T
T
Trevor S
Guest
"Theo Bekkers" <[email protected]> wrote in news:9ToXa.11331$bo1.10196
@news-server.bigpond.net.au:
> "Theo Bekkers" wrote
> Nothing at all.
>
> Sorry, an oops of the send button.
Hey, ya had me
--
Trevor S
"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth."
-Albert Einstein
@news-server.bigpond.net.au:
> "Theo Bekkers" wrote
> Nothing at all.
>
> Sorry, an oops of the send button.
Hey, ya had me
--
Trevor S
"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth."
-Albert Einstein
T
Trevor S
Guest
"Theo Bekkers" <[email protected]> wrote in news:mSoXa.11330$bo1.9011
@news-server.bigpond.net.au:
<snip>
> I agree again. Suppose
In the above example, clearly the mobile manufacturers fault
If he had hit me and I was the only one killed IN THE ABOVE instance, he
should still be charged with manslaughter, with mitigating circumstances
affecting the scentence. Using the exact instance you describe, his
fault.
supposes, suppose, suppose I am sure you could go on all day and find
an example I might find troubling but taking it back to the original
post, I am deeply troubled that given the circumstances of the original
cyclsits death, in the way described, a scentence as lenient as the one
given was the resultant penalty. Manslaugher, a decade in Goal and a
decade of garnished wages would be the _minimum_ scentence I think worthy
for the taking of someones life in that manner.
> A bunch of motorcyclists protested in Geelong last week because of the
> lenient sentence handed out to a motorist who did not hit a
> motorcyclist who died. That is an interesting scenario.
I am not aware of the facts behind the incident so it's a litte hard to
comment. I no long read AUS.MOTORCYCLES for a variety of reasons if that
was were this was originally bought up
<snip>
> So if you wrote some piece of software that revolutionised accounting
> it would be OK for me to make a mastercopy available and invite anyone
> to download their copy, that would be fine.
I would have no problem with that.
> I would be basing my
> defence on the principle that you're charging too much for a legit
> copy.
Using your example, that is not a legitimate defence IMO. If how ever
you have no intention of purchasing it, then that is a legitimate
defence, once again IMO. In the particular instance you cited, use of
that software to generate an income stream would be prima facea evidence
that you had intended to use it, therefore it is theft, in any other case
it isn't theft.
As an aside, litigation in the music industry against your customer base
is IMO a poor marketing strategy and one that is simpily the death rattle
of sector too stupid to realise the end is nigh and is throttling the
last bit of income stream from a soon to be expired business model.
IMO the defintion of theft has been mutated by the IP lobby into
something it never was intended to be. Look at Mr Mouse in the USA as a
classic example, he long ago should have passed into the public domain,
and yet Congress enacts special legislation to protect him.
I would like to see major changes made to the copyright act but that is
another debate enitrely
suppose suppose .. Do you think someone who finds a cure for Aids should
be allowed to not sell it if that is their wish ?
--
Trevor S
"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth."
-Albert Einstein
@news-server.bigpond.net.au:
<snip>
> I agree again.
SupposeIn the above example, clearly the mobile manufacturers fault
If he had hit me and I was the only one killed IN THE ABOVE instance, he
should still be charged with manslaughter, with mitigating circumstances
affecting the scentence. Using the exact instance you describe, his
fault.
supposes, suppose, suppose
I am sure you could go on all day and findan example I might find troubling
but taking it back to the originalpost, I am deeply troubled that given the circumstances of the original
cyclsits death, in the way described, a scentence as lenient as the one
given was the resultant penalty. Manslaugher, a decade in Goal and a
decade of garnished wages would be the _minimum_ scentence I think worthy
for the taking of someones life in that manner.
> A bunch of motorcyclists protested in Geelong last week because of the
> lenient sentence handed out to a motorist who did not hit a
> motorcyclist who died. That is an interesting scenario.
I am not aware of the facts behind the incident so it's a litte hard to
comment. I no long read AUS.MOTORCYCLES for a variety of reasons if that
was were this was originally bought up
<snip>
> So if you wrote some piece of software that revolutionised accounting
> it would be OK for me to make a mastercopy available and invite anyone
> to download their copy, that would be fine.
I would have no problem with that.
> I would be basing my
> defence on the principle that you're charging too much for a legit
> copy.
Using your example, that is not a legitimate defence IMO. If how ever
you have no intention of purchasing it, then that is a legitimate
defence, once again IMO. In the particular instance you cited, use of
that software to generate an income stream would be prima facea evidence
that you had intended to use it, therefore it is theft, in any other case
it isn't theft.
As an aside, litigation in the music industry against your customer base
is IMO a poor marketing strategy and one that is simpily the death rattle
of sector too stupid to realise the end is nigh and is throttling the
last bit of income stream from a soon to be expired business model.
IMO the defintion of theft has been mutated by the IP lobby into
something it never was intended to be. Look at Mr Mouse in the USA as a
classic example, he long ago should have passed into the public domain,
and yet Congress enacts special legislation to protect him.
I would like to see major changes made to the copyright act but that is
another debate enitrely
suppose suppose .. Do you think someone who finds a cure for Aids should
be allowed to not sell it if that is their wish ?
--
Trevor S
"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth."
-Albert Einstein
T
Theo Bekkers
Guest
"Trevor S" wrote
> suppose suppose .. Do you think someone who finds a cure for Aids
should
> be allowed to not sell it if that is their wish ?
They will sell it. Companies are investing tens of $millions in a
possible cure in the hope of a huge return.
Theo
> suppose suppose .. Do you think someone who finds a cure for Aids
should
> be allowed to not sell it if that is their wish ?
They will sell it. Companies are investing tens of $millions in a
possible cure in the hope of a huge return.
Theo
F
"Theo Bekkers" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > suppose suppose .. Do you think someone who finds a cure for Aids
> > should be allowed to not sell it if that is their wish ?
> They will sell it. Companies are investing tens of $millions in a
> possible cure in the hope of a huge return.
Curing a disease isn't nearly as profitable as providing small doses
of ongoing "treatment".. They won't sell it if it's not in their
business interest to do so..
PC
> > suppose suppose .. Do you think someone who finds a cure for Aids
> > should be allowed to not sell it if that is their wish ?
> They will sell it. Companies are investing tens of $millions in a
> possible cure in the hope of a huge return.
Curing a disease isn't nearly as profitable as providing small doses
of ongoing "treatment".. They won't sell it if it's not in their
business interest to do so..
PC
S
syrus_82
Guest
i had a friend a few years ago that done pretty much the same thing,
big nite out on the town and decided to drive home, he was drunk of
course and she wasnt but its basically the same situation. well he got
done for manslaughter, (i dont see why she didnt get it) and sentenced,
for a minimum of 5 years. i knew that guy fairly well and i think that
the sentence was fair. the lady should have got longer i feel. there
are to many pl out there who constantly drive when tired, under the
ifluence (alcohol and drugs) and there needs to be harsher penalties
for these ppl. i think that in australia we are to leniant to
criminals, especially if the crime is not in the media, if a crime is
in the media and there is a lot of hype going on around it, there is a
lot more pressure from the public for a harsher sentence, but in
general the penalties are to soft. my deepst condolences to the family
of the cyclist
--
>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com
big nite out on the town and decided to drive home, he was drunk of
course and she wasnt but its basically the same situation. well he got
done for manslaughter, (i dont see why she didnt get it) and sentenced,
for a minimum of 5 years. i knew that guy fairly well and i think that
the sentence was fair. the lady should have got longer i feel. there
are to many pl out there who constantly drive when tired, under the
ifluence (alcohol and drugs) and there needs to be harsher penalties
for these ppl. i think that in australia we are to leniant to
criminals, especially if the crime is not in the media, if a crime is
in the media and there is a lot of hype going on around it, there is a
lot more pressure from the public for a harsher sentence, but in
general the penalties are to soft. my deepst condolences to the family
of the cyclist
--
>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com
T
Tim Jones
Guest
"hippy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Luther Blissett" <[email protected]> wrote
in
> message news:[email protected]...
> > If that lady had recevied 10 years, a lot more people would think twice
> > about driving under the influence of drugs. And remember .. she chose to
> > be drug-****ed, the cyclist didn't chose to be car-****ed.
>
> Actually the drugs didn't play a part in the actual crash. It was the lack
> of sleep, apparently. If anything, she should have had more gear.. maybe
> she wouldn't have fallen asleep at the wheel? 24 hours without sleep was
> found to be equivalent to a 0.1 BAC IIRC. How many people out there
> drugs or no drugs are too tired to drive safely? A bloody lot I imagine!
>
> What was she actually charged with and why was it not a manslaughter
> charge?
>
To pick up on an old thread ;-)
I was watching the lifestyle channel a few nights ago, and they did a test
on a track - a driver with a BAC of over the limit and a driver who was
fatigued. They both had someone in the back seat checking when they strayed
over lines and when they changed the speed too much.
The result was that the drunk driver, while he was exuberant to the camera
had perfect results. The tired guy, under the same circumstances messed up
about a dozen times in a one hour drive.
Tim
news:[email protected]...
> "Luther Blissett" <[email protected]> wrote
in
> message news:[email protected]...
> > If that lady had recevied 10 years, a lot more people would think twice
> > about driving under the influence of drugs. And remember .. she chose to
> > be drug-****ed, the cyclist didn't chose to be car-****ed.
>
> Actually the drugs didn't play a part in the actual crash. It was the lack
> of sleep, apparently. If anything, she should have had more gear.. maybe
> she wouldn't have fallen asleep at the wheel? 24 hours without sleep was
> found to be equivalent to a 0.1 BAC IIRC. How many people out there
> drugs or no drugs are too tired to drive safely? A bloody lot I imagine!
>
> What was she actually charged with and why was it not a manslaughter
> charge?
>
To pick up on an old thread ;-)
I was watching the lifestyle channel a few nights ago, and they did a test
on a track - a driver with a BAC of over the limit and a driver who was
fatigued. They both had someone in the back seat checking when they strayed
over lines and when they changed the speed too much.
The result was that the drunk driver, while he was exuberant to the camera
had perfect results. The tired guy, under the same circumstances messed up
about a dozen times in a one hour drive.
Tim
Similar threads
