The re-runs on FTA tv in Australia are just as old (at least on the multi-channel options). We went to satellite 12 years ago and have never looked back. We never watch the commercial FTA channels.
BTW, HD TV is heavily compressed whether over cable, satellite or broadcast. Bandwidth will always be a problem.
BTW2, FTA, cable or satellite, I think that internet TV will blitz the lot soon.
Often the stumbleupon posts you put up are 2 or 3 years old. One I clicked to from BestNetTech recently was 2008. Its often interesting to see the view of the past.
Often the stumbleupon posts you put up are 2 or 3 years old. One I clicked to from BestNetTech recently was 2008. Its often interesting to see the view of the past.
The SA law just brings the internet into line with what is already required for printed material and TV advertising in Australia during an election period. It does suggest a remarkable lack of understanding of the difficulty of enforcement.
What the porn/anti-porn arguments above are missing here is that the bill does not appear to be restricted to porn. Read the article: 'the federal police are empowered to blacklist any site that "encourages, incites or induces," "facilitate(s)" or "has, or is likely to have, the effect of facilitating" a crime.' This IS a broad brush, and I for one would much prefer the police to NOT have this power, whether or not they use or abuse it. The courts are there to decide if a crime occurs: not the police. Where is the right of appeal for the web site? How do you know what you are missing if your can't see it. I know which way my vote is going, and it isn't for the Howard government. (Although I'm sure they would like to make any views other than their own a crime. BestNetTech would be banned.)
Australians are losing their rights - but they are being taken away by a conservative government. So we won't be a socialist dicatorship - instead, we'll be a fascist dicatorship. (and BTW, the trains don't run on time.) It is, however, offtopic from the issue of the review.
Living in a country that is a recent victim of a free trade agreement with the USA, I have to take issue with Confused...'s comment. "Agree to honor our copyright laws" sounds so nice, but so misrepresentative of the US position.
The US's position was more like "you change your (Australia's) laws to make them closer to out laws (such as the DMCA) and by the way, we don't like the way your copyright, patent and pharmaceutical laws work together to restrict our (US) companies abilities to make profits in Australia, so change those too. BTW, we'll keep our own tarif protection for our own interest groups anyway." The drive was really from the US to get the FTA so that it could break down barriers in Australia - and since the FTA was implemented, the balance of trade has moved further in the US's favour.
There is also a BIG difference between suggesting companies have got it wrong by charging for information instead of supplying it free as a leverage point for selling other services and/or products and breaching copyright (AKA "Stealing"). I have not seen anything on BestNetTech that suggests stealing is an appropriate response - except in the comments.
I'd guess the (correct) journey involved some time on a motorway anyway. You're the driver. It is not unreasonable to assume the satnav might try to avoid roadworks and other motorway blockages. (My experiences of regular commuting on the M25 - the world's largest circular car park - was blockage was almost synonymous with motorway in Britain.) The next thing you know, you're on the M1, and you're thinking "I've not been this far north before" (don't laugh, it happens). When do you give up? When do you decide the Satnav is wrong, and there has not been a command from "central" to transfer the patient to Manchester? (BTW, my recollection is that the destination signs on the Motorway say something like "The North" and two or three nearby towns - you could be a few miles down the motorway before you see something that says Manchester.) When do you take it upon yourself to decide that Brentford, Essex is the correct destination and not Brentford, Manchester?
Also, it is the early hours of the morning. It is harder to judge location and direction at night. Who do you call?
I bet they felt stupid, but I think it is perhaps unfair to call them idiots (at least without hearing more of the details.)
"...that something like a TV schedule (factual information about the date and time when a certain TV show will air) can be protected by copyright." Anyone who watches commercial television in Australia can tell you that the published TV guide information from the networks are a work of fiction anyway (and hence under copyright!)
TV viewers here long for factual information about dates and times. Unlike ITV in the UK, the start and finish times for Australian TV shows are more typically either late or very late. Series episodes are often run out of order, or not at all. The only thing you can rely on is the frequency of the ads.
More seriously, it will be an interesting battle. I believe it has long been assumed that the TV guide information is copyright here (in Australia), but that has not really been tested - and the guide information is widely disseminated in unaffiliated paper-based guides.
BestNetTech has not posted any stories submitted by Rob Graves.
Re: Re: I cut the cord
The re-runs on FTA tv in Australia are just as old (at least on the multi-channel options). We went to satellite 12 years ago and have never looked back. We never watch the commercial FTA channels.
BTW, HD TV is heavily compressed whether over cable, satellite or broadcast. Bandwidth will always be a problem.
BTW2, FTA, cable or satellite, I think that internet TV will blitz the lot soon.
Old news
Often the stumbleupon posts you put up are 2 or 3 years old. One I clicked to from BestNetTech recently was 2008. Its often interesting to see the view of the past.
Old news
Often the stumbleupon posts you put up are 2 or 3 years old. One I clicked to from BestNetTech recently was 2008. Its often interesting to see the view of the past.
The SA law just brings the internet into line with what is already required for printed material and TV advertising in Australia during an election period. It does suggest a remarkable lack of understanding of the difficulty of enforcement.
...Facilitating Crime...
What the porn/anti-porn arguments above are missing here is that the bill does not appear to be restricted to porn. Read the article: 'the federal police are empowered to blacklist any site that "encourages, incites or induces," "facilitate(s)" or "has, or is likely to have, the effect of facilitating" a crime.' This IS a broad brush, and I for one would much prefer the police to NOT have this power, whether or not they use or abuse it. The courts are there to decide if a crime occurs: not the police. Where is the right of appeal for the web site? How do you know what you are missing if your can't see it. I know which way my vote is going, and it isn't for the Howard government. (Although I'm sure they would like to make any views other than their own a crime. BestNetTech would be banned.)
Be afraid.
Rob.
Re: Jim got it right - almost
Australians are losing their rights - but they are being taken away by a conservative government. So we won't be a socialist dicatorship - instead, we'll be a fascist dicatorship. (and BTW, the trains don't run on time.) It is, however, offtopic from the issue of the review.
Re: Pushing other countries?
Living in a country that is a recent victim of a free trade agreement with the USA, I have to take issue with Confused...'s comment. "Agree to honor our copyright laws" sounds so nice, but so misrepresentative of the US position.
The US's position was more like "you change your (Australia's) laws to make them closer to out laws (such as the DMCA) and by the way, we don't like the way your copyright, patent and pharmaceutical laws work together to restrict our (US) companies abilities to make profits in Australia, so change those too. BTW, we'll keep our own tarif protection for our own interest groups anyway." The drive was really from the US to get the FTA so that it could break down barriers in Australia - and since the FTA was implemented, the balance of trade has moved further in the US's favour.
There is also a BIG difference between suggesting companies have got it wrong by charging for information instead of supplying it free as a leverage point for selling other services and/or products and breaching copyright (AKA "Stealing"). I have not seen anything on BestNetTech that suggests stealing is an appropriate response - except in the comments.
Idiot... But also...
I'd guess the (correct) journey involved some time on a motorway anyway. You're the driver. It is not unreasonable to assume the satnav might try to avoid roadworks and other motorway blockages. (My experiences of regular commuting on the M25 - the world's largest circular car park - was blockage was almost synonymous with motorway in Britain.) The next thing you know, you're on the M1, and you're thinking "I've not been this far north before" (don't laugh, it happens). When do you give up? When do you decide the Satnav is wrong, and there has not been a command from "central" to transfer the patient to Manchester? (BTW, my recollection is that the destination signs on the Motorway say something like "The North" and two or three nearby towns - you could be a few miles down the motorway before you see something that says Manchester.) When do you take it upon yourself to decide that Brentford, Essex is the correct destination and not Brentford, Manchester?
Also, it is the early hours of the morning. It is harder to judge location and direction at night. Who do you call?
I bet they felt stupid, but I think it is perhaps unfair to call them idiots (at least without hearing more of the details.)
TV guide fiction
"...that something like a TV schedule (factual information about the date and time when a certain TV show will air) can be protected by copyright." Anyone who watches commercial television in Australia can tell you that the published TV guide information from the networks are a work of fiction anyway (and hence under copyright!)
TV viewers here long for factual information about dates and times. Unlike ITV in the UK, the start and finish times for Australian TV shows are more typically either late or very late. Series episodes are often run out of order, or not at all. The only thing you can rely on is the frequency of the ads.
More seriously, it will be an interesting battle. I believe it has long been assumed that the TV guide information is copyright here (in Australia), but that has not really been tested - and the guide information is widely disseminated in unaffiliated paper-based guides.