Connect with us

So what's the truth about lead-free solder ?

Discussion in 'Electronic Repair' started by Eeyore, Jul 24, 2007.

Scroll to continue with content
  1. He is probably referring to his pathetic sexual performance with the
    few whores who do not wisely reject him.
     
  2. They are suing somebody for a youtube (or the like) clip, person had thier
    toddler dancing to music from Prince playing on a TV in the background.

    Hollywood has gone nuts, probably full of rabits too.
     
  3. Arfa Daily

    Arfa Daily Guest

    Even given the current copyright laws, I would think that any chance of
    successfully prosecuting a ludicrously ridiculous case such as you cite, is
    slim to zero ...

    Arfa
     
  4. Arfa Daily

    Arfa Daily Guest

    So, if you don't dispose of them in public, what *do* you do with them ? Put
    them back in your pocket, perhaps ? Sounds like a normal hanky to me ...
    ;-)

    Arfa
     
  5. Lamey

    Lamey Guest

    More abuse from prong.

    --
    Join irc.exilenet.org
    #southpark_radio

    Usenet lits score:

    GIT-R-DONE!
    alt.usenet.legends.lamey
    http://blu05.port5.com
    AUK Offishal Tinfoil Sombrero award 05/07
    #20 Usenet asshole
    #6 Lits Slut
    #9 Cog in the AUK Hate Machine
    <approved by Lionel>
    #11 Most posting trolls/hunters/flonkers 2007
    #1 Disenfranchised AUK Kookologist.
    #1 AUK Galactic Killfile Award
    < we all know how well that works...LOL >
    #33 on Teh Buzzard lits o lub.
    #4 miguel's pest list, rev 1.1:
    Co-inventer of the "Prongtard Yap-Dog Award"

    <working on one of them specheel AUK awards>
    http://www.dino-soft.org/microsoft/security/updates/doitBST.html
     
  6. They succeeded in having the clip removed from the internet.
     
  7. Arfa Daily

    Arfa Daily Guest

    But that's not the same as prosecuting the person for an innocent act. If
    you are going to start getting as pedantic as that, then you are going to
    have to start prosecuting people for having their iPods on too loud, and
    'broadcasting' illegally to the general public surrounding them on the train
    or wherever. I am actually surprised that Prince, or even his record or
    publicity company, would have engaged in this piece of negativity, given
    that his latest ( soon to be for sale at full price ) album was given away
    for free over here in one of the Sunday newspapers two weeks ago ...

    Arfa
     
  8. Yes, I am no lawyer and do not know the exact details,
    but this was in the news.
    I think those record companies are represented by some organisation of sharks
    that claims trillions are lost each year from illegal copies and in
    this case illegal performances.
    In my country it is the BUMA that is doing this, and I clearly remember
    a well known artist here telling in his show that he had to pay royalties
    because he sang one of his own texts (somebody was in the hall and clocked it).
    We all know that 'illegal copies' are not the same as buying a CD, in fact
    only help make the artist known, and people will buy the music or whatever
    anyway if they can.
    They killed allofmp3.com too, a good place to buy mp3 music that plays on all
    players.
    Only to set up their own shops.

    It is a bit the elephant principle, if a big elephant comes your way, you step aside.
    I can imagine if some couple gets a 'cease and desist' (I am familiar with those
    I got one too some years ago), they can either look in their purse and see if they
    have 20000$ cash to spare for some lawyers TO START WITH, or just step aside for
    the elephant, Hollywood and their knights have _unlimited_ resources.
    They do _not_ play fair, for example I suspect that is is people payed
    by Hollywood and their clowns that spam sci.crypt to death.
    NOBODY shall know about cryptography (might break an other sick copy protection
    scheme sold to the suckers by yet other sharks).

    What it boils down to for me is: Given the situation where I have to decide
    to push the button for the Hollywood targeted ICBM, and asked: Should we launch?
    I would think of that case and say: Why not.
    Else I would have objected on human grounds.
    The love you make is equal to the love you take, (Beatles).
     
  9. Arfa Daily

    Arfa Daily Guest

    All that you say is of course true. However, even Hollywood would have to
    seek to prosecute in the country that the person who they feel is guilty of
    the misdemeanor, resides, I think, unless the 'offence' was actually
    committed on U.S. soil. Given that, I can't see any judge in this country at
    least, allowing such a silly contention that a toddler dancing to a piece
    of music that was already in the public domain from the TV broadcaster,
    constituted a 'breach of copyright', and would therefore throw it out of his
    (her) court before it wasted any more money. Whenever I see stuff like this
    in the press, I always take it with a pinch of salt, as I think that in most
    cases, it is either a mis-reporting of the basic facts in that there is more
    to it than we are being told, or else it's just perpetuation of an 'urban
    myth'. You have to remember that it does not make good 'news' to report a
    'proper' crime having taken place. Much better to make it look like some
    innocent family (who will of course have been photographed for the piece,
    along with granny and grandad and the neighbours all looking suitably
    po-faced, and the youngster in question all tearful) has been victimised by
    a huge heartless mega-corporation ...

    Arfa
     
  10. Nice try, let's see for real:
    Google: 'toddler prince video'

    835,000 hits
    OK, this looks interesting:
    Dancing Toddler Video Yanked from YouTube Triggers Lawsuit
    http://digg.com/tech_news/Dancing_Toddler_Video_Yanked_from_YouTube_Triggers_Lawsuit
    Seems the mother gotted pissed and has some cash to spare:
    A mother is suing Universal Music Publishing Group for insisting a video of
    her toddler dancing to music by pop star Prince be yanked from YouTube on
    copyright violation grounds.
    Ah, I see it is now EEF that supports the mother in the lawsuit:
    http://www.metimes.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20070725-032305-5848r
    EFF lawyers contend Universal is abusing a Digital Millennium Copyright Act
    provision that calls on Web sites to remove copyrighted material at the
    behest of owners.


    So, let's hope she wins.
    But for now the Hollywood bastards are bullying everybody and their cat.

    The fun part is that technology will get them in the end.
    Few more years (if you extrapolate the curve) and memory storage will be
    such that everybody will have a copy of all Hollywood ever made, on their bookshelf,
    copy too in a second or 2.

    Launch
     
  11. John Fields

    John Fields Guest

    ---
    Ermm...

    It's a little different from that.


    From the "Abbey Road" album:

    The End

    Oh yeah, all right, are you going to be in my dreams tonight?

    Love you, love you, love you love you…

    And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make.
     
  12. Arfa Daily

    Arfa Daily Guest

    Ah ... So there you are, you see. Universal were not actually trying to
    prosecute the person concerned. They were making use of a law that already
    existed to have the content removed from a public domain website, on
    copyright grounds. Were they being pedantic - perhaps - and if so, for what
    reasons ? Or is there actually yet more to it than we are being told ... ?
    Media still trying to make it look like a good 'David and Goliath' story ?
    So has the mother decided off her own bat to try to sue Universal, or has
    she been 'encouraged' to do so by some other organisation ( EEF Lawyers?? )
    as a suitable test-case to suit their own agenda ?

    Whilst it all seems a bit silly, and a waste of time and money, a law
    never-the-less exists, which appears to cover the case in question, so by
    contesting it, you are not trying to prove your innocence of having
    committed any offence, which strictly speaking you have, of course, rather,
    you are trying to prove that the law is stupid and needs revising. I would
    suggest that the chances of that happening are very slim, and all that is
    going to happen is that a lot of time and money and court-time that could be
    much more valuably used, will be wasted.

    I'm all for the little man not falling victim of big corporations, but
    sometimes it all just gets rather silly, and blown out of any realistic
    proportion.

    Arfa
     
  13. Eeyore

    Eeyore Guest

    Why would 'Hollywood' sue over the use of a music track ?

    Graham
     
  14. Eeyore

    Eeyore Guest

    Jan's got the story back to front. He seems to get everything back to front in
    fact.


    Youtube video:Mother to Sue

    A mother is suing Universal Music Publishing Group for insisting a video of her
    toddler dancing to music by pop star Prince be yanked from YouTube on copyright
    violation grounds.

    Electronic Frontier Foundation lawyers said they filed a lawsuit yesterday
    asking a San Francisco federal court to protect the woman's fair use and free
    speech rights.
    http://prince.org/msg/7/236123?jump=9&pg=1

    Graham
     
  15. Eeyore

    Eeyore Guest

    It shows.

    And you misunderstood it. The mother is suing Universal Music !

    Allofmp3 was a 'pirate' site you utter fathead, situated in Russia where they paid no
    copyright fees. Of course it got shut down.

    Graham
     
  16. Eeyore

    Eeyore Guest

    Universal were entirely within their rights to ask for the apparently copyright infriging
    material to be removed from YouTube. Were they over-reacting - certainly IMHO in this case
    but they weren't suing the mother involved as Jan alleged.

    And.... the mother is certainly entitled to sue Universal under 'fair use' provisions of
    the law.

    This case may actually serve a good purpose by making it clearer what should and shouldn't
    be acceptable use. From what I heard, the music was 'in the background'. I'd have said
    Universal must be utterly crazy to insist on its removal if that's true.

    Graham
     
  17. Yea, Abbey Road :), I had the vinyl, got given away once when I moved to
    a different city.....
    I have some on it on mp3 now.
    Now that you Verbatim quated it, maybe there bots scan Usenet too
    (4 sure they do).
    I got a lot of hits from some of their spy bots on my web site.
    All in the firewal (the ones I know).
    I had almost all their records, I even have Tony Sheridan yaya :)
     
  18. Yea, well, I dunno, you look at it from the large cooperation POV, sure
    EFF lawyers could have contacted her, or vice versa.
    What needs to be understood by Hollywood & Clan is that you cannot
    charge for somebody whistling a popular song, or dancing to
    some popular song, one even being broadcasted freely.

    It is like giving out free ice cream and then coming after you, to collect.
    They just make money over the back of others anyways, a CD should not cost
    more then 41 cent.... but hundreds of people make money producing one.
    It is a dead end industry, one of the clearest indications of Hollywood
    being dead is the low amount of new movies on TV.
    For example BBC is now for the third year transmitting the same Top Cat cartoons.
    (Probably more then 3 years but I only noticed it the last 3), other
    movies are also circulated and repeated no end.

    Well that was just a wink to BBC, but really, if you were forced to watch
    it everyday, I could not blame anyone for becoming a terrorist.

    I know Hollywood and Clan have produced, and produce more stuff, but nobody
    buys it seems.

    Just joking around a bit....

    All was OK with allofmp3.com, the people bought their mp3s there,
    it had no copy protection, they still bought it because the price was fair
    for a copy / download.

    It is the same as Microsoft, charging hundreds of dollars for a 1$ DVD copy
    of a very mediocre OS (Vista), it cannot last.
    Price will have to go down, there was an article on NYTimes or CNN that
    in China now MS sells legal version of windows for a few dollars, to
    grab back the market (from illegal copies and Linux).

    Pestering your customers by restricting what they can do with what you make,
    is not right for business, not of this time.

    Lets leave it at that.
     
  19. Eeyore

    Eeyore Guest

    allopmp3.com simply pocketed the money and didn't pay anything to the copyright
    holder, taking advantage of Russian law that doesn't respect intellectual property.

    What's 'OK' about that ?

    Graham
     
  20. Eeyore

    Eeyore Guest

    You just can't help advertsing how stupid you are can you ?

    Graham
     
Ask a Question
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.
Electronics Point Logo
Continue to site
Quote of the day

-