|
|
Update 2: The BBC Intergrated Media Player trial and DRM......how to hack?
"Dr Hfuhruhurr" wrote in message oups.com... :::Jerry:::: wrote: "steve" wrote in message ... snipped FOAD troll. Cheesus Jerry, do you have to argue on EVERY group you post on? And do you HAVE to call people Trolls when you lose an argument, or can no longer find the words to fight back? But if 'Steve' bothered to read the complete Copyright Act (as relating to recording off air broadcast content) and stopped cherry picking sections he would see that he is in fact wrong, there is no right to make an ever lasting (archive) recording [1], this reflects back onto the section that allows 'time-shifting', which buy definition (with due regard to the section relating to archiving) is for a limited (reasonable) time period only. If the law had meant Archiving in stead of Time-shifting they would have used the word Archive in section 70. [1] there are exceptions but these need to be approved by the Sectary of State. |
Update 2: The BBC Intergrated Media Player trial and DRM......how to hack?
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 13:42:04 -0000, :::Jerry::::
wrote: FOAD troll. You clearly have no idea what a "troll" is. There was nothing remotely reminiscent of trolling in that post. Cheesus Jerry, do you have to argue on EVERY group you post on? And do you HAVE to call people Trolls when you lose an argument, or can no longer find the words to fight back? Exactly. Jerry is a bit (lot) thick. But if 'Steve' bothered to read the complete Copyright Act (as relating to recording off air broadcast content) and stopped cherry picking sections he would see that he is in fact wrong, there is no right to make an ever lasting (archive) recording [1], He never said there was. You are in agreement about this point, but you still can't see it. this reflects back onto the section that allows 'time-shifting', which buy "by" definition (with due regard to the section relating to archiving) is for a limited (reasonable) time period only. A limited (reasonable) time period is NOT 7 days. The act does NOT specify a limited/reasonable time period. Your assertions hold no water at all, but then there's nothing new there. |
Update 2: The BBC Intergrated Media Player trial and DRM......how to hack?
":::Jerry::::" wrote:
"MJ Ray" wrote: [...] Secondly, it's not theft in the usual sense: the owner is not deprived of the item. If anything, technological restrictions are theft of rights from private users by the producer. Of course the owner is deprived, the owner is going to be deprived of a possible sale if you keep a boot-leg copy rather than buy a commercial copy of the programme. Private personal copying is hardly "boot-leg". Assume that Peter is not going to buy the programme either way. The "owner" loses nothing. It's a scandal that fair dealing can be reduced in this way. There is not such thing as 'far dealing', their is fair use, but boot-leg archiving is not fair use. [...] Hahaha! Go read the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988, please. |
Update 2: The BBC Intergrated Media Player trial and DRM......how to hack?
"MJ Ray" wrote in message reenews.net... ":::Jerry::::" wrote: "MJ Ray" wrote: [...] Secondly, it's not theft in the usual sense: the owner is not deprived of the item. If anything, technological restrictions are theft of rights from private users by the producer. Of course the owner is deprived, the owner is going to be deprived of a possible sale if you keep a boot-leg copy rather than buy a commercial copy of the programme. Private personal copying is hardly "boot-leg". Assume that Peter is not going to buy the programme either way. The "owner" loses nothing. Well he might not have watched the programme either! The point is, if the law allowed boot-leg copies (personal or otherwise) there would be no prospect of commercial sales - especially if they can download a copy and then hack the content management. It's a scandal that fair dealing can be reduced in this way. There is not such thing as 'far dealing', their is fair use, but boot-leg archiving is not fair use. [...] Hahaha! Go read the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988, please. Go on then, cite it's use in the Act... -- Regards, Jerry. Location - United Kingdom. In the first instance please reply to group, The quoted email address is a trash can for Spam only. |
Update 2: The BBC Intergrated Media Player trial and DRM......how to hack?
"Paul Ratcliffe" wrote in message ... On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 13:42:04 -0000, :::Jerry:::: wrote: FOAD troll. You clearly have no idea what a "troll" is. There was nothing remotely reminiscent of trolling in that post. He is arguing for the sake of arguming, as you are, troll. Cheesus Jerry, do you have to argue on EVERY group you post on? And do you HAVE to call people Trolls when you lose an argument, or can no longer find the words to fight back? Exactly. Jerry is a bit (lot) thick. But if 'Steve' bothered to read the complete Copyright Act (as relating to recording off air broadcast content) and stopped cherry picking sections he would see that he is in fact wrong, there is no right to make an ever lasting (archive) recording [1], He never said there was. You are in agreement about this point, but you still can't see it. this reflects back onto the section that allows 'time-shifting', which buy "by" definition (with due regard to the section relating to archiving) is for a limited (reasonable) time period only. A limited (reasonable) time period is NOT 7 days. The act does NOT specify a limited/reasonable time period. I never said it did, but if the comtent owner wants to place a time limit on their property that itr is their right to do so. Your assertions hold no water at all, but then there's nothing new there. I suggest you find a clue, read the said Act! |
Update 2: The BBC Intergrated Media Player trial and DRM......how to hack?
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 13:42:04 +0000, :::Jerry:::: wrote:
"Dr Hfuhruhurr" wrote in message oups.com... :::Jerry:::: wrote: "steve" wrote in message ... snipped FOAD troll. Cheesus Jerry, do you have to argue on EVERY group you post on? And do you HAVE to call people Trolls when you lose an argument, or can no longer find the words to fight back? But if 'Steve' bothered to read the complete Copyright Act (as relating to recording off air broadcast content) and stopped cherry picking sections he would see that he is in fact wrong, there is no right to make an ever lasting (archive) recording [1], this reflects back onto the section that allows 'time-shifting', which buy definition (with due regard to the section relating to archiving) is for a limited (reasonable) time period only. Jerry, you referred to a particular section of the copyright act, namely time-shifting, you fantasied that there was a time limit in there, you were asked to admit with was utter ****e, you did not. You initially alleged someone was a criminal you were asked which laws were broken, you were asked given your proven ignorance of said law to state which section of the law was being broken. Jerry, you ****ed up, you made an arse of yourself. Okay you lost, you responded FOAD - well I am hurt that an evident **** for brains told me to FOAD. I shall sob myself to sleep this evening. If the law had meant Archiving in stead of Time-shifting they would have used the word Archive in section 70. Jerry, where is this fantasy time limit for archiving? Jerry, why did you refer me to the clause in the law about time shifting when that clause demonstrated you to be the ignorant fool you are. Jerry next time you accuse someone of being a criminal at least have half a clue. Jerry this is an arse www.thevervoid.com/newswomb/arse.jpg This is an elbow http://www.hasslefreeclipart.com/cli...arts/elbow.gif See, you can educate yourself. |
Update 2: The BBC Intergrated Media Player trial and DRM......how to hack?
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 19:36:32 +0000, :::Jerry:::: wrote:
"Paul Ratcliffe" wrote in message ... On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 13:42:04 -0000, :::Jerry:::: wrote: FOAD troll. You clearly have no idea what a "troll" is. There was nothing remotely reminiscent of trolling in that post. He is arguing for the sake of arguming, as you are, troll. Jerry, you accused someone of criminal behavior. You failed to even point to which section of a law that was broken. Cheesus Jerry, do you have to argue on EVERY group you post on? And do you HAVE to call people Trolls when you lose an argument, or can no longer find the words to fight back? Exactly. Jerry is a bit (lot) thick. But if 'Steve' bothered to read the complete Copyright Act (as relating to recording off air broadcast content) and stopped cherry picking sections he would see that he is in fact wrong, there is no right to make an ever lasting (archive) recording [1], He never said there was. You are in agreement about this point, but you still can't see it. this reflects back onto the section that allows 'time-shifting', which buy "by" definition (with due regard to the section relating to archiving) is for a limited (reasonable) time period only. A limited (reasonable) time period is NOT 7 days. The act does NOT specify a limited/reasonable time period. I never said it did, but if the comtent owner wants to place a time limit on their property that itr is their right to do so. Is that under the section in archiving or the section in time shifting or neither? Jerry, you stated by saying a crime was being committed, you referred to a specific law and a specific section (time shifting). Jerry, which part of the law is being broken to justify you calling the OP a criminal? Your assertions hold no water at all, but then there's nothing new there. I suggest you find a clue, read the said Act! I suggested several times you say which part of the act. The first time you referred to the act was the section in time shifting, this proved you to be an ignorant arse, so you referred to the irrelevant section on archiving, this again proved you to be an arse. You then lost it more than humanly conceivable by bringing up copying DVDs to VHS - something that even my three year old goldfish can understand is not referred to in the act under either archiving or time shifting. Single question to even more simple Jerry Which part of the act you claim to be intimate with is being broken? To hard a question, no worries, you can tell me to FOAD again and I'll cry. |
Update 2: The BBC Intergrated Media Player trial and DRM......how to hack?
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 19:14:01 +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
":::Jerry::::" wrote: "MJ Ray" wrote: [...] Secondly, it's not theft in the usual sense: the owner is not deprived of the item. If anything, technological restrictions are theft of rights from private users by the producer. Of course the owner is deprived, the owner is going to be deprived of a possible sale if you keep a boot-leg copy rather than buy a commercial copy of the programme. Private personal copying is hardly "boot-leg". Assume that Peter is not going to buy the programme either way. The "owner" loses nothing. It's a scandal that fair dealing can be reduced in this way. There is not such thing as 'far dealing', their is fair use, but boot-leg archiving is not fair use. [...] Hahaha! Go read the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988, please. Jerry can't read. |
Update 2: The BBC Intergrated Media Player trial and DRM......how to hack?
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 19:36:32 -0000, :::Jerry::::
blathered: FOAD troll. You clearly have no idea what a "troll" is. There was nothing remotely reminiscent of trolling in that post. He is arguing for the sake of arguming, as you are, troll. Now how did I know you were going to say that I wonder? No I'm not. I'm trying to correct your pig ignorance, and failing it would seem. The only one trolling round here is you. But if 'Steve' bothered to read the complete Copyright Act (as relating to recording off air broadcast content) and stopped cherry picking sections he would see that he is in fact wrong, there is no right to make an ever lasting (archive) recording [1], He never said there was. You are in agreement about this point, but you still can't see it. I notice you quoted all this, apparently pointlessly as you didn't see fit to refute it with another futile argument. Troll. Perhaps you lost that argument, troll. I predict you will tell me to FOAD next. smirk definition (with due regard to the section relating to archiving) is for a limited (reasonable) time period only. A limited (reasonable) time period is NOT 7 days. The act does NOT specify a limited/reasonable time period. I never said it did, but if the comtent owner wants to place a time limit on their property that itr is their right to do so. You never said it did? So what is reasonable? More than 7 days? Yes, obviously. OK, so that means it's not a crime to circumvent the 7 day limit to watch something after 7 days. Well, Jerry old lad, you've just shot down your own argument. Any further argument from you will prove that you are a troll. Your assertions hold no water at all, but then there's nothing new there. I suggest you find a clue, read the said Act! Why? Will it tell me that you are an ignorant, illiterate little cretin? |
Update 2: The BBC Intergrated Media Player trial and DRM......how to hack?
Roderick Stewart wrote:
[why television people don't try a copy-friendly model] Maybe they have, or maybe they've just been able to work out from common sense that it wouldn't work so there's no point in trying. "Common sense" is often old wives tales like those peddled by F*CT, which don't reflect the way the modern world works. *You* may be willing to do your highly original creative work, sell it once, and watch others sell it over and over again without any more payments to you, but most would never agree to such an arrangement as long as the conventional one is available. It is unethical to keep charging people for doing no work. Do you pay your plumber every time you draw a bath? No, you pay when there's work that needs doing and you have the *choice* whether to retain them. Technological measures, the compulsary tv licence and so on: removing choice so that big corporations can get more money and no matter who they squash. |
Update 2: The BBC Intergrated Media Player trial and DRM......how to hack?
" wrote:
MJ Ray wrote: There is a benefit, but recent changes to copyright law (term extensions, DMCA) have increased the loss: things do not enter the public domain (and become free culture) as quickly as they used to. Is the current state of copyright still giving us a net benefit? What relevance does the US DMCA have here in the UK? It's relevant in two ways: - first, the EUCD, the Copyright ... (Offences and Enforcement) Act 2002, IPRED and other regulations covering the UK include many of the same powers, or sometimes worse as side-effects; - second, through MLATs, increased travel, globalisation and so on, bad US laws affect other countries, especially "special friends" like the UK. For example, sound recordings are still out of copyright 51 years after issue on this side of the pond, unless I've missed a recent unwelcome change. I think that is only a small part of the jigsaw, as you still have the longer copyright on the composition and so on. Nevertheless, I hear that EMI is lobbying hard to extend the recording copyright. We should at least be asking for all sound monopoly rights to be harmonised at 51 years. It seems absurd to claim there isn't enough incentive in a half-century monopoly. As the pace of change increases, we need music to become part of our common heritage faster not slower. [...] However, there are other people in this world who will be writers or musicians; through the printing press, recorded sound, film and video, these people can reach a much wider audience than was possible a few centuries ago. Without copyright law, these people cannot make a living from this. Copyright law allows creative people to earn a living in the same way that plumbers do. I think that's horsecrap and you know it. If plumbers could charge many people, repeatedly, for the same day's work, there would be angry crowds with nooses forming outside their workshops. Yet that is what many creative people do: and they get away with it... definitely creative ethics! Further, I'd like to see musicians earning a decent living by selling recordings of their work. At some point, they will have made fair pay and should loosen their copyright. Why don't they? Because it's not usually musicians who make most of the money from recording sales: it's the publishers who control the music "industry". It's a victory of marketing over democracy that a few lobbyists can perpetuate this unjust system which punishes both most creators and most consumers. This should be a downhill battle... [...] I should declare an interest in that I work within the industry - No, I'm not surprised you're an astroturfer. Do you work for one of the big houses, or a wannabe? |
Update 2: The BBC Intergrated Media Player trial and DRM......how to hack?
In article ews.net, MJ Ray
wrote: *You* may be willing to do your highly original creative work, sell it once, and watch others sell it over and over again without any more payments to you, but most would never agree to such an arrangement as long as the conventional one is available. It is unethical to keep charging people for doing no work. Do you pay your plumber every time you draw a bath? No, you pay when there's work that needs doing and you have the *choice* whether to retain them. True, but there is a practical problem with anything non-tangible with "intellectual value" and which can easily be copied at low material cost. The creator of the original idea - the song, book, picture or whatever - may have spent months or years working on it and needs to be paid accordingly. If you don't get paid at least a months living expenses for a month's work, however trivial the physical outcome of that work (which may only be a few sheets of paper) you don't eat. The copyright system is far from perfect, and can lead to some anomalies, but at least it ensures that intellectual work is automatically the property of whoever creates it unless they choose to sell it to someone else, and in that sense it can be called fair. What would definitely not be fair would be a publisher paying an artist for a piece of work once, then making many copies at low material cost without having to pay anything more to the artist. That would be equivalent to "charging people for doing no work". How would you legislate against it if not by the present system? Rod. |
Update 2: The BBC Intergrated Media Player trial and DRM......how to hack?
"steve" wrote in message ... On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 19:36:32 +0000, :::Jerry:::: wrote: "Paul Ratcliffe" wrote in message ... On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 13:42:04 -0000, :::Jerry:::: wrote: FOAD troll. You clearly have no idea what a "troll" is. There was nothing remotely reminiscent of trolling in that post. He is arguing for the sake of arguming, as you are, troll. Jerry, you accused someone of criminal behavior. You failed to even point to which section of a law that was broken. YES I DID, now **** off troll. |
Update 2: The BBC Intergrated Media Player trial and DRM......how to hack?
"Paul Ratcliffe" wrote in message ... On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 19:36:32 -0000, :::Jerry:::: blathered: FOAD troll. You clearly have no idea what a "troll" is. There was nothing remotely reminiscent of trolling in that post. He is arguing for the sake of arguming, as you are, troll. Now how did I know you were going to say that I wonder? No I'm not. I'm trying to correct your pig ignorance, and failing it would seem. The only one trolling round here is you. snip Then cite the Act.... |
Update 2: The BBC Intergrated Media Player trial and DRM......how to hack?
"steve" wrote in message ... On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 13:42:04 +0000, :::Jerry:::: wrote: "Dr Hfuhruhurr" wrote in message oups.com... :::Jerry:::: wrote: "steve" wrote in message ... snipped FOAD troll. Cheesus Jerry, do you have to argue on EVERY group you post on? And do you HAVE to call people Trolls when you lose an argument, or can no longer find the words to fight back? But if 'Steve' bothered to read the complete Copyright Act (as relating to recording off air broadcast content) and stopped cherry picking sections he would see that he is in fact wrong, there is no right to make an ever lasting (archive) recording [1], this reflects back onto the section that allows 'time-shifting', which buy definition (with due regard to the section relating to archiving) is for a limited (reasonable) time period only. Jerry, you referred to a particular section of the copyright act, namely time-shifting, you fantasied that there was a time limit in there, you were asked to admit with was utter ****e, you did not. You initially alleged someone was a criminal you were asked which laws were broken, you were asked given your proven ignorance of said law to state which section of the law was being broken. FFS, read the section relating to ARCHIVING, then re read the section on Time-shifting, it make no difference if a time scale is not mentioned or not. Jerry, you ****ed up, you made an arse of yourself. No, the only people who have done that are the ones like you who can't read, or chose not to read the full Copyright Act. |
Update 2: The BBC Intergrated Media Player trial and DRM......how to hack?
"MJ Ray" wrote in message reenews.net... Roderick Stewart wrote: [why television people don't try a copy-friendly model] Maybe they have, or maybe they've just been able to work out from common sense that it wouldn't work so there's no point in trying. "Common sense" is often old wives tales like those peddled by F*CT, which don't reflect the way the modern world works. *You* may be willing to do your highly original creative work, sell it once, and watch others sell it over and over again without any more payments to you, but most would never agree to such an arrangement as long as the conventional one is available. It is unethical to keep charging people for doing no work. Do you pay your plumber every time you draw a bath? Well, if you only 'rented' the pipes and fixtures then yes you would need to pay him each and every time, OTOH if you bought a bathroom out-right then you have any number of baths for the price... Just like if you bought a commercial DVD [1] you can watch that any number of times. [1] Yes I know that there will be issues with content management placing a limit on viewings, but that has only come about due to the copyright abuse that has been going on... |
Update 2: The BBC Intergrated Media Player trial and DRM......how to hack?
":::Jerry::::" wrote:
[...] The point is, if the law allowed boot-leg copies (personal or otherwise) there would be no prospect of commercial sales - especially if they can download a copy and then hack the content management. That is rubbish, disproved by the sales of books of texts which are out of copyright. People will pay for the packaging and the service. We'd all like better service from publishers, wouldn't we? There is not such thing as 'far dealing', their is fair use, but boot-leg archiving is not fair use. [...] Hahaha! Go read the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988, please. Go on then, cite it's use in the Act... For example: 30.-(1) Fair dealing with a work for the purpose of criticism or review, of that or another work or of a performance of a work, does not infringe any copyright in the work provided that it is accompanied by a sufficient acknowledgement and provided that the work has been made available to the public. In return, I ask you to cite use of "fair use" in the act. |
Update 2: The BBC Intergrated Media Player trial and DRM......how to hack?
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 15:31:18 +0000, :::Jerry:::: wrote:
"Paul Ratcliffe" wrote in message ... On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 19:36:32 -0000, :::Jerry:::: blathered: FOAD troll. You clearly have no idea what a "troll" is. There was nothing remotely reminiscent of trolling in that post. He is arguing for the sake of arguming, as you are, troll. Now how did I know you were going to say that I wonder? No I'm not. I'm trying to correct your pig ignorance, and failing it would seem. The only one trolling round here is you. snip Then cite the Act.... Errr, Jerry, sadly there is no act against trolling. However, it one posts that someone is a criminal it would help you to cite which section of on act states that such activity is illegal - something you have continually failed to do. You started saying to OP was a criminal. You were challenged on this You claimed time shifting had a time limit You were proven to be a bull****ter. You then moved on you archiving You were proven to be a bull****ter. You resorted to insults You were proven to be a bull****ter. You posted again You were proven to be a bull****ter. Do you see a pattern here, Jerry, you made a claim, you failed to back it up - You were proven to be a bull****ter. |
Update 2: The BBC Intergrated Media Player trial and DRM......how to hack?
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 15:29:15 +0000, :::Jerry:::: wrote:
"steve" wrote in message ... On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 19:36:32 +0000, :::Jerry:::: wrote: "Paul Ratcliffe" wrote in message ... On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 13:42:04 -0000, :::Jerry:::: wrote: FOAD troll. You clearly have no idea what a "troll" is. There was nothing remotely reminiscent of trolling in that post. He is arguing for the sake of arguming, as you are, troll. Jerry, you accused someone of criminal behavior. You failed to even point to which section of a law that was broken. YES I DID, now **** off troll. No you did not, you referred to the time-shifting part fantasising about a time limit. When this was shown to be utter Jerry bollox, you refereed to the archiving section, repeat ad-infinitum. Jerry, you are clearly some form of life below the radar of evolution, you clearly have no self-respect in that you are willing time and time again to prove yourself an arse. No matter, that fact still remains that you made an accusation, made up arguments then read the act - perhaps even you were capable of processing the facts and discovered you are indeed some form of pond slime and you only reaction is to hurl abuse. Even in the posting I am replying to, a whole 7 words and none of them more than 5 letters, you still make yourself out to be a fool. You see, if you wanted to finally shut me up you would have been capable to cite the law and specifically the sections/chapters being broken to justify your original assertion that the OP was a criminal. Alas, despite numerous attempts to get you to justify your mere existence, all you do is act like the drunken tractor driver at a young farmers club (apologies to drunken tractor drivers). How are you doing on the whole arse/elbow thing BTW? |
Update 2: The BBC Intergrated Media Player trial and DRM......how to hack?
Roderick Stewart wrote:
[...] If you don't get paid at least a months living expenses for a month's work, however trivial the physical outcome of that work (which may only be a few sheets of paper) you don't eat. I agree with you up to here. I've heard this called the "starving artist problem" and the "hungry programmers problem" but I'm not sure whether it has similar names for performers in other fields. The copyright system is far from perfect, and can lead to some anomalies, but at least it ensures that intellectual work is automatically the property of whoever creates it unless they choose to sell it to someone else, and in that sense it can be called fair. That might be great, but it's not anything like true. First off, if you are an employee creating things, the copyright for them goes to your employer, unless you negotiate otherwise. For freelancers and contractors, it should be better, but I have seen contracts that sneak copyright assignment in an appendix and most people sign them regardless. http://www.iusmentis.com/copyright/c...rse/ownership/ I don't think most employment is really choosing to sell copyright, just as I don't believe it's fair to say that some low-paid staff choose to pay for their uniforms. Tying copyright to most employment is sly. If you are employed as a writer or an artist, perhaps you are selling your copyright, but if you are employed as a technician or production assistant? That should be more of an implicit license. The current system does not work for the creators, it works for copyright licensors. If society wants to continue with copyright, we should ensure the creators are usually the licensors. What would definitely not be fair would be a publisher paying an artist for a piece of work once, then making many copies at low material cost without having to pay anything more to the artist. That would be equivalent to "charging people for doing no work". How would you legislate against it if not by the present system? I would legislate to create a market which encourages creators to ensure they have covered their baseline costs pre-publication (whether by publisher advance or whatever) and then gives a reasonable term to profit (probably compulsary royalties of a level and for a term calculated against the cost of living and market indicators) before the work enters the public domain. The key changes are the adaptive term length - I would expect it to be closer to 14+14 than life+70 - and to prevent the current abuses, no ability to transfer a copyright: you could license it liberally or commit to pay for publication, but it would need to be a more explicit negotiation than the present "we hold copyright to all you create" employment contract appendices. The killer feature is that the term calculation can be set so that if things change - for example, business models which don't rely on copyright become dominant - copyright will hibernate until it is needed again. What's stopping us? Well, our unrepresentatives have already agreed to keep the basic framework of current copyright. If we want the above to have real effect, we need to carry at least Europe with us and neutralise the input of the current monopolist publishers. Step one is to get more liberal creators and consumers represented on our government's Creative Industries Forum which is currently a sham of monopolists and politicians. A good next step is to harmonise at shorter lengths and not keep adding new super-copyrights like restrictive DRM laws. |
Update 2: The BBC Intergrated Media Player trial and DRM......how to hack?
":::Jerry::::" wrote:
"MJ Ray" wrote: It is unethical to keep charging people for doing no work. Do you pay your plumber every time you draw a bath? Well, if you only 'rented' the pipes and fixtures then yes you would need to pay him each and every time, OTOH if you bought a bathroom out-right then you have any number of baths for the price... Just like if you bought a commercial DVD [1] you can watch that any number of times. Let's riff on that: Last I knew, iTunes tracks were 79p each. So, private use of 250 Beatles songs from iTunes would cost 250 * GBP 0.79 = GBP 197.50 Reportedly, Michael Jackson paid 35 million for full rights to about that number of songs. About 177,000 times as much. How much would you pay for similar private use of a home's hot water system? It's more important than music, right? 250 quid? If so, at Music Copyright Rate, having the full rights under your own control would cost something over 44 million. From a quick look at uk.d-i-y, it seems that British Gas will install a hot water system for 3600 pounds, but is thought expensive. Why aren't you up in arms about how much copyright costs? ;-) [1] Yes I know that there will be issues with content management placing a limit on viewings, but that has only come about due to the copyright abuse that has been going on... And charging workers for their uniforms only comes about due to the clothing abuse that those workers do, I suppose! You'd probably tell the parents of a child killed by a security device that it's their fault really, for letting burglars exist. |
Update 2: The BBC Intergrated Media Player trial and DRM......how to hack?
In article ews.net, MJ Ray
wrote: The copyright system is far from perfect, and can lead to some anomalies, but at least it ensures that intellectual work is automatically the property of whoever creates it unless they choose to sell it to someone else, and in that sense it can be called fair. That might be great, but it's not anything like true. First off, if you are an employee creating things, the copyright for them goes to your employer, unless you negotiate otherwise. For freelancers and contractors, it should be better, but I have seen contracts that sneak copyright assignment in an appendix and most people sign them regardless. http://www.iusmentis.com/copyright/c...rse/ownership/ I don't think most employment is really choosing to sell copyright, just as I don't believe it's fair to say that some low-paid staff choose to pay for their uniforms. Tying copyright to most employment is sly. I agree totally with this. Effectively if you want the job you sign the papers, whatever they contain, which is a way of allowing employers to subvert the spirit and intention of the copyright laws. Only another law specifically forbidding this issue could control it, because at present nobody in any position of power or influence has any vested interest in changing it. If you are employed as a writer or an artist, perhaps you are selling your copyright, but if you are employed as a technician or production assistant? That should be more of an implicit license. That's a saving grace for some people, such as myself. As it happens, I am employed in a technical capacity and I think my contract has the usual clause about "inventions" or "discoveries", but nothing about "creative" work, so I reckon I could create something that was nothing to do with my work, and it would remain mine. There doesn't seem to be any incentive in working for an employer in any creative capacity, as you'd be completely at their mercy regarding their judgement of the value of your work, and if you did manage to create something really popular, somebody else would get rich. Rod. |
Update 2: The BBC Intergrated Media Player trial and DRM......how to hack?
"MJ Ray" wrote in message reenews.net... ":::Jerry::::" wrote: [...] The point is, if the law allowed boot-leg copies (personal or otherwise) there would be no prospect of commercial sales - especially if they can download a copy and then hack the content management. That is rubbish, disproved by the sales of books of texts which are out of copyright. People will pay for the packaging and the service. We'd all like better service from publishers, wouldn't we? No, you are quite wrong, people buy those because the works are out of print! There is not such thing as 'far dealing', their is fair use, but boot-leg archiving is not fair use. [...] Hahaha! Go read the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988, please. Go on then, cite it's use in the Act... For example: 30.-(1) Fair dealing with a work for the purpose of criticism or review, of that or another work or of a performance of a work, does not infringe any copyright in the work provided that it is accompanied by a sufficient acknowledgement and provided that the work has been made available to the public. In return, I ask you to cite use of "fair use" in the act. And what frecking relevance does that have with Archiving or Time-shifting, which is what we are discussing after all?.. |
Update 2: The BBC Intergrated Media Player trial and DRM......how to hack?
"steve" wrote in message ... On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 15:29:15 +0000, :::Jerry:::: wrote: snip YES I DID, now **** off troll. No you did not, Yes I did, stop trolling. |
Update 2: The BBC Intergrated Media Player trial and DRM......how to hack?
"steve" wrote in message ... snip trolling You are the bull-****ting trolling moron. Read the Copyright Act FULLY, and stop Cherry picking. |
Update 2: The BBC Intergrated Media Player trial and DRM......how to hack?
"MJ Ray" wrote in message reenews.net... snip total clap-trap Please do yourself a favour, find a frecking clue. If the recording company wants to charge 1k per listen than that is their RIGHT, if you don't like it tuff ****e, you don't have to buy their works - nor does it make it acceptable for you to steal from the artist or record company. QED. |
Update 2: The BBC Intergrated Media Player trial and DRM......how to hack?
:::Jerry:::: wrote: "MJ Ray" wrote in message reenews.net... ":::Jerry::::" wrote: [...] The point is, if the law allowed boot-leg copies (personal or otherwise) there would be no prospect of commercial sales - especially if they can download a copy and then hack the content management. That is rubbish, disproved by the sales of books of texts which are out of copyright. People will pay for the packaging and the service. We'd all like better service from publishers, wouldn't we? No, you are quite wrong, people buy those because the works are out of print! There is not such thing as 'far dealing', their is fair use, but boot-leg archiving is not fair use. [...] Hahaha! Go read the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988, please. Go on then, cite it's use in the Act... For example: 30.-(1) Fair dealing with a work for the purpose of criticism or review, of that or another work or of a performance of a work, does not infringe any copyright in the work provided that it is accompanied by a sufficient acknowledgement and provided that the work has been made available to the public. In return, I ask you to cite use of "fair use" in the act. And what frecking relevance does that have with Archiving or Time-shifting, which is what we are discussing after all?.. Archiving and it's derviative use thereof as pertaining to the copyright act you so ferverenlty push everyone to read is PRECISELY related to the Archiving of ANY copyrighted material. Or didn't you read that bit. Cherry Picker. Doc |
Update 2: The BBC Intergrated Media Player trial and DRM......how to hack?
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 15:08:49 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote: "MJ Ray" wrote in message freenews.net... snip total clap-trap Please do yourself a favour, find a frecking clue. If the recording company wants to charge 1k per listen than that is their RIGHT, if you don't like it tuff ****e, you don't have to buy their works - nor does it make it acceptable for you to steal from the artist or record company. QED. And there ends lesson one in our ongoing series: "How to end an interesting and intelligent theoretical discussion with puerile, childish and rather pointless remarks." Join us for part two of the series where Jerry tells an innocent Usenet poster to "FOAD" for apparently being a "troll". Lee. -- lee at w2designs dot co dot uk If I have one flaw, it's that I'm a perfectoinist. |
Update 2: The BBC Intergrated Media Player trial and DRM......how to hack?
":::Jerry::::" wrote:
"MJ Ray" wrote in message reenews.net... snip total clap-trap Please do yourself a favour, find a frecking clue. Frecking? Do you have a problem with ****ing? It might explain a lot. If the recording company wants to charge 1k per listen than that is their RIGHT, if you don't like it tuff ****e, you don't have to buy their works - nor does it make it acceptable for you to steal from the artist or record company. QED. In order: - it's only their "right" because there's a law saying so, which we could change and encourage more creativity instead of the same old overpriced plastic pop; - I don't buy their works, but the power of those monopolists over distribution channels is marginalising liberal recording companies through unfair competition; - I don't steal from the artist or record company. Hope that helps. |
Update 2: The BBC Intergrated Media Player trial and DRM......how to hack?
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 15:02:29 +0000, :::Jerry:::: wrote:
"steve" wrote in message ... snip trolling You are the bull-****ting trolling moron. Read the Copyright Act FULLY, and stop Cherry picking. Jerry, you only had one thing to do: State which part of the copyright act was being violated in order to justify your own assertion that the copyright act was the reason for you to call the OP a criminal. Not a tough call - if of course the copyright act supported you. Guess what Jerry, you have failed, the reason of course is because your original claim was bull****. Most men would learn from their error and admit they had got it wrong. Not Jerry though, no Jerry is not most men. Jerry, you suggested I look at the section on time shifting so I did, I quoted it back at you. You responded that I was cherry picking. Now that would be fair enough except that I 'cherry picked' the section chosen by you to support your delusion. So Jerry, having been utterly humiliated you 'cherry picked' another: the section on archiving - no surprise there that it also did not support your claim either. Jerry, I am now embarrassed for you, every time you post you make yourself out to be a bigger idiot than last time - which in itself is some feat. I suppose that is your greatest achievement, when it looks like you cannot make a bigger arse of yourself, a feat most men would feel was beyond them, you still managed to surpass all expectations. You should really pat yourself on that back for that Jerry. Jerry, you are indeed truly amazing. You are incredibly resolute in the face or all facts, Jerry still goes onwards. Amazing. If you ever want to discuss the curvature of the earth anytime just let me know. |
Update 2: The BBC Intergrated Media Player trial and DRM......how to hack?
"Dr Hfuhruhurr" wrote in message oups.com... snip utter clap-trap trying to defend copyright abuse FOAD you ignorant load of common criminals - you would soon start screaming from the roof tops if your income was been stolen, I bet.... |
Update 2: The BBC Intergrated Media Player trial and DRM......how to hack?
"steve" wrote in message ... On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 15:02:29 +0000, :::Jerry:::: wrote: "steve" wrote in message ... snip trolling You are the bull-****ting trolling moron. Read the Copyright Act FULLY, and stop Cherry picking. Jerry, you only had one thing to do: State which part of the copyright act was being violated in order to justify your own assertion that the copyright act was the reason for you to call the OP a criminal.snip I already have. READ the Copyright Act. Stop trolling. |
Update 2: The BBC Intergrated Media Player trial and DRM......how to hack?
"[email protected]" wrote in message ... snip And there ends lesson one in our ongoing series: "How to end an interesting and intelligent theoretical discussion with puerile, childish and rather pointless remarks." Oh sorry, I though this thread had started out as "How to commit copyright abuse", indeed the subject line still states that... |
Update 2: The BBC Intergrated Media Player trial and DRM......how to hack?
"MJ Ray" wrote in message reenews.net... ":::Jerry::::" wrote: "MJ Ray" wrote in message reenews.net... snip total clap-trap Please do yourself a favour, find a frecking clue. Frecking? Do you have a problem with ****ing? It might explain a lot. Not at all, assuming that I wanted to risk loosing my ISP / NNTP account... If the recording company wants to charge 1k per listen than that is their RIGHT, if you don't like it tuff ****e, you don't have to buy their works - nor does it make it acceptable for you to steal from the artist or record company. QED. In order: - it's only their "right" because there's a law saying so, which we Well, it's only the law that stops someone from stealing your bank balance, if you don't want to obey a law that you personally don't agree with then why should others not 'Cherry Pick' the laws they obey or not? Where will this all end... could change and encourage more creativity instead of the same old overpriced plastic pop; - I don't buy their works, but the power of those monopolists over distribution channels is marginalising liberal recording companies through unfair competition; - I don't steal from the artist or record company. So you don't own any copies of commercial music or film's then? |
Update 2: The BBC Intergrated Media Player trial and DRM......how to hack?
":::Jerry::::"
Not at all, assuming that I wanted to risk loosing my ISP / NNTP account... If you read your AUPs, you'd know that being abusive, defamatory and menacing risks your accounts, not just the particular words you use. - it's only their "right" because there's a law saying so, which we Well, it's only the law that stops someone from stealing your bank Yet again, you ignore that if someone takes my bank balance, then I no longer have it. If I copy something, the owner is not deprived of their property, which means it's not denying their human rights AFAICT. It's copyright infringement, not stealing. A creation of our law, not a universal right. balance, if you don't want to obey a law that you personally don't agree with then why should others not 'Cherry Pick' the laws they obey or not? Where will this all end... There's a difference between saying a law is unjust and absurd, and disobeying it. The thread started with someone posting how to disobey a law, while I say the law they're disobeying is absurd. Can your mind not cope with these differences? - I don't buy their works, but the power of those monopolists over distribution channels is marginalising liberal recording companies through unfair competition; - I don't steal from the artist or record company. So you don't own any copies of commercial music or film's then? Commercial doesn't mean that it has to be unfairly licensed. I've bought copies commercially, but I don't buy ones under unfair licences or that use unethical practices (Sony rootkit!). |
Update 2: The BBC Intergrated Media Player trial and DRM......how to hack?
"MJ Ray" wrote in message reenews.net... ":::Jerry::::" Not at all, assuming that I wanted to risk loosing my ISP / NNTP account... If you read your AUPs, you'd know that being abusive, defamatory and menacing risks your accounts, not just the particular words you use. - it's only their "right" because there's a law saying so, which we Well, it's only the law that stops someone from stealing your bank Yet again, you ignore that if someone takes my bank balance, then I no longer have it. snip excusses to abuse copyright Exactly, if someone takes your income then you no longer have it, if you steal copies of people work then they don't have an income, are you simple or just a troll?... So you don't own any copies of commercial music or film's then? Commercial doesn't mean that it has to be unfairly licensed. I've bought copies commercially, but I don't buy ones under unfair licences or that use unethical practices (Sony rootkit!). If you don't like the rules then don't play the game, as they say. |
Update 2: The BBC Intergrated Media Player trial and DRM......how to hack?
":::Jerry::::"
"MJ Ray" wrote: Yet again, you ignore that if someone takes my bank balance, then I no longer have it. snip excusses to abuse copyright Exactly, if someone takes your income then you no longer have it, if you steal copies of people work then they don't have an income, are you simple or just a troll?... You're a troll, snipping the answer to your own question: taking a copy of work is not stealing because they still have it; and there are other ways to get an income from work than an artificial monopoly. Commercial doesn't mean that it has to be unfairly licensed. I've bought copies commercially, but I don't buy ones under unfair licences or that use unethical practices (Sony rootkit!). If you don't like the rules then don't play the game, as they say. So why are you still posting wild unsubstantiated accusations to newsgroups? If you don't like the rules, don't play. |
Update 2: The BBC Intergrated Media Player trial and DRM......how to hack?
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 11:00:01 +0000, :::Jerry:::: wrote:
"steve" wrote in message ... On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 15:02:29 +0000, :::Jerry:::: wrote: "steve" wrote in message ... snip trolling You are the bull-****ting trolling moron. Read the Copyright Act FULLY, and stop Cherry picking. Jerry, you only had one thing to do: State which part of the copyright act was being violated in order to justify your own assertion that the copyright act was the reason for you to call the OP a criminal.snip I already have. READ the Copyright Act. All you have ever said is "I suggest you read and digest what the clause regarding time-shifting (with due regard to the section about archiving) in the Copyright Act" You have already admitted that the 7 day limit is not specified in the law, you said that in the same post, only you Jerry would prove yourself wrong in the same post. So, sure we have already agreed archiving is not permitted and thus would be an offence. You claimed removing the DRM from the recording would violate the act, you claimed it was different to recording to hard disc from an PVR or DTT card. As there is no limit, you added 'reasonable time' to the copyright law too, then the only thing the law states is that you cannot keep the recording forever to view and view again, that law explicitly states you may watch it later. Are people that go on holiday for two weeks and catch up on Eastenders all criminals? None of your claims can be substantiated by the copyright act. If your claim that the OP is a criminal because of section in said act then your claim is clearly wrong, you are therefore wrong and your persistent repetition just makes you look an arse (different to an elbow). This is the crux of it though isn't it Jerry. You would rather argue a false point that admit you are wrong - this is what makes you a pathetic idiot. You know you are wrong (if I am being generous) yet you feel not admitting so make you look better - while the whole world knows it make you look more of an idiot each time you carry on digging. Reply again it you feel you do not look stupid enough. |
Update 2: The BBC Intergrated Media Player trial and DRM......how to hack?
"MJ Ray" wrote in message reenews.net... ":::Jerry::::" "MJ Ray" wrote: Yet again, you ignore that if someone takes my bank balance, then I no longer have it. snip excusses to abuse copyright Exactly, if someone takes your income then you no longer have it, if you steal copies of people work then they don't have an income, are you simple or just a troll?... You're a troll, snipping the answer to your own question: taking a copy of work is not stealing because they still have it; and there are other ways to get an income from work than an artificial monopoly. Oh right, so you not only make you own boot-leg copies but you also buy a commercial copy! If you abuse copyright you are STEALING. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:42 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HomeCinemaBanter.com