Maker Pro
Maker Pro

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

B

Brandon D Cartwright

Jan 1, 1970
0
Do, do tell what a "cram it in and go" idiot is.

He is probably referring to his pathetic sexual performance with the
few whores who do not wisely reject him.
 
J

Jan Panteltje

Jan 1, 1970
0
Frame captures, and small clips are part of what IS legal.

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.
 
A

Arfa Daily

Jan 1, 1970
0
Jan Panteltje said:
On a sunny day (Fri, 27 Jul 2007 23:43:58 -0700) it happened Spurious
Response


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.

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
 
A

Arfa Daily

Jan 1, 1970
0
Eeyore said:
I don't dispose of them in public.

Having a fresh tissue to hand has proven to be handy many many times, not
least
since you *can* offer one to someone else.

Graham
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
 
L

Lamey

Jan 1, 1970
0
You're the idiot.

You are so goddamned stupid that you don't even know how to watch a
fictional story.

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
 
J

Jan Panteltje

Jan 1, 1970
0
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

They succeeded in having the clip removed from the internet.
 
A

Arfa Daily

Jan 1, 1970
0
Jan Panteltje said:
They succeeded in having the clip removed from the internet.

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
 
J

Jan Panteltje

Jan 1, 1970
0
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

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).
 
A

Arfa Daily

Jan 1, 1970
0
Jan Panteltje said:
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).

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
 
J

Jan Panteltje

Jan 1, 1970
0
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

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
 
J

John Fields

Jan 1, 1970
0
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).

---
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.
 
A

Arfa Daily

Jan 1, 1970
0
Jan Panteltje said:
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

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
 
E

Eeyore

Jan 1, 1970
0
Jan said:
Spurious Response wrote

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.

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

Graham
 
E

Eeyore

Jan 1, 1970
0
Arfa said:
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 ...

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
 
E

Eeyore

Jan 1, 1970
0
Jan said:
Yes, I am no lawyer and do not know the exact details,

It shows.

but this was in the news.

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

They killed allofmp3.com too, a good place to buy mp3 music that plays on all
players.

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

Graham
 
E

Eeyore

Jan 1, 1970
0
Arfa said:
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.

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
 
J

Jan Panteltje

Jan 1, 1970
0
---
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.

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 :)
 
J

Jan Panteltje

Jan 1, 1970
0
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

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.
 
E

Eeyore

Jan 1, 1970
0
Jan said:
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.

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
 
Top