|
|
|
*HOT* Tech News And Downloads, I Would Read This Thread And Post Any Good Info
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
6. June 2006 @ 07:17 |
Link to this message
|
KORORAA XGL LIVE CD..........Run the fabulous Kororaa XGL 3d desktop on your computer. Here's a video demo.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TM6HXoa0Lgk
This is a live Linux CD, and will boot from your hd, no matter what OS you run. From the site: "I've tried about 100 different distro's over the past 2 years and can honestly say I've never seen anything on a PC as spectacular as Kororaa XGL... It makes the hairs on my neck stand up. It's that good. I'm like a kid who's found the keys to the local sweet shop, I just can't leave it alone... nearly fell out my seat the first time I spun the desktop" Minimum recommended configuration is system with 384MB RAM, Pentium3 with nVidia Geforce video card. This livecd requires a CPU with SSE instruction support, and >256Mb RAM. (i.e. P3 or later, if Celeron then need coppermine core. AMD users probably need Athlon XP CPUs, but run "cat /proc/cpuinfo |grep sse" to check anyway). .....(free).....GO THERE!
http://kororaa.org/static.php?page=static060318-181203
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
6. June 2006 @ 14:26 |
Link to this message
|
thanks to arstechnica for this news info
Will "fair use" be fundamentally redefined this week?
6/6/2006 10:54:37 AM, by Nate Anderson
Are Congress and the music publishing business trying to pull a fast one on US consumers? As usual, it depends on who you ask. The new Section 115 Reform Act (SIRA) of 2006 is scheduled for markup tomorrow, and the EFF is sounding the alarm. "Why the rush?" they ask. "Because otherwise someone might notice that the bill represents an unholy alliance between the major music service providers (AOL, Yahoo, Apple, Real Networks, etc.) and [the] music publishing industry. If the bill passes, they win, but fair use loses."
Yikes! That sounds pretty bad, but before we sound the red alert, let's take a closer look at the bill in question. It's worth pointing out that Cary Sherman, head of the RIAA, appeared before the House Committee on the Judiciary a few weeks back to express his organization's opposition to the new bill, which seeks to make the licensing of online music simpler. If the RIAA opposes it, surely the law can't be all bad?
The law would amend Section 115 of title 17, United States Code?the section that covers "compulsory licenses." Generally, a copyright means that the owner literally has the right to control how copies of a given work are produced and sold. The US copyright law contains several exceptions to this right, including both fair use and compulsory licenses. Under certain circumstances, rights holders are required to grant a license for reproduction to another party on the condition that royalty payments are made. Such compulsory licenses have existed in the US for a century, and a new one was introduced with the DMCA that allowed webcasters and Internet radio stations to stream music.
The new SIRA law is an attempt to update the compulsory licensing scheme to clear up uncertainties in the way that some music download and streaming services operate, and to make it easier for them to get licenses to operate. The bill has little to do with consumers at all. A quick glance over the Congressional testimony at last month's hearing on the bill shows that the matter is largely of interest to the various businesses involved in music publication and sales, and testimony concentrates mainly on how the bill would affect the licensing and control of music among industry players.
So why is the EFF up in arms? They're concerned about two provisions, both of which appear in the first few paragraphs of the bill. First up is the fact that the bill describes the compulsory license as covering "incidental reproductions made in the normal course of engaging in activities described in subparagraph (A), including cached, network and RAM buffer productions." This section seems designed to prevent frivolous lawsuits by music publishers against various download services who need to generate incidental copies of the music in the course of doing business. In this sense, it seems a harmless (even helpful) provision, but the EFF worries that it establishes a dangerous precedent: such "incidental reproductions" are enshrined in law as items that are capable of being licensed. The worry is that down the road, music publishers might seek to charge consumers extra money for incidental copies that may litter their computers. This seems unlikely in practice (though not beyond the realm of possibility), but it does represent something new and potentially problematic. The EFF says,
This is dangerous language that creates a dangerous precedent. When courts look at how copyright should apply to new digital technologies, they often have few judicial precedents for guidance and thus they turn to the Copyright Act itself for clues about how Congress views similar issues. Incidental copies made in the course of otherwise lawful activities should be treated either as outside the scope of a copyright holder's rights or as a fair use (even the Copyright Office agrees on the fair use point). But you can be sure that the copyright industries will use SIRA as a precedent to the contrary in future fights.
The other item of concern is the fact that the compulsory license outlined in the bill would not apply to any digital or Internet radio stations that "authorize, enable, cause, or induce the making of reproductions of musical works by or for end users that are accessible by such end users for future listening, unless a valid license has otherwise been obtained by such service for such activity." The worry here is that this would eventually be used to prevent all home recording from digital radio stations.
Whatever you think about the proposed legislation, it's clear that these issues are debatable ones (as opposed to obviously one-sided power grabs). Indemnifying online download services from worthless licensing disputes over "incidental copies" seems like a good idea. Similarly, many consumers believe that it is fair to create at least some limits on home recording of digital streams, which are capable of being ripped, tagged, and stored automatically (importantly different from recording analog radio, unless you have a radioSHARK). Does this really make the proposal the "worst bill you've never heard of"? On the other hand, the EFF is right to worry about the future uses to which such rule changes might be put. Their rhetoric in this case is shrill; have they gone too far, or is the apocalyptic warning needed?
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060606-6994.html
|
|
gerry1
Suspended permanently
|
7. June 2006 @ 07:11 |
Link to this message
|
|
Well, we just got an inquiry from Harrisburg that gave us all a good belly laugh in these trying times and warranted a good bacon and pancake breakfast when I've not been much in the mood. The department of labor and industry wants me and my buddies here to tell them exactly how many migrant mushroom growers we have in Philly. LMFAO!!!!
|
|
ddp
Moderator
|
7. June 2006 @ 07:38 |
Link to this message
|
|
now is that the legal version of mushrooms that you eat or the illegal version that you get high on??
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
7. June 2006 @ 08:50 |
Link to this message
|
Big Music OKs copying in UK
p2p news / p2pnet: Guess what?
The members of the Big Four Organized Music gang have decided Britishers who buy CDs can copy them without fear of being threatened with prosecution by the cartel's BPI --- as long as the copies are for personal use.
"Currently anyone transferring music to portable devices breaks copyright laws," says the BBC, but the BPI's Peter Jamieson now says consumers will only be penalised if they copy songs for other people, according to the BBC.
The story doesn't say how the BPI would determine who might, or might not, be making 'illegal copies for friends who, the specious reasoning goes, would otherwise have bought the tunes from one or more of the Big Four, and/or their associated companies.
"We believe that we now need to make a clear and public distinction between copying for your own use and copying for dissemination to third parties," the story has Jamieson saying.
Digg this story.
Also See:
BBC - UK music fans can copy own tracks, June 6, 2006
p2pnet newsfeeds for your site.
rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss
Mobile - http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
NOTE: p2pnet is being sued by Sharman Networks and Nikki Hemming, ceo of p2p application Kazaa. "The suit is a little odd, since P2PNet.net is a champion of peer-to-peer file-sharing, which is the same business that Kazaa is in," says The Globe & Mail. If you'd like to help p2pnet, or find out more, please go here.
(Wednesday 7th June 2006)
http://p2pnet.net/story/8994
|
|
gerry1
Suspended permanently
|
7. June 2006 @ 09:07 |
Link to this message
|
|
@ddp: rather hard to tell my friend: in the former, it's the migrant worker who's illegal and in the latter, it's the produce lol!
|
|
gerry1
Suspended permanently
|
8. June 2006 @ 04:09 |
Link to this message
|
|
Good morning all! I'm having extra strong coffee this morning but I'm having it iced as I just had a rather long hike. Perhaps I should have done without it this morning as the nerves are already in overdrive. Keep your fingers crossed for me ... say a prayer for me....or whatever. I find out this morning if my fifteen years with the organization is about to end and I find myself in the unemployment lines. We've been ordered to sit by our phones after 8:00 this morning and wait to see which of us gets the axe. One waits by the phone dreading every ring; one listens to the phones around you wondering which of your frinds phones' ring...a lot of us will be gone as they must make five million dollars in cuts. This will be the longest three hours or so I've ever had. Again, keep your fingers crossed for me guys!!
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
8. June 2006 @ 04:13 |
Link to this message
|
|
Cheers to you gerry............and good luck today :)
|
|
gerry1
Suspended permanently
|
8. June 2006 @ 04:19 |
Link to this message
|
|
Thanks Arnie!! :) (so far, lol)
|
Member
|
8. June 2006 @ 04:22 |
Link to this message
|
|
Fingers crossed, good luck gerry.
|
|
gerry1
Suspended permanently
|
8. June 2006 @ 04:31 |
Link to this message
|
|
Thanks little155 ... someone's phone just rang; right now, I don't even want to know who. A hell of a way to do this!
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
8. June 2006 @ 05:51 |
Link to this message
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
8. June 2006 @ 06:07 |
Link to this message
|
|
@ireland
Have you tried it? It looks so tempting........:)
|
|
gerry1
Suspended permanently
|
8. June 2006 @ 07:46 |
Link to this message
|
|
I SURVIVED ... I SURVIVED ... I SURVIVED!!! 20% of our organization got laid off this morning but I survived it. It's such a wierd feeling; I'm elated on the one hand yet sad to see friends I've known for many years in tears on their way out. Out of eight offices around the city, I seem to be the only one who has survived the downsizing ... I think I've been reduced to a department of one. Now I've got to attend four "emergency meetings" all scheduled for the same time. Hmmm ... who cares, at least I have a job! Thanks All for all the good wished! ... Gerry
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
8. June 2006 @ 08:07 |
Link to this message
|
i is happy for ye gerry1,
Norwegian iTunes victory
p2p news / p2pnet: Norway's consumer watchdog says it's rung up a major victory against Apple's iTunes.
The Consumer Council of Norway says it's on track to win case against Apple, claiming iTunes breaches of fundamental consumer rights.
And it now wants CDON.com, prefueled.com and MSN.no brought into the picture.
"iTunes can change the your rights to the music after you downloaded it," said the council in January. "This is a violation of basic Principles of consumer contract law. Consumers who want to play they're music on a non-iPod player must first remove the copy protection, this removal for legitimate private use is however stopped by iTunes DRM technology and Terms of Use. iTunes stopping this removal for legitimate private use like playing the music on a non-iPod mp3 player is obviously in violation of the Copyright Act, says Waterhouse."
Now, "The Norwegian Consumer Ombudsman has ruled that the Apple iTunes service breaks the law, and has given the company two weeks to fix the problem," says The Register, going on:
"According to the ruling, iTunes breaks section 9a of the Norwegian Marketing Control Act. The regulator said it was not reasonable that the consumer must sign up to a contract regulated by English law, rather than Norwegian law. It also said iTunes must accept responsibility for damage its software may do, and said it is unreasonable to alter terms and conditions after a song has been sold."
States the council:
In order to start using iTunes, consumers must agree to a number of terms and conditions. When the Consumer Council investigated these terms and conditions, it found a number of questionable clauses.
"iTunes? terms and conditions are unreasonable. We are now therefore asking the Consumer Ombudsman to use Section 9a of the Marketing Control Act to have the terms changed," says Senior Adviser Torgeir Waterhouse.
"iTunes is able to alter your rights to music that you have already bought. This is breach of fundamental principles of contract law. iTunes also blocks consumers from breaking the copy protection, or DRM, if they want to use other MP3 players than Apple?s iPod. This is a clear breach of the Copyright Act," says Waterhouse.
iTunes is also breaking the Cooling-off Period Act by failing to provide information that consumers are entitled to when shopping on the Internet. On account of this, consumers are entitled to a cooling-off period when they download files from iTunes.
The Consumer Council feels that in general the terms and conditions are unbalanced and one-sided.
"Consumers are given few or no rights, whilst the vendor, iTunes, reserves a number of rights, some of which are unreasonable," says Waterhouse.
iTunes Europe is located in Luxembourg and is, according to the terms and conditions, subject to English law, says the Norwegian consumer watchdog, declaring it's in complete disagreement with this.
"iTunes.no can only be used by Norwegian consumers," it observes. "The domain name and language are Norwegian, and prices are stated in Norwegian kroner.
"All of these factors indicate that iTunes may be subject to Norwegian consumer protection legislation, and that the service may be governed by the Norwegian Marketing Control Act," says Waterhouse.
iTunes? terms also restrict consumers? entitlement to compensation, the council says, going on that the Terms of Service state:
Apple does not represent or guarantee that the service will be free from loss, corruption, attack, viruses, interference, hacking, or other security intrusion, and apple disclaims any liability relating thereto. You shall be responsible for backing up your own system.
Thus, "Consumers are barred from lodging compensation claims if iTunes' software creates security holes that can be exploited by computer viruses," says the council, referring to the infamous Sony BMG DRM spyware scandal as a case in point and, "This kind of limitation on iTunes? liability for compensation is in breach of the general principles of contract law, and the Consumer Council of Norway believes that it is unreasonable."
But iTunes isn't the only problem, the council says. Other music download services have similar terms and conditions.
"CDON.com, prefueled.com and MSN.no are examples of other affected services," declares Waterhouse. "We are therefore asking the Consumer Ombudsman to investigate the terms and conditions of these download services."
Digg this story.
Also See:
change the your rights - Norway group attacks iTunes, January 26, 2006
The Register - iTunes guilty of breaking Norwegian law, June 7, 2008
==================
p2pnet newsfeeds for your site.
rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss
Mobile - http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
NOTE: p2pnet is being sued by Sharman Networks and Nikki Hemming, ceo of p2p application Kazaa. "The suit is a little odd, since P2PNet.net is a champion of peer-to-peer file-sharing, which is the same business that Kazaa is in," says The Globe & Mail. If you'd like to help p2pnet, or find out more, please go here.
(Thursday 8th June 2006)
http://p2pnet.net/story/9003
|
Member
|
8. June 2006 @ 08:09 |
Link to this message
|
|
Well gerry, hope you don't have eight times the work. But, glad you survived the cuts. Later, good luck. George
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
8. June 2006 @ 08:20 |
Link to this message
|
|
@gerry
Happy for you, although you must feel like someone let the air out of your tires by now. You need some relax time to get over your PTSS, so chill for awhile today :)
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
8. June 2006 @ 11:18 |
Link to this message
|
Movies File Share Top Ten
p2pnet.net Feature:- p2pnet's Movies File Share Top Ten is compiled from statistics supplied by p2p research company Big Champagne.
Only on p2pnet.
If you want to see how BC develops them, head over to our Q&A with ceo Eric Garland here.
Note: If a movie returns after being out of the charts for two weeks or longer, it's designated 'new'. 'Return' means back after a week's absence.
Movies Top Ten File Share Downloads, Global
Week ending June 8, 2006
Ranking Movie Number of Downloads
01 >>> X-Men: The Last Stand (unchanged) 1,367,021
02 >>> The Da Vinci Code (unchanged) 1,363,190
03 >>> Mission: Impossible III (unchanged) 1,329,502
04 >>> Over The Hedge (unchanged) 1,306,002
05 >>> R.V. (unchanged) 1,301,914
06 >>> Big Momma's House 2 + #7 1,294,081
07 >>> Poseidon - #6 1,284,557
08 >>> The Wild + #9 1,254,508
09 >>> Date Movie (new) 1,244,941
10 >>> The Break-Up (new) 1,238,905
Movies Top Ten File Share Downloads, USA
Week ending June 8, 2006
Ranking Movie Number of Downloads
01 >>> X-Men: The Last Stand (unchanged) 799,347
02 >>> The Da Vinci Code (unchanged) 788,266
03 >>> Mission: Impossible III (unchanged) 787,536
04 >>> Over The Hedge + #5 784,664
05 >>> Big Momma's House 2 + #6 764,286
06 >>> R.V. - #4 762,469
07 >>> Date Movie (new) 755,671
08 >>> Poseidon - #7 752,718
09 >>> The Wild - #8 746,180
10 >>> The Break-Up (new) 707,338
(Thursday 8th June 2006)
http://p2pnet.net/story/9012
|
|
gerry1
Suspended permanently
|
8. June 2006 @ 15:05 |
Link to this message
|
|
Thanks for the nice words guys! I appreciate your support and while I'll be pulling my hair out in a few days because I've been left with everything to do, at least I still have my job so I'll celebrate for a few days before I start complaining! Thanks ... Gerry
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
8. June 2006 @ 21:41 |
Link to this message
|
DESKTOP GRAFFITIST..........Desktop Graffitist is a small program that enables you to spray paint your desktop, and anything else that might appear on screen. DG is designed for recreation and creativity, and can be used to relieve office stress and boredom. Aside from the added bonus of allowing you to vent on that stupid monthly report or the latest homework as@ignment, the program is also good for leaving messages on other people's computers that they can't miss (love notes, hate notes, grocery lists, and art/vandalism et cetera)......(free).....GO THERE!
http://www.roggel.com/NGNeer/DesktopGraffitist/index.shtml
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
9. June 2006 @ 03:18 |
Link to this message
|
good morning to all ye afterdawners,
drinking me first cup of coffee postng this article..
thanks to cdfreaks
Time Warner networks try zapping Cablevision's new DVR
Posted by Dan Bell on 08 June 2006 - 19:03 - Source: CNN
mrdataNY used our news submit to tell us "This will be interesting to see how far they get... Perhaps this will open some legal options for others."
NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. cable operator Cablevision Systems Corp (Research). on Wednesday said its planned network-based digital video recorder is protected by "fair use" legal precedents established in the famous Sony Betamax video case.
In an 18-page counterclaim filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, the company defended itself against a lawsuit filed by four Hollywood movie studios and five cable television networks that charged the planned service would violate U.S. copyright laws if launched.
The company claimed its network DVR would allow users to engage in ""fair use," which gives consumers limited use of copyrighted material, such as making personal copies of purchased music or movies, without requiring permission from the rights holders such as record or movie companies.
Let's hope that our fair use rights are upheld and not further eroded! Full story at CNN Money.
http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/13526
_____________________________________________________________________
What appears to be a 1080p TV, may actually not be a 1080p TV
Posted by Dan Bell on 08 June 2006 - 19:48 - Source: TG Daily
Buyer beware! If it isn't bad enough with the format wars for high definition, coupled with the strangling DRM of the content constraints, now we have to be darn careful if we decide to buy a device to watch the content upon! In a report last week, TD Daily wrote about some new 1080p displays hitting the market. Trouble is, only the chip inside the set can appreciate it, as the picture will be downrezzed to fit the resolution of the TV! Talk about misleading...
Chicago (IL) - Shame on us. Last week, we reported about four new LCD TVs from Hitachi that integrate a new generation video processor that is capable of "advanced 1080p histogram processing" for about $2200 in a 32" package. Our conclusion that the highest grade of high definition - that we generally see advertised in glossy ads and TV commercials - is finally heading for the mainstream was drawn too fast. Turns out, the existence of a 1080p processor does not necessarily translate into a 1080p capable TV.
Bill Whalen, senior prod manager at Hitachi, told us that while the chip can create and convert the highest resolution, the TV itself cannot. In fact, the chip may take a 1080i (interlaced) or 1080p source, convert it to 1080p (in case of 1080i sources) - and then render it back down to a resolution the TV actually supports. In the case of the four new Hitachi LCD TVs, which will be introduced later this year for prices between $2200 and $3000, that would be 768p (1366x768 progressive).
Shame on us my foot! Shame on Hitachi! Those interested can check out the article in it's entirety at TG Daily.
http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/13527
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 9. June 2006 @ 03:21
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
9. June 2006 @ 03:34 |
Link to this message
|
Super battery developed
Lightning recharge
By Nick Farrell: Friday 09 June 2006, 06:05
MIT boffins have come up with a battery that recharges itself in a few seconds and might never need replacing.
Joel Schindall's team looked at the battery's capacitor, which was invented nearly 300 years ago, and concluded that was the weakest link.
Rechargable and disposable batteries use a chemical reaction to produce energy. This is pretty effective, but after many charges and discharges the battery loses capacity and has to be chucked out.
The MIT researchers covered the electrodes with nanotubes which increased the surface area. This enabled the capacitor to store more energy.
In tests, the batteries could be recharged many times and it could be recharged in a matter of seconds rather than a matter of hours.
The technology would be good for laptops, hearing aids and battery powered cars. Of course having batteries that are recharged quickly take humanity one step closer to total redundancy of the male.
More here.
Ever wish you could charge your cellphone or laptop in a few seconds rather than hours? As this ScienCentral News video explains, researchers at the Mas@achusetts Institute of Technology are developing a battery that could do just that, and also might never need to be replaced.
The Past is Future
As our portable devices get more high-tech, the batteries that power them can seem to lag behind. But Joel Schindall and his team at M.I.T. plan to make long charge times and expensive replacements a thing of the past--by improving on technology from the past.
They turned to the capacitor, which was invented nearly 300 years ago. Schindall explains, "We made the connection that perhaps we could take an old product, a capacitor, and use a new technology, nanotechnology, to make that old product in a new way."
Rechargable and disposable batteries use a chemical reaction to produce energy. "That's an effective way to store a large amount of energy," he says, "but the problem is that after many charges and discharges ... the battery loses capacity to the point where the user has to discard it."
Schindall Battery Researcher
But capacitors contain energy as an electric field of charged particles created by two metal electrodes. Capacitors charge faster and last longer than normal batteries. The problem is that storage capacity is proportional to the surface area of the battery's electrodes, so even today's most powerful capacitors hold 25 times less energy than similarly sized standard chemical batteries.
The researchers solved this by covering the electrodes with millions of tiny filaments called nanotubes. Each nanotube is 30,000 times thinner than a human hair. Similar to how a thick, fuzzy bath towel soaks up more water than a thin, flat bed sheet, the nanotube filaments on increase the surface area of the electrodes and allow the capacitor to store more energy. Schindall says this combines the strength of today's batteries with the longevity and speed of capacitors.
"It could be recharged many, many times perhaps hundreds of thousands of times, and ... it could be recharged very quickly, just in a matter of seconds rather than a matter of hours," he says.
This technology has broad practical possibilities, affecting any device that requires a battery. Schindall says, "Small devices such as hearing aids that could be more quickly recharged where the batteries wouldn't wear out; up to larger devices such as automobiles where you could regeneratively re-use the energy of motion and therefore improve the energy efficiency and fuel economy."
Schindall thinks hybrid cars would be a particularly popular application for these batteries, especially because they are expensive to replace.
Battery Nanotubes
Nanotube filaments on the battery's electrodes
image: MIT/Riccardo Signorelli
Schindall also sees the ecological benefit to these reinvented capacitors. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, more than 3 billion industrial and household batteries were sold in the United States in 1998. When these batteries are disposed, toxic chemicals like cadmium can seep into the ground.
"It's better for the environment, because it allows the user to not worry about replacing his battery," he says. "It can be discharged and charged hundreds of thousands of times, essentially lasting longer than the life of the equipment with which it is as@ociated."
Schindall and his team aren't the only ones looking back to capacitors as the future of batteries; a research group in England recently announced advances of their own. But Schindall's groups expects their prototype to be finished in the next few months, and they hope to see them on the market in less than five years.
Schindall's research was featured in the May 2006 edition of Discover Magazine and presented at the 15th International Seminar on Double Layer Capacitors and Hybrid Energy Storage Devices in Deerfield Beach, Florida on December 2005. His research is funded by the Ford-MIT Consortium.
http://www.sciencentral.com/articles/view.php3?type=article&artic...
|
|
gerry1
Suspended permanently
|
9. June 2006 @ 04:00 |
Link to this message
|
|
@Ireland ... thanks for the desk top graffiti site; I'm going to have some fun with that!
Iced coffee again this morning! A bit depressing to see so many empty desks and experience the absense of all the usual morning chatter and laughter before work begins but I'm still here, I'm in a good mood for the first time in awhile and will grieve the loss of some long time friends at another time. Today shouldn't be a bad day; all our appointments were cancelled as no one knew who'd still be here. Monday will start with a bang though ... clients and no clerical support staff at all; sh**, that means I'll have to use those possessed copiers that don't like me and I'll also have to learn to make an internal phone call on our machines ... after fifteen years, I guess I should learn LOL! I can't just yell out the door anymore as there is no one there! Have a great day all!
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
9. June 2006 @ 06:21 |
Link to this message
|
RIAA can fine you if you install Kazaa
Shared folders are proof of crime
By Nick Farrell: Friday 09 June 2006, 06:07
THE RIAA can sue you for having shared folders on your hard-drive, according to a "Law Geek"
Stewart Rutledge, writing here, said that the recent Elektra v. Barker case shows that the recording industry can sue merely having shared folders on your computer.
According to the case law, you are "making files available for distribution". Even if the files were legally obtained, the fact that you have them available for others to have a look at mean that you are considered a law-breaking copyright infringer and public enema number one.
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=32309
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
9. June 2006 @ 06:29 |
Link to this message
|
|
Holy crappers, now you can be guilty just by association, bah :(
|
|
