The actual difference, which the judge in this case failed to notice, is that the contents of one's music directory aren't actually the originals. Such files are, literally, _copies_ of the originals, and therefore legitimately subject to the restrictions imposed by Copyright. If I make copies of my CD's and put them on my CD rack, that's perfectly legal, and I can even let you browse my CD rack, but unless I have permission from the copyright holder to make non-personal use copies, I cannot allow you to borrow any of those copied CD's without infringing on copyright, because once I lend them to you, they would literally no longer be just for "personal use".
Please post a quote from the relevant statute that supports your view.
If you make a copy for your personal use, then I come along and make a copy of your copy for my personal use, it is still legal.
The important part is who makes the copy. You cannot make a copy for me (not personal use) but you can lend me your original or copy for listening (no copying involved) and then, I can copy it for my personal use. know that this is playing with semantics but this is how the law works.
80. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the act of reproducing all or any substantial part of (a) a musical work embodied in a sound recording, (b) a performer's performance of a musical work embodied in a sound recording, or (c) a sound recording in which a musical work, or a performer's performance of a musical work, is embodied onto an audio recording medium for the private use of the person who makes the copy does not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the musical work, the performer's performance or the sound recording.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the act described in that subsection is done for the purpose of doing any of the following in relation to any of the things referred to in paragraphs (1)(a) to (c): (a) selling or renting out, or by way of trade exposing or offering for sale or rental; (b) distributing, whether or not for the purpose of trade; (c) communicating to the public by telecommunication; or (d) performing, or causing to be performed, in public.
In other words, as long as somebody else makes the copy and you are not getting paid for it, it is legal.
The judge in that case ruled that, in that particular case, sharing the files was not "distribution". Basically it was a distinction between "push" and "pull" models.
[26] No evidence was presented that the alleged infringers either distributed or authorized the reproduction of sound recordings. They merely placed personal copies into their shared directories which were accessible by other computer user via a P2P service.
[27] As far as authorization is concerned, the case of CCH Canada Ltd v. Law Society of Canada, 2004 SCC 13, established that setting up the facilities that allow copying does not amount to authorizing infringement. I cannot see a real difference between a library that places a photocopy machine in a room full of copyrighted material and a computer user that places a personal copy on a shared directory linked to a P2P service. In either case the preconditions to copying and infringement are set up but the element of authorization is missing.
[28] The mere fact of placing a copy on a shared directory in a computer where that copy can be accessed via a P2P service does not amount to distribution. Before it constitutes distribution, there must be a positive act by the owner of the shared directory, such as sending out the copies or advertising that they are available for copying. No such evidence was presented by the plaint
If I come to your house, browse your CD library, borrow one that I like and copy it for my own personal use - it will be legal. This is the accepted interpretation of the law.
The judge ruled that there is no fundamental difference between your CD rack and your music directory. The reasons were detailed in the ruling but basically, if you don't advertise it, don't profit from it, etc. and somebody comes along and copies it, it is OK.
Copying for personal use is exempt from copyright infringement within Canada, this is true, but this exemption does not apply if one is sharing it with others
I always take my wife as a normal type person who just wants technology to work. She reads email, writes letters and does a little bit of surfing. She doesn't really care about computers and seems to live in her own little bubble. So I posed gave her a quick run down of the UK RIP bill (http://www.guardian.co.uk/theissues/article/0,651 2,334007,00.html) basically saying that the government can come along and watch everything she does on the net, can be put in jail for refusing to give her password out etc and her response was. " As long as I don't do anything wrong why should I worry? "
Ask her the following series of questions:
1) Think of the most mean-spirited, lying, power-tripping and antisocial SOB you ever had the displeasure of dealing with.
2) Assume that this person somehow got a job with the government and is now responsible for monitoring such activities.
3) Consider that the system protects its own, so this person can now make life difficult for others with little or no repercussions.
4) Imagine that this person perceives an imaginary wrong from you and now has it for you.
5) Should you worry now?
The problem is that this nebulous "government" entity is comprised of human beings that, as human beings go, often have ulterior motives. Dirty cops, crooked politicians, judges "on the take", you name it.
If all people that work in or for "the government" were made to undergo monthly polygraph tests and every infraction or misuse of power or authority would be punishable by public impalement, I would have no problem being monitored.
> My point is that right now there is clearly more to "life" than can be described by our understanding of the raw physics of the materials involved.
Right now there is clearly more to anything than can be described by our understanding of the raw physics of the materials involved.
Hell, we cannot even predict the state of a system consisting only of 3 bodies in motion with gravity being the only force operating on them without resorting to numerical approximations.
> I wonder if you have a wikipedia article that supports that outrageous claim that criminalizing anything is just wrong
First, not "criminalizing anything" but "criminalizing possession".
Second, Wikipedia is no place for opinions, including right/wrong values. Incidentally, "outrageous" is also a value judgement.
Third, the AC reply (post #16264725) presents a good case.
> where does this viewpoint come from?
Thinking about the society we live in and, analyzing where it is headed, talking to various people with similar and different viewpoints, applying logic, etc.
And especially, recognizing knee-jerk reactions, demagogy and populism for what they are.
> do you support legalizing all controlled substances to all people on this planet?
This is a gross oversimplification and somewhat of a straw-man. I am opposed to criminalizing mere "possession". Surely you can see the difference.
> Coke? Heroin? Anthrax? Plutonium?
Yes. Provided it dos not endanger others (which would be difficult to achieve in the case of Anthrax and Plutonium, but then there are other laws dealing with that).
> Do women fall into your definition of everything?
That statement makes absolutely no sense whatsoever in the context of this conversation.
If I had a weapon in my house, it would constitute "possession" in the legal sense and could be a criminal offence (depending on the jurisdiction). I usually have a woman in my house (more than one if a child falls under your definition of a "woman"). It is usually called "having a family" and, as far as I know, is legal.
> your defense of "it is just wrong" won't work on US soil, as possesion is illegal
Please try to pay more more attention. I did not classify it as a "defense" but as a "viewpoint".
There is a huge difference between "illegal" and "wrong" however, and most nations had their share of unjust laws (they are often, but not always, struck down or revised at some time).
Now, disagreeing with a law does not make make an act any less illegal and, the way societies work, there are usually negative consequences to such acts. In such cases, a dissenter has two choices: either obey the law regardless of one's convictions or disobey it and be prepared to accept the consequences (civil disobedience). Neither of these choices preclude the option of advocating and working towards the goal of removing or changing said law.
Just to illustrate a point, let me present a simple example why criminalizing possession of even child porn is wrong (there are many other reasons).
Assume that one of your friends (let's call him bob) gets a virus on his PC. The virus examines his email box and finds your address. It then sends you a message, allegedly from Bob, with a link to a particularly nasty child porn site.
When you get this email, you have no cause for suspicion (after all, Bob's your friend) so you click on the link and Wham!... You immediately close the browser, contact Bob and discover the problem.
However, your browser cache now has a copy of a very illegal picture. Congratulations! You now possess child porn. If a law enforcement agency has any reason to examine the contents of your hard drive and finds this, you will be in quite a fix.
> If you had a fourteen year old daughter, is that enough age for you to be ok with her giving her own consent?
I live in Canada. When my daughter reaches the age of 14, I sincerely hope she will be able to give or withhold her informed consent. Otherwise, that would indicate my failure as a parent.
She was able to successfully deal with the fact that her allergies prevent her from enjoying the pizza and cake at her friends'
are none of you aware that possesing child porn, as well as sex with a minor is a crime??
Yes we are aware of that.
However, consider the following viewpoints:
* Criminalizing "possession" of anything is just wrong.
* The age of consent is different in many countries. According to Wikipedia, it is 14 in Canada, Austria, Brazil, Iceland, Italy, Portugal, Chile and some Eastern European countries; 13 in Argentina, Japan Spain and Guyana. The Age of consent sitehas some different figures, ranging from 12 to 21.
If you respect civil liberties how can there be a but?
There was a typo in the article.
I am not sure what was the original word but try one of the following: 1) We suspect civil liberties... 2) We neglect civil liberties... 3) We reject civil liberties... 4) We object (to) civil liberties... 5) We wrecked civil liberties...
This is one of the things that I dislike most about FireFox: tons of (optional) about:config settings without a nice interface and on-line help that will help you make sense of all of them and customize the application to your needs.
Slashdot Mirror
If you didn't know, "Amine" is Napajese tarcoons.
Please post a quote from the relevant statute that supports your view.
If you make a copy for your personal use, then I come along and make a copy of your copy for my personal use, it is still legal.
The important part is who makes the copy. You cannot make a copy for me (not personal use) but you can lend me your original or copy for listening (no copying involved) and then, I can copy it for my personal use. know that this is playing with semantics but this is how the law works.
Let me quote from the Copyright act: PART VIII - PRIVATE COPYING (emphasis mine):
In other words, as long as somebody else makes the copy and you are not getting paid for it, it is legal.
The judge in that case ruled that, in that particular case, sharing the files was not "distribution".
Basically it was a distinction between "push" and "pull" models.
Quoting from the docket:
Not exactly.
If I come to your house, browse your CD library, borrow one that I like and copy it for my own personal use - it will be legal. This is the accepted interpretation of the law.
The judge ruled that there is no fundamental difference between your CD rack and your music directory. The reasons were detailed in the ruling but basically, if you don't advertise it, don't profit from it, etc. and somebody comes along and copies it, it is OK.
Well, the court disagrees with your interpretation.
Whom am I going to believe?
Are you sure about that?
Really really sure?
No doubt about it?
Trying to figure out which of the multitude of settings in about:config need to be changed to achieve a certain effect is a bitch.
Title says: Microsoft or Google?
Icon says: Sony
Brilliant!
1) Think of the most mean-spirited, lying, power-tripping and antisocial SOB you ever had the displeasure of dealing with.
2) Assume that this person somehow got a job with the government and is now responsible for monitoring such activities.
3) Consider that the system protects its own, so this person can now make life difficult for others with little or no repercussions.
4) Imagine that this person perceives an imaginary wrong from you and now has it for you.
5) Should you worry now?
The problem is that this nebulous "government" entity is comprised of human beings that, as human beings go, often have ulterior motives. Dirty cops, crooked politicians, judges "on the take", you name it.
If all people that work in or for "the government" were made to undergo monthly polygraph tests and every infraction or misuse of power or authority would be punishable by public impalement, I would have no problem being monitored.
I'd suggest consulting a dermatologist.
> My point is that right now there is clearly more to "life" than can be described by our understanding of the raw physics of the materials involved.
Right now there is clearly more to anything than can be described by our understanding of the raw physics of the materials involved.
Hell, we cannot even predict the state of a system consisting only of 3 bodies in motion with gravity being the only force operating on them without resorting to numerical approximations.
Life? Don't talk to me about life!
Look at the ACCU book reviews, preferably by subject for books on Algorithms and Data structures (there's a lot of overlap).
> Please explain to me how reciting a number to 100,000 digits is smart.
And this, boys and girls, is a prime example of the difference between Intelligence and Wisdom.
Everybody knows that Martian Methane is produced by Martian cows.
> I wonder if you have a wikipedia article that supports that outrageous claim that criminalizing anything is just wrong
First, not "criminalizing anything" but "criminalizing possession".
Second, Wikipedia is no place for opinions, including right/wrong values.
Incidentally, "outrageous" is also a value judgement.
Third, the AC reply (post #16264725) presents a good case.
> where does this viewpoint come from?
Thinking about the society we live in and, analyzing where it is headed, talking to various people with similar and different viewpoints, applying logic, etc.
And especially, recognizing knee-jerk reactions, demagogy and populism for what they are.
> do you support legalizing all controlled substances to all people on this planet?
This is a gross oversimplification and somewhat of a straw-man.
I am opposed to criminalizing mere "possession". Surely you can see the difference.
> Coke? Heroin? Anthrax? Plutonium?
Yes. Provided it dos not endanger others (which would be difficult to achieve in the case of Anthrax and Plutonium, but then there are other laws dealing with that).
> Do women fall into your definition of everything?
That statement makes absolutely no sense whatsoever in the context of this conversation.
If I had a weapon in my house, it would constitute "possession" in the legal sense and could be a criminal offence (depending on the jurisdiction).
I usually have a woman in my house (more than one if a child falls under your definition of a "woman"). It is usually called "having a family" and, as far as I know, is legal.
> your defense of "it is just wrong" won't work on US soil, as possesion is illegal
Please try to pay more more attention. I did not classify it as a "defense" but as a "viewpoint".
There is a huge difference between "illegal" and "wrong" however, and most nations had their share of unjust laws (they are often, but not always, struck down or revised at some time).
Now, disagreeing with a law does not make make an act any less illegal and, the way societies work, there are usually negative consequences to such acts.
In such cases, a dissenter has two choices: either obey the law regardless of one's convictions or disobey it and be prepared to accept the consequences (civil disobedience).
Neither of these choices preclude the option of advocating and working towards the goal of removing or changing said law.
Just to illustrate a point, let me present a simple example why criminalizing possession of even child porn is wrong (there are many other reasons).
Assume that one of your friends (let's call him bob) gets a virus on his PC. The virus examines his email box and finds your address. It then sends you a message, allegedly from Bob, with a link to a particularly nasty child porn site.
When you get this email, you have no cause for suspicion (after all, Bob's your friend) so you click on the link and Wham!... You immediately close the browser, contact Bob and discover the problem.
However, your browser cache now has a copy of a very illegal picture. Congratulations! You now possess child porn. If a law enforcement agency has any reason to examine the contents of your hard drive and finds this, you will be in quite a fix.
Similarly, consider typosquatting sites.
> If you had a fourteen year old daughter, is that enough age for you to be ok with her giving her own consent?
I live in Canada. When my daughter reaches the age of 14, I sincerely hope she will be able to give or withhold her informed consent. Otherwise, that would indicate my failure as a parent.
She was able to successfully deal with the fact that her allergies prevent her from enjoying the pizza and cake at her friends'
Yes we are aware of that.
However, consider the following viewpoints:
* Criminalizing "possession" of anything is just wrong.
* The age of consent is different in many countries.
According to Wikipedia, it is 14 in Canada, Austria, Brazil, Iceland, Italy, Portugal, Chile and some Eastern European countries; 13 in Argentina, Japan Spain and Guyana.
The Age of consent sitehas some different figures, ranging from 12 to 21.
about plants that smell
> Nvidia fixed ActiveArmor's data corruption issues a while back.
Source please.
From TFA: "... limits on human carbon dioxide generation".
I suggest amending the Kyoto accord to limit exhalations by 30%.
There was a typo in the article.
I am not sure what was the original word but try one of the following:
1) We suspect civil liberties...
2) We neglect civil liberties...
3) We reject civil liberties...
4) We object (to) civil liberties...
5) We wrecked civil liberties...
Will we see a
If I were an evil corporation, would I admit it?
Would I shout from the rooftops: "behold, I am evil!"?
Or would I try as hard as I can to strengthen the perception of being non-evil?
Draw your own conclusions.
Please suggest other clients and/or networks for Windows, Linux/BSD and Mac
> Priklopil threw himself under a train minutes after the girl escaped; there's not going to be any court case.
Bloody copycat...
This is one of the things that I dislike most about FireFox: tons of (optional) about:config settings without a nice interface and on-line help that will help you make sense of all of them and customize the application to your needs.