I already what all the TV I want. No commercials, Pause and start when ever I want. More shows then I could ever possibly have time to watch. No Cable or Satellite bills either. It's called bittorrent. Arrrrrrr, long live TPB!
No, Agnosticism is the lack of belief. Atheism is the active belief that God does not exist. Hence Agnosticism is the 'default' position in that they have made no decision about the existence of God and could be swayed either way by evidence. An Atheist, on the other hand, actively denies the existence of God without proof of his non-existence (lack of evidence of existence is NOT the same as proof of non-existence).
So this is like the same way that I actively do not believe in Santa? I don't have any proof that there is no Santa Claus but I strongly believe in his non-existence. You're saying I should have to provide some proof that there is no Santa Claus before I start spreading such awful rumours? By the same token I have no proof that there aren't 8 dimensions in our universe so I shouldn't not believe that either? I also don't have any proof that the Galactic Empire didn't really set out to kill all the Jedi. So perhaps that really did happen too? Oh yeah, lets not forget the flying spaghetti monster. I have no proof of his non-existence either. Perhaps god is just a bowl of pasta?
This is where all religions fail, and why atheism is NOT a religion. It is not for the atheist to prove the non existance of anything. To prove non-existance of anything is an impossible task and is therefore an unreasonable request. No, it is the person who believes in god who is burdened with the task of proving his existance. If he really does exist, then there should at least be the possibility of providing that proof. A task which to date no religion has been able to provide.
Ah yes, well, there you have it. Proof of evolution right there. The Europeans have obviously evolved beyond that sort of behaviour, while the Americans are now practicing their own little inquisition down in Guantanamo, and other places.
Maybe that's why there is such a strong belief in creationism in America. There simply is no evolution over there.
I'm still using my Tux Mastercard. What does all this mean to those of us in Canada who apparently weren't affecting by LinuxFund blowing up in the States?
Well, you may have a point about Cory in particular, I take exception to your use of the term "anyone". The majority of the world lives outside the US and therefore should not feel intimidated by its laws.
By George your right. (I just read the article) But why exactly do they need a third party to do this? Surely there are umpteen simple ways to do this themselves. Does Verisign actually bring anything useful to the table, or just their bad name?
Why do you you think they keep trying to extend the duration and breadth of copyright? They steal our culture and sell it back to us, one sound bite at a time.
I have the same comment (from Canada) but it's you guys in the UK with all the shows we can't get here. Doctor Who, Life on Mars, Hustle, Hotel Babylon, 55 degrees north, Mayo, and more... All shows I've been able to watch via BitTorrent that I would not otherwise get to watch. As for American programming I watch as little of that as possible.
I even sent and email to BBC a while back offering to pay to get legal access to some of these programs. Predictably I got no response. Honestly you Brit's who bash the BBC really have no idea how good you have it. Come to Canada and watch some of the stuff here that passes for "Canadian Content" (if you can 'cause most of the stuff here is rebroadcast US shows) and you'll appreciate your national broadcaster so much more.
Sure, and when you go to court to sue or be sued and the court garners your or the other persons wages, that's collected by the government too, but I bet you'd be rather hesitant to call that a tax. The point is that what is done with the money collected is not controlled by a the government. As such I don't think it can be called a tax, despite the fact the the government 'collects' it on behalf of another party. It all goes to the private interest group and THEY decide how it is distributed, or even IF it is distributed!
You're right it's not a tax and it is a levy AND there is a big difference. Taxes are collected by governments which in theory are accountable to the people. The levy is collected by a special interest group which is ONLY accountable to its members. A tax would be fairer.
>One eensy weensy little detail distinguishes Freespire from EasyUbuntu:
>
>legality.
Only in the U. S. of Eh. my friend. Up here in the Great White North, not to mention the rest of the free world, (NOT Australia since they've joined the US copyright tyranny) it is completely legal to use most of those codecs that might land an American butt in the slammer.
What I find most frustrating is that because people are so afraid of what the Americans will do, they intentionally cripple these distros. Grrrrr.
This is great. I've been waiting for this. Now what is the best way to upgrade my two FC4 machines and one RH9? Can I install over top without any sort of reformatting?
Err, OK somebody ain't getting it. Maybe it's me. But how was Napster doing anything more than indexing? They kept a database of filenames along with IP addresses of where to find them. That was it as far as I know, and that is nothing more than an index.
As for Berne, I have actually skimmed through it and its amendments. I could be wrong, but I don't think the concept, let alone the words 'contributory copyright infringement' are there anywhere. The idea of holding a person who makes tools for copying accountable for copyright infringement I doubt had even been considered when this treaty was thought up.
Oh no. The American's have ideas of copyright which go faaaar beyond Berne. (As if Berne isn't bad enough)
What boggles me is how other people in this thread can hold up America as an example of freedom with regard to this issue. America is one of the most, if not THE MOST repressive regimes with regard to intellectual freedom in the Western world.
If it was legal in the U.S. to index content, then Napster (the original) would still be around. Unfortunately the Americans have this little thing called the DMCA which creates whole new categories of crimes for behaviour which should be and is allowed in other 'free' countries in the world.
>>You can link to illegal content. You're pointing to it, you aren't hosting it. >>It's perfectly legal. > >I'm not an international lawyer or anything, but it occurs to me that the law >might be different outside the U.S. >
Darn straight. As the grandparent said. "It's perfectly legal". It's the US that makes it illegal to simply link to content. The rest of the world is more sane. Which again begs the question. How did they justify this raid?
This is the last post I'll make on this matter. Not because there is no more to debate. In fact there is. Everything from the legal definition of "copyright" to "publishing", to utility of being able to photograph something but not share/publish it. Any argument will depend a lot on these definitions which (at least in Canadian law) can be fairly ambiguous.
No this is my last past because, as I said, mr flyinwhitey is loud, rude, and prefers to attack the person rather than the message.
Sir, I would never follow you from post to post modding you down. You're not worth it and I suspect, judging from these posts, that you need no extra help in this regard.
You just accused someone of the very same thing you are doing.
Errr, how so? I said the post was "loud, rude, and makes accusations about not getting the facts straight without providing any itself." Please tell me what facts I should offer to back up this statement other than the post itself.
If you are instead referring to the same post that he is referring to where I say:
"If they can claim copyright, they CAN dictate what you can do with the image INCLUDING your weblog, making duplicate photos at a photo shop, making copies on your computer, or even viewing them if they happen to be digital pics."
[sigh] Well, I suppose you got me there. I don't know the specific laws of france, however, I expect it is similar to other countries.
here are a few links for your edification
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html
Copyright protects "original works of authorship" that are fixed in a tangible form of expression. The fixation need not be directly perceptible so long as it may be communicated with the aid of a machine or device. Copyrightable works include the following categories:...
8. architectural works
http://www.answers.com/topic/copyright
The legal right granted to an author, composer, playwright, publisher, or distributor to exclusive PUBLICATION, PRODUCTION, sale, or distribution of a literary, musical, dramatic, or artistic work.
I would say your weblog qualifies as publication and distribution, and personal copies would still quality as production.
I apologize I did not realise I had to qualify my use of the word copyright as the RIGHT to control the act of making COPIES.
Slashdot Mirror
See full article here
http://www.mediainfocenter.org/story.asp?story_id=122760705
I already what all the TV I want. No commercials, Pause and start when ever I want. More shows then I could ever possibly have time to watch. No Cable or Satellite bills either. It's called bittorrent. Arrrrrrr, long live TPB!
This is where all religions fail, and why atheism is NOT a religion. It is not for the atheist to prove the non existance of anything. To prove non-existance of anything is an impossible task and is therefore an unreasonable request. No, it is the person who believes in god who is burdened with the task of proving his existance. If he really does exist, then there should at least be the possibility of providing that proof. A task which to date no religion has been able to provide.
Ah yes, well, there you have it. Proof of evolution right there. The Europeans have obviously evolved beyond that sort of behaviour, while the Americans are now practicing their own little inquisition down in Guantanamo, and other places.
Maybe that's why there is such a strong belief in creationism in America. There simply is no evolution over there.
But he said 3d accelerator, NOT accelerometer, which simply means that he goes madly off in all directions.
better?
I'm still using my Tux Mastercard. What does all this mean to those of us in Canada who apparently weren't affecting by LinuxFund blowing up in the States?
Well, you may have a point about Cory in particular, I take exception to your use of the term "anyone". The majority of the world lives outside the US and therefore should not feel intimidated by its laws.
And Cory Doctorow received a C&D letter for the same thing. On the advice of his lawyer he caved. I think he should get a new lawyer!
By George your right. (I just read the article) But why exactly do they need a third party to do this? Surely there are umpteen simple ways to do this themselves. Does Verisign actually bring anything useful to the table, or just their bad name?
Umm, how is this different then the CVV number which is already on cards for the same purpose?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CVV_number
Why do you you think they keep trying to extend the duration and breadth of copyright? They steal our culture and sell it back to us, one sound bite at a time.
I have the same comment (from Canada) but it's you guys in the UK with all the shows we can't get here. Doctor Who, Life on Mars, Hustle, Hotel Babylon, 55 degrees north, Mayo, and more... All shows I've been able to watch via BitTorrent that I would not otherwise get to watch. As for American programming I watch as little of that as possible.
I even sent and email to BBC a while back offering to pay to get legal access to some of these programs. Predictably I got no response. Honestly you Brit's who bash the BBC really have no idea how good you have it. Come to Canada and watch some of the stuff here that passes for "Canadian Content" (if you can 'cause most of the stuff here is rebroadcast US shows) and you'll appreciate your national broadcaster so much more.
Sure, and when you go to court to sue or be sued and the court garners your or the other persons wages, that's collected by the government too, but I bet you'd be rather hesitant to call that a tax. The point is that what is done with the money collected is not controlled by a the government. As such I don't think it can be called a tax, despite the fact the the government 'collects' it on behalf of another party. It all goes to the private interest group and THEY decide how it is distributed, or even IF it is distributed!
You're right it's not a tax and it is a levy AND there is a big difference. Taxes are collected by governments which in theory are accountable to the people. The levy is collected by a special interest group which is ONLY accountable to its members. A tax would be fairer.
but that was only one word..... twice
No it's more like making it illegal to pick the lock on your OWN vault.
>One eensy weensy little detail distinguishes Freespire from EasyUbuntu:
>
>legality.
Only in the U. S. of Eh. my friend. Up here in the Great White North, not to mention the rest of the free world, (NOT Australia since they've joined the US copyright tyranny) it is completely legal to use most of those codecs that might land an American butt in the slammer.
What I find most frustrating is that because people are so afraid of what the Americans will do, they intentionally cripple these distros. Grrrrr.
This is great. I've been waiting for this. Now what is the best way to upgrade my two FC4 machines and one RH9? Can I install over top without any sort of reformatting?
Err, OK somebody ain't getting it. Maybe it's me. But how was Napster doing anything more than indexing? They kept a database of filenames along with IP addresses of where to find them. That was it as far as I know, and that is nothing more than an index.
As for Berne, I have actually skimmed through it and its amendments. I could be wrong, but I don't think the concept, let alone the words 'contributory copyright infringement' are there anywhere. The idea of holding a person who makes tools for copying accountable for copyright infringement I doubt had even been considered when this treaty was thought up.
Oh no. The American's have ideas of copyright which go faaaar beyond Berne. (As if Berne isn't bad enough)
What boggles me is how other people in this thread can hold up America as an example of freedom with regard to this issue. America is one of the most, if not THE MOST repressive regimes with regard to intellectual freedom in the Western world.
Say, wa?
If it was legal in the U.S. to index content, then Napster (the original) would still be around. Unfortunately the Americans have this little thing called the DMCA which creates whole new categories of crimes for behaviour which should be and is allowed in other 'free' countries in the world.
Wanna try that on me again?
>>You can link to illegal content. You're pointing to it, you aren't hosting it.
>>It's perfectly legal.
>
>I'm not an international lawyer or anything, but it occurs to me that the law
>might be different outside the U.S.
>
Darn straight. As the grandparent said. "It's perfectly legal". It's the US that makes it illegal to simply link to content. The rest of the world is more sane. Which again begs the question. How did they justify this raid?
This is the last post I'll make on this matter. Not because there is no more to debate. In fact there is. Everything from the legal definition of "copyright" to "publishing", to utility of being able to photograph something but not share/publish it. Any argument will depend a lot on these definitions which (at least in Canadian law) can be fairly ambiguous.
No this is my last past because, as I said, mr flyinwhitey is loud, rude, and prefers to attack the person rather than the message.
Sir, I would never follow you from post to post modding you down. You're not worth it and I suspect, judging from these posts, that you need no extra help in this regard.
Errr, how so? I said the post was "loud, rude, and makes accusations about not getting the facts straight without providing any itself." Please tell me what facts I should offer to back up this statement other than the post itself.
If you are instead referring to the same post that he is referring to where I say:
[sigh] Well, I suppose you got me there. I don't know the specific laws of france, however, I expect it is similar to other countries.
here are a few links for your edification
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html
Copyright protects "original works of authorship" that are fixed in a tangible form of expression. The fixation need not be directly perceptible so long as it may be communicated with the aid of a machine or device. Copyrightable works include the following categories:
http://www.answers.com/topic/copyright
The legal right granted to an author, composer, playwright, publisher, or distributor to exclusive PUBLICATION, PRODUCTION, sale, or distribution of a literary, musical, dramatic, or artistic work.
I would say your weblog qualifies as publication and distribution, and personal copies would still quality as production.
I apologize I did not realise I had to qualify my use of the word copyright as the RIGHT to control the act of making COPIES.
The post is loud, rude, and makes accusations about not getting the facts straight without providing any itself.
I stand by my words, until someone can make a persuasive reasoned argument against them.