You must be talking about Shaw and Rogers, both in the cableco buisness as well. :)
Telus and Bell are just getting into that but only in the largest centres with nothing for smaller areas as we don't count unless we want satellite.
Telus, as far as I can tell, have no usage caps or throttling in place except in the case of expect overly heavy usage network wide like the Olympics and even then it wasn't very noticable.
BTW, no one is as horribly, horriby bad as Rogers in the area of customer service or relationships with customers. Guido and his violin case are paragons of virture compared to Rogers.
"The public domain works against them, so they work against the public domain" until they want something from the public domain and filch it and slap a copyright on their version.
I was starting to think that the term "former penal colony" for Australia was wrong in that it appears that far too many Aussies, if polls are correct, want someone else to make their decisions for them.
At least someone in the Australian Senate is questioning this. As you say some small comfort is better than none at all.
Without turning this into a pro or anti gun thing (in general) I'll chime in that a pressurized air cabin and a gun is a really, really bad combination even should the gun discharge accidentally.
What you're ignoring here is that "the terrorists" who acted on 9/11 weren't the least bit interested in preserving their own lives so the idea that the plane he/she/them are getting on may have a few armed passengers isn't likely to deter them at all. Nor was the shoe bomber deterred by the fact that he'd die along with everyone else and on and on and on.
Firearms aren't magic for those that carry or anyone else.
And keep in mind that "the terrorists" are almost always highly trained and motivated which reduces even more the notion that a plane load of people carrying guns is likely to deter them.
Sadly, armed passengers blow up as well as unarmed passengers.
Nor, given everything Mike outlines since 9/11 make a aircraft hijacking far less likely as "the terrorist" like other military and paramilitary operatives prefer soft targets to hardened ones.
I'm sure that there are equally high value targets that can be attacked more easily and more successfully than a passenger aircraft these days. Far more easily and with as great or greater effect.
As has been pointed out, it appears that the terrorists have, in one case, already won.
The video is a celebration of life and survival against all odds that adds to and doesn't take away anything at all from the song.
Most composers and singers would kill for something like this and would let it pass which leads me to wonder if APRA even bothered to contact anyone.
The video ends with the intro to Leonard Cohen's "Dancing to the End of Love" which is continued in the Part 2 video. I'm just trying to imagine Cohen's reaction to some idiot performance rights group ordering it taken down.
You don't think that the NY Times ranking went down do you? :-)
While we're at it why not do exactly the same for Bing, Yahoo and any other search engine out there. After all, they all can effect the Internet economy. Though goodness knows Microsoft (Bing) would never, ever, ever do anything which might promote its other businesses.
"Works that are Copyleft don't come with a pack of vicious attack dogs. That's a very important distinction. It also leads to some serious practical benefits for more functional works."
The GPL has a legal folks who enforce the license and the copyright on the software code itself and it's batting something like 1.000 doing that.
I'm also hard pressed to say the work licensed as open source or Creative Commons et cetera isn't functional or, somehow, is less functional than other licenses. That's value judgement and you're as free as I am to make that judgement.
Neither of us, however, is entitled to say that the copyright on that material is somehow less enforceable because it's licensed as something other than a traditional commercial license.
Now, then, you'll be staying after class for a week!
The clue might come in the fact that this is his analysis of the information available and it's that analysis that we are discussing.
As for a burden of proof as yet the RIAA has offered not a scintilla of proof that it does work if what you're looking for is "beyond a reasonable" doubt proof. Lots of opinions but very little of that sort of proof.
As it happens I agree with the bulk of his analysis of the information available at this time. If someone wishes to disprove it it can be the RIAA, you, TAM or anyone else.
Though I wasn't at all serious about this it did generate some discussion, at least.
And not a sight of TAM anywhere. For all of that I was trying to poke some fun at the RIAA and their alleged success rate, not to mention accounting.
Yes, it's a -98% margin which is appalling under any circumstances. Except, it seems, when the RIAA gets into the act or MPAA for that matter. Not many other organizations would try to spin any of this as a positive in any way.
If you're running a coffee shop that's about to close!
The data may be incomplete but I can't see that the margin is changing even with some law firms attempting mass actions in the absence of any decent actions. I'd suggest this is an outgrowth of SLAPP suits so popular in the 70s and 80s.
Mind you if the idea was to stop file sharing then with this return on investment I'd call it a failure too as file sharing is increasing not decreasing.
And not just in the under 30 set either. I base that on the increase I've noticed in this, one way or another, in the 40+ set all the way to people in their 70s. While they aren't as active as the under 30s they're certainly there and that demographic is likely the most price sensitive. Also likely to be the most law abiding provided those laws make a small degree of sense.
Old Boomers never die we just quietly file share while thumbing our noses at da man!
Leaving the EFF proposal aside for the moment as we both agree that it's unworkable let's go onto the idea of a debate.
It's long past due that folks like Paul Williams actually did defend their positions in a debate with Lessig. It might actually come to Mr Williams mind that he's very wrong in his statements about this. Or he may be put in the position of having to admit that what he's talking about is a perceived threat to ASCAP's money collection machine though I'm not sure that's demonstrated anywhere.
It's getting sadder to see so much confusion over what copyright is and what licensing is which is the source of Mr William's agrument and not copyright itself.
Of course, I'm expecting a bit much from such a pedestrian composer who certainly never borrowed as much as a riff from another composition or from the public domain.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lessig would wipe the floor with him
Incidentally, because it's all copyright no one need bother to identify those things other than common sense of what does or doesn't fall into the public domain.
Now, get out of the cat litter because the sandbox is over there!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Lessig would wipe the floor with him
Baby talk time.
"no studies required. do you know for absolutely certainly, without looking, if all of the content on your machine is copyright, creative commons, copyleft, or public domain? "
Now sit down and listen. No talking and no picking your nose.
Copyright is copyright, creative commons a license of copyright material, "copyleft" (assuming you mean GPL and other assorted open source licenses) is a licence on copyright material and public domain (say the works of Aristotle or The Gospel of Mark) is the public domain.
Creative Commons and "copyleft" are licenses stating the terms that one can use the copyright material legally. Nothing more and nothing less. "Commercial" copyright can do the same thing while often charging exorbitant fees. It's all copyright.
Please be prepared to include this on your essay of "What I Did on My Summer Vacation" to enlighten and amuse the rest of your remedial Grade 3 class.
It's a distinct probability though. Unlike the United States and more like Canada on occasion the masses (who TAM seems to dislike so much) do rise up and cause mass unemployment of formerly employed politicians. For example the Tories went from a majority to a mere 2 seats in the House of Commons in the 1992 federal election something that nearly happened to the Liberals (who aren't liberal in the American sense) 15 years later. (They were still under a baker's dozen.)
There are times when the old electoral phrase "throw the bastards out" is quite literal particularly when some lunacy like a three strikes law also has other things in the background to make the masses angry.
On the post: Time To Face Facts: Broadband Caps Are Really About Protecting Video Revenue
Re:
Telus and Bell are just getting into that but only in the largest centres with nothing for smaller areas as we don't count unless we want satellite.
Telus, as far as I can tell, have no usage caps or throttling in place except in the case of expect overly heavy usage network wide like the Olympics and even then it wasn't very noticable.
BTW, no one is as horribly, horriby bad as Rogers in the area of customer service or relationships with customers. Guido and his violin case are paragons of virture compared to Rogers.
On the post: Copyright Used To Silence 10-Year-Old Girl Raising Money For Charity
Re: Re:
Hello, Disney.
On the post: Australian Gov't Censors Plans About Gov't Internet Censorship
Re: Minister of a Thousand Truths
At least someone in the Australian Senate is questioning this. As you say some small comfort is better than none at all.
On the post: Time To Get Rid Of No Fly List Altogether?
Re: Re: Re: True Security
What you're ignoring here is that "the terrorists" who acted on 9/11 weren't the least bit interested in preserving their own lives so the idea that the plane he/she/them are getting on may have a few armed passengers isn't likely to deter them at all. Nor was the shoe bomber deterred by the fact that he'd die along with everyone else and on and on and on.
Firearms aren't magic for those that carry or anyone else.
And keep in mind that "the terrorists" are almost always highly trained and motivated which reduces even more the notion that a plane load of people carrying guns is likely to deter them.
Sadly, armed passengers blow up as well as unarmed passengers.
Nor, given everything Mike outlines since 9/11 make a aircraft hijacking far less likely as "the terrorist" like other military and paramilitary operatives prefer soft targets to hardened ones.
I'm sure that there are equally high value targets that can be attacked more easily and more successfully than a passenger aircraft these days. Far more easily and with as great or greater effect.
As has been pointed out, it appears that the terrorists have, in one case, already won.
On the post: Google Explains Why Making Special Copyright Laws For Newspapers Is A Mistake
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Some quibbles with Google.
Give it up already.
On the post: Performance Rights Group Takes Down YouTube Video Of Auschwitz Survivor Dancing To 'I Will Survive' At Aushwitz
What in heaven were they thinking
Most composers and singers would kill for something like this and would let it pass which leads me to wonder if APRA even bothered to contact anyone.
The video ends with the intro to Leonard Cohen's "Dancing to the End of Love" which is continued in the Part 2 video. I'm just trying to imagine Cohen's reaction to some idiot performance rights group ordering it taken down.
On the post: Copyright Serves Middlemen, Not Content Creators
Re: Copyright Serves Creators
(With apologies to the Book of Common Prayer.)
On the post: Copyright Serves Middlemen, Not Content Creators
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Authorities Force 73,000 Blogs Offline?
Re:
If, however unlikely your paranoia is about terrorists, it was that why announce it in such a ham fisted, incompetent way?
More likely it was about file sharing though there seems to be little reason, on the surface for that.
Guess we're stuck with hamfisted and incompetent something a TAM would admire and love.
On the post: Journalism Neutrality Now! Why The Government Needs To Oversee The NY Times' Editorial Neutrality
While we're at it why not do exactly the same for Bing, Yahoo and any other search engine out there. After all, they all can effect the Internet economy. Though goodness knows Microsoft (Bing) would never, ever, ever do anything which might promote its other businesses.
On the post: Larry Lessig Challenges ASCAP Boss To A Debate Over Whether Or Not Creative Commons Undermines Copyright
Re: Lessig would wipe the floor with him
"Works that are Copyleft don't come with a pack of vicious attack dogs. That's a very important distinction. It also leads to some serious practical benefits for more functional works."
The GPL has a legal folks who enforce the license and the copyright on the software code itself and it's batting something like 1.000 doing that.
I'm also hard pressed to say the work licensed as open source or Creative Commons et cetera isn't functional or, somehow, is less functional than other licenses. That's value judgement and you're as free as I am to make that judgement.
Neither of us, however, is entitled to say that the copyright on that material is somehow less enforceable because it's licensed as something other than a traditional commercial license.
Now, then, you'll be staying after class for a week!
On the post: RIAA Spent $17.6 Million In Lawsuits... To Get $391,000 In Settlements?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As for a burden of proof as yet the RIAA has offered not a scintilla of proof that it does work if what you're looking for is "beyond a reasonable" doubt proof. Lots of opinions but very little of that sort of proof.
As it happens I agree with the bulk of his analysis of the information available at this time. If someone wishes to disprove it it can be the RIAA, you, TAM or anyone else.
On the post: RIAA Spent $17.6 Million In Lawsuits... To Get $391,000 In Settlements?
Re: Re: You know a 2% margin isn't bad...
And not a sight of TAM anywhere. For all of that I was trying to poke some fun at the RIAA and their alleged success rate, not to mention accounting.
Yes, it's a -98% margin which is appalling under any circumstances. Except, it seems, when the RIAA gets into the act or MPAA for that matter. Not many other organizations would try to spin any of this as a positive in any way.
On the post: RIAA Spent $17.6 Million In Lawsuits... To Get $391,000 In Settlements?
You know a 2% margin isn't bad...
The data may be incomplete but I can't see that the margin is changing even with some law firms attempting mass actions in the absence of any decent actions. I'd suggest this is an outgrowth of SLAPP suits so popular in the 70s and 80s.
Mind you if the idea was to stop file sharing then with this return on investment I'd call it a failure too as file sharing is increasing not decreasing.
And not just in the under 30 set either. I base that on the increase I've noticed in this, one way or another, in the 40+ set all the way to people in their 70s. While they aren't as active as the under 30s they're certainly there and that demographic is likely the most price sensitive. Also likely to be the most law abiding provided those laws make a small degree of sense.
Old Boomers never die we just quietly file share while thumbing our noses at da man!
On the post: Larry Lessig Challenges ASCAP Boss To A Debate Over Whether Or Not Creative Commons Undermines Copyright
Re: I'd love to see this debate too...
It's long past due that folks like Paul Williams actually did defend their positions in a debate with Lessig. It might actually come to Mr Williams mind that he's very wrong in his statements about this. Or he may be put in the position of having to admit that what he's talking about is a perceived threat to ASCAP's money collection machine though I'm not sure that's demonstrated anywhere.
It's getting sadder to see so much confusion over what copyright is and what licensing is which is the source of Mr William's agrument and not copyright itself.
Of course, I'm expecting a bit much from such a pedestrian composer who certainly never borrowed as much as a riff from another composition or from the public domain.
On the post: Larry Lessig Challenges ASCAP Boss To A Debate Over Whether Or Not Creative Commons Undermines Copyright
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lessig would wipe the floor with him
Now, get out of the cat litter because the sandbox is over there!
On the post: Larry Lessig Challenges ASCAP Boss To A Debate Over Whether Or Not Creative Commons Undermines Copyright
Re: Re: Re: Re: Lessig would wipe the floor with him
"no studies required. do you know for absolutely certainly, without looking, if all of the content on your machine is copyright, creative commons, copyleft, or public domain? "
Now sit down and listen. No talking and no picking your nose.
Copyright is copyright, creative commons a license of copyright material, "copyleft" (assuming you mean GPL and other assorted open source licenses) is a licence on copyright material and public domain (say the works of Aristotle or The Gospel of Mark) is the public domain.
Creative Commons and "copyleft" are licenses stating the terms that one can use the copyright material legally. Nothing more and nothing less. "Commercial" copyright can do the same thing while often charging exorbitant fees. It's all copyright.
Please be prepared to include this on your essay of "What I Did on My Summer Vacation" to enlighten and amuse the rest of your remedial Grade 3 class.
Now you can pick your nose and chew it.
Dismissed!
On the post: Larry Lessig Challenges ASCAP Boss To A Debate Over Whether Or Not Creative Commons Undermines Copyright
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: French Politicians Backing Away From Three Strikes As They Realize They Need To Get Re-elected At Some Point
Re:
There are times when the old electoral phrase "throw the bastards out" is quite literal particularly when some lunacy like a three strikes law also has other things in the background to make the masses angry.
The ballot box can be a truly wonderful thing!
On the post: Newspaper Publisher Sues Guy For Posting Article Based On Research He Gave The Paper For Free
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Plain English is a pleasant pipe dream but it's not the best way to write a legal document with all these ambulance chasing lawyers running around.
A Creative Commons license would have done the job just as well and with far less fuss.
Next >>