Canadian Politician Okays Copyright Violation Because Nobody Cares Anyway

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

What politicians usually say =/= how reality works.

Because if it WAS, they wouldn't get to stay in office. And that's likely what's gonna happen to this guy.
Was refreshing to see it, though :) There might be some (small) hope for humanity yet.

lotr rocks 0:

draythefingerless:

ive seen people sue McDonalds because they dropped their hot coffee on their lap. Im not speaking on basis of principle. im speaking on pragmatic and real world levels. people get sued for the wrong things all the time. and of the dozens of cases, only a handful is rather innocent(just made a copy on dvd to have at home). more often than not, theyre bootleg style cases. on principle, yes this is wrong and yes it is stupid, but in the real world, the guy speaks the truth. NOW, I DUNNO HOW THINGS GO in the USA, but in Canada n Europe we dont have crazy suey events like those you speak of. or at least that number of them. you have to understand USA copyright and trademark laws are ridiculously more liberal and dangerous, and there is an entire business throughout the years, built on exploiting them.

Ummm, just so that you know this, the lady that sued over the coffee actualy sustained a pretty severe burn, and the coffee was very ,very hot. Too hot to reasonably be serving.

From wikipedia:

On February 27, 1992, Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman from Albuquerque, New Mexico, ordered a 49-cent cup of coffee from the drive-through window of a local McDonald's restaurant. Liebeck was in the passenger's seat of her Ford Probe, and her grandson Chris parked the car so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. Liebeck placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her to remove it. In the process, she spilled the entire cup of coffee on her lap.[10] Liebeck was wearing cotton sweatpants; they absorbed the coffee and held it against her skin, scalding her thighs, buttocks, and groin.[11] Liebeck was taken to the hospital, where it was determined that she had suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent.[12] She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. During this period, Liebeck lost 20 pounds (9 kg, nearly 20% of her body weight), reducing her down to 83 pounds (38 kg).[13] Two years of medical treatment followed.

During the case, Liebeck's attorneys discovered that McDonald's required franchisees to serve coffee at 180-190 °F (82-88 °C). At that temperature, the coffee would cause a third-degree burn in two to seven seconds.

OT: yay for our conservative government being phenominal idiots again. >_>

pointless point is pointless.
hot coffee is heated at near boiling temperatures buddy. im sorry, i dunno how you make your coffee, but where i come from, you near water boiling temperatures. you WILL get heavy burns if you pour hot coffee all over you. no matter where it comes from. it shouldnt be mcdonalds job to advertize common sense. and while i feel for the woman, i still dont see why McDonalds was guilty and sueable(other than overall idiocy in the highly interpretative american law). drills are pretty dangerous, so its sensible if you stick a drill up your dick, to sue the drill company? :/

Andy Chalk:

The3rdEye:
Nothing he says in the snippet suggests the constituent go out and violate copyright.

Right, telling people that they won't face any penalties for violating copyright isn't encouraging them to ignore the law in any way whatsoever.

That doesn't read anything like
"If a digital lock is broken for personal use, it is not realistic that the creator would choose to file a lawsuit against the consumer, due to legal fees and time involved,"

I shall fix it for you, good sir.

Andy Chalk:
Right, telling people it's not feasible to pursue and prosecute an individual for violating copyright for personal use isn't encouraging them to ignore the threat of being prosecuted by the law in any way whatsoever.

No sir.

Indeed, no spin at all sir.

They have no interest in turning things into a witch hunt (usually, it's the PC party so I'd be lying if I said I was a fan of their tactics). At the same time however, there's no sense in using thirty year old laws to investigate and prosecute a relatively recent problem. Saying that it's impractical to be chasing after every person who breaks copyright/DRM so that they can watch their DVD movie w/o the DVD in their PC just confirms the rational sense of "if the company isn't losing money to it, why are they going to throw their money away on it?".

He's not saying anything we don't already know. Is that comment going to bite him in the ass? Probably. Yet it's still true.

Canadian Politician Okays Copyright Violation Because Nobody Cares Anyway

hahahaha yeah just be like "eh, who cares"

guess it 'solves' a lotta issues in life :p

This won't bite him in the ass or anything. /sarcasm

I agree with the notion that companies won't sue individuals based on cost to them, but they will sue groups of people to make their money back, you can count on that.

Therumancer:

Canada is pretty much waffling I think, because it understands the issues at state and the big picture, but doesn't want to deal with it on a more practical level in it's back yard. It's pretty much dancing around the issue of actually doing anything that is going to involve it actually having to enforce laws/judgements on it's own people, especially in response to a set of behaviors it has been more or less encouraging.

Welcome to the Conservative Party my friend. The main opposition party has no head at the moment (due to the death of its leader from illness) and the other major party is looking for another piece of cardboard to put in as the party leader so that they don't get spanked again next election. Quite simply, until someone new and at least somewhat charismatic comes to the fore in the other parties, we're stuck with M2.#4RP3R aka Mr. Harper (aka <robotic movements> beep-beep-I wanna be America-boop-beep).

This man plans to buy 65 VTOL aircraft- Joint Strike Fighters @ $50mil a piece for a total of ~3.25 billion for the 2nd largest country in the world. Who has a mostly defensive/peacekeeping military. What is there not enough space in CANADA for runways? And why do we need stealth aircraft? Why don't we get not as shiny, but still better planes so we can re-distribute the remaining funds to something that needs it, like say... I don't know... HEALTHCARE. Or hell, you could keep the funds with the military and make sure our subs and tanks and other vehicles actually work. Just sayin'.

It boggles the mind how Harper's brain even functions, it's like shaking keys in front of an infant's face. <long double-palmed facepalm> /rant

You're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't.

draythefingerless:

RvLeshrac:

draythefingerless:
Richardson: Haters gonna hate.

The man is speaking the truth thou. As for business, i dont understand what kind of business needs to copy copious ammounts of a game and break the DRM in the process. or students. or journalists. the key word would be PRIVATE. if you dont go around spreading you made an internal copy of a game, no one is gonna look into it.

There is not enough space on this website to explain all the ways you're wrong, but maybe you could at least go look up any of the dozens of cases where people have been sued for breaking DRM.

ive seen people sue McDonalds because they dropped their hot coffee on their lap. Im not speaking on basis of principle. im speaking on pragmatic and real world levels. people get sued for the wrong things all the time. and of the dozens of cases, only a handful is rather innocent(just made a copy on dvd to have at home). more often than not, theyre bootleg style cases. on principle, yes this is wrong and yes it is stupid, but in the real world, the guy speaks the truth. NOW, I DUNNO HOW THINGS GO in the USA, but in Canada n Europe we dont have crazy suey events like those you speak of. or at least that number of them. you have to understand USA copyright and trademark laws are ridiculously more liberal and dangerous, and there is an entire business throughout the years, built on exploiting them.

Yes, because coffee served at a known-unsafe temperature, causing third-degree burns which required skin grafts, reconstructive surgery, and months of intense, painful rehabilitation certainly isn't something worth suing over. Especially when the company involved was cited multiple times by health and safety officials and had lost similar cases previously on the same grounds. Moreso when they were given an opportunity to settle out of court for nothing more than the medical bills.

draythefingerless:

lotr rocks 0:

draythefingerless:

ive seen people sue McDonalds because they dropped their hot coffee on their lap. Im not speaking on basis of principle. im speaking on pragmatic and real world levels. people get sued for the wrong things all the time. and of the dozens of cases, only a handful is rather innocent(just made a copy on dvd to have at home). more often than not, theyre bootleg style cases. on principle, yes this is wrong and yes it is stupid, but in the real world, the guy speaks the truth. NOW, I DUNNO HOW THINGS GO in the USA, but in Canada n Europe we dont have crazy suey events like those you speak of. or at least that number of them. you have to understand USA copyright and trademark laws are ridiculously more liberal and dangerous, and there is an entire business throughout the years, built on exploiting them.

Ummm, just so that you know this, the lady that sued over the coffee actualy sustained a pretty severe burn, and the coffee was very ,very hot. Too hot to reasonably be serving.

From wikipedia:

On February 27, 1992, Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman from Albuquerque, New Mexico, ordered a 49-cent cup of coffee from the drive-through window of a local McDonald's restaurant. Liebeck was in the passenger's seat of her Ford Probe, and her grandson Chris parked the car so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. Liebeck placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her to remove it. In the process, she spilled the entire cup of coffee on her lap.[10] Liebeck was wearing cotton sweatpants; they absorbed the coffee and held it against her skin, scalding her thighs, buttocks, and groin.[11] Liebeck was taken to the hospital, where it was determined that she had suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent.[12] She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. During this period, Liebeck lost 20 pounds (9 kg, nearly 20% of her body weight), reducing her down to 83 pounds (38 kg).[13] Two years of medical treatment followed.

During the case, Liebeck's attorneys discovered that McDonald's required franchisees to serve coffee at 180-190 °F (82-88 °C). At that temperature, the coffee would cause a third-degree burn in two to seven seconds.

OT: yay for our conservative government being phenominal idiots again. >_>

pointless point is pointless.
hot coffee is heated at near boiling temperatures buddy. im sorry, i dunno how you make your coffee, but where i come from, you near water boiling temperatures. you WILL get heavy burns if you pour hot coffee all over you. no matter where it comes from. it shouldnt be mcdonalds job to advertize common sense. and while i feel for the woman, i still dont see why McDonalds was guilty and sueable(other than overall idiocy in the highly interpretative american law). drills are pretty dangerous, so its sensible if you stick a drill up your dick, to sue the drill company? :/

There's a massive difference between a simple burn -- like you'd get from spilling coffee on yourself at home -- and a third-degree burn.

RvLeshrac:

draythefingerless:

lotr rocks 0:

Ummm, just so that you know this, the lady that sued over the coffee actualy sustained a pretty severe burn, and the coffee was very ,very hot. Too hot to reasonably be serving.

From wikipedia:

On February 27, 1992, Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman from Albuquerque, New Mexico, ordered a 49-cent cup of coffee from the drive-through window of a local McDonald's restaurant. Liebeck was in the passenger's seat of her Ford Probe, and her grandson Chris parked the car so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. Liebeck placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her to remove it. In the process, she spilled the entire cup of coffee on her lap.[10] Liebeck was wearing cotton sweatpants; they absorbed the coffee and held it against her skin, scalding her thighs, buttocks, and groin.[11] Liebeck was taken to the hospital, where it was determined that she had suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent.[12] She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. During this period, Liebeck lost 20 pounds (9 kg, nearly 20% of her body weight), reducing her down to 83 pounds (38 kg).[13] Two years of medical treatment followed.

During the case, Liebeck's attorneys discovered that McDonald's required franchisees to serve coffee at 180-190 °F (82-88 °C). At that temperature, the coffee would cause a third-degree burn in two to seven seconds.

OT: yay for our conservative government being phenominal idiots again. >_>

pointless point is pointless.
hot coffee is heated at near boiling temperatures buddy. im sorry, i dunno how you make your coffee, but where i come from, you near water boiling temperatures. you WILL get heavy burns if you pour hot coffee all over you. no matter where it comes from. it shouldnt be mcdonalds job to advertize common sense. and while i feel for the woman, i still dont see why McDonalds was guilty and sueable(other than overall idiocy in the highly interpretative american law). drills are pretty dangerous, so its sensible if you stick a drill up your dick, to sue the drill company? :/

There's a massive difference between a simple burn -- like you'd get from spilling coffee on yourself at home -- and a third-degree burn.

Actually, no there isnt. its a matter of a few celsius. its between drinking coffee now or drinking it in 5 minutes. Its not a matter of it being a bad thing or not. But do you really think McDonalds has to be sued for making coffee that is hot? It should be implied by common sense that you should be careful that its hot.

draythefingerless:

RvLeshrac:

draythefingerless:

pointless point is pointless.
hot coffee is heated at near boiling temperatures buddy. im sorry, i dunno how you make your coffee, but where i come from, you near water boiling temperatures. you WILL get heavy burns if you pour hot coffee all over you. no matter where it comes from. it shouldnt be mcdonalds job to advertize common sense. and while i feel for the woman, i still dont see why McDonalds was guilty and sueable(other than overall idiocy in the highly interpretative american law). drills are pretty dangerous, so its sensible if you stick a drill up your dick, to sue the drill company? :/

There's a massive difference between a simple burn -- like you'd get from spilling coffee on yourself at home -- and a third-degree burn.

Actually, no there isnt. its a matter of a few celsius. its between drinking coffee now or drinking it in 5 minutes. Its not a matter of it being a bad thing or not. But do you really think McDonalds has to be sued for making coffee that is hot? It should be implied by common sense that you should be careful that its hot.

They ignored repeated warnings from the health department about the serving temperature.

If I tell you repeatedly that the soup has gone bad, but you still serve it, should you not be considered liable for any illness or injury it causes? No? Then why should the restaurant not be liable for a failure to correct a possibly hazardous condition?

Take note that the most damning evidence used during the *multiple* trials was the fact that they had been cited for serving temperature. They had been warned by numerous individuals. They chose to ignore those warnings.

The ideal safe serving temperature for hot beverages is 136F. At that temperature, it would take 1-2 minutes for a third-degree burn to form. At 180F+, it only takes 1-2 seconds.

ph0b0s123:

Andy Chalk:

"If a digital lock is broken for personal use, it is not realistic that the creator would choose to file a lawsuit against the consumer, due to legal fees and time involved," Richardson wrote in a recent letter to a constituent.

Yeah, companies hardly ever go after you in a meaningful way if you defeat their DRM, just ask Geohots....

Fun fact: Geohot got sued for reblogging fail0verflows crack, not for having anything to do with it himself. All the bullshit Sony spouted during his court case was later withdrawn as evidence on account of being proven false by third parties.

The reason they attacked and harassed him? Shareholder concerns.

Baldr:
As content providers, if you the consumer don't like DRM fine, we'll get rid of it. Of course your not going to be able to download our content to your devices to begin with. We'll stream it to you, but your going to have to pay us a monthly fee if you want to keep streaming it. don't have internet? To bad.

bullying consumers is good for business?

RvLeshrac:

draythefingerless:

RvLeshrac:

There's a massive difference between a simple burn -- like you'd get from spilling coffee on yourself at home -- and a third-degree burn.

Actually, no there isnt. its a matter of a few celsius. its between drinking coffee now or drinking it in 5 minutes. Its not a matter of it being a bad thing or not. But do you really think McDonalds has to be sued for making coffee that is hot? It should be implied by common sense that you should be careful that its hot.

They ignored repeated warnings from the health department about the serving temperature.

If I tell you repeatedly that the soup has gone bad, but you still serve it, should you not be considered liable for any illness or injury it causes? No? Then why should the restaurant not be liable for a failure to correct a possibly hazardous condition?

Take note that the most damning evidence used during the *multiple* trials was the fact that they had been cited for serving temperature. They had been warned by numerous individuals. They chose to ignore those warnings.

The ideal safe serving temperature for hot beverages is 136F. At that temperature, it would take 1-2 minutes for a third-degree burn to form. At 180F+, it only takes 1-2 seconds.

the lawyer for the woman in that case recently put out a book "Hot Coffee" (yea lol GTA: SA). people who talk about this case dismissively like you see so often are really uninformed on the facts of the case. its not that coffee was hot, as thats common knowledge. this coffee was too hot for consumption, and mcdonalds knew it. and for this error in judgement they paid, rightfully so

Oh look, Andy, 2 sentences from the source and a piracy issue. I bet this is the whole story and in no way biased!

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Posting on this forum is disabled.