Rocket launch scares pirated nipples onto sheep

RIAA plans to sewe

Letters CD-Wow lost its battle to be allowed to import discs that were not intended for sale in the UK. A group of record labels pursued the retailer to the high court over the issue. CD-Wow was found to have infringed copyright and been in contempt of court over an earlier order. The spanking handed down by the judge (verbal or otherwise) has not scared any of you. No, you are in fact emboldened:

It is stories like these (the CD WOW story) that make me want to go home and DL all the movies/music I can for free, and not feel the least bit guilty doing so.

Corporations use the west to subsidize them getting into other markets. The same corporations that lay employees off in the west to show higher profits to their stock holders, yet people at the top keep getting multimillion dollar bonuses. The same sort of corporations that off shore work to those countries we subsidize so they can keep even more for the con men at the top (actually I guess I should say con people).

Then I remember the artists, and how they are likely screwed by the very same con people. And the guilt returns.


"The recordings were not pirated discs but their sale in the UK broke copyright law." What bit?

From the bits that I think I can remember, there is no breach: they have a license to make copies for sale in HK.

They make copies to sell in HK.

They send these copies to the UK.

These licensed copies are sold.

Now, they don't have the license to make copies in the UK (the bit about "for sale" doesn't matter here because we don't have a right to personal copy, except the turning copy [funny how that never gets mentioned in copyright law spiel]) but then again, they aren't MAKING copies here. There's no need to, since the form is already fixed.

So what bit of copyright are they breaking?

Now, the labels could refuse to license any music to CD WOW in HK if it is legal to do so and then this wouldn't be a problem for them.


Won't somebody think of the children and get them a decent database to hold all their little fingerprints in. Especially the poor ones. Little criminals, wandering around wearing hoodies. Lock 'em up, we say. Er, what? Yes, yes, we only want to fingerprint them to stop them from being teased. Honest:

If they some of the Lords think that fingerprinting children will mean that they don't get teased for being poor, as other pupils won't know they are getting free school meals, it just shows how out of touch people can be.

The real signs of how rich/poor you are include:

Pencil case (contents of) 3ft long scientific calculator - 99% of the functions, of no use to school kids Shoes Mobile phone or lack of.

I don't remember anyone getting the piss taken for getting free meals, but I certainly do remember people getting the piss taken for having the wrong calculator, etc.


The Lords, out of touch? Shirely shome mishtake...

A few of the more alert readers out there have noticed the government's slightly circular argument about ID cards, passports and secure identity:

this whole passport/card thing is like the patient who is given pills for a simple ailment but has side effects from them and is given pills to cure these. the new pills have side effects so more pills are prescribed until the patient takes some 10+ types of medication a day. then one day they forget to take any pills and all the symptoms go away. thus saving not only a life from pill induced misery but a fortune for the NHS / taxpayer. then again perhaps I'm getting old and cynical


Just a minor observation - I understood part of the plan for ID cards was to verify peoples identity against recognised and reliable documentation. Such as passports?

I just can't work out if I'm being ironic or sarcastic here...


Joan Ryan admits that her department has handed British passports to thousands of fraudsters including members of Al Qaeda - and no one is calling for her head?

Bloody apathetic country - if this was France we'd be cheerily greasing the guillotine and picking out revolutionary knitting patterns.


Knit one, behead one, hand a passport to the other, style of thing?

Speaking of things that are bad for us, like politicians, how about drugs? No, we're not selling 'em. We're watching to see what happens now someone has suggested reclassifying them according to how dangerous they actually are:

Harm to society aside, if you just look at the addictiveness and/or the typical level of impairment after consumption, alcohol has never looked good. It always looks especially ridiculous when you start comparing the legal alcohol to various relatively harmless semilegal (illegality depending on your location) narcotics.

Yet society isn't about to change their opinions, no matter how silly they may be. This has never been a matter of intelligence, but of society's acceptance. So given that, I really don't know why anyone bothers with these studies as it won't change a thing.

Sincerely, Arah Leonard

Mr. Brown and his green red box, and the budget. Like it? Hate it? Have a guess:

Ah the logic of politicians...

I can't see many 4 litre Range Rover drivers being that worried about £400 a year road tax. If they're really interested in encouraging people into smaller engined vehicles, the fairest tax is on fuel. You use a lot of fuel, you pay a lot of tax. Oh hang on, we *all* already pay a lot of fuel tax.

As usual, the way they define what qualifies as a non-green vehicle and gets hit with the £400 is going to be the interesting bit. No doubt my 2.5 litre diesel BMW is going to get clobbered, despite running most of the time on 50% diesel and 50% old vegetable oil from the local pub (minus the bits of scampi).

Guess I'll just have to be happy with my green grin of smugness next time I pass a Prius, knowing I'm actually using less fossil fuel per mile than he is, and all without having to drive something that looks like a suppository.


Sponsored: Minds Mastering Machines - Call for papers now open

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018