 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 25/01/2011 06:14 PM, Darren New wrote:
> And I believe it's actually charged on the number of people in range of
> the station. I.e., based on population densities and antenna power.
That sounds much more plausible.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 26-1-2011 10:21, Invisible wrote:
> On 25/01/2011 11:32 PM, andrel wrote:
>
>> Did I miss something? Are you considering to live somewhere on your own?
>
> It's no secret that I *want* to move out.
No it definitely isn't, so that was not the point. It was the on your
own that surprised me. Then again you are living in the UK.
> I need to find the money first.
That or not rejecting it because it is not within a certain radius of
your mom.
> Apparently my girlfriend's sister works for the OU, so I'm going to try
> talking to her about ways to make them hire me...
Could be a plan.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I need to find the money first.
>
> That or not rejecting it because it is not within a certain radius of
> your mom.
It's not my mum I want to be near, it's my home city and all the friends
I now have here.
>> Apparently my girlfriend's sister works for the OU, so I'm going to try
>> talking to her about ways to make them hire me...
>
> Could be a plan.
It's certainly worth a try at least...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Well, no, you get some computer software for playing DVDs and crack
> that. Much easier than cracking custom hardware and voiding your warranty.
Right. And if you only make your content available on hardware that is
(more) secure, like kindles or game consoles or whatever, then it's a lot
harder to crack.
I think we're agreeing here.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"How did he die?" "He got shot in the hand."
"That was fatal?"
"He was holding a live grenade at the time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 26/01/2011 04:42 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> Well, no, you get some computer software for playing DVDs and crack
>> that. Much easier than cracking custom hardware and voiding your
>> warranty.
>
> Right. And if you only make your content available on hardware that is
> (more) secure, like kindles or game consoles or whatever, then it's a
> lot harder to crack.
>
> I think we're agreeing here.
Harder, yes. Impossible, no. ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> On 26/01/2011 04:42 PM, Darren New wrote:
>> Invisible wrote:
>>> Well, no, you get some computer software for playing DVDs and crack
>>> that. Much easier than cracking custom hardware and voiding your
>>> warranty.
>>
>> Right. And if you only make your content available on hardware that is
>> (more) secure, like kindles or game consoles or whatever, then it's a
>> lot harder to crack.
>>
>> I think we're agreeing here.
>
> Harder, yes. Impossible, no. ;-)
You can make it impossible with hardware. Almost every crack of such
hardware I have seen involved modifying the hardware, at which point you're
technically not working on the secure hardware. ;-) Which is what I was
talking about in terms of voiding your warranty.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"How did he die?" "He got shot in the hand."
"That was fatal?"
"He was holding a live grenade at the time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 20:15:50 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Take Jammie Thomas, for example
>
> You know, I've *never* seen anyone sued for downloading music or books
> or movies. Have you? Do you have a cite to such a case?
I don't know if that distinction has been made in any of the cases filed.
> She wasn't sued for *downloading* the files. She was sued for
> distributing unknown numbers of copies to other people. She would have
> been just as sued if she own the CDs she ripped the files from.
I think the "making available" argument more or less takes it as read
that she acquired the files illegally as well, but the majority of
damages issued has to do with the number of people who allegedly got the
file from her rather than the download she did.
But I haven't followed it closely.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 10:22:14 +0000, scott wrote:
> Or even adults who don't want to spend $750 to have a go at 10 games. If
> piracy was impossible then maybe that adult would buy 1 or 2 games, but
> to say the industry has lost $750 because he downloaded 10 games is
> ridiculous.
Indeed.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 09:39:30 +0000, Invisible wrote:
> On 24/01/2011 10:09 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>> And so it is that I spend about $130/month on a basic digital cable
>> package and end up skipping through commercials.
>
> Hey, don't worry. When I eventually get somewhere of my own to live, I
> will have to pay money to fund the BBC, even though I don't watch TV or
> listen to the radio. The fact that the building doesn't contain a TV
> apparently is no excuse.
We would happily pay the BBC license fee if we could in order to watch
uncut BBC programmes.
Looks like they're going to make that possible sometime this year.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 20:13:10 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I think it could be legally argued that since the technology didn't
>> erase- upon-playback that it was implied that the content might/could
>> be viewed more than once.
>
> Um, it's Sony's device playing back, not the copyright holder's device.
> The fact that Sony didn't make it erase doesn't allow Sony to make
> copies of someone *else's* video.
But the question was about watching a time-shifted programme more than
once...
At least that was what I understood the question to be. Was I wrong?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
