We have basically the same, only it's 7.7% and with a tax-free threshold of SFR 65 (which actually includes the shipping cost; which makes it very, very expensive to import heavy goods).
As it turned out, any prohibition of substances, and of behaviour that consenting adults like, will end in tears. The be precise, will end in incarcerated people, trampled rights, poverty, crime-syndicates, and dead people. The US demonstrated it with the alcohol-prohibition, and is showing the whole world how to fuck up your country with drug-prohibition right now.
Yes, in Europe, guns are only available in weapon stores. But there are still lots of them, most European countries have a rate of 30 guns per 100 people; which means about every third household has one.
BUT, most of these are rifles, not handguns.
This wouldn't theoretically make a difference with school-shootings, but since most of the shootings in the USA (I think it was more than 90%) were actually done with handguns, it might be a good idea to look into that.
Re: It's just that you PIRATES believe THEFT OF PRODUCT is legal!
It IS illegal to download copyrighted content without paying. -- > Anyone here (still openly) dispute that?
Totally, because it's wrong. First off, it's not the downloading which is illegal, but the publication. Otherwise you reading my comments would be doing so illegally, because in order to read this, a copy has to be made onto your computer. And I do hold copyright for my words (yes, it might be that these words here lack originality and art, so they might not be subject to copyright; but I think this is a different debate, because there is plenty of content on the internet, like essays and blogposts, which clearly are subject to copyright).
And second, for the publication, it's also not "without paying" but "without license". And the license in question could be something like Creative Commons, but also something you pay for.
SO if the alleged illegal activity has occurred, and were
admitted in court, then there WOULD be costs, perhaps jail.
There has (probably) been illegal activity going on. But it's on the part of the person who published the aforementioned content without being licensed to do so. The trouble is, that case is not clear cut. Somebody alleges a) its his work b) it's falling under copyright c) it's not a fair use case and d) the defendant had no license to publish. All this can really only be answered by a court in a lot of the cases; and all of these points above have already been claimed fraudulently.
a) people were suing other people for violations of copyright, of works for which they did not have the copyright at all, and for which they did not have any permission by the rights holder. (Please note: copyright is civil law, not criminal law; if it's not your copyright, you have no standing) This is actually what is probably going on here.
b) people tried to shakedown other people for alleged copyright violations for the use of data, like statistics. data is not copyrightable.
c) people have been sued for posting thumbnails of pictures, which clearly is fair use, and actually only a "citation" of a work
and d) movie studios have sent takedown requests for their own movies which were put up the internet by themselves.
That all means, is that only a court can decide over copyright cases.
You believe that persons including you are entitled to download
all the copyrighted content that want.
Well, all there is published.
But that's WRONG and criminal too.
It may sometimes be wrong. You can suspect that this blockbuster-movie that was released last week and now turned up on some filesharing-site was probably published there illegally; so that makes your downloading it questionable. But it's never criminal.
And please note, while downloading via bittorrent or some other service that also uploads the content while downloading, you might actually be doing something criminal: publishing without license. I think much of your confusion comes exactly from the conflagration of up and download that takes place when using something like bittorrent.
Clearly the whole mess has arisen out of an unfounded prohibition of certain substances by some puritan pukes that couldn't get over the revocation of their failed prohibition on alcohol.
And the solution is amazingly simple. Get rid of that bad law that is responsible for so many rights violations, so many lives ruined and so many dead.
Most of the things in the GDPR were already law beforehand; but there was no fine attached for violating them. So the main thing that has changed -- and the reason companies now scramble -- is that they were already violating privacy laws, but now they're afraid of getting fined because of it.
One of the better parts of the GDPR is that now opt-in instead of opt-out is needed; which actually has been demanded by the internet-community since the 90ies (spam, newsletters and so on)
But the best-thing: The opt-in to have your data used for non-essential uses may not be coupled to the access to the service itself. That means, you can't make me opt-in to allow you to sell my data by otherwise disallowing me access.
Well, the "EU lawmakers" are actually national executive bodies, and non-elected(!) representatives of them within the EU Commission or the EU Council.
The EU Parliament, which is actually elected, can't write laws.
This of course is wholly undemocratic and in violation of the separation of powers; and for me the main reason why I would never vote for accession to the EU (I'm Swiss).
On the post: Valve Decides To Get Out Of The Curation Business When It Comes To 'Offensive' Games
Re: Don't even go there.
On the post: EU Publishers Freak Out Now That People Are Realizing Just How Fucked Up Their Link Tax Really Is
Re: Re: Re:
For instance, it would cripple Wikipedia.
I think the involved publishers would like that.
On the post: EU Publishers Freak Out Now That People Are Realizing Just How Fucked Up Their Link Tax Really Is
Re: Re:
On the post: Three Takes On Microsoft Acquiring Github
Re: ItsNotThePast
Or this: https://bigbrotherawards.de/2018/technik-microsoft-deutschland Microsoft gets a "prize" for spying on their users. This year.
These aren't the actions of a benevolent company. These still are the ones of a predator.
On the post: Three Takes On Microsoft Acquiring Github
Re: Re Paul Ford Article
(Yes, that won't work for images; but it would work for a lot of otherwise binary crap).
On the post: Valve Decides To Get Out Of The Curation Business When It Comes To 'Offensive' Games
Re: Re:
This https://i.pinimg.com/736x/03/37/a2/0337a281014d6439897ce20aac25e74a.jpg is not a viking. Nothing of it is anything viking, neither clothes nor axe nor bow. THIS
https://i.pinimg.com/564x/77/45/d3/7745d35eae3dd8d60a117d5fc36b53b2.jpg
is a viking. Or this:
https://i.pinimg.com/564x/33/37/c2/3337c25a819c57aac25b07ef60512d63.jpg
On the post: Amazon Disconnects From Australia After Government Hits It With 10% Tax On All Imported Items
Re:
On the post: Congresswoman Says School Shootings Are Caused By Porn, Mental Illness, Single Parents... But Mostly Porn
Re: Re: it doesn't seem to deter the people from using other methods
On the post: Congresswoman Says School Shootings Are Caused By Porn, Mental Illness, Single Parents... But Mostly Porn
Re: Re:
On the post: Congresswoman Says School Shootings Are Caused By Porn, Mental Illness, Single Parents... But Mostly Porn
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Congresswoman Says School Shootings Are Caused By Porn, Mental Illness, Single Parents... But Mostly Porn
Re:
BUT, most of these are rifles, not handguns.
This wouldn't theoretically make a difference with school-shootings, but since most of the shootings in the USA (I think it was more than 90%) were actually done with handguns, it might be a good idea to look into that.
On the post: Swedish Copyright Trolls Have Brought Exactly Zero Of Their 'Cases' To Trial, Exposing Their Shitty Business Model
Re: It's just that you PIRATES believe THEFT OF PRODUCT is legal!
Totally, because it's wrong. First off, it's not the downloading which is illegal, but the publication. Otherwise you reading my comments would be doing so illegally, because in order to read this, a copy has to be made onto your computer. And I do hold copyright for my words (yes, it might be that these words here lack originality and art, so they might not be subject to copyright; but I think this is a different debate, because there is plenty of content on the internet, like essays and blogposts, which clearly are subject to copyright).
And second, for the publication, it's also not "without paying" but "without license". And the license in question could be something like Creative Commons, but also something you pay for.
There has (probably) been illegal activity going on. But it's on the part of the person who published the aforementioned content without being licensed to do so. The trouble is, that case is not clear cut. Somebody alleges a) its his work b) it's falling under copyright c) it's not a fair use case and d) the defendant had no license to publish. All this can really only be answered by a court in a lot of the cases; and all of these points above have already been claimed fraudulently.
a) people were suing other people for violations of copyright, of works for which they did not have the copyright at all, and for which they did not have any permission by the rights holder. (Please note: copyright is civil law, not criminal law; if it's not your copyright, you have no standing) This is actually what is probably going on here.
b) people tried to shakedown other people for alleged copyright violations for the use of data, like statistics. data is not copyrightable.
c) people have been sued for posting thumbnails of pictures, which clearly is fair use, and actually only a "citation" of a work
and d) movie studios have sent takedown requests for their own movies which were put up the internet by themselves.
That all means, is that only a court can decide over copyright cases.
Well, all there is published.
It may sometimes be wrong. You can suspect that this blockbuster-movie that was released last week and now turned up on some filesharing-site was probably published there illegally; so that makes your downloading it questionable. But it's never criminal.
And please note, while downloading via bittorrent or some other service that also uploads the content while downloading, you might actually be doing something criminal: publishing without license. I think much of your confusion comes exactly from the conflagration of up and download that takes place when using something like bittorrent.
On the post: Swedish Copyright Trolls Have Brought Exactly Zero Of Their 'Cases' To Trial, Exposing Their Shitty Business Model
Re: Excuse me?
On the post: Court Has No Problem With Multiple Invasive Probings In Search Of Drugs That Didn't Exist
puritan pukes
And the solution is amazingly simple. Get rid of that bad law that is responsible for so many rights violations, so many lives ruined and so many dead.
On the post: Court Has No Problem With Multiple Invasive Probings In Search Of Drugs That Didn't Exist
Re: Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
On the post: Vevo Flop Shows, Once Again, How Badly The Record Labels Underestimate Technology
Re:
On the post: The GDPR: Ghastly, Dumb, Paralyzing Regulation It's Hard To Celebrate
Re: Re: Uncertainty
On the post: The GDPR: Ghastly, Dumb, Paralyzing Regulation It's Hard To Celebrate
Re: Annoyance to the large incumbents, death to small enterprises
The wonderful Scotland-based hexgrid wargaming site hexwar.net has been killed by the GDPR.
I very much doubt it. This sounds more like their fear and their misreading of the GDPR killed it.
On the post: The GDPR: Ghastly, Dumb, Paralyzing Regulation It's Hard To Celebrate
Re: Ummm... No....
Most of the things in the GDPR were already law beforehand; but there was no fine attached for violating them. So the main thing that has changed -- and the reason companies now scramble -- is that they were already violating privacy laws, but now they're afraid of getting fined because of it.
One of the better parts of the GDPR is that now opt-in instead of opt-out is needed; which actually has been demanded by the internet-community since the 90ies (spam, newsletters and so on)
But the best-thing: The opt-in to have your data used for non-essential uses may not be coupled to the access to the service itself. That means, you can't make me opt-in to allow you to sell my data by otherwise disallowing me access.
On the post: Forget The GDPR, The EU's New Copyright Proposal Will Be A Complete And Utter Disaster For The Internet
Re:
The EU Parliament, which is actually elected, can't write laws.
This of course is wholly undemocratic and in violation of the separation of powers; and for me the main reason why I would never vote for accession to the EU (I'm Swiss).
Next >>