Don't start me on Skype , Microsoft can shuve Skype right up there koiter . I lost most of my contacts on win live messenger and the dam thing doesn't tell me if I got email anymore so they can stick it up there $%$%%$% ass for all I care and it used to be connected to yahoo and I lost a lot of contacts on that too

---

So by the USA rules, why does this:


Skype with care – Microsoft is reading everything you write

... The server indicated a potential replay attack. It turned out that an IP address which traced back to Microsoft had accessed the HTTPS URLs previously transmitted over Skype. Heise Security then reproduced the events by sending two test HTTPS URLs, one containing login information and one pointing to a private cloud-based file-sharing service. A few hours after their Skype messages, they observed the following...

... meant that Skype would have to comply with US laws on eavesdropping...



not mean a similar death to those corporate perpetrators?...


Only in the USA?
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

... So here is how bad it gets. You have the song writer. You have the lyric writer. You have the arranger. You have the musicians. You have the people that record the played music. All of them have separate rights to the music. To make a copy you have to secure the right to do so from all of them.

IP lawyers make more than any other because the shallow end of the pool is deeper than the Marianas Trench.

But books can also have many people involved. Author(s), typists, photographers, illustrators, content editors, gramatical and spelling editors, page setters etc.

And lawyers are the only ones to profit from Byzantine 'bureaucracy'...


Meanwhile, here's an interesting possibility for a better future for culture and all of us, including those people that are genuinely the ones who are creating:

'No discernible increase in piracy' from DRM-free e-books

A little over a year ago, Speculative Science Fiction publisher Tor decided to do away with digital rights management (DRM) for its e-books.

The company's publisher Tom Doherty said that the time that authors were supportive because DRM frustrates readers. “It prevents them from using legitimately-purchased e-books in perfectly legal ways, like moving them from one kind of e-reader to another,” Doherty said.

A year later and Tor has revealed what happened next.

Nothing.

Or nothing discernible, to be precise.

The company recently posted a summary of its experiences in which it says “ … we’ve seen no discernible increase in piracy on any of our titles, despite them being DRM-free for nearly a year.”

But the publisher has seen plenty of upside, described as follows by Tor UK editorial director Julie Crisp: ...



So why all this 'legal silliness' driving people unto their death?


Only in the USA?
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

I don't think they do. It appears the courts actually look favorable at the Google plan which doesnt ask for money. Seems a nice idea and yet we still cant d/l music. Isn't it Ironic that we can read it but not listen. Hmmm seems like sense prejudice

getting tired of mugwumps and name calling

Music is special. It is subject to not only copyright but another right called "performance right."

So here is how bad it gets. You have the song writer. You have the lyric writer. You have the arranger. You have the musicians. You have the people that record the played music. All of them have separate rights to the music. To make a copy you have to secure the right to do so from all of them.

IP lawyers make more than any other because the shallow end of the pool is deeper than the Marianas Trench.

But books can also have many people involved. Author(s), typists, photographers, illustrators, content editors, gramatical and spelling editors, page setters etc.

I don't think they do. It appears the courts actually look favorable at the Google plan which doesnt ask for money. Seems a nice idea and yet we still cant d/l music. Isn't it Ironic that we can read it but not listen. Hmmm seems like sense prejudice

getting tired of mugwumps and name calling

Music is special. It is subject to not only copyright but another right called "performance right."

So here is how bad it gets. You have the song writer. You have the lyric writer. You have the arranger. You have the musicians. You have the people that record the played music. All of them have separate rights to the music. To make a copy you have to secure the right to do so from all of them.

IP lawyers make more than any other because the shallow end of the pool is deeper than the Marianas Trench.

---

Im wondering if google has plans to charge the inetnet reader to see it?

Does your TV station charge you to watch an OTA program? Well, they do in England, but not in the USA. However they seem able to turn a profit off other people's work.

---

I don't think they do. It appears the courts actually look favorable at the Google plan which doesnt ask for money. Seems a nice idea and yet we still cant d/l music. Isn't it Ironic that we can read it but not listen. Hmmm seems like sense prejudice

getting tired of mugwumps and name calling

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

Im wondering if google has plans to charge the inetnet reader to see it?

---

[/quote]

Old James

Author or his estate owns the copyright. He can sell or rent it, in part or in whole. Usually it is rented in part for a specified term. Once the term is over the Author regains 100% of the rights.

Google is attempting an end run around this. It wants to buy rights from publishers that the publishers don't own to sell.

Google doesn't want to have to negotiate with a cast of thousands. Hollywood faces a similar problem when it makes a movie. Every scrap of anything heard or seen has to get a copyright clearance. They can do it. Google can do it too. Google cries that it will cost them too much. I say get a more profitable business plan and don't leach off others.

---

My question is who owns the copyrights? If its the research libraries then thats one thing But what if the publisher still owns the copyright? Seems to me that the resarch library has nor right to give google the right to copy and post online.

Please disregard all typos for today. I had eye drops put in at the eye DR.

---

[/quote]

Old James

Ah, yes. Google's dirty trick. It wants only individuals to sue it, so the playing field isn't level. It is terrified it won't have a real defense if the playing field is level. Typical Google. I mean, what is a little e-mail reading ...

---

Back in the real world of the USA, looks like Google is following in Aaron's footsteps. Do the USA feds now similarly destroy Google by their same arbitrary persecution rules?


Why are scribes crying just 'cos Google copied their books? asks judge

A US Appeals Court has suggested that authors suing Google should be pleased that the advertising giant is scanning millions of books and putting them online for all.

A lawsuit to halt the tome digitising effort...

... Another judge, Barrington Parker, said the project was not just brilliant for authors but could have "enormous value" for culture. ...

... Google found itself at odds with writers after it signed deals with various research libraries to digitise copyrighted books, ostensibly to help people find material by making it all searchable...


All sound familiar from earlier in this sad thread?... Also note arguments from 'both sides of the coin'... Kill Google forever for such heinous actions?!


What a mess.

Only in the USA?

Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Right guys - a warning.
In the last couple of days there have been a number of posts that are insulting, threatening or demeaning to others.
One more post of this nature and it will be locked and hidden.

---

Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

Sorry dropped the keyboard ...no

---

Is that number supposed to mean anything Glen?

716152121

Absolute power corrupts absolutely as has been shown to me .Its a sign of a dumb person . It's also a sign of a gutless person as will be shown in the next 24hrs . Even if you follow the rules the person with absolute power will still demon straight how nasty and evil they are .

716152121

---

You may suppose, but you are so, so, so wrong.
Quite a number of suicides DO NOT SEEK ATTENTION, but do want out of a situation where attention is being brought to bear in a manner that they find untenable.

Yes, there are the few who want to go out in a spectacular manner, but they are the very small minority.

---

Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

As to attention, I'd suggest the cases you mentioned they wanted attention to their requests to be left alone.

Those who are left behind are another matter. It does show that none of us can ever really know what another is thinking and all of us could be pushed into self destructive actions.

---

Gary, I find your phraseology, and assumptions, about suicide obnoxious.

I have spent far too much time working trying to rebuild families that have been torn apart by the suicide of a family member. Yes, all that commit suicide want out of some situation or other, but not all want to draw attention to themselves or their plight, indeed I can think of several families I've worked with where quite the opposite is true - they didn't want the attention that was being focuses on them, or their family, and felt they couldn't live with it and take what they see as "the easy way out". Sadly it invariably makes matters far worse for those that are left behind.

---

Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

Sewercide is still sewercide. Don't matter what the instrument of death is, cop, executioner, bomb, gun in mouth, it is still the same thought process. Give up on life. The cowards way. Some want out with a blaze of glory, others don't, but they all want attention.

oh so you are talking about the terrorist bombers that killed 187 people man I would advise you to stop right there or have you forgotten about 9/11

No, I'm talking about Aaron the idiot. Got frustrated with society. Couldn't get society to see his way. So he went and did an action because of his frustration. Thought his action would magically change minds. Now if you want to include Jihadists, I guess you have defined Aaron and Assange as being is the same group.

---