No matter how SFW the URL might be now, it's already blacklisted by countless corporate filters due to its nefarious past. Useless!
22 posts • joined 21 Feb 2008
Re: They're logo?
Not sure who Warner Brothers or any other rights holders are meant to sue for infringement of their intellectual property by Anonymous since eh, they're... Anonymous.
“Does she really think she can become Obama’s deputy and run of with his job and his friends, like she has done before?"
Sadly I doubt it will apply over here if it is in response to litigation.
I've had two die on me. The first time I replaced it with a new one, and when that went bust I took the whole thing apart and soldered it up myself... securing it with new wire and electrical tape.
Looks terrible... works like a dream.
I've made sure my fire alarm has batteries in it mind you. ;)
No point posting anon since everyone here has my email/name now anyway! (or do they?)
I think you'll find that Legal language + people who aren't lawyers trying to be smart = bigger disaster
The 'unauthorised act' relates to the context, and is a term which will be used with a specific meaning, defined later on in the Act or elsewhere in references Statute.
Nice try though.
As a professional photographer, and creator of other not-so-professional arty things, I licence all my photos/music/etc under a specific Creative Commons release that allows for the editing, reproduction etc of them, as long as it's not for a 'commercial purpose'. This is partly because it doesn't do me any financial harm, but also because I grew up with the excitement of the new, open, collaborative format of the web (which was fresh at the time), and want to recognise that.
However, I did have a conversation with the BBC after they used a video posted by my flatmate and I to Youtube. I politely asked them who had given permission to broadcast it, and said I would send an invoice for the daily press rate. Other papers and channels (the Sun, STV etc) all admitted to using it without asking and paid up, the person I spoke to at the BBC indignantly told me that I "shouldn't have posted it to the internet then".
He didn't even see the double standards when I asked if that meant I could go and reproduce the BBC's own content that they have hosted on Youtube.
The Editor later accepted the invoice without complaint, but I was amazed at the lack of knowledge of staff on the ground, as well as their arrogance when challenged.
You're referring to English law, I assume? ;)
Scots Law is quite different.
JJBurnel got there first...
Any good reason why we used the American term?
"he created a directory titled “RENEGAGE RULES.” Renegade is the name of a Gray Wireline competitor."
Is this correct? If so, it reads rather strangely.
Your reply shows a misunderstanding of the point I'm afraid.
Saying "Please help me kill myself" and "Go on then. Come ahead and kill me" are two completely different things.
It may come as a shock, but words do not always always take on their literal meanings. When WBC told Anonymous to "bring it on", it would take a hell of a stretch to prove that this was intended as a contract for "assisted security testing of their website".
You may not like the comparison, but the fact remains.
Volenti non fit injuria
"Volenti non fit injuria" is the maxim to which you are referring. Basically - to those that consent, no harm is done.
Legally (at least in my own jurisdiction; it will be different from one to another) the chances of relying on such a defence by anyone who takes out the WBC website are slim to none.
Consider the following, I invite you to "come ahead and kill me then" after a conversation on El Reg gets a bit heated. You come round to my house and do just that. You would still be charged with murder, whether I "invited" you to do the act or not. It's still illegal.
The title is required, and must contain letters and/or digits.
This is correct.
Soering v the United Kingdom is the case that established this with the European Court of Human Rights. Sweden would be in breach of the Convention if they extradited him to the USA if there's the possibility he would face the death penalty also.
There's a decision that *really* pissed off the Americans ;)
Perhaps a more pressing concern is users who want to delete their accounts but *still* can't. You can only 'de-activate' them, with all the info remaining with our friends at FB.
I'd never touch anything with them again with a barge-pole. When I delete, I want it deleted - not just hidden.
Now we know why Thür's worried..
he stole the car!
Fellow defacement crews?
Where do they greetz fellow defacement crews?
"greets to: buckfast wine, that dobber pc plum, glasgow celtic, tennents super lager,
bono, the gay coppers that kept walking round my tent at T in the park when i was trying
to do lines of charlie"
That's all I can find.. and I'm pretty sure they're not defacement crews ;)
"On another point, since copyright only exists to allow the copyright holder to exploit the copyrighted works, if MS fails to exploit the copyright on Office 2003, by refusing to sell (license) it, does that mean that they have forfeigted the copyright?"
Naw. If I take a photo in a studio but never sell/use it anywhere, it doesn't mean someone can come along and use it as they please - I still retain the copyright - it's not tied in to what you do with it; that's down to you.
hey I got teh frst poast!
you might want to post that email to the folks over at 419baiters.com...
So what happened to a band actually writing their own songs?
Any bands I like certainly do - so if we're losing some of the more popular crap, so be it.
Err.. "write your MP"? I assume you're not a UK patriot then.
We have a distinct legal system in Scotland with massive differences - libel included - so the post about "UK libel laws" is misleading and factually incorrect.
Re: Lancashire connection
Graham - in these situations, we north of the border employ the "gaffa tape" method.