|
|
|
27th of April, 2009
11:09 pm - Real pirates
Dear ARIA,
These guys are pirates. Script kiddies who download your music are bootleggers.
Maybe you'll also stop with the fucking annoying ads comparing downloading to purse snatching. Though I'd love to see something in court where the claims of vast amounts of sums lost to downloaders are dismissed your own marketing compares it to petty theft.
Cheers
Me.
Current Mood: ![[mood icon]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/mood/growf/pengies/annoyed.gif) cynical
|
25th of November, 2008
02:33 pm - RIAA may finally face someone bigger than them
There's a variety of opinions on the ethics of music file sharing. Some are in Teh Intarwebz should B free category. Others are in the "user pays" block. I'm more inclined to go with the free-sample-and-if-I-like-it-I'll-buy-it-group. From my understanding a musician makes more money from concerts and merchandise (t-shirts and things) than actual album sales. I'm aware that this differs depending on the genre but as a generalisation I believe it's fair.
But the over-arching bodies like ARIA and RIAA in the US use tactics that are high on the bully boy scale. ARIA has managed to get Music Industry Piracy Investigations some sort of pseudo police status in having it rather than the police carry out warrants and seizures.
In the US RIAA is noted for suing those who are easy targets; like grandmothers or 12 year old kids. There was a lot of curiosity as to why RIAA left the known file sharers of Harvard University alone. Seems the University's outspoken professors of the Berkman Center for Internet & Society might have something to do with it.
Professor Charles Nesson of the Centre decided he'd waited long enough for RIAA to come knocking on Harvard's Door and went out to see if he could find a case to become involved in. He has.
He makes the argument that the Digital Theft Deterrence and Copyright Damages Improvement Act of 1999 is very much unconstitutional, in that its hefty fines for copyright infringement (misleadingly called "theft" in the title of the bill) show that the bill is effectively a criminal statute, yet for a civil crime. That's because it really focuses on punitive damages, rather than making private parties whole again. Even worse, it puts the act of enforcing the criminal statute in the hands of a private body (the RIAA) who uses it for profit motive in being able to get hefty fines:
Imagine a statute which, in the name of deterrence, provides for a $750 fine for each mile-per-hour that a driver exceeds the speed limit, with the fine escalating to $150,000 per mile over the limit if the driver knew he or she was speeding. Imagine that the fines are not publicized, and most drivers do not know they exist. Imagine that enforcement of the fines is put in the hands of a private, self-interested police force, that has no political accountability, that can pursue any defendant it chooses at its own whim, that can accept or reject payoffs in exchange for not prosecuting the tickets, and that pockets for itself all payoffs and fines. Imagine that a significant percentage of these fines were never contested, regardless of whether they had merit, because the individuals being fined have limited financial resources and little idea of whether they can prevail in front of an objective judicial body. Looks like there may finally be some interesting viewing going on with copyright laws in the US.
Hat tip to Copyfight.
Current Mood: ![[mood icon]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/mood/growf/pengies/confused.gif) curious
|
30th of October, 2008
26th of August, 2008
01:04 pm - Richard Dawkins reads his hate-mail aloud
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlJdFf3hV7I
Via Boing Boing.
I have to agree with him. Most of the email comes off as sounding rather sad and pitiable.
Current Mood: ![[mood icon]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/mood/growf/pengies/amused.gif) amused
|
16th of April, 2008
07:01 pm - Ebay does WHAT?!?!?
Just stumbled across this article about Ebay removing payment options for transactions as from 17th of June.
All items appearing on eBay.com.au as of 17 June 2008 must be paid for using one of the following:
1. PayPal
2. Pay on pick up (i.e. paid for when picking up the item)
3. Visa/MasterCard (with transactions processed by PayPal).
So no direct deposit, no cheques, no money orders and no non-Paypal credit transactions.
The ACCC have begun investigations into whether this can be considered Trade Monopoly and have asked people for submissions. Ebay have effectively agreed that it is but have asked for an exemption under the auspices of them doing it for the safety of Australian Ebay users.
Unsurprisingly, many Ebay users seem to think they are able to make up their own minds about what is best for them. And while I generally think online petitions aren't worth the paper they're written on I'm going to sign this one.
Normally I don't spend much time on the Ebay forums, but they're awash with discussion too.
Personally I use Paypal, but for local buyers I use Direct Deposit where available. I've been buying things online for over 10 years now. And I was buying things from overseas before I had a computer. They only time I've ever had a problem with losing money: Paypal.
I'm hoping that the ACCC will be treating Ebay like the Microsoft of online Auctions. Then perhaps the choice of payment options will be retained. Ebay is already getting money from listing fess and a percentage of the sale price. They don't need more from handling the transaction as well.
 Edit: Apparently there was a story on this on A Current Affair tonight as well. The talking head from Ebay likened the introduction of Paypal to the introduction of the use of seat-belts in Australia (!) and someone has already come with this:
Current Mood: annoyed
|
4th of December, 2007
11:57 pm - Christmas bland is here again.
You may have heard about the prats in Sydney trying to school their Santas not to say Ho Ho Ho.
My first reaction was one of just stunned silence. I thought they couldn't be serious. Then I realised this has probably come from a marketing exec in Sydney and yes they're probably that stupid.
The whole idea of a world where you won't be offended is a utopian myth. I also think that if you were a woman and found the idea of Santa saying "Ho Ho Ho" was some sort of pejorative term implying you have sex for money then you've got far more problems than a fat bloke in a red suit asking if you've been good this year.
Get the fuck over it! And while I'm on the subject, those Christian groups who want to see Santa removed from Christmas celebrations can bite me too. The Puritans tried banning Christmas celebrations as far back as the 17th century. People didn't think this was a Good thingTM (It may have had something to do with the forced closing of the pubs and the requirement of people to attend 3 hour sermons, but you never know). Also if you happen to be Islamic/Jewish/Wiccan/Whatever and a local Church has set up nativity scene on their lawn, just ignore it. If you complain that just gives them the right to turn around and complain when you have a Passover Festival or a Ramadan Fete or whatever. Seriously, just fuck off and die.
Now I'm not Christian. Haven't been for decades. And I'll happily point out the pre-Christian origins of most of the major Christian festivals. However, if people want to celebrate their religion, as long as they're not telling me I'm some sort of evil incarnate, then fine. But I'm sick of people deciding that someone *might* be offended and thus preventing others from doing something enjoyable. Personally I don't think you have the RIGHT to go through life and not be offended. But I also think that you need to be grown up enough to respect that other people have different opinions and that you should accept that rather than crying to a government body asking them to put a stop to it.
Don't want to put lights up on your house? Then don't. Don't bitch to the council about light pollution or some crap unless there's a spotlight being shone in your bedroom window.
Don't want to take the kids to see Santa at the shopping centre because you want to teach them about the purity of your religion? Then don't. Though I'd guess with that sort of mentality you're living in a fenced compound and your kids are being home schooled anyway.
Someone wishes you "Merry Christmas" and you're not a Christian? Just say "thank you". Or "Happy Chanuka". Don't start bitching about it or get all "offended".
Think Santa is too fat and is setting a poor example of body image to our youth? Just fuck off. Yeah he's fat but he's probably one of the few people who hasn't developed some sort of neurosis about his looks. And you'd be a little on the heavy side if you ate all those cookies and milk and brandy.
This time of year is supposed to be about good will to all. The irony of it is that some people are just looking for an excuse to take offence.
I'm not prejudiced in my contempt - I hate the public equally.
This has been a pre-Christmas rant brought to you by Official Old AgeTM
EDIT: Santa sacked for saying Ho, Ho, Ho.
Current Mood: cranky
|
22nd of December, 2006
10:06 am - Santa "considered a Disney character".
Because Di$ney own everything written before WWII don't they?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6189521.stm
Bah humbug indead.
Current Mood: cynical
|
8th of November, 2006
10:26 pm - "Piracy" not as bad as claimed
PIRACY statistics are labelled "self-serving hyperbole" in a draft government report.
A confidential briefing for the Attorney-General's Department, prepared by the Australian Institute of Criminology, lashes the music and software sectors.
The draft of the institute's intellectual property crime report, sighted by The Australian shows that copyright owners "failed to explain" how they reached financial loss statistics used in lobbying activities and court cases.
Current Mood: ![[mood icon]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/mood/growf/pengies/blank.gif) Meh
|
31st of October, 2006
01:53 pm - Story Links
Umberto Eco in The Sydney Morning Herald writes Political correctness, as much as fundamentalism, is responsible for our state of absurdity.
Weird Al Yankovic talks about *almost* being in the original Star Wars movie.
A UK discussion paper was published this week comes to the shocking conclusion that home taping should be made legal! Glad we sorted that out.
Industial Light & Magic celebrates Halloween in style.
Having successfully incorporated nepotism into the ABC's Board, the Libs are now slagging SBS for "smut...pornography... and fail[ing] to clearly identify and label terrorist organisations to its viewers."
Lastly, MPAA goes into the next step of indoctrination with a merit patch for Boy Scouts who pass the requirements in "respecting copyright".
Current Mood: blah
|
6th of October, 2006
02:27 pm - Reasons American fundies should be shipped to Alaska No. 75692
Fred Phelps is at it again. The man who's Westboro Baptist Church picket funerals of American soldiers killed in Iraq "because this is God's punishment for allowing gays in the military" were planning on picketing the funerals of the five Amish girls killed this week. Intervention from the local Governor offering Police protection to the Amish has forced the group to cancel it's plans and they will be doing the syndicated radio circuit instead.
If there was ever a poster boy for all the things wrong with Fundamentalism, Fred Phelps is it.
Then there's Fundies who have less of an idea of irony than Alannis Morrisette. A Montgomery County family wants the classic novel "Fahrenheit 451" pulled from the high school reading list. "With God's name in vain being in there, that's the number one reason," said Diana's father Alton Verm. "There's no reason for it being read." The school has appointed a committee to review Verm's objections. But students are now circulating a petition in support of the book. They plan to wear t-shirts on Friday voicing their opinions.
Current Mood: cynical
|
14th of September, 2006
02:39 am - I Remember Townsend...
An extremely well written post by ![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif) liz_marcs about getting your facts right and why certain rehashes of the September 11 story should not get the attention they have.
Current Mood: ![[mood icon]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/mood/growf/pengies/happy.gif) impressed
|
12th of September, 2006
02:54 pm - Airport security again.
I wonder when it will stop?
Keen security personnel at Birmingham International Airport ordered a man to turn his t-shirt inside out because it bore a drawing of two crossed guns.
Staffordshire design engineer Dave Osbourne was wearing a Guns N Rollers t-shirt.
More details here.
Current Mood: annoyed
|
14th of May, 2006
10:41 pm - Copyright and IP news
Wal-mart wants to trademark the smilie face.
Apple Music loses court case to Apple Music. - Apple Computer Inc. is entitled to use the apple logo on its iTunes Music Store, a judge ruled Monday, rejecting a suit filed by Apple Corps Ltd., the guardian of The Beatles' commercial interests.
The results of the Australian Copyright "Fair Use" Review were announced - and Kim Weatherall has some interesting thoughts on it.
Current Mood: blah
|
2nd of May, 2006
03:23 pm - Using RIAA's figures against them
RIAA crying wolf all the way to the bank.
Ever since the rise of Napster in the late 1990s, the recording industry has pointed to piracy as a dire threat to its business model. After years of legal actions and generally irritating their customers, the labels finally figured out how to adapt their business model to respond to changing consumer expectations. Enter the digital music download and subscription services.
It seems RIAA's own figures show that while yes CD sales are down, digital downloads now comprise a huge chunk of their revenues.
But they're still trying to convince people that Teh Eefil Music Pirates are the cause of all their woes.
Current Mood: cynical
|
27th of April, 2006
02:56 pm - Australia's copyright laws to finally get an update?
A year after the Attorney General's Office releases its Fair Use Issues Paper, it looks like the ability to tape your favourite programme off the telly and watch it later may finally become legal in Australia.
Though of course "The Nine and Seven networks lodged a strongly worded joint submission to the review, arguing that any relaxation of the law would encourage piracy."
Well know know Channel 9 are already masters of "time shifting" - that's when you tune in to the advertise starting time of a show and wait for the last 10 minutes of the previous crap show you didn't want to watch anyway to finish.
Current Mood: ![[mood icon]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/mood/growf/pengies/sweat.gif) busy
|
21st of April, 2006
12:05 pm - Changing channels is a privilage!
WTF?
Royal Philips Electronics have lodged a patent application with the US Patent and Trademark Office that could let broadcasters freeze a channel during a commercial, so viewers wouldn't be able to avoid it.
Philips acknowledged, however, that the anti-channel changing technology might not sit well with consumers.
No shit Sherlock!
This may then pave the way for the "option" of paying additional fees not to see the ads. This ranks up there with the RIAA comments that Fair Use is not a "right" but a form of licence agreement that they may be entitled to revoke at some later date.
I just wish I had been able to get a ticket to hear Cory Doctorow earlier in the week.
Current Mood: ![[mood icon]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/mood/growf/pengies/wideeyed.gif) WTF?
|
31st of March, 2006
10:14 am - Signing your life away...
Princess Diana's wedding dressmaker, Elizabeth Emanuel, has no right to regain her own name as a trademark, Europe's highest court ruled Thursday.
When she was on the brink of bankruptcy, Emanuel sold her company and her trademark in 1997, to Frostprint Ltd, which changed its name to Elizabeth Emanuel International Ltd ('EE International'). EE International then assigned the registered trade mark to another company, Oakridge Trading Ltd ('Oakridge').
In 1999, she launched a fight to get her name back after the company that bought her trademark started selling clothes under her signature.
Just goes to show the twisted way in which Trademarks and corporate law work. I assume this would be a very similar instance to Dick Smith Electronics, which has had nothing to do with Dick Smith in over 20 years.
Current Mood: busy
|
17th of March, 2006
05:20 pm - Some links before the weekend.
The British Parliament is about to legislate itself out of existence (and also make it that much easier for someone with "not good" intentions to take over). Even The Times is concerned.
The USAnian Senate decides that a little more debt is good for America. How much? Up to $9,000,000,000,000 in fact! This makes each citizen's share of this debt is US$27,686.85. Nice.
Meanwhile American issues with homosexual marriages takes a bitch-slap: "Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution. You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."
In Australia it seems the Government still hasn't found its sense of humour. Richard Neville's satirical website that "featured a soul searching "apology" speech for the Iraq war has been shut down under orders from the Australian Government."
RIAA says future DRM might "Threaten Critical Infrastructure and Potentially Endanger Lives" but even that's not reason enough to allow you to circumvent it.
Lastly Isaac Hayes quits Southpark. Why? It seems that 10 years of slagging off other religions is OK but once you start laying into $cientology "there is a time when satire ends and intolerance and bigotry towards religious beliefs of others begins". Uh Huh. First Church of Hypocrisy is the one I think he belongs to.
Current Mood: cynical
|
23rd of February, 2006
21st of February, 2006
01:27 am - RIAA tries for bluff yet again
While in Australia ripping a CD to your iPod/MP3 player continues to be illegal, in the US a little thing called "Fair Use" has been around for sometime.
RIAA have now decided that allowing a person to "format shift" or copy from one medium to another is part of the licencing agreement and not Fair Use at all. Which also means that, if they so choose, they could then remove this licence option.
And while Australia's Attorney-General has been spruiking the idea that Australians shouldn't have worse copyright laws than the US, RIAA is trying to make the US laws more like Australia it seems.
Current Mood: cynical
|
8th of February, 2006
08:28 am - WTF?
Did I miss this or have people not heard about it?
A wireless telephone company in the US is hoping to patent some of the technology used to generate emoticons on mobile phones before they hit the mainstream.
Huh? So not wanting to patent whether I wipe my arse or the brand of loo paper I use, but the way I take the paper from the holder?
8-S
Current Mood: ![[mood icon]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/mood/growf/pengies/yawn.gif) still sleepy
|
29th of January, 2006
03:16 pm - Because, You Know, Movie Piracy is WRONG
The Motion Picture Assn. of America, the leader in the global fight against movie piracy, is being accused of unlawfully making a bootleg copy of a documentary that takes a critical look at the MPAA's film ratings system.
Copyfight adds: "Some of the MPAA's officers and lawyers appear to be admitting that they did pirate the movie, but for what they claim are good reasons. Clearly the filmmaker's investigation into the MPAA's movie-rating process and its prejudices hasn't sat well with the MPAA. And, as the LA Times story points out, the MPAA appears to be operating under a double standard - telling the public that "ALL forms of piracy are illegal" but trying to justify its own piracy. Of course, if the MPAA is forced to admit that there are good reasons for making personal copies... well, camel, nose, tent."
And while we're on a roll,
A major Canadian record company has taken the unusual step of hiring a defense lawyer for a man accused by the U.S. record industry of downloading hundreds of songs illegally.
"Suing music fans is not the solution; it's the problem," says the chief executive of the Canadian music label, which will pay for the man's defense.
Current Mood: cynical
|
17th of November, 2005
04:50 pm - Sony just keeps going, and going...
Hot on the heals of the class action filed against Sony BMG for it's little Malware installation (that can apparently affect MACs too) it's bowed to public pressure and is withdrawing all the "CDs" from sale.
Though apparently none of the offending CDs have been sold in Australia. Small miracle I suppose.
Current Mood: ![[mood icon]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/mood/growf/pengies/geeky.gif) geeky
|
4th of November, 2005
05:45 pm - Oh fer Fu$k's sake
It's bad enough the software industry (S.C.O. anyone?) screwing the concept of Itellectual Property into the depths of hell now the US Patents Office is going to issue a patent on a storyline.
And I thought the system was broken before!
Fucking Hell!
Current Mood: ![[mood icon]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/mood/growf/pengies/livid.gif) seething
|
11th of August, 2005
10:33 am - Thought Thieve$
From EFF (via ![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/syndicated.gif) copyfight)
Never afraid to reach new heights on the unintentional comedy scale, Microsoft UK debuted its Thought Thieves film competition in May. Microsoft called for original videos "about people stealing the ideas in your head"[PDF] and "intellectual property theft."
To counter this misleading campaign, a few good souls "stole" the idea and started the Thought Thieve$ film competition "about big companies stealing and profiting from the knowledge commons."
"Think about it: how would you feel if you saw your cultural traditions, collective creativity, thousands-year-old seed strains, indigenous medicinal knowledge, or even your very genetic code being passed off as the property of some multinational corporation? What would you do?
Here's an opportunity to tell your story. Send in your short film by September 16, 2005 for a chance to win prizes and be included in an international distribution and screening series. EFF is an affiliate of the competition.
More info is available here. Feel free to steal this post and pass it on.
Current Mood: grumpy
|
21st of June, 2005
03:25 pm - Copyright law in Australia
For those who haven't heard the Federal Government is seeking submissions from interested parties over its review of Copyright legislation.
As I mentioned to someone recently under Australian law it's currently illegal for you to rip the CDs that you have legitimately purchased to put the mp3 tracks on your player, record a programme off the TV for you to view later or make a "back-up" copy of a software package in case your hard disk crashes.
The fact that people do it doesn't make it legal. I'd be curious to whether Apple could face prosecution for aiding an illegal activity. And even if there are other legitimate uses for iPods the newly released TiVo recorder is obviously to be used for breaking the law.
Better still, under current copyright law a young Melbourne man is being prosecuted for "aiding and abetting the distribution of an infringing copy of a work". What did he do? Well the main thing seems to be when he was 16 years old (he's now 19) he had a link on his website to the MP3 WMA Land site. He is also alleged to have had a CDR, that may or may not have had audio tunes on it, in the home when it was raided by Federal Police.
So it may be that under the new regime of ARIA (who are not above raiding offices without the Federal Police) have decided that it might be worth prosecuting your cu$tomer$ because they're not buying as many CDs as they need you to!
Hassle your Federal MP and tell them Australia needs a "Fair Use" clause in its legislation!
And have a read of Just who are the copyright police?
Current Mood: annoyed
|
7th of June, 2005
10:37 am - A book to add to my list
Darknet : Hollywood's War Against the Digital Generation
I think I might have to add this one to my wishlist. It certainly looks like it will be an interesting read.
Current Mood: blah
|
10th of March, 2005
11:25 am - European copyright officially enters Lala land.
"Yesterday the French security researcher Guillame Tena, a.k.a. Guillermito, has been fined a suspended fine of 5000 euros by a French court for publishing a vulnerability in the Viguard anti-virus software of the company Tegam. ...This ruling can cripple security research in France, making it illegal to publish security vulnerabilities or the proof thereof by reverse engineering."
"...it's a little bit as if Ford was selling cars with defective brakes. If I realised that there was a problem, opened the hood and took a few pictures to prove it, and published everything on my Web site. Then Ford could file a complaint against me."
Though according to this article it would be allowable in Australia under "fair comment" provisions.
Though it remains to be seen how much of the USAnian DMCA will transfer into Australian law as part of the "Free Trade" agreement.
Current Mood: lethargic
|
18th of February, 2005
08:05 am - Australian copyright laws under review
For years millions of Australians have been routinely programming their VCRs to record a program or copying a CD on to their MP3 player.
Soon it could be legal.
And you think you own your tattoos?
Perhaps not.
Current Mood: blah
|
13th of December, 2004
12:30 pm - Does piracy = stealing?
Having recently been discussing this very topic with various people I found this little piece this morning which mentions an American High School student's exam grade.
He wrote a Compare and Contrast exam on the differences between piracy and stealing using as a base the US Supreme Court's decision saying that"[copyright infringement] does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud... The infringer invades a statutorily defined province guaranteed to the copyright holder alone. But he does not assume physical control over copyright; nor does he wholly deprive its owner of its use."
However his teacher disagreed on the content and flunked the kid anyway. He has now posted his exam paper on his site. While the exam certainly isn't going to win any awards it's not complete crap either (given that he's 16 and it was handwritten in 3 hours).
It will be interesting to see what happens from this.
Current Mood: sleepy
|
9th of December, 2004
05:44 pm - Teaching an old dog
Had to laugh at this.
Legal Times reports that MGM v. Grokster is on the Supreme Court agenda for review or denial this Friday: "Young Supreme Court law clerks, who help their justices screen cases and draft opinions, may be assigned a new task this week: explaining Grokster and Morpheus to their bosses, average age 70.7."
Current Mood: amused
|
8th of December, 2004
11:30 am - Changes to Australia's Copyright laws
I've been following various changes to the American copyright laws for a while now. The main proponents for change are not the people who make new material but the corporations that have come to own it long after the original author has died.
As part of the Australia/USA Free Trade Agreement we're apparently getting shafted with America's DMCA or Digital Millennium Copyright Act (which also references the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act).
Joy.
Though it would seem that it's not just a few people worried about fair use and free speech that are unhappy with the changes. ISPs are also getting on board saying that the new regulations could easily be abused and has removed the damages protection that was previously included as part of the FTA. And how "likely" do you need to be before you're "likely to contain infringing material" anyway?
USAnian lawyers recently took a shot at the Australian Gutenberg site claiming they had jurisdiction over Gone with the Wind, even though the book has been Public Domain in Oz for 5 years.
The last thing Australia needs is new laws that only benefit corporations. And let's face it, the current time frame of life + 50 years means that by the time the copyright has expired even the author's grandkids will be ready for retirement. The original term for copyright in the USA was 14 years. I think the incentive to create new material would be furthered by DEcreasing the copyright term rather than increasing it yet again.
Then of course there's the lovable scamps at Di$ney who are doing their best to push the envelope as far as they can for a mouse who hasn't done anything new since Fantasia.
Current Mood: ![[mood icon]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/mood/growf/pengies/sad.gif) worried
|
21st of September, 2004
11:57 am - Shiny new toys!
Last night I headed down to Northcote to pick up my newly completed backsword from lowslung. The basket was originally something my father had made for an ornamental scottish broadsword years ago but as it was solid brass I only needed to have the blade replaced with something a little more serviceable.
Didn't pick up the tent as Ange hadn't had a chance to pull it out of storage yet.
Got home and finally fixed the foot pedal on my sewing machine. I've been procrastinating for about 12 months on that. Finished sewing the hat band and started on the feathers while watching my recently aquired Buffy: The Vampire Slayer DVDs.
More feather sewing tonight.
Current Mood: bored
|
10:39 am - Lawyers shoot themselves in the foot
In recent years lawyers in USAnia have been sending out Cease & Desist notices to just about anyone who has a website. My favourite was a C&D sent to JK Rowling's personal website advising her she had infringed on Warner Bros. copyright of Harry Potter Funnily enough she didn't think so :-)
MPAA lawyers recently sent off a C&D letter to Linux Australia for supposedly providing access to two copyrighted movies: Grind and Twisted.
While it turns out that Grind and Twisted are both legitimately named software programmes the interesting bit is the invoking of a little-used section of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) aimed at stopping misuse: 512(f), which provides that anyone who knowingly misrepresents material as infringing "shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys' fees, incurred by the alleged infringer."
With any luck Linux Australia might be able to give them a nice kick to the cods and perhaps hit them with breach of the Australian Copyright Act for needless stress. Should be interesting.
|
4th of August, 2004
01:48 pm - More reasons not to implement the FTA
Aussies must block any party that "manufactures, imports, distributes, offers to the public, provides, or otherwise traffics in devices, products, or components, or offers to the public, or provides services that: are promoted, advertised, or marketed for the purpose of circumvention of any effective technological measure; have only a limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent any effective technological measure; or are primarily designed, produced, or performed for the purpose of enabling or facilitating the circumvention of any effective technological measure."
There goes your iPods
I wonder if the FTA comes with a complimentary jar of Vaseline?
Current Mood: annoyed
|
25th of July, 2004
12:05 am - Music & copyright
Some reading this evening reminded me of a few articles announcing that some Elvis Presly and The Beatles songs were soon to become Public Domain in the UK. Here, here and a rather funny look here (and there's even a little bitch fight about whether 300 year-old music that has been "edited" now falls under the copyright of the editor).
Now I know USAnia has gone to bizarro world with it's copyright extensions (life + 95 years! Even the author's grandkids will be dead by then!), but to my knowledge Australia still has the same copyright laws as the UK as part of the Berne Convention.
I've had a concept jumbling around in my head for a while now which was wondering if Mickey Mouse was now Public Domain in Australia. And if the UK's copyright laws are still at 50 years then he'd be Public Domain there too. Not that I intend to set up a rival to the Di$ney Store (are they still around?) but I'm just curious.
Don't suppose anyone here knows much about Australian copyright?
Current Mood: curious
|
13th of July, 2004
10:11 pm - Linkage
Stolen from a variety of places...
8,000 bloggers born every day Of which 2,880 annoy family, and 960 get sued.
The bullshit about copyright in the US has now arrived on the doorstep of University Presses. When you don't need thousands to fight it in court, all you need is a threatening letter.
And on a related note, the Inducing Infringement of Copyright Act (the Induce act) as an extension to the DCMA would involve the banning of technologies that provide an inducement for people to break copyright law. So if it goes through such things as iPods, DVD burners, CD burners, VCRs, WiFi stereos, AM/FM transmitters and probably even photocopiers could all be on the hitlist. Are American legislators legally required to be fucked in the head before they get into office?
Want an action figure of Jesus Christ? Buddha? Krishna? How about the Pope with a PPK? Then Jesus Christ Superstore is for you!
Australia Gets Drunk, Wakes Up In North Atlantic Best Piss up Eva!
To celebrate the credibility of our serving Prime Minister: http://www.johnhowardlies.com/
And in actual news Just about every single reason given for the War in Iraq was wrong! Gee, what a surprise that is!
Nerds for Hire. It seems to a slightly more reputable company than Ask the Tech Girl though I could be wrong.
Why grown men still have a thing for School Girls
Ðe NorðumbroMersian Club. Tis ðe tong ðis AngloSachsonen. What we would probably be speaking if the Normans has stayed in France.
Paper models or airships and rocket to download and build
Current Mood: ![[mood icon]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/mood/growf/pengies/thoughtful.gif) contemplative
|
29th of May, 2004
12:40 am - Eric Idle is a genius :-)
Eric Idle presents... The FCC Song.
"Here’s a little song I wrote the other day while I was out duck hunting with a judge… It’s a new song, it’s dedicated to the FCC and if they broadcast it, it will cost a quarter of a million dollars."
download here
Current Mood: amused
|
20th of May, 2004
10:05 am - Interesting defense.
It would seem Kazaa's legal team is using a 105 year old precedent in their Music Industry court case.
I'm inclined to agree with them.
(Though honestly I think it's much like ARIAA sueing Xerox for copyright infringement because they invented the copier that was used to make the copy.)
Current Mood: restless
|
6th of May, 2004
|
|
