Maybe, but the copyrighted recipe of the cake is the truth...
At least in some other parts of the world (e.g. Germany), you cannot copyright a recipe. You can have a copyright on a photo that you publish with the recipe, but the recipe itself can be copied and redistributed. The reason is that text without enough level of creativity ("Schaffenshoehe") cannot be copyrighted.
This makes sense if you think about it. The bank wants to advertise a rate that is appropriate to you, but it doesn't know much about you until you apply.
I think a random rate could do that as well - and probably better. Nevertheless, I would call this a willful wrong advertisement.
I never understood, whey you can drink huge amounts of sugar drinks in US cinemas but not a decent beer (if you get a decent beer in that part of the US - but I digress) as you can do it in most European cinemas. Poor Americans!
Are you smoking something? $US25 million to secure a movie that will pump a very large percentage of close to $US700 million into the local economy, such as the building industry, catering, accommodation, transport and other ancillary areas is a damned good deal.
Typically you get a good deal, if you bribe somebody to get the deal. It's a win/win situation - except if you also look at the competition or are starting a race of subventions.
Other countries were willing to pay a lot more, but it is clear that Warners and especially PJ wanted the movie filmed in NZ if at all possible.
Interesting. So, if other countries wouldn't have offered anything, then NZ wouldn't need to spend this money? Or, it was never needed? Seems that if no country had offered anything, the film would have still be done in NZ, but the 30$ would be kept by the NZ government and tax payers.
You could say that New Zealand bribes Warner to get the Hobbits. From TFA: "Mr Key also announced The Hobbit will get a $20million ($15m US) tax rebate - US$7.5m per film" and "The Government will also offset U$10m of Warner Brothers' marketing costs."
Right on, parent poster. Grand-parent poster, don't let the RIAA fool you into thinking you are stealing or doing anything else illegal when you download. Remember it is a COPYright. The person generating the copies is the one breaking the law. By prosecuting people who own pirated material, you open up a can of worms you don't want to eat. For example, I ordered an anime DVD set. I eventually figured out it was a pirate job. It looked pretty legit. But how many box sets come in a single DVD sleeve? (Four discs!) Also, the discs were mislabeled. Disc 2 was actually 3 and visa versa. And finally it was encoded region free. I had no idea what I was buying, I just knew it was a good price. Do I deserve to be prosecuted for being duped?
Good question. Actually, in many (all?) countries in Europe, the law has been changed to also include the "download of copyrighted material from obviously illegal sources". Now, as far as I know, the "obviously" has never been tried in court so far.
BTW: Your example for physical goods is quite interesting. I am not sure, whether you can be held responsible if you buy "pirated" CDs without knowing it, but surely you can, if you know it - and also also when you try to resell them after you found out that they had been "pirated".
> "Seriously, the restrictions of 14 days and lending only once is so ridiculous that it should push people over to the side of sharers."
To be fair, virtually anything a company does (short of policies that would result in their own bankruptcy) are easy excuses for "sharers". Example: "they charge money for books - that should push people over to the side of sharers." Presumably, the "solution" for them is to stop charging money for their products.
No, that's not the point. The point is that you can lend a book multiple times to whom you want for how long you want. And you cannot do this with an eBook (unless you also lend the reader, but lending the reader would be as lending your library).
It may come to that. It occurs to me that at some point governments are going to have to agree on methods to control extra-governmental forces like the Pirate Party/Bay, Wikileaks and even Al Qaeda.
Interesting try: Link two organizations that are fighting for freedom with one known for terror and bestiality. Do you have an agenda or did you just got too much tea?
25 to be spent in WHICH music store ? iTunes, Amazon, Napster ?
Knowing France, it will probably only be good at a French government site that only sells music by French bands or sung in French that have been approved by some council of culture.
Knowing the French president and the First Lady, I'll gladly prefer Klingon operas...
OK, when you're done ripping on the pope, stop and consider his point of view and what he has to say. Whether you agree or disagree, his point deserves some honest thought and debate.
The cameras are already there, it can already be abused. Was there massive outcry about the cameras before this? I would be interested to see how many people only started complaining when it might actually cost them parking tickets.
No; they are newly introduced.
A lot like red light cameras-- Im sure there are legitimate concerns with them, but Im also sure the vast majority of people complaining about them just want to be able to drive how they want with impunity.
A red light camera that would always film the crossing would be similar. But normally a red light camera has a sensor and only takes a snapshot when a car crosses during the red light - which is OK from the privacy point of view.
is it censorship when they still allow you to search the terms?
No, it is not. And this is why this article is informative (Google Instant != Google Search results), but that's all.
Then Google (and any other legally operating search engine) needs to NOT display some results is some countries - and I am not talking China here. As example, in Germany there is a list of results (maybe even of search terms?), which you are not allow to show. This is censorship, but censorship by the government.
Yes. You find evidence in countries who have similar blocking infrastructure for "think of the children" and other reasons; this article incl. comments lists some but not all countries. Note that on all blocking lists which became public, you could also find sites which do not strictly fall under the laws.
Providing he and other members of the board and senior management are forced to be on every aircraft that has only one pilot, you know, to show that they stand behind what they say, I say give it a go.
But being an investor (and serving on the board) is all about... taking risks.
I used Dovecot - but a quite old version. At the time, when I used it searching 2 yeqrs worth of emails was already slow (from Thunderbird). Another issue that I had was that the search was not really comfortable - but this might be the issue with Thunderbird at that time.
1) Privacy and possibility of identity theft. 2) 7.5 gigs is nothing for 20 years of email - unless you do not use attachments. If you upgrade, you also share your real name and credit card etc. with Google. 3) Your email address probably changed multiple times over those 20 years - do you want to change all emails in the sense that the email address needs to be changed?
1. How is that different from any other mail provider? 2. Um, are you advocating not buying anything online ever? 3. WTF are you talking about? Why do you need to change the email address on old emails again?
I'm thinking you don't know what you're talking about.
1. It is clearly different from running your own email server. But it is also differrent from any email provider from which you POP your email and then store it locally.
2. No; but I am saying that if you use a premium account then you add to all those private data also now a provable address and other information. That's also true for any book that you buy at Amazon, but you typically do not leave 10 GB private data with Amazon.
3. If your first address was aj1990@xyz.edu and then 3 years later aj93@myhome.com and then changed again a couple of years, it might be fun working with those emails over the Gmail or any IMAP interface. Think also about your "sent" folder, not only other folders.
Not this shit again. Do you have any idea how many emails go through Google's servers each second, and do you also have any idea of how banal the emails in question are? We're not talking about a service that has 5 subscribers, who each send 20 emails a day, with one user regularly emailing the President.
So what? If you have a Google account with all your personal data, and then have an issue with a Google employee (for whatever private matter; say he thinks that you cheated at him when you sold him your car) - and all your private emails (and those with your car insurance) are at Google: have fun.
Obviously this is true for all email services, which do not encrypt all messages and decrypt them basically in your email viewer. If you have all your emails at home (and a backup in a remote location), there should be no incentive to now upload them to a service.
Slashdot Mirror
If however you have had a really good meal you have to admit there is much creativity in the creation of dishes.
Absolutely! But even with all that creativity, you can't ask for a copyright for your meal. Best to keep it a secret and cook for your friends.
If you pay a CDN to deliver your content, you see it probably as a good service, if it can actually optimize the code.
Maybe, but the copyrighted recipe of the cake is the truth...
At least in some other parts of the world (e.g. Germany), you cannot copyright a recipe. You can have a copyright on a photo that you publish with the recipe, but the recipe itself can be copied and redistributed. The reason is that text without enough level of creativity ("Schaffenshoehe") cannot be copyrighted.
Lynx only and I get 9 hours.
This makes sense if you think about it. The bank wants to advertise a rate that is appropriate to you, but it doesn't know much about you until you apply.
I think a random rate could do that as well - and probably better. Nevertheless, I would call this a willful wrong advertisement.
But I have yet to find a theater that you can pass a fattie around in while watching a comedy.
Drive-in cinema?
I never understood, whey you can drink huge amounts of sugar drinks in US cinemas but not a decent beer (if you get a decent beer in that part of the US - but I digress) as you can do it in most European cinemas. Poor Americans!
Are you smoking something? $US25 million to secure a movie that will pump a very large percentage of close to $US700 million into the local economy, such as the building industry, catering, accommodation, transport and other ancillary areas is a damned good deal.
Typically you get a good deal, if you bribe somebody to get the deal. It's a win/win situation - except if you also look at the competition or are starting a race of subventions.
Other countries were willing to pay a lot more, but it is clear that Warners and especially PJ wanted the movie filmed in NZ if at all possible.
Interesting. So, if other countries wouldn't have offered anything, then NZ wouldn't need to spend this money? Or, it was never needed? Seems that if no country had offered anything, the film would have still be done in NZ, but the 30$ would be kept by the NZ government and tax payers.
But a bribe would imply corruption, which is unlikely in NZ Gov
Here we also have the case, where the country is bribing a multi-national - and not vice versa.
Hmm, actually this is quite common and called "subvention" - and sometimes there is a hidden cashback, which then fulfills the term "corruption".
You could say that New Zealand bribes Warner to get the Hobbits. From TFA: "Mr Key also announced The Hobbit will get a $20million ($15m US) tax rebate - US$7.5m per film" and "The Government will also offset U$10m of Warner Brothers' marketing costs."
Right on, parent poster. Grand-parent poster, don't let the RIAA fool you into thinking you are stealing or doing anything else illegal when you download. Remember it is a COPYright. The person generating the copies is the one breaking the law. By prosecuting people who own pirated material, you open up a can of worms you don't want to eat. For example, I ordered an anime DVD set. I eventually figured out it was a pirate job. It looked pretty legit. But how many box sets come in a single DVD sleeve? (Four discs!) Also, the discs were mislabeled. Disc 2 was actually 3 and visa versa. And finally it was encoded region free. I had no idea what I was buying, I just knew it was a good price. Do I deserve to be prosecuted for being duped?
Good question. Actually, in many (all?) countries in Europe, the law has been changed to also include the "download of copyrighted material from obviously illegal sources". Now, as far as I know, the "obviously" has never been tried in court so far.
BTW: Your example for physical goods is quite interesting. I am not sure, whether you can be held responsible if you buy "pirated" CDs without knowing it, but surely you can, if you know it - and also also when you try to resell them after you found out that they had been "pirated".
The lend once only is very onerous and I have never seen a good reason why. Can anyone tell me?
I hate it when they try to force non-physical objects to behave like physical objects.
Well in this case, it would be great if eBooks would actually behave like physical objects. You could lend them to anybody for any period of time.
> "Seriously, the restrictions of 14 days and lending only once is so ridiculous that it should push people over to the side of sharers."
To be fair, virtually anything a company does (short of policies that would result in their own bankruptcy) are easy excuses for "sharers". Example: "they charge money for books - that should push people over to the side of sharers." Presumably, the "solution" for them is to stop charging money for their products.
No, that's not the point. The point is that you can lend a book multiple times to whom you want for how long you want. And you cannot do this with an eBook (unless you also lend the reader, but lending the reader would be as lending your library).
It may come to that. It occurs to me that at some point governments are going to have to agree on methods to control extra-governmental forces like the Pirate Party/Bay, Wikileaks and even Al Qaeda.
Interesting try: Link two organizations that are fighting for freedom with one known for terror and bestiality. Do you have an agenda or did you just got too much tea?
Knowing France, it will probably only be good at a French government site that only sells music by French bands or sung in French that have been approved by some council of culture.
Knowing the French president and the First Lady, I'll gladly prefer Klingon operas...
OK, when you're done ripping on the pope, stop and consider his point of view and what he has to say. Whether you agree or disagree, his point deserves some honest thought and debate.
Why? On which merits?
The cameras are already there, it can already be abused. Was there massive outcry about the cameras before this? I would be interested to see how many people only started complaining when it might actually cost them parking tickets.
No; they are newly introduced.
A lot like red light cameras-- Im sure there are legitimate concerns with them, but Im also sure the vast majority of people complaining about them just want to be able to drive how they want with impunity.
A red light camera that would always film the crossing would be similar. But normally a red light camera has a sensor and only takes a snapshot when a car crosses during the red light - which is OK from the privacy point of view.
is it censorship when they still allow you to search the terms?
No, it is not. And this is why this article is informative (Google Instant != Google Search results), but that's all.
Then Google (and any other legally operating search engine) needs to NOT display some results is some countries - and I am not talking China here. As example, in Germany there is a list of results (maybe even of search terms?), which you are not allow to show. This is censorship, but censorship by the government.
Do you have any evidence of this?
Yes. You find evidence in countries who have similar blocking infrastructure for "think of the children" and other reasons; this article incl. comments lists some but not all countries. Note that on all blocking lists which became public, you could also find sites which do not strictly fall under the laws.
... but Wikipedia, the most reliable legal source known to man, ...
Lol. This one's great!
Providing he and other members of the board and senior management are forced to be on every aircraft that has only one pilot, you know, to show that they stand behind what they say, I say give it a go.
But being an investor (and serving on the board) is all about ... taking risks.
I used Dovecot - but a quite old version. At the time, when I used it searching 2 yeqrs worth of emails was already slow (from Thunderbird). Another issue that I had was that the search was not really comfortable - but this might be the issue with Thunderbird at that time.
1) Privacy and possibility of identity theft.
2) 7.5 gigs is nothing for 20 years of email - unless you do not use attachments. If you upgrade, you also share your real name and credit card etc. with Google.
3) Your email address probably changed multiple times over those 20 years - do you want to change all emails in the sense that the email address needs to be changed?
1. How is that different from any other mail provider?
2. Um, are you advocating not buying anything online ever?
3. WTF are you talking about? Why do you need to change the email address on old emails again?
I'm thinking you don't know what you're talking about.
1. It is clearly different from running your own email server. But it is also differrent from any email provider from which you POP your email and then store it locally.
2. No; but I am saying that if you use a premium account then you add to all those private data also now a provable address and other information. That's also true for any book that you buy at Amazon, but you typically do not leave 10 GB private data with Amazon.
3. If your first address was aj1990@xyz.edu and then 3 years later aj93@myhome.com and then changed again a couple of years, it might be fun working with those emails over the Gmail or any IMAP interface. Think also about your "sent" folder, not only other folders.
Have fun searching 20 years of emails via the IMAP protocol ...
Not this shit again. Do you have any idea how many emails go through Google's servers each second, and do you also have any idea of how banal the emails in question are? We're not talking about a service that has 5 subscribers, who each send 20 emails a day, with one user regularly emailing the President.
So what? If you have a Google account with all your personal data, and then have an issue with a Google employee (for whatever private matter; say he thinks that you cheated at him when you sold him your car) - and all your private emails (and those with your car insurance) are at Google: have fun.
Obviously this is true for all email services, which do not encrypt all messages and decrypt them basically in your email viewer. If you have all your emails at home (and a backup in a remote location), there should be no incentive to now upload them to a service.