to the best of my knowledge, New Zealand has something similar...
Something like, as a NZ citizen, no matter where you are, NZ law applies when it comes to things being forbidden.
Which is to say, if it's forbidden under NZ law, but allowed where you are, it's still forbidden for you to do it.
So far as I'm aware the 'reverse' is that NZ law applies to anyone in NZ regardless of citizenship, no that you can avoid getting in trouble for doing something that's against the law where you did it but allowed under NZ law.
And yeah, the whole sexual tourism thing is one of the reasons for that.
It also makes it a lot easier to keep order in military units stationed outside the country, too.
probably helps with drug trafficking issues and other stuff as well.
of course, I'm not a lawyer or anything, and i may be miss remembering, but... *shrugs*
please explain (people arguing this on both sides) how that has anything to do with stuff happening in Australia?
I've seen that a lot here. issues in other countries somehow come back to American constitutional issues...
it confuses me.
(then again, NZ, the UK, and Israel are the only countries in the world, according to the wiki, to have a constitution that is Not formally codified... *shrugs*)
given how many such processes in so many countries are specifically designed to prevent the public knowing about it until after the fact, while simultaneously making it look like it's their fault they don't know about it...
Though amusing the Kingdom of New Zealand is actually bigger than the Country of New Zealand.
(The rest of it is a bunch of islands that are basically or actually NZ dependencies.)
not that that's terribly relevant.
I've never actually seen 'crown copyright' come up here... it probably exists, but it doesn't seem to cause issues.
of course, this might be because we don't have crown corporations. we have 'state owned enterprises' ... which are literally businesses of whatever structure, run as normal business entities, which happen to have the government as the only (or major majority) shareholder. usually used to avoid actually privatizing things, they tend to have heavy regulation regarding minimum standards of service and maximum prices.
up shot of all this is that they have the same copyright abilities as any other business, and if the government uses copyright, so far it's not been done in a way that makes anyone take notice.
(heck, it's rare to hear them using something like a state secrets act... they get in more trouble for Not keeping secrets or control of information they're supposed to :S )
not having read the other responses to this comment:
it's not a freaking elective democracy (and i think you mean 'representative democracy' anyway)
It's a bureaucratic republic. it uses democratic processes purely to avoid (or at least reduce and keep non-violent) the inevitable infighting over who gets what job that would result otherwise.
the people really have little say, all up. they're certainly not In Charge. (and were never meant to be)
side effect of money having no Inherant meaning. it's only value is in it's scarcity, which is (at least theoretically) carefully controlled in relation to the actual quantity of goods and services floating around it's primary area of distribution.
counterfeiting money is more akin to stealing a Percentage of someone's original. money exists only as a measure of value, representing a percentage of the total possible wealth in a system. as you pump more into the system, the percentage value (not just price) of every unit goes down.
on a tangentially related note:
money is infinitely transferable debt. it's a note saying 'X owes me y value in goods or services' where X is essentially 'someone, somewhere in the system' and y is the current value of the currency times the amount of the currency you have.
basically, money's an entirely different creature from both infinitely reproducible digital goods and finite physical goods. It's an... abstract good? heh.
money isn't really a thing. it has no inherent value, only illusionary value. (the illusion is useful, so we pretend it's real, but it's still an illusion)
counterfeiting damages the illusion.
so... yeah, lots of text saying 'never, and immediately, and it's not really relevant anyway'
i think the Point was that the comment he was responding to is just as silly.
not only that, whether TAM was right in the first place or not, the comment in question Didn't actually change the validity of his.
If a fool says something wise, it does not make the statement less wise, nor necessarily make the fool less foolish. (though it's a good start on the second part :D )
i dunno... i figure a lot of them sell on the basis of being 'good enough' and cheap enough that people can actually afford to have them...
so, yeah, they can't be terrible, but they can easily be 'not great'.
which, admittedly, when it comes to movies, seems like it would be a step up half the time...
and the difference between 'great! too bad i can't afford it' and 'well, it's ok... hey, i can actually afford this!' for the same (general) product is a big one...
also: i am protesting against the existence of capital letters today. they have aggravated me one too many times :)
Ideally the back should also include What that strong DRM is.
and if it's incorrect or misleading, well... here-abouts at least i think that would be in violation of a few laws :)
From what I've seen, if you tell them that up front but spin it as exclusive and special, they'll eat it up.
On the other hand, if you Don't tell them, release the game, then it turns out to have issues enough that it may as well be beta still, they'll bitch endlessly.
It's all about perception and honesty, so far as i can tell.
That said, Alpha? seriously? The reason that's a big deal is because, usually, it means they acknowledge a specific fan as being also awesome at other things. (coding? testing? i dunno. it's usually the mod makers who get that sort of opportunity, regardless) 'you gave us money' is somewhat less awesome.
TriZz is right though. they could be a Lot more creative with this. (though 'spend a day with the devs while they make the game' mostly sounds like a way to either bore someone or delay the game by 1/2-2 days, depending on orginisation)
On the post: Appeals Court Says Internet Content Should Be Held To Standards Of Strictest Jurisdiction
Re: Re: Canadian law and jurisdiction
Something like, as a NZ citizen, no matter where you are, NZ law applies when it comes to things being forbidden.
Which is to say, if it's forbidden under NZ law, but allowed where you are, it's still forbidden for you to do it.
So far as I'm aware the 'reverse' is that NZ law applies to anyone in NZ regardless of citizenship, no that you can avoid getting in trouble for doing something that's against the law where you did it but allowed under NZ law.
And yeah, the whole sexual tourism thing is one of the reasons for that.
It also makes it a lot easier to keep order in military units stationed outside the country, too.
probably helps with drug trafficking issues and other stuff as well.
of course, I'm not a lawyer or anything, and i may be miss remembering, but... *shrugs*
On the post: Copyright Industry Responds To iiNet Ruling By Asking For Gov't Bailout; Aussie Gov't 'Studying' It
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I've seen that a lot here. issues in other countries somehow come back to American constitutional issues...
it confuses me.
(then again, NZ, the UK, and Israel are the only countries in the world, according to the wiki, to have a constitution that is Not formally codified... *shrugs*)
On the post: Will The Recording Industry Pay For ISP Monitoring In The UK?
Re: Re: Re:
or are those the things that Christmas doesn't have?
On the post: New South Australian Law Forbids Anonymous Political Commentary During Election Season
Re: Not so much worried about the law...
this doesn't surprise me at all.
On the post: CBC: When We Said Blogs Would Need Permission To Quote Us, We Didn't Really Mean It
Re: Re:
Though amusing the Kingdom of New Zealand is actually bigger than the Country of New Zealand.
(The rest of it is a bunch of islands that are basically or actually NZ dependencies.)
not that that's terribly relevant.
I've never actually seen 'crown copyright' come up here... it probably exists, but it doesn't seem to cause issues.
of course, this might be because we don't have crown corporations. we have 'state owned enterprises' ... which are literally businesses of whatever structure, run as normal business entities, which happen to have the government as the only (or major majority) shareholder. usually used to avoid actually privatizing things, they tend to have heavy regulation regarding minimum standards of service and maximum prices.
up shot of all this is that they have the same copyright abilities as any other business, and if the government uses copyright, so far it's not been done in a way that makes anyone take notice.
(heck, it's rare to hear them using something like a state secrets act... they get in more trouble for Not keeping secrets or control of information they're supposed to :S )
On the post: USTR: A Lot Of Misperception Over ACTA, But We Won't Clear It Up Or Anything
Re: We, the People.
it's not a freaking elective democracy (and i think you mean 'representative democracy' anyway)
It's a bureaucratic republic. it uses democratic processes purely to avoid (or at least reduce and keep non-violent) the inevitable infighting over who gets what job that would result otherwise.
the people really have little say, all up. they're certainly not In Charge. (and were never meant to be)
On the post: Of Course Most Content Shared On BitTorrent Infringes; But That's Meaningless
Re: what if
counterfeiting money is more akin to stealing a Percentage of someone's original. money exists only as a measure of value, representing a percentage of the total possible wealth in a system. as you pump more into the system, the percentage value (not just price) of every unit goes down.
on a tangentially related note:
money is infinitely transferable debt. it's a note saying 'X owes me y value in goods or services' where X is essentially 'someone, somewhere in the system' and y is the current value of the currency times the amount of the currency you have.
basically, money's an entirely different creature from both infinitely reproducible digital goods and finite physical goods. It's an... abstract good? heh.
money isn't really a thing. it has no inherent value, only illusionary value. (the illusion is useful, so we pretend it's real, but it's still an illusion)
counterfeiting damages the illusion.
so... yeah, lots of text saying 'never, and immediately, and it's not really relevant anyway'
On the post: Reporter, TV Execs (Maybe?) Confused Over Lost Fans Choosing Not To Watch Leaked Episode
Re: Re: Re:
Or, you know, general puzzlement by the readers...
either way.
On the post: Billboard Gets Snarky; Not A Believer In CwF + RtB
Re:
'course, it's between that and, you know, Failing...
but it's still a choice :)
On the post: Amazon, Macmillan Fight Over Ebook Prices; After Amazon Removes Macmillan Titles, It Caves To Higher Prices
Re: Re: Re: Re:
not only that, whether TAM was right in the first place or not, the comment in question Didn't actually change the validity of his.
If a fool says something wise, it does not make the statement less wise, nor necessarily make the fool less foolish. (though it's a good start on the second part :D )
On the post: Seriously: Where Is The Link Between Copyright Infringement And Terrorism/Organized Crime
Re: Re: Re: Re: And drugs
On the post: Retail Giant Tesco Gets Into The Movie Business
Re: Re:
so, yeah, they can't be terrible, but they can easily be 'not great'.
which, admittedly, when it comes to movies, seems like it would be a step up half the time...
and the difference between 'great! too bad i can't afford it' and 'well, it's ok... hey, i can actually afford this!' for the same (general) product is a big one...
also: i am protesting against the existence of capital letters today. they have aggravated me one too many times :)
On the post: ACTA One Step Closer To Being Done; Concerns About Transparency Ignored
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: US Olympic Committee Sues Organization Trying To Build Sports Museum
Re:
'course, ideally, no one mentions that the profit is a negative number until After the Olympic committee wins.
Then they fudge the numbers to make the loss even bigger :D
arguably the court costs would be an expense tied to the name, right? :D
On the post: Lord Lucas Keeps Wanting To Chip Away At Digital Economy Bill: Exempt Search Engines
please?
('course, like all such things, it's 'with the recommendation of the prime minister' or some such, so it won't happen, but i can dream.)
On the post: Ubisoft's New DRM: Must Be Online To Play
Re: RIP Ubisoft
and if it's incorrect or misleading, well... here-abouts at least i think that would be in violation of a few laws :)
On the post: Bank Sues Identity Fraud Victim After $800,000 Removed From Its Account
Re: Re: Re: Letter to the Bank
most banks make most of their money by lending out the money you give them for safe keeping. then they charge you for the privilege.
of course, if you put enough in there, most stop charging you, and they do pay you interest on it (even if it is less than the fees)
actually, several times that.
that's why a 'run on the bank' situation is even Possible. they don't actually Have all the money they claim to.
one could argue about whether that's really theft or not, but it's certainly sneaky. :)
On the post: Should Copyright Holders Pay For Bogus DMCA Takedowns?
Re: not even
On the post: Google Prevented From Using Australian Aboriginal Flag Because It's Covered By Copyright
Re:
On the post: Video Game Tries Tiered Crowdfunding Model
Re:
On the other hand, if you Don't tell them, release the game, then it turns out to have issues enough that it may as well be beta still, they'll bitch endlessly.
It's all about perception and honesty, so far as i can tell.
That said, Alpha? seriously? The reason that's a big deal is because, usually, it means they acknowledge a specific fan as being also awesome at other things. (coding? testing? i dunno. it's usually the mod makers who get that sort of opportunity, regardless) 'you gave us money' is somewhat less awesome.
TriZz is right though. they could be a Lot more creative with this. (though 'spend a day with the devs while they make the game' mostly sounds like a way to either bore someone or delay the game by 1/2-2 days, depending on orginisation)
Next >>