I'm sorry to say I'm not surprised that Scotty from Marketing used dodgy tactics to get a WeChat account. His whole Prime-Ministership has been dodgy. But it just blows my mind that someone somewhere in Canberra was actually dumb enough to let all this happen and let it come out! (I'm assuming that "someone" is not just one person)
I've heard of people blowing a week's pay in a couple of hours on the pokies. erm... poker machines. erm... one armed bandits? Anyway, for those who don't know, "pokies" is what we refer to them as in Australia. And they are a huge fucking problem here.
But what I'm thinking is if people can be addicted to shopping, sure Amazon and eBay (etc) is likely fueling their addictions. But this? This will make shopping addicts feel like they're in a special shop while they buy shit they don't need and will never use.
I can see the TV specials now: She was addicted to shopping. Now everything's been repossessed, her house is filled with nothing but styrofoam packaging and she's broke! sobbing voice "It got so bad, I was eating the styrofoam just to stay alive. It's no worse than eating instant ramen." (with apologies to women for the stereotype that they would be the ones addicted to shopping, but I'm an older white guy, so what do I know!)
I envision the average TLDR version of ToS would read like this:
1 - We will collect data about you, even if you opt out, and we will profit from said data and there's nothing you can do about it.
2 - You will agree to our conditions or you can go fuck off!
Look, you have to agree to the terms of service or you can't use your phone. Mobile phones are the best example of not owning what you buy. Sure, you can use a different OS with the hardware, but you have to agree with the EULA of any OS you put on there. Unless someone wants to bang out a phone OS and make it PD or CC0.
Surely his recordings are public domain by now, right? Most countries have life-plus-seventy. He died in 1937. Even with the extention to copyrights most countries applied between 1998 and 2012, these recordings should have entered the public domain in 2008.
Well not if Sony has a say in it. He signed with Columbia Records in the United States less than one hundred and ninety-fucking-five years ago and the world must obey United States law because a fucking Japanese electronics company with a shitty music branch says so!
Sony bought Columbia so that their recording formats wouldn't be automatically be rejected by every record company out there. Look how fucking well that shit turned out!
It used to just be sound recordings but lately ContentID now matches when "video uses this song's melody" meaning that any cover version will soon be demonitised. It's legal to do cover versions yet now a cover version gets treated like a sound recording.
A nearly-twelve-hour markup session was a Wikipedia blackout in protest.
I think you've accidentally edited out a line of text here.
So, did the UK extend their copyright terms after 2006? I've seen some DVD's (for sale at Amazon UK) of adaptions of Charles Dickens novels that the BBC made in the 1960's and they're not from the regular BBC licensees. But, apparently, written works (publishing rights) still seem to have the "life plus 70" attached to them still.
But I live in Australia. I've read our copyright law. It's not a recommended read. It does your head in. Anyway, our law says 70 years. And if it is not an Australian work, you have to pretend it is. As in, even if something is public domain all over the world but is less than 70 years old, you have to assume it is "made in Australia" and thus still under copyright here. As far as I've been able to determine, TV shows from the UK over 50 years old are no longer under copyright (publishing rights for the script and music not withstanding) but, as I live in Australia, I have to wait 70 years.
A lot of our copyright law was introduced in order to comply with our "free trade" agreement with the United States in 2007. Oh well, at least I get to transfer my music from one format to another, even if I'm not allowed to transfer my videos from one format to another. The FTA also extended the term for our sound recordings to 70 years. We've also had the anti-circumvention rule since 2007, which was news to me. I thought we were still fighting against it.
Here we are, at the tail-end of 2021, and, as far as I know, it is still not legal to copy your DVD's or Blu-Rays to your phone or tablet. There is software out there that let's you do this. But not legally.
For some reason you are allowed to format shift music but not video. Why should you have to pay for it twice? And that is assuming it is available, which a large part of my DVD collection is not.
Obviously the alternative option would be to get a portable DVD player - which is no good for Blu-Rays. (Do they even make portable Blu-Ray players?) This would mean I would have to carry around another device. And the discs. I only have so much ability for carrying things. So I would probably have to leave something else at home. Not to mention I would have to always make sure it's charged. Not that easy: I usually forget to charge my phone until it is dead. Plus that is also another charger I have to try to not lose. Also, on a different note, I have discs from three different regions in my collection, so I would have to make sure the player is region unlocked.
Oh sure, there's streaming. Again, assuming what I want is even available. Plus then I have to pay for my mobile data. And hope the signal stays strong. Which, when I commute, is virtually dead (one patchy bar at best, often not even that) for 45 minutes on a 95 minute trip.
So ..... I break the law. Fuck 'em. I've paid for my discs. And I've paid for the software to copy it over. Make it legal for personal use. It won't lead to rampant piracy. It'll just lead to happier consumers, which will likely result in a fatter bottom line. And, if I don't watch out instead of just watching, it'll also result in a fat bottom on me!