Anthony 's BestNetTech Comments

Latest Comments (34) comment rss

  • On the post: Mininova Told To Remove Infringing Material

    Anthony ( profile ), 26 Aug, 2009 @ 04:25pm

    I have a friend who has recently released her first CD which was released independent of any record labels - available in some smaller retailers, iTunes, or signed copies directly from her. She put the the album minus the last 2 songs onto various torrent sites (9 songs on the version she released) - with a text file indicating how to purchase the album or individual songs. I can't see how Mininova would know if the person with rights to the CD authorises the release or not. Surely their current system is best.

  • On the post: Who's Easier To Intimidate: A Newspaper In Need Of Advertising… Or A Group Of Concerned Citizens?

    Anthony ( profile ), 19 Aug, 2009 @ 07:54pm

    We only have 1 daily newspaper here(QLD,Australia) and it's owned by News Ltd. Not sure how the US feels about News Ltd, but in Australia they're basically a laughing stock whose articles are incredibly dumbed down and basically don't investigate any stories at all.

  • On the post: Illinois Says Sex Offenders Can't Use Social Networks

    Anthony ( profile ), 14 Aug, 2009 @ 05:43am

    Re: Good.

    Don't know about in the US but in Australia there have been several cases were 15 year olds have been charged with production, distribution and possession of child pornography for taking photos of themselves. Those 15 year olds get charged as adults and therefore get placed on the child sex offenders registry for life. Not every sex offender is a child molester.

  • On the post: Why Doesn't Amazon Allow Referrals On Passed Links?

    Anthony ( profile ), 09 Jul, 2009 @ 04:26am

    That's why I ditched Amazon

    I used to be an Amazon affiliate and post Amazon links on my page. Then I found out their very odd policy. So I ditched Amazon and signed with another book/DVD retailer that allows links that cam from anywhere - email, etc. They still don't allow spamming. So if you send out a meaningless email to a newsgroup or large number of people you don't know then you get booted.

  • On the post: SIIA's Sequel To Don't Copy That Floppy Lies About Criminality Of Copying

    Anthony ( profile ), 08 Jul, 2009 @ 03:00am

    That has to be a joke

    There is no way that video can be real. Surely it's a parody.

  • On the post: Student Wins Against Professor's Threats Over Posting Code Online

    Anthony ( profile ), 12 Jun, 2009 @ 12:48am

    Re:

    I'm not in the US but when I did my CS course (finishing in 2001) in Australia I had to sign a form that the University maintained ownership on anything I created for assessment purposes.

  • On the post: Now It's The UK's Turn For Some Bogus Piracy Stats

    Anthony ( profile ), 01 Jun, 2009 @ 11:15pm

    Look At Photshop

    It's commonly said that Photoshop is one of the most pirated programs in the world. Does anyone seriously think that the everyone who downloads it would pay the hundreds of dollars it costs if it wasn't available for free? I doubt even 1% would.

  • On the post: Theater Ordered To Pay $10,000 For Searching Customers

    Anthony ( profile ), 01 Jun, 2009 @ 11:07pm

    They do it to employees as well

    Where I work there's a sign hanging up in the staff lunch room (serious sign, not a joke) "Treat your employees like criminals and your company will be a success, otherwise your company will face a slow death." - and they do treat employees like criminals. If we want to go to the bathroom, we must always take someone else with us, if we need to go out any exit for any reason other than leaving(except the front door during customer opening hours) we must take at least 1 other person with us - when we leave for the day(after the business is closed) we must use 1 specific exit that only 1 person has the code for. When any staff member leaves either during the day or night all bags are searched before leaving and we must empty all pockets.

  • On the post: Newspaper Journalists Claiming TV Reporters Are 'Plagiarizing' The News

    Anthony ( profile ), 30 May, 2009 @ 03:47pm

    Re: And

    News Ltd papers do that all the time here

  • On the post: Newspaper Journalists Claiming TV Reporters Are 'Plagiarizing' The News

    Anthony ( profile ), 30 May, 2009 @ 06:37am

    It's Only A Matter Of Time

    This used to happen all the time in Australia, but in the mid-90s all 3 TV networks reported that a very-high profile personality raped a woman and paid her off to not report it. When all 3 TV networks were sued by this particular personality they claimed that they got the story from the paper. So now they always mention that the paper(or another station) was the source of the story when they present stories that they did no research on themselves.

  • On the post: Less Than A Third Of Australia's Censor List Actually About Underage Images

    Anthony ( profile ), 30 May, 2009 @ 12:01am

    Brisbane

    The biggest reason the current Government is attempting to bring this in is because they have a minority senate. The ALP need the support of the 6 Greens, 1 independent, and 1 Family First (read Christian nutcase) to get anything passed. The conservatives have more members in the senate than the ALP, and if just 1 of the non-major parties vote with them then the legislation is defeated. The ALP want to suck up to Mr Family First Christian nutjob to encourage him to vote with the ALP on other matters. In the late 90s the Conservatives needed another Christian nutcase(independent this time) to get things through the senate and they were sucking up to him. But the conservatives and Greens both oppose the filter, so there's no chance of it going ahead.

  • On the post: Looks Like Australia's Plan To Censor The Internet Is Dead… Again… For Now

    Anthony ( profile ), 26 Feb, 2009 @ 10:38pm

    Re: At last, someone in the Senate has seen reason

    The only reason the ALP brought this policy in was to try and appease Family First and hope they return the favour by voting with them on other matters. They could have gone a variety of ways - make homosexuality illegal, ban abortions, ban sex before marriage, or any other fruit-loop idea they support. They chose Internet censorship. Come next election and hopefully FF can piss off forever after haunting the senate since 2003 and we'll never need to hear of this again.

    And Alan(Comment 5) - Nick didn't need to oppose it. For it to pass the ALP would have needed either the Liberals/Nationals to support it or have the support of the Greens(who have always opposed it), Nick, and Family First(who being a right-wing Christian nutcase would always support it). Nick could still vote for it(if it gets to the senate) and it still won't come in.

  • On the post: Latest Australian Internet Censorship Campaign Begins To Widespread Protests

    Anthony ( profile ), 04 Dec, 2008 @ 07:39pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Last time I checked the definition of a vampire is the creature itself, not what they drink. So people that drink blood as part of their religion are not called vampires, neither are animals that consume blood. These people who drink blood don't burst into flame in sunshine, don't get burnt from silver, and the other facets that make up what a vampire is.

  • On the post: Thanks To The Lori Drew Case, I Can Make Each Of You A Criminal

    Anthony ( profile ), 02 Dec, 2008 @ 05:58pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Don't be ridiculous


    Drew broke no laws. To prevent this from happening again we can try and put appropriate laws in place, but that doesn't change the way things are in this case. Drew SHOULD walk -- and then she should be taken to civil co


    Why not just make a new law and charge her retrospectively? The US Federal court(as has Australia) have invented new laws to charge various people they believe are involved with terrorism(with some extremely flimsy evidence). They haven't had a problem charging people for committing crimes that were legal at the time they committed them.

    Lori definitely needs to pay for what she done. If you say it's fine and perfectly legal, then she can't even be taken to court for civil damages. She pretended to be another person to obtain information she would not be able to obtain if she presented herself truthfully. That is fraud.