Posts by Rich Lock
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
A great Great Blend last night. Scintillating conversations and the time just flew by..but I wonder if anyone else thought that Bruce Sterling came across as just a touch arrogant, scoring cheap points off Andrew Dubber.
I didn't really see it as cheap point scoring - more putting things in a context that the audience has had a chance to digest a bit already.
I've already posted this in another thread, but the last question in the Q&A struck me as really quite odd. If whoever asked that is reading this, I would really appreciate knowing a bit more about what you were thinking when you asked that. and if Tze Ming was there, and she's reading this, I'd also appreciate her point of view, too.
-
Thanks for the Blend
Seconded.
Russell, I was going to introduce myself, but since you were tired/busy/otherwise engaged, I just kind of nodded in passing. Next time.
And while we're talking about the Blend, in the Q&A after the interview, someone asked what I thought was a rather odd question about the Chinese invading.
If you're reading this, could you provide some insight into your reasoning and thought processes behind asking that question?
-
Perhaps I'm missing something that Legal Beagle can correct me on, but is it really the judiciary's place to try and make sense of things the acutal legislators were too stupid and/or lazy and/or spineless to get right in the first place?
For better or worse, yes. A lot of legislation contains words/phrases like 'substantially', 'as soon as practicable', 'applicant must notify', and so on. A body of case law will generally help define how a court should interpret ambiguous phrases such as these.
A lot of legislation will also have associated regulations, which are intended partly to provide a practical framework for the Act itself. So if the Act says something like: 'applicant must apply within the time period specified', then there will often be an associated regulation that specifies that that time period is 3 months (or whatever).
The Copyright Act itself contains an example. Paraphrasing S29(1) and (2) slightly (well, a lot): "copyright...is infringed...[if a person copies] the work as a whole or any substantial part" [emphasis added]
The question is therefore: what is a 'substantial part'? For example, if a dance remix samples 30 seconds of a 70's funk track, is that 'a substantial part'?
There is a body of case law which provides guidance to courts trying new cases. The court can apply the techings of these cases to any new case.
The problem with the present situation is there is no associated regulation(s), and little to no case law that is specifically on point(and in any case, if the same pattern as overseas is followed, then the courts won't be involved).
So terms such as 'repeat infringer' are not defined...well...at all, as it goes.
Regulations are effectively a part of the legislation. A Code of Practice is not.
<quote>Although maybe in this situation the problem is that the offending is so widespread (or our notion of copyright so in need of a first principles review), so it's not the law's fault necessarily that all offenders (those of us just downloading the odd song/programme)are covered by the law, but only the really bad ones will face action./quote>
Every day, vast numbers of people on their way to work speed, change lanes without indicating, fail to give way, run red lights, etc etc etc.
Tempting as it would be to take their cars away from them at the earliest opportunity, I suspect that might be seen as somewhat punitive. I'm in favour of fining them, and removing licences for repeat offenders. However, I've reluctantly come round to the position that hanging them in gibbets at the side of the road is probably not a good idea.
-
Hear, hear. I believe this is one of the strongest arguments, and the one proponents of s92a are trying to fudge around with the whole "so you're in favour of piracy, then?" red herring.
I'll also state, for the record, that I am strongly in favour of prosecution for hardcore piracy.
Not so keen on using hydraulic pile drivers to crack nuts, though.
-
>"Of course not, this'll only be applied to hard-core pirates".
My biggest problem with it. If you want a law that is only applicable to hard-core pirates, then make a law that is only going to be applicable to hard-core pirates, not every single person in the country.
The same argument was made in the UK in relation to anti-terror legislation and legislation that allows increased police surveillance powers. 'don't be silly, we'll only use this to catch jihadists'.
-
Do pedophiles only operate effectively more than 60feet in the air?
We're having some problems with pressure stabilisation and low-altitude maneouvring. My team should have this fixed by the time we roll out the MkII version.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I'll get me coat.... -
Hands on the end of arms?
Heh. I think it, you post it.
Where did Napoleon keep his armies?
Up his sleevies, of course.
-
I'd argue that while NS is undeniably a high-level technical publication, it's pretty darn accessible. It helps if you're a rocket surgeon, but you don't have to be one....
And you could argue that it is peer-reviewed in the sense that they frequently publish letters that offer an opposing or different view of the data interpretation.
-
You could make a fun drinking game out of spotting errors non-stupid subs could have fixed
Except you'd be pissed before you got below the front page fold.
-
After Kracklite and I gave you that opening. Give in to the dark side, Annie, it feels nice! :)
Well, since you asked so nicely....but if I get in trouble, it's all your fault.
Jekyll just arse-raped the Invisible Man to death!
rimshot?
No, I expect he'd have had to be all the way in to do that much damage.