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

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

On a sunny day (Sat, 28 Jul 2007 10:52:06 GMT) it happened "Arfa Daily" wrote in :

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

On a sunny day (Sat, 28 Jul 2007 13:04:07 GMT) it happened "Arfa Daily" wrote in :

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

On a sunny day (Sat, 28 Jul 2007 14:15:34 GMT) it happened "Arfa Daily" wrote in :

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 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: 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

aside.

they

--
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.

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

signal.

complained

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

Graham

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.

Graham

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

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

On a sunny day (Sat, 28 Jul 2007 11:42:26 -0500) it happened John Fields wrote in :

aside.

those

they

for

launch?

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 :-)

On a sunny day (Sat, 28 Jul 2007 16:48:58 GMT) it happened "Arfa Daily" wrote in :

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.

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

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

Graham

On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 18:14:20 -0400 in sci.electronics.design, "Leonard Caillouet" wrote,

Lead Fluoride???

As I understand it, you can be extradited from the UK to the US *without* anything being proven in a UK court first. For some reason, the US has forgotten to sign their half of the "reciprocal" agreement, so it only works one way.

Chris

It's for brushing your mercury fillings.

--
"Liberals used to be the ones who argued that sending U.S. troops abroad
was a small price to pay to stop genocide; now they argue that genocide
is a small price to pay to bring U.S. troops home."
  -- Jonah Goldberg