Released .... 2013 ...
Only 1 year late. 1 .. year.
465 posts • joined 19 Apr 2011
"back in the 90's, a woman posted a recipe to a cooking usenet group. Then she used that recipe in a book that she wrote. The owner of the usenet group went after that woman since all recipes posted to that usenet group were copyrighted and owned by the owner."
Unless and until you can prove that statement I call bullshit.
Some people really will come up with desperate rubbish to support the removal of *other people's* copyright.
That having sorted out all of their other significant problems, various departments of the US administration have finally arrived at a sensible outcome in the war on plastic duck racing. That said, I wouldn't be at all surprised if, on race day, some power crazed deputy came out blastin' like Yosemite Sam.
The sooner Our Generation grow the feck up and decriminalise the better.
All the 'soldiers' in the retarded 'war on drugs' are wasting more of our taxes in their unwinnable 'war' than 'benefit scroungers' 'tax evaders' 'immigrants' and expenses troughing members of parliament combined.
70 years of 'war' and nothing to show for it but repetitive crap headlines and middle class hypocrisy.
"Only one website has provided continuing drip drip of misery, harassment and nastiness: Facebook. When will that social hate site be blocked?"
"This cuntry and its vile moral control freak minority make me sick."
Polite round of applause. I despair.
Why is government so inept as to choose the wrong option almost every time?
@ Shannon Jacobs
"I think they are worthless scum. They did NOTHING to earn their fortune, and everything they have done to protect and increase their fortune has been on the scale from morally despicable to purely evil."
Don't think you can get into trouble for telling the truth. Have a pint on me.
@ Frank Ly "the majority of casual downloaders (in the general public) wouldn't be able to find them easily"
No, they just wait for a court order to force an ISP to announce the name of a newly banned service before using a proxy to access a site which previously they had never heard of. Well played, lawyers, well played.
No, you don't understand the issue because it wasn't explained very well in the article. Photographers are seeing *massive* falloff in site visits. There's no need to visit a photographer's website when Google serves the image up for free.
The caveat on Google images "Images may be subject to copyright" is laughable as 99% of images *are* subject to copyright and Google well knows this.
Google ought to state:
"MOST if not all images *are* subject to copyright and you should contact the image owner to obtain permission if you wish to use the image. Failing to do so *will* leave you open to legal action"
But Google prefers to aid and abet.
"when the courts find that you're case is built on thoughts alone."
The vast majority of cases which reach the court are built on what the defendant has said.
Without the assistance of the defendant, fewer cases would reach court.
Why help the police build a case? Why do their job for them?
It is for the police to build a case, a defendant is foolish if they help them.
Participating in a police interview is crass stupidity on the part of a defendant.
The 'cable cowboy' needs to get the metre eaters out to lay some more ducting in previously unprofitable areas and it really should increase the number of UBRs. Tenfold in some areas.
The more a service provider needs to spend on fault handling and call centre drones is correlated to the performance of the service they provide.
And I respect the position the developer took when he pulled it from CM.
It is galling to see what was initially free, crowd sourced, data being packaged for sale when those who gathered the data, made the sale possible through their efforts, receive next to nothing in return when the head honcho gets, say, a villa in Florida out of it. You know who you are.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019