As the late Mel Smith would have said ...
... "cut off their Goolies".
www.youtube.com/watch?v=04clpd7h0b0
1026 publicly visible posts • joined 3 Dec 2009
Firstly the Theft Act 1968 s1(1) is NOT teh be all and end all of the Theft act it is simply s1(1). Secondly you have misquoted it as it also says 'with the intention of permanently depriving '. Thirdly you need to account for "taking a motor vehicle without the owners consent - TWOC" is covered by section 12 of Theft Act 1968, even though there might be no intent to "permanently deprive"
Copyright infringement is an act of dishonesty that in the past was carried out by Publishers, people that weren't usually associated with the criminal classes. However, the law has no problems seeing it as theft when it wants to sanction the hoi polloi rather than the MacMillians and the HarperCollins of the world.
Firstly bullshit copy IP is a crime. From the UK government who know about the laws they pass
[
Unauthorised use of someone's IP can be classed as IP crime and may lead to prosecution.
]
http://www.ipo.gov.uk/ipenforce/ipenforce-crime.htm
[Deliberate infringement of copyright on a commercial scale may be a criminal offence.]
http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy/c-manage/c-useenforce/c-infringe.htm
Wrong copyright violation is theft, as a large number of judges and courts. But here is a recent case where a person convicted under anti-piracy laws was deported because they were convicted of a “theft offense (including receipt of stolen property)". The appeals court ruled "It is not unreasonable to deem piracy closely related to both counterfeiting and theft. See, e.g., World Copyright Law 2.29 (3d ed. 2007) (identifying piracy as a form of theft)"
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7434762040949534857
Since 2012 the payment processors have steadily withdrawn from servicing pirate sites, the advertisers have steadily pulled out, Google has been forced to service 6 million DMCA requests a week up from 200K. Every provision of SOPA has been implemented just not via oversights by court orders.
"Google wants the law changed as quickly possible, and we will collaborate with them to achieve that. But we have to be careful - Google are an important company, but they're not the only company we have to look after,"
And he wonders why people aren't voting for him and hos other idiot mates. He needs to have his head bashed on the table a few times.
.
Its damned easy to get caught by this stuff if you are momentarily distracted. When I was getting a new passport I was on a site that looked like a gubmint one. It was only at the end when they charged £40 (I was expecting to pay £80+ for the passport), that I realised that it wasn't what I thought it was. It was simply generating a prefilled in application form (which the gubmint site does for free). Anyway I emailed the payment processor and got refunded.
Too true.If I say anything critical of Google on this site it gets a bunch of thumb downs. Personally I've not clicked a YT video link in the last 18 months. I've posted anything to YT in about 5 years. When I wanted to upload a video of a band I record live recently I hosted the damn thing myself.
--
They have been inserting little memes in everybody's mind. So Google's shills can shriek there whenever they're inclined
When a French ISP did that Google whined all the way to the top of the French government. Personally I think we should give this quasi-criminal* company the finger, and block it entirely from the EU.
*
http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertlenzner/2014/01/17/how-a-500-million-fine-paid-by-google-for-selling-illegal-drugs-on-the-web-is-used-for-retiremernt-benefits-rhode-island-police/
--
They have been inserting little memes in everybody's mind. So Google's shills can shriek there whenever they're inclined
They remove over 20 million links to pirated content from search alone each month.
This is just another cost of doing business, and I likewise have no sympathy when a $100 billion company, that pays no taxes, whines about the cost of anything.
--
They have been inserting little memes in everybody's mind. So Google's shills can shriek there whenever they're inclined
"So what are they doing wrong?"
Whining like a spoiled brats. Getting their shills like Jimmy Wales to run from news outlet to news outlet crying about censorship (there is none) and how some 200 year old parchment wouldn't allow this to happen. Except it does and he's probably so misinformed on the issues 'cos he's reading handouts from Google along with hies shite wikipedia. In the US they have the Fair Credit Reporting Act which penalizes anyone that regulates credit-reporting agencies from disclosing 10 year old data.
There are costs associated with any business activity. Google thinks that those costs should be borne by society, individuals, minority groups, hell fuck anyone but Google.
--
They have been inserting little memes in everybody's mind. So Google's shills can shriek there whenever they're inclined
Exactly. Google knows that scrawling though decades old databases is going to fetch up irrelevant data. It knows that trawling through 4chan isn't going to result in accurate data about someone either. It chooses to do both and collate the results because it is cheaper than not doing so. Either that or its search algorithms are so crap that it can't tell shite from bull.
Now its playing the EVUL politician/criminal card. It its algorithms are any good it knows all about them too. Why does this $billion company always want someone else to foot the bill for its business?
---
They have been inserting little memes in everybody's mind. So Google's shills can shriek there whenever they're inclined
Because the original websites do not collate, process and publish personal data. Example there are credit reference agencies that collate someone's credit history, and court judgements. They then supply a report of such to paying clients and remove material after a certain length of time according to law. Just because a Google search engine does the same by trawling websites. How it obtains the data does not make it any less of a data processor than the credit reference agencies.
--
They're inserting little memes in everybody's mind
So Google's shills can shriek there whenever they're inclined
There are hundreds of millions of web pages that Google can put ads on. The company earns billions by scrapings fractions of pennies from a vast number of webpages. If they don't have to pay the web page creators then they get to keep a bit more of a fraction of a penny, and thus make millions extra.
Say you are part of a group that are shipwrecked on a desert island, would you give the biggest rewards to those that nail adverts on to everyone's hut, eavesdrop on everyone's conversations and subsequently shove fliers through your hut's door. Or would you reward the builders of huts, and the growers of food, and the makers of clothes?
On the internet we seem to have our priorities completely skewed.
They signed up for an email account on a google mail server. The IP address that they came from is listed on honeypots as having sent numerous spam. For forums the email has to be active and receiving mail for them to complete the forum signup process. The sign ups are mostly via bots. There is plenty of opportunity for a competent supplier of free mail accounts to detect spammers. It probably costs a bit to do so though, and thus that cost is passed on to everyone else. Screw them. If they can't stop their users from polluting the web then the web needs to shut them off at source.
When I analysed the spam signups to the company forum 80% were from gmail accounts. The rest were predominately hotmail and yahoo. Given that our users are from manufacturing companies and the reading the content doesn't require signing up, there was no need to allow gmail registration (or hotmail/yahoo either). In the past year we have had 2 individual requests to allow registration from a gmail account.
Our spammer signups have reduced from 200+ a day to about 20 a month.
More and more forums are rejecting gmail and other free email services as a legitimate method of sign up.
I'm told that you can always extract money from idiots with big boxes and big numbers. For audio most of the listeners can't tell the difference between systems. People are all listening to stuff through little earplugs, pumped out via some mobile phones, or ipods. Then they'll mostly have done some EQ nonsense of 'Rock', 'Pop'. or 'Live' to distort the sound production that the artist layed down. If its not earplugs its being shoved through some 5:1 surround sound crap with the 'Virtual' setting and tinny little speakers.
Same is true with photography. People will tell you that you need at least a £600 - 700 lens for macro photography. Bullshit you can it do with a £35 clip on lens. Put the two side by side in a controlled environment and yeah the £700 lens will out perform the £35 one. At the bottom of a damp ditch following some beetle up a swaying grass stalk and its all about technique, the £700 lens ain't gonna help.
Same with audio put two bits of equipment under test and the more expensive will seem to be better. Put them both in the average living room, and you'll be hard pressed to tell the difference.
The CD format is crap aurally. Fortunately for most people it doesn't matter as they can't hear the difference, they can't hear the difference with an mp3 either if the truth be told. You can destroy the confidence of an audiophile with a £15 car amp, a 192K bitrate mp3 and a pair of early 70s speakers. As a HiFi magazine editor said to me the other year, with a little bit of hype you can always sell big heavy boxes to idiots for big bucks.
I was in Portabello Road last year and one place was displaying LP from the 60s and 70s. They wanted premium prices £100+ for the things, mostly they were selling the LP sleeves, 'cos you can pick up the CDs and mp3 for a few quid. It is doubtful that in 40 years time they'll be a place displaying CD cases with similar price tags.
Whilst at the time us old hippies would have denied that we were buying packaging it seems that we were, and that we still do, even in the days of CDs. We still want that insert no matter how scant the extra information it contains is. Would you buy John Fahey's 'Yellow Princess' or 'Voice of the Turtle' with or without the liner notes? Given the choice would you rather Roger Dean artwork on an LP or in a CD?
Last night I was listening to something and though damn who is that piano player, I have the CD so could quickly check it out, not so easy with something streaming.
Screw them. I don't recall having been sent anything. I certainly won't have read it if it was sent. It's been years since I've been to the quack. I'm certainly not downloading a form to fill in and post elsewhere, certainly not the doctors surgery as whilst I know where it is I don't the address.
Best solution is to print-screen the form add a tick in whatever they are calling the 'fuck off' box these days, and emailing it as an attachment to whomever is the current political gobshite that is in charge of the NHS. Let that arsehole deal with it.
Quite. I don't give a shit about stupid web forum passwords they can all be the same for all I care and easy to type too, or at least the damn stupid computer can remember it. Other accounts might get a bit more security consciousness from me, but when they start messing about with stupid rules and make it complicated then count me out. Recently I was in the local bank setting up an online account. Having filled in the forms I was then asked to supply an 8-12 digit password. I'm never going to remember THAT without writing it down, then thought I don't have to write it down or remember it either. Reach into wallet, pull out a membership card use first 10 digits from that, look at bank employee and smile.
Wikipedia needs more people to blog on the site, one way that they do that is to sucker people in fixing a spelling error. If no one is going there there are no replacement drones, and the site generally fails. As of now the site is run mostly by automated scripts. Go to the site and bring up a random article. Look at the history and most likely it will have mostly been fiddled with by bots. The article count increases because they have semi-automated bots scraping gazette database for villages in India, and biological databases for organisms. Others are scraping transport database to list every bus route in the US. As the editor numbers decline, they have few and few people to maintain the place.