16 posts • joined Wednesday 18th November 2009 17:14 GMT
... that's no moon!
The Eyeluminati, surely?
Paragraph 98 of teh judgement:
"BT accepts that it is a "service provider" within the meaning of section 97A of the CDPA 1988..."
The company name behind Newzbin2 is: "Kthxbai Ltd ".
0.3% of teh content on Newzbin2 was not protected by copyright.
Seriously. Can this ever have been anything other than illegal?
The title is required
Actually, slooth, that's not true.
In the 70s there was a spate of prosecutions by car companies of aftermarket exhast pipe manufacturers.
You see, they claimed to have copyright in the design plans for the exhaust pipes, which was being illegally infringed by aftermarket manufacturers.
Still, its total madness. When I buy anything, I reserve the right to fark with it. Its a fundamental property right. They sold it, I bought it, its mine.
The only way M$ can legitimately do this is to lend you the kinect hardware like an ISP lends you a router.
I'm gonna dust off Mechwarrior 2 tonight.
Imagine what could happen if Stuxnet got hold of these! War of the clans!
Google apps ad?
I like that there was a google ad in the middle of that article.
It makes sense now.
I have always marvelled at Google. It claims to not be evil. But it is so good at what it does that there has to be some nefarious compact with, if not Satan himself, then at least a demogorgon, or other diabolical minion.
These fuckers can locate me using google maps. My HTC Desire automagically logs onto my home wifi, and shows my location very accurately on maps. Even without the GPS antenna turned on.
This doesn't seem possible, given where I live, unless they know about my wifi.
Paris, cause there's no Sergei Brin with horns icon.
Presumably they obtain the permission of the copyright holder to download the song.
Remember this isn't wrong because you do it. It's wrong because you do it without permission. And you get that permission by paying money.
Paris, cause El Reg has permission to use her image...
Theft is definitely the wrong word. Everyone stop talking about it.
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 is the puppy that governs present day infringement.
There are a number of different types of infringement. Section 17 prohibits copying. The next section prohibits making available copies to the public (prolly a ban on bittorrent, etc). There is also a prohibition against secondary infringement (eg ss 23, 24). Section 50A allows for backup copies of computer programs.
Prosecution for infringement remains at this time something that the owner of the IP must do. Trading Standards will sometimes do it, if they have the cash and the expertise, usually in connection with the prosecution of people selling dodgy DVDs at car boot sales.
Have a quick look at the BERR paper on Digital Britain, which describes the measures considered necessary to combat P2P (chapter 7 IIRC). Compare this with Mandy's new 3 strikes version, in which he shits all over the recommendations. This should be the basis of any objection to the law: a man not elected to any office since about 2002 is dictating, contrary to the experts, what the law should be.
Whatever final form the bill takes will be interesting. I know that not all the ISPs are happy to act as the Government's police (Be Internet for example). Australia's attempt to censor the internet didn't work. Academics suggest that hard law like this forces sophisticated technical work arounds (viz the move from Napster style sharing to distributed hash tables etc).
Those same academics recommend the use of social norms to exert a gentle pressure against infringement (not the hilarious "you wouldn't steal a car" bullshit pressure), combined with a very easy way of licensing material downloaded P2P stylee (called Voluntary Collective Licensing). Studies show that generally speaking P2P pirates in fact spend more on music and software than non-geeks, and furthermore that they don't want to infringe, but choose to when confronted with expensive DRM crippled shit.