Recording

"Steve Terry" wrote in message
...
"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...

Watch out, because the overbearing green movement, which would like to
micromanage our lives to an extent that makes the present government look
like libertations, will have a spy in your wardrobe if they get half a
chance, waiting to jump out and cut your knackers off if you attempt to
produce a third child.
Bill

Well something has to be done, the UK has now risen to an average of
490 people per Sq km!
Exceeding Holland who until now has always had the highest population
density in Europe at 480 pp Sq km

Shall we wait until we have a Thousand pp sq km before doing something
about it?

The reason the UK population is going to rise above 70m is that sucessive
governments have had immigration policies for many years that have let
anyone in. It's too late to do anything about it now, but I think it's
outrageous that the indiginous population should be told to restrict their
family size just to make room for a load of immigrants' kids. The fact is,
the indiginous birthrate is 1.7 per fertile woman, whereas for immigrants it
is twice that. This was in the Times the other day as part of the report on
J Porritt's pronouncement on population growth.

This sort of fact is kept from us by most of the media, especially the BBC,
but the proof of it is that places like Leicester will soon have the
indiginous population in the minority. The only thing that can do that
(other than a mass exodus) is a differential in birthrates.

It makes me laugh how Porritt has finally had to say something about
population. It's obvious that the UK cannot achieve the CO2 reduction
targets when they are set against the projected population growth. We'll be
lucky to to keep CO2 down to the present level. The greenies have kept very
quiet about this, because let's face it many of them are just the type of
person that has a lot of kids. You know, the hippy earth mother sort of
person that tend to have a stupid non-job with the local council or
somewhere. House full of kids, wood burning stove, row of boxes in the
kitchen for the recycling, and you can't see what you're doing in the living
room because they have those crappy little bulbs. Good grief! I even know of
one who makes the whole huge family **** in a shack in the back yard, so he
can recycle the **** onto the cabbage patch. Still, I suppose all this is a
fairly minor manifestation of human folly, compared to some of humanity's
daft ideas. And of course it's a free country so they can do what they like,
although if the overbearing greenies ever get their way this will no longer
be true.

Bill

On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 13:11:02 -0000, "Steve Terry" wrote:

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
.. .
"Roderick Stewart" wrote in
message .myzen.co.uk...
In article , Max Demian wrote:
I didn't know it had got that far, but, as indicated by the other
replies to
this post, it's not clear exactly what is meant by 'timeshifting' or
'archiving', and looks more like a, "There's a law against it but we
won't
enforce it honest," kind of a provision.

More a case of "If there was a specific law against it, it would be
hopelessly
impractical to enforce, it would generate a huge amount of pointless
paperwork
and it wouldn't save anybody anything at all, so we might as well not
bother".

Watch out, because the overbearing green movement, which would like to
micromanage our lives to an extent that makes the present government look
like libertations, will have a spy in your wardrobe if they get half a
chance, waiting to jump out and cut your knackers off if you attempt to
produce a third child.
Bill

Well something has to be done, the UK has now risen to an average of
490 people per Sq km!
Exceeding Holland who until now has always had the highest population
density in Europe at 480 pp Sq km

And we still don't have enough people to clear snow from the roads and
railways.

In article ,
Norman Wells wrote:
Roderick Stewart wrote:
In article , Mike Henry
wrote:
Is it specifically required that you watch it
in the same place, and/or that other people may not watch it too? I
didn't see any specific mention of a requirement to destroy the
recording. Perhaps you could point it out.

Indeed, I'd be interested to see that too. Also that other "Recording
programs for creating an archive library is strictly not permitted"
claim - if it really was that strict, it too would be explicitly
mentioned.

Phew! Well, that's me of the hook then. As someone who has paid for
the broadcasts I watch I feel entitled to watch them in any manner
and at any time I like, because it seems no more than the same
freedom the civilised world has become accustomed to when reading
books. If I pay for a book, I can read it where and when I like and I
don't have to tear it up or burn it when I've finished reading it.

Nevertheless, what the law says is:

"70 Recording for purposes of time-shifting

The making for private and domestic use of a recording of a broadcast or
cable programme solely for the purpose of enabling it to be viewed or
listened to at a more convenient time does not infringe any copyright in the
broadcast or cable programme or in any work included in it."

The only reasonable interpretation of that is that you can legally record a
programme to watch later but once you have you should not keep it,
especially since there is no corresponding let out for keeping it. However,
in practice, no-one will ever take action against you if you do.

I doesn't seem to say how much later you can watch it or that you can only
watch it once.

Peter

--
Peter Gillett :
Totnes : South Devon

"Peter Duncanson" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 13:11:02 -0000, "Steve Terry"
wrote:

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
. ..
"Roderick Stewart" wrote in
message
.myzen.co.uk...
In article , Max Demian wrote:
I didn't know it had got that far, but, as indicated by the other
replies to
this post, it's not clear exactly what is meant by 'timeshifting' or
'archiving', and looks more like a, "There's a law against it but we
won't
enforce it honest," kind of a provision.

More a case of "If there was a specific law against it, it would be
hopelessly
impractical to enforce, it would generate a huge amount of pointless
paperwork
and it wouldn't save anybody anything at all, so we might as well not
bother".

Watch out, because the overbearing green movement, which would like to
micromanage our lives to an extent that makes the present government
look
like libertations, will have a spy in your wardrobe if they get half a
chance, waiting to jump out and cut your knackers off if you attempt to
produce a third child.
Bill

Well something has to be done, the UK has now risen to an average of
490 people per Sq km!
Exceeding Holland who until now has always had the highest population
density in Europe at 480 pp Sq km

And we still don't have enough people to clear snow from the roads and
railways.


We do, we just don't employ people that way anymore.
In Victorian times every station had a station manager, staff, and
thousands of track workers.
Not far from where i live, a whole estate of terraced houses were built in
Victorian times for rail workers, they are all privately owned now.

Steve Terry

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...

"Steve Terry" wrote in message
...
"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...

Watch out, because the overbearing green movement, which would like to
micromanage our lives to an extent that makes the present government
look like libertations, will have a spy in your wardrobe if they get
half a chance, waiting to jump out and cut your knackers off if you
attempt to produce a third child.
Bill

Well something has to be done, the UK has now risen to an average of
490 people per Sq km!
Exceeding Holland who until now has always had the highest population
density in Europe at 480 pp Sq km

Shall we wait until we have a Thousand pp sq km before doing something
about it?

The reason the UK population is going to rise above 70m is that sucessive
governments have had immigration policies for many years that have let
anyone in. It's too late to do anything about it now, but I think it's
outrageous that the indiginous population should be told to restrict their
family size just to make room for a load of immigrants' kids. The fact is,
the indiginous birthrate is 1.7 per fertile woman, whereas for immigrants
it is twice that. This was in the Times the other day as part of the
report on J Porritt's pronouncement on population growth.


Yes, I saw a statistic that 2 out of 3 births in the UK are now to
immigrants or children of immigrants.

This sort of fact is kept from us by most of the media, especially the
BBC, but the proof of it is that places like Leicester will soon have the
indigenous population in the minority. The only thing that can do that
(other than a mass exodus) is a differential in birthrates.


Realistically the only solution is to vote with your feet and leave the
country, cos any other sort of voting has no effect.

Hence the brain drain is at it's highest since the 1960's

Steve Terry

In article , Peter Duncanson wrote:
As I see it, a broadcast is a public performance. We have no more right to
record a broadcast performance than we have to record any other public
performance governed by intellectual property laws, without the permission of
the IP owner. The law makes a specific exception for the time-shifting of
broadcast material.

So it does, but it still doesn't say how much time counts as time-shifting, and
it doesn't say what machinery I must use to watch the recording.

Nor could it, in practice.

Rod.
--
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

In article , Steve Terry wrote:
Yes, I saw a statistic that 2 out of 3 births in the UK are now to
immigrants or children of immigrants.

This sort of fact is kept from us by most of the media, especially the
BBC, but the proof of it is that places like Leicester will soon have the
indigenous population in the minority. The only thing that can do that
(other than a mass exodus) is a differential in birthrates.


Realistically the only solution is to vote with your feet and leave the
country, cos any other sort of voting has no effect.

Won't you be an immigrant yourself then, somewhere else?

Rod.
--
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

"Roderick Stewart" wrote in
message .myzen.co.uk...
In article , Steve Terry wrote:
Yes, I saw a statistic that 2 out of 3 births in the UK are now to
immigrants or children of immigrants.

This sort of fact is kept from us by most of the media, especially the
BBC, but the proof of it is that places like Leicester will soon have
the
indigenous population in the minority. The only thing that can do that
(other than a mass exodus) is a differential in birthrates.

Realistically the only solution is to vote with your feet and leave the
country, cos any other sort of voting has no effect.

Won't you be an immigrant yourself then, somewhere else?
Rod.


Of course, if you can't beat them join them
More importantly go to somewhere that values skills,
and has better weather.

Steve Terry

On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 14:50:24 -0000, Steve Terry wrote:

More importantly go to somewhere that values skills,
and has better weather.

Where would that be?

"Paul Ratcliffe" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 14:50:24 -0000, Steve Terry wrote:

More importantly go to somewhere that values skills,
and has better weather.

Where would that be?


Anywhere south of Dover

Steve Terry