the point about having a large number of computers - I don't see that as a problem. At present the license is per household, you can have as many TVs as you want and only have to pay one license for them all. Why should it be any different if it was introduced on PCs (and it's more likely it'd be introduced on internet connections - how many people have multiple connections in their home)
In the end the BBC will just have to accept advertising like everyone else and work on a level playing field.
Which will mean competing for ratings, which will mean more reality crap being flooded over the channel, which will mean an end to the BBC's quality programming. No other channel in the UK can compete with the BBC's documentaries (and dare I say it, cult comedy - QI, HIGNFY, etc).
I'm perfectly happy to pay the liscense fee, and to be fair, the license fee is actually a lot less than what people in other countries are paying for cable and Pay-per-view to get the same quality of programming. Is £10 a month too much? Hell, I'd be willing to pay that just for the BBC News channel and BBC News Online.
And that's why it belong here. Some people don't think that Intellectual Property is actually property, you see. What has happened is not theft, but a violation of the government-sanctioned monopoly over reproductive and distributive rights for these films. In other words, your right to download and watch whatever you want off the internet like any other site has been trampled on.
If someone doesn't like this law, they can move to a country that doesn't have such laws (or run for government and try and have the law changed). If you don't want to be punished, do something about it that doesn't involve breaking the law.
links can handle frames, images and CSS just fine.
Re:BOLLOCKS! NOTHING ILLEGAL ABOUT TORRENTS
on
LokiTorrent Shut Down
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
A tracker site is easy to moderate to check for illegal content. It's hard to argue that the main purpose of Lokitorrent wasn't to distribute copyrighted material. How many of the torrents were for free files? 5, maybe 10%. The site was facilitating the illegal distribution of copyrighted materials without making efforts to stop it, when they could have easily been made (it's much less easy for decentralised P2P systems).
The company specifically stated that one of the things they objected to was the custom skins availiable on the site. A spokesperson said the company is seeking $1,000 to $100,000 in damages for every custom skin swapped over the website. More information in this register article
There's quite a bit on the forums about modding. In the beta, the data.dat was encrypted and only a few clever sods managed to crack it, but now more of us are starting to do little bits of mods.
Some sad geek is even translating it into Klingon >_>
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, it'd be quite interesting if they auctioned the naming rights on eBay... then again, Planet GoldenPalaceCasino.com doesn't quite have the right ring to it.
I'll get me coat...
Yeah, so it should only harm your defence in a relevant criminal trial not to reveal encryption keys. This is proposing to not just harm your defense, but make an entirely new crime against not revealing relevant information. Therefore the police don't require any other criminal charge to bring against you in order to threaten you with this.
I remember that there was once such images available on the web, but I forgot the URL.
No. There never was. The technology doesn't exist to photograph at this detail at real time, for the whole USA, and stream it over the web. The nearest you get to 'real time' in satellite images are MODIS images you can get (and pipe into WorldWind), which photographs the entire earth over a period of about 3 days (but not to a very high level of detail)
Downloading a DVD-rip takes you two minutes? Damn, I want your connection
Have the people responsible for sacking the people responsible for the post been sacked yet?
...killed the radio star?
If the RIAA wanted, they could sue a British person for violation of copyright in the UK. They'd be suing under british law rather than american law, but when it comes to copyright there's not all that much difference.
Then maybe you should stop watching Fox News and look at a decent News service.
:P
Granted, probably not the best day to post this considering the top headlines are about the Royal Wedding and the Grand National, but, eh, it's usually better
Or ban the users who havn't patched and secured their system with a firewall?
Incidentally, detector vans don't exist. At least, there's no way of them detecting if someone is receiving TV signals. What they usual do is go to a house without a TV license and listen for a TV.
No, legally you have to pay, since it's the BBC. If you watch it on [insert international TV station here], it's because they paid for the rights to broadcast it, which means noone else can.
Does this mean we can't record a publicly televised show for later viewing?
Wll I'm not sure about in the US, but in the UK you're only allowed to tape things for 'timeshifting purposes', so really you're only allowed to tape the things you watched once.
Actually, at present you have to pay the fee if you use a TV tuner card on your PC.
2) If BBC - or any other television station for that matter - will start making shows available for free as BitTorrents, for instance, I "could" be persuaded to pay said fee. Although it would make more sense to pay it together with your ISP subscription - where ISPs are seen (from a legal point of view) as cable companies. Frankly, I don't know why BBC doesn't do it; they don't get revenue from commercials, so that reason is out, and I'd really REALLY love to be able to see shows like Coupling or The Office available online - even for a nominal fee.
They're actually developing this, trying to find a decent way of distributing TV content over the internet. Recent changes have lowered the priority of this project, but it's still on the backburner. However, they said they're only be able to distribute fully-owned BBC content - a lot of programmes (such as The Office) is produced by external companies - and these companies make money selling their programmes to other channels, and might not like anyone being able to download it. There's still a lot of content that could be made avaliable, though.
As for the point about having a large number of computers - I don't see that as a problem. At present the license is per household, you can have as many TVs as you want and only have to pay one license for them all. Why should it be any different if it was introduced on PCs (and it's more likely it'd be introduced on internet connections - how many people have multiple connections in their home)
Which will mean competing for ratings, which will mean more reality crap being flooded over the channel, which will mean an end to the BBC's quality programming. No other channel in the UK can compete with the BBC's documentaries (and dare I say it, cult comedy - QI, HIGNFY, etc).
I'm perfectly happy to pay the liscense fee, and to be fair, the license fee is actually a lot less than what people in other countries are paying for cable and Pay-per-view to get the same quality of programming. Is £10 a month too much? Hell, I'd be willing to pay that just for the BBC News channel and BBC News Online.
If someone doesn't like this law, they can move to a country that doesn't have such laws (or run for government and try and have the law changed). If you don't want to be punished, do something about it that doesn't involve breaking the law.
Does it use HyperText Coffee Pot Control Protocol, as defined in RFC 2324
Not all that much, when you consider the Iraq war cost somewhere between $80 and $150 billion.
links can handle frames, images and CSS just fine.
A tracker site is easy to moderate to check for illegal content. It's hard to argue that the main purpose of Lokitorrent wasn't to distribute copyrighted material. How many of the torrents were for free files? 5, maybe 10%. The site was facilitating the illegal distribution of copyrighted materials without making efforts to stop it, when they could have easily been made (it's much less easy for decentralised P2P systems).
How about 'High Speed, Always on Internet Connection Recommended'.
Since that fateful September when it became part of AOL :P
The company specifically stated that one of the things they objected to was the custom skins availiable on the site. A spokesperson said the company is seeking $1,000 to $100,000 in damages for every custom skin swapped over the website. More information in this register article
I apologise. Feel free to mod me down.
Does listening to porn make you deaf? I think some serious scientific research is needed!
Some sad geek is even translating it into Klingon >_>