My wife's using a 5yo laptop for work. No issues. Last week I got a new PC, it's my 3rd since Jan 2000 (and it's a refurb, just like the last one in Feb 2009). And I have an emergency win7 laptop, that was made in 2005 (dell e1705) that's mainly used as a media hub (it has firewire and a line-in, in a laptop)
And in the mid-90s, I ran all the records of my fathers business on a dragon32 (what the TRS-80 coco was based on) which I used right up til i moved to the states in 03 - had a 7 year uptime at one point, and the warranty stickers are STILL on all the case screws.
I think you're overestimating the fragility of older computers
True enough, Sharia law (which literally means 'religious laws') is the domain of the Republicans, not some bureaucrats trying to steal their fundamentalist bases
the TRS-80, and the daisywheel printer, and the wordprocessing... Did it myself on my TRS-80 system, except I used a Juki wide-format daisywheel printer, and a combination of telewriter and DRS.
Would it impact the important statement of competence Asman's going for if I were to note that I was 6-7 at the time.
Wonder if I should make the 50min drive to the courtroom to see the case...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: First, it's not "extortion" if the content was viewed.
Yep, when I was looking for the NSW extortion statute, I found the bench book first, and it was pretty clear that standard (c)trolling would be extortion.
BTW, nice to have an Aussie Digital forensic consultant to backcheck me; i'm pretty decent with US and UK law (one being where I am, the other being where I'm from) but I'd never really looked at the law in Foreecks, glad I wasn't too far off the marker.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: First, it's not "extortion" if the content was viewed.
Sorry, probable cause is an American thing, not an Aussie thing. Oh, and it's an American CRIMINAL thing.
There's ways to enforce copyright without having to resort to extortion. You could, for instance, litigate the case, rather than trying to intimidate settlements. See, it's the intimidating settlements bit that makes it extortion, nothing else, as the statutes clearly show.
Whoever, with intent to extort from any person, firm, association, or corporation, any money or other thing of value, transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to injure the property or reputation of the addressee or of another or the reputation of a deceased person or any threat to accuse the addressee or any other person of a crime, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
highlighted the appropriate section.
Wonder what Aussie law says. Let's look shall we? Let's look at Section 415 of the criminal code of Queensland
415 Extortion (1) A person (the demander) who, without reasonable cause, makes a demand—
(a) with intent to— (i) gain a benefit for any person (whether or not the demander); or (ii) cause a detriment to any person other than the demander; and (b) with a threat to cause a detriment to any person other than the demander; commits a crime.
Maximum penalty—
(a) if carrying out the threat causes, or would be likely to cause, serious personal injury to a person other than the offender—life imprisonment; or (b) if carrying out the threat causes, or would be likely to cause, substantial economic loss in an industrial or commercial activity conducted by a person or entity other than the offender (whether the activity is conducted by a public authority or as a private enterprise)—life imprisonment; or (c) otherwise—14 years imprisonment. (2) It is immaterial that—
(a) the demand or threat is made in a way ordinarily used to inform the public rather than a particular person; or (b) the threat does not specify the detriment to be caused; or (c) the threat does not specify the person to whom the detriment is to be caused or specifies this in a general way; or Example— a threat to cause a detriment to the public or any members of the public (d) the detriment is to be caused by someone other than the demander. (3) A reference to making a demand includes causing someone to receive a demand.
(4) A reference to a threat to cause a detriment to any person other than the demander includes a statement that gives rise to a threat of detriment to the other person.
(5) A prosecution for an offence in which it is intended to rely on a circumstance of aggravation mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) of the penalty can not be commenced without the consent of the Attorney-General.
(6) In this section—
threat includes a statement that may reasonably be interpreted as a threat.
Yep, looks like it's basically the same, if not broader. How about New South Wales? Pretty much the same (don't have a citeable reference, only the text of the 2007 Crime Amendments bill).
Now, if the threats in the lawsuits were CREDIBLE (they're not, which is why they've backed off from pursuing them when a fight is made) or if it wasn't made with Menace (defined as "A threat against an individual does not constitute a menace unless: (a) the threat would cause an individual of normal stability and courage to act unwillingly in response to the threat, or (b) the threat would cause the particular individual to act unwillingly in response to the threat and the person who makes the threat is aware of the vulnerability of the particular individual to the threat.". They specifically dismiss cases against some people to avoid part b there) then they wouldn't be extortionate, but they are. And the credible and menacing aspects were also why the courts wanted oversight of the letters.
So yeah, looking at the facts of the cases, comparing them to the laws, yep, 'extortion' still pretty much fits the bill.
Re: First, it's not "extortion" if the content was viewed.
First, it IS extortion. Don't take my word for it, take the word of Federal Appeals Court Judge Pregerson, who called it extortion (a good dozen times, in fact) earlier this month.
When you demand money 'or else', that's extortion. These cases use the court as an 'or else', but refuse to follow through. Their refusal to undertake the full legal process, and just leave it as a threat makes it extortion.
As for the second point, it follows from the first. A company that is attempting to make money from extortion is quite rightly being dealt a blow. If they were legitimately concerned with enforcing copyright, they'd be all for pursuing the case to its conclusion, must as Capitol V Thomas or Tennenbaum did. They don't, in fact they deliberately shy away from doing so, showing it's just an attempt to make money, through threats. I think that's quite rightly been dealt a blow.
Finally, your third point about 'duty to suppress infringements', is kinda true, but only for PROVEN infringements. Otherwise, it's just a baseless accusation. Now, what iiNet also knows is that such cases are expensive and that they're often too expensive to contest for the average person, plus it's specialist law. All companies also have a duty to generate profit, and as a member of society, the rule of law and justice'. In standing up for its customers in what it feels like a perversion of justice, they're making the company prove their accusations of infrignement before they demand enforcement (which would be costly for iiNet) as well as a positive PR move for the ISP, which will encourage customers.
in short, your claims make 3 assumptiosn - Voltage is concerned about stoppin infringement, that their accusations are flawless, and that requiring voltage to actually prove their infringements in court is somehow aiding infringement.
The reality is that Voltage has stated it's not about infringement, but money. Their evidence is notoriously bad, unreliable and at best flimsey, and finally if you're going to make a threat through the courts, you'd best be able to back it up, and an assisting people in proving that is not 'helping infringes', as if they have proof of infringement, then it's still going to be found as such in court.
Andrew "K`Tetch" Norton (profile), 29 Apr 2015 @ 2:44pm
Re: Re:
Again, if you want to use the HOV lanes on I85 in Atlanta, you HAVE to have one.
I'm not sure if it also worked on GA-400 (our only toll road) as I've never traveled the toll area (which stopped being a tolled road a year ago).
I don't go to the NE corner of greater Atlanta much, but the roads can be pretty bad (as can Atlanta traffic in general - last month it took me 4.5 hours to drive the 80-odd miles along I75 from near Macon to downtown atlanta, was a 'typical saturday'.
Andrew "K`Tetch" Norton (profile), 29 Apr 2015 @ 1:52pm
It's one reason I've avoided getting a 'Peach Pass'. You now need one of these to travel on the HOV lane of I85 north of Atlanta, because it was made into a toll lane 2-3 years back. Now, instead of getting into the HOV lane if you've got 2+ people (as you would on the I75/85 connector through downtown Atlanta) you have to get out of the lane on the north side if you don't have a transponder. Oh, and they upped the requirements to 3 people, and you'd better remember to set the account to 'carpool' online, else you're paying, and set it off carpool if you're not, else you're fined. All for 10 miles of lane with variable pricing (and which is often set at 1-2 cents per section, or about 14c for the whole length). And they're looking to expand this to I75N.
hmm, maybe I should get one and see how it goes off....
Andrew "K`Tetch" Norton (profile), 3 Apr 2015 @ 9:53pm
What is it about Patent offices and not liking comments put forth by people in a consultation? (I'm guessing something along the lines of 'exposing the flaws in the proposal they're trying to ram through')
Andrew "K`Tetch" Norton (profile), 3 Apr 2015 @ 2:56pm
It seems like there's one common thread behind all these terrorist plots to attack the US, and that's the involvement of FBI agents or their associates as [usually 'the'] major parts of the plot.
Surely the only sensible thing then is to classify the FBI as a terrorist organisation?
Andrew "K`Tetch" Norton (profile), 1 Apr 2015 @ 8:10pm
I'm just surprised they could find the request in order to respond to it...
Maybe I should file a patent on 'method of misplacing open records requests and related papers in order to avoid compliance' oh yeah '...on a computer' (can't believe I almost forgot that essential last bit!)
Andrew "K`Tetch" Norton (profile), 1 Apr 2015 @ 8:04pm
Re: Autonomous Drifting
Yes, 'sensor panic' (that's when something happens, and the various car sensors start feeding data that the cars computers can't make sense of, so they panic) is a massive concern. I've a friend whose trailblazer rolled 5 times because of it when a tire blew out on the interstate - luckily they made it through uninjured, but it seems like the blowout started a "panic" with the ESC/ABS/Traction control systems, caused the roll. I've been through several blowouts myself, at much higher and slippery conditions and never had an issue keeping control.
Now, I say this as a robotics engineer (which I trained to be, because I started the "pirate" stuff) but I almost always disable any electronic aids as best I can, be it ABS, ESC, traction control, or whatever other gizmo. It's bad, but I can't stand them (might be my racing driver past though, I used to rally and did some track racing until a few accidents combined led to a rethink - smashing your knee to pieces will do that)
Andrew "K`Tetch" Norton (profile), 20 Feb 2015 @ 1:34pm
Re: Re: Re:
You are a filthy, blaspheming heretic
I'm proud of my Scouse upbringing, thank you very much.and being from the 'pool, I know for a fact that a navy Rum beats paintstripper-sold-as-drink any day. :-)
Andrew "K`Tetch" Norton (profile), 19 Feb 2015 @ 8:08pm
Re:
Prohibition ended in 33, correct; bootlegging still continued afterwards, albeit not to the same level, yes. "Running Shine" still happened, with Bill France organising some races with the stock cars, until NASCAR started 67 years ago this coming Saturday (I live just down the road from AMS, number of friends with full-on Dale shrines, I've been lectured on NASCAR history more times than I can imagine)
I noticed that too, there's coolex cooling stuff for electronics, but not screenwash. I was afraid of going off-point too much though (for my first time)
On the post: Mi Amiga: One Michigan School District's Three-Decades-Old Hero Computer That Still Manages HVAC Today
And in the mid-90s, I ran all the records of my fathers business on a dragon32 (what the TRS-80 coco was based on) which I used right up til i moved to the states in 03 - had a 7 year uptime at one point, and the warranty stickers are STILL on all the case screws.
I think you're overestimating the fragility of older computers
On the post: House Votes To Change Law Due To Trade Agreement, While Insisting That Trade Agreements Don't Change Laws
Re: Re: Everything's ok!
On the post: House Votes To Change Law Due To Trade Agreement, While Insisting That Trade Agreements Don't Change Laws
Re: vote roll call
On the post: Lawyer Asman Drops Lawsuit Against EFF, But Claims That 'Ass man' Comments Are Defamatory
I remember the stuff in paragraph 20
Did it myself on my TRS-80 system, except I used a Juki wide-format daisywheel printer, and a combination of telewriter and DRS.
Would it impact the important statement of competence Asman's going for if I were to note that I was 6-7 at the time.
Wonder if I should make the 50min drive to the courtroom to see the case...
On the post: Australian ISP Promises Free Lawyers For Targets Of Copyright Trolls
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: First, it's not "extortion" if the content was viewed.
BTW, nice to have an Aussie Digital forensic consultant to backcheck me; i'm pretty decent with US and UK law (one being where I am, the other being where I'm from) but I'd never really looked at the law in Foreecks, glad I wasn't too far off the marker.
On the post: Australian ISP Promises Free Lawyers For Targets Of Copyright Trolls
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: First, it's not "extortion" if the content was viewed.
There's ways to enforce copyright without having to resort to extortion. You could, for instance, litigate the case, rather than trying to intimidate settlements. See, it's the intimidating settlements bit that makes it extortion, nothing else, as the statutes clearly show.
On the post: Australian ISP Promises Free Lawyers For Targets Of Copyright Trolls
Re: Re: Re: First, it's not "extortion" if the content was viewed.
Anyway, let's look shall we?
18 UCS §875(d)
highlighted the appropriate section.
Wonder what Aussie law says. Let's look shall we?
Let's look at Section 415 of the criminal code of Queensland
Yep, looks like it's basically the same, if not broader.
How about New South Wales?
Pretty much the same (don't have a citeable reference, only the text of the 2007 Crime Amendments bill).
Now, if the threats in the lawsuits were CREDIBLE (they're not, which is why they've backed off from pursuing them when a fight is made) or if it wasn't made with Menace (defined as "A threat against an individual does not constitute a menace unless:
(a) the threat would cause an individual of normal stability and courage to act unwillingly in response to the threat, or
(b) the threat would cause the particular individual to act unwillingly in response to the threat and the person who makes the threat is aware of the vulnerability of the particular individual to the threat.". They specifically dismiss cases against some people to avoid part b there) then they wouldn't be extortionate, but they are. And the credible and menacing aspects were also why the courts wanted oversight of the letters.
So yeah, looking at the facts of the cases, comparing them to the laws, yep, 'extortion' still pretty much fits the bill.
On the post: Australian ISP Promises Free Lawyers For Targets Of Copyright Trolls
Re: First, it's not "extortion" if the content was viewed.
Don't take my word for it, take the word of Federal Appeals Court Judge Pregerson, who called it extortion (a good dozen times, in fact) earlier this month.
When you demand money 'or else', that's extortion. These cases use the court as an 'or else', but refuse to follow through. Their refusal to undertake the full legal process, and just leave it as a threat makes it extortion.
As for the second point, it follows from the first. A company that is attempting to make money from extortion is quite rightly being dealt a blow. If they were legitimately concerned with enforcing copyright, they'd be all for pursuing the case to its conclusion, must as Capitol V Thomas or Tennenbaum did. They don't, in fact they deliberately shy away from doing so, showing it's just an attempt to make money, through threats. I think that's quite rightly been dealt a blow.
Finally, your third point about 'duty to suppress infringements', is kinda true, but only for PROVEN infringements. Otherwise, it's just a baseless accusation. Now, what iiNet also knows is that such cases are expensive and that they're often too expensive to contest for the average person, plus it's specialist law. All companies also have a duty to generate profit, and as a member of society, the rule of law and justice'. In standing up for its customers in what it feels like a perversion of justice, they're making the company prove their accusations of infrignement before they demand enforcement (which would be costly for iiNet) as well as a positive PR move for the ISP, which will encourage customers.
in short, your claims make 3 assumptiosn - Voltage is concerned about stoppin infringement, that their accusations are flawless, and that requiring voltage to actually prove their infringements in court is somehow aiding infringement.
The reality is that Voltage has stated it's not about infringement, but money. Their evidence is notoriously bad, unreliable and at best flimsey, and finally if you're going to make a threat through the courts, you'd best be able to back it up, and an assisting people in proving that is not 'helping infringes', as if they have proof of infringement, then it's still going to be found as such in court.
On the post: Government Agencies Love Expanding E-ZPass Coverage; Handling Data Responsibly, Not So Much
Re: Re:
I'm not sure if it also worked on GA-400 (our only toll road) as I've never traveled the toll area (which stopped being a tolled road a year ago).
I don't go to the NE corner of greater Atlanta much, but the roads can be pretty bad (as can Atlanta traffic in general - last month it took me 4.5 hours to drive the 80-odd miles along I75 from near Macon to downtown atlanta, was a 'typical saturday'.
On the post: UK Green Party Speculates On Idea To Shorten Copyright To 14 Years... Leading To Mass Freakout
Sadly though, they all thought it was a new Green policy, rather than just copying the existing Pirate Party policy :-(
On the post: Government Agencies Love Expanding E-ZPass Coverage; Handling Data Responsibly, Not So Much
hmm, maybe I should get one and see how it goes off....
On the post: USPTO Demands EFF Censor Its Comments On Patentable Subject Matter
If you remember, I had a similar issue with the UK IPO a few years back -
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120729/02544819867/uk-government-censors-copyright-consultation- submission-about-how-awful-collection-societies-are.shtml
On the post: FBI Uncovers Another Of Its Own Plots, Senator Feinstein Responds By Saying We Should Censor The Internet
Surely the only sensible thing then is to classify the FBI as a terrorist organisation?
On the post: NYPD Claims It Can't Find 'Widely-Circulated' Memo That Cut Off Press Access To Precinct Crime Blotters
Maybe I should file a patent on 'method of misplacing open records requests and related papers in order to avoid compliance' oh yeah '...on a computer' (can't believe I almost forgot that essential last bit!)
On the post: DailyDirt: Drifting Around In A Car For Fun
Re: Autonomous Drifting
Now, I say this as a robotics engineer (which I trained to be, because I started the "pirate" stuff) but I almost always disable any electronic aids as best I can, be it ABS, ESC, traction control, or whatever other gizmo. It's bad, but I can't stand them (might be my racing driver past though, I used to rally and did some track racing until a few accidents combined led to a rethink - smashing your knee to pieces will do that)
On the post: Sanctioned Revenge Porner Craig Brittain Says That Google Is Nothing But Copyright Infringement
That's more than FIVE HOURS after he started, and the tweets mentioned above.
And as far as perfect10 went, he said, and I quote
yeah, poorly is right. The poor thing being their underlying legal theory.
He's also gone full-Delauter (I kid you not) saying
It's hilarious.
On the post: UK Intellectual Property Office Plays Up Imaginary 'Toxic' Claim In Grabbing Food Pretending To Be From Somewhere Else
Re: Re: Re:
I'm proud of my Scouse upbringing, thank you very much.and being from the 'pool, I know for a fact that a navy Rum beats paintstripper-sold-as-drink any day. :-)
On the post: UK Intellectual Property Office Plays Up Imaginary 'Toxic' Claim In Grabbing Food Pretending To Be From Somewhere Else
Re:
On the post: UK Intellectual Property Office Plays Up Imaginary 'Toxic' Claim In Grabbing Food Pretending To Be From Somewhere Else
Re:
There's your problem, you're looking for an oxymoron!
On the post: UK Intellectual Property Office Plays Up Imaginary 'Toxic' Claim In Grabbing Food Pretending To Be From Somewhere Else
Re:
Next >>