the new "4 colour" TVs = piss off fools

[Sylvia Else]

On 22/09/2010 8:51 PM, Mr.T wrote:

"Sylvia Else"<sylvia@not.here.invalid> wrote in message
news:8ftdvtFeghU2@mid.individual.net...
North coast Prime advertise "If you see news happening grab your phone
and send it to us". Now why would I want to send them my phone?

I would reach for my phone and send the content to You Tube/
Facebook.More people might watch it if its good.

IF it's good, you're might get paid by a TV station though. They'll just
rip
it off YouTube in any case.

Then you sue them for breach of copyright.

Assuming you have more money for lawyers than they do of course. *Highly*
unlikely, that's why they show so many YouTube clips almost every day. I'll
bet money they don't get broadcast permission from either the uploader, or
YouTube.

You don't have to have money for lawyers, you only need to make them
think you do, and that you're suing on principle.

Sylvia.

 

[keithr]

On 22/09/2010 2:16 PM, Mr.T wrote:

"Noodnik"<Noodnik@NotHere.com> wrote in message
news:QY-dnbeXbrPu5AXRnZ2dnUVZ8iSdnZ2d@westnet.com.au...
The high quality is not intended for the program material, it's for the
*ads*.

A total waste of time then since so many people have PVR's and skip the ads
anyway. I know I sure do, I couldn't bear to watch commercial TV otherwise.
Most of my friends do the same. Can't be too many still watching them
surely? I did smile that ad companies are sending ads to the Gruen Transfer,
to get aired on the ABC for nothing, and knowing people will actually be
watching.
Also we are seeing a big increase in product placement during TV shows
instead. Whole programs like Masterchef are completely based on product
placement, and that's ignoring the Morning shows that are *nothing but* ads
from start to finish. Amazed that ANYBODY still watches those. I wonder if
anyone really does?

MrT.

The one on the ABC is OK

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 22/09/2010 10:45 PM, kreed wrote:

On Sep 22, 9:16 pm, Sylvia Else<syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote:
On 22/09/2010 8:51 PM, Mr.T wrote:



"Sylvia Else"<syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote in message
news:8ftdvtFeghU2@mid.individual.net...
North coast Prime advertise "If you see news happening grab your phone
and send it to us". Now why would I want to send them my phone?

I would reach for my phone and send the content to You Tube/
Facebook.More people might watch it if its good.

IF it's good, you're might get paid by a TV station though. They'll just
rip
it off YouTube in any case.

Then you sue them for breach of copyright.

Assuming you have more money for lawyers than they do of course. *Highly*
unlikely, that's why they show so many YouTube clips almost every day. I'll
bet money they don't get broadcast permission from either the uploader, or
YouTube.

You don't have to have money for lawyers, you only need to make them
think you do, and that you're suing on principle.

Sylvia.

Could go in and represent yourself, like that hippie couple did some
years back in the UK
with that Mc Donalds defamation case.

Even though they didn't win, they had no assets to sue for
and cost Mc Donalds a small fortune as well as loads of bad publicity.

Then put the hearing up on you tube

But, as you've observed, that strategy relies on one having no assets to
speak of.

Or if in the hot seat yourself you could pull something like this guy
did in Canada (something do do with admiralty law or such)
and refuse to give the court consent to deal with him.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EzJsUExEDE

Whether it has basis in fact or not - its interesting video and has
been doing the rounds at work.

Look like a nutjob to me. The judge decided to recess because the
situation in the courtroom was becoming confused. I doubt that anything
has been achieved beyond annoying a judicial official and wasting some
court time.

Sylvia.

 

[kreed]

On Sep 22, 9:16 pm, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote:

On 22/09/2010 8:51 PM, Mr.T wrote:



"Sylvia Else"<syl...@not.here.invalid>  wrote in message
news:8ftdvtFeghU2@mid.individual.net...
North coast Prime advertise "If you see news happening grab your phone
and send it to us". Now why would I want to send them my phone?

I would reach for my phone and send the content to You Tube/
Facebook.More people might watch it if its good.

IF it's good, you're might get paid by a TV station though. They'll just
rip
it off YouTube in any case.

Then you sue them for breach of copyright.

Assuming you have more money for lawyers than they do of course. *Highly*
unlikely, that's why they show so many YouTube clips almost every day. I'll
bet money they don't get broadcast permission from either the uploader, or
YouTube.

You don't have to have money for lawyers, you only need to make them
think you do, and that you're suing on principle.

Sylvia.

Could go in and represent yourself, like that hippie couple did some
years back in the UK
with that Mc Donalds defamation case.

Even though they didn't win, they had no assets to sue for
and cost Mc Donalds a small fortune as well as loads of bad publicity.

Then put the hearing up on you tube

Or if in the hot seat yourself you could pull something like this guy
did in Canada (something do do with admiralty law or such)
and refuse to give the court consent to deal with him.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EzJsUExEDE

Whether it has basis in fact or not - its interesting video and has
been doing the rounds at work.

 

[Mr.T]

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.here.invalid> wrote in message
news:8fu6rpFuj3U2@mid.individual.net...

You don't have to have money for lawyers, you only need to make them
think you do, and that you're suing on principle.

Dead right, so how many people CAN make a TV company think they have more
money than them? It's easy enough for them to check if you are on the Top
100 Rich List after all! For the rest of us, it's futile. The legal system
is mostly about protecting the interests of the rich after all.

MrT.

 

[Mr.T]

"kreed" <kenreed1999@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a069df39-a355-4c75-bf73-0b9147dbb89e@z30g2000prg.googlegroups.com...

Could go in and represent yourself, like that hippie couple did some
years back in the UK with that Mc Donalds defamation case.

Even though they didn't win, they had no assets to sue for

Exactly, but if you own a house or car you don't wish to lose, you better
think twice!

MrT.

 

[Mr.T]

"keithr" <keith@nowhere.com.au> wrote in message
news:4c99ed9c$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...

and that's ignoring the Morning shows that are *nothing but* ads
from start to finish. Amazed that ANYBODY still watches those. I wonder
if
anyone really does?

The one on the ABC is OK

I was really referring to Kerri-Anne and it's clones (or maybe I should say
all the current clones of the old Bert Newton morning show) rather than the
breakfast "News" shows. Although how anyone watches Karl or Koshie for more
than 30 seconds without throwing up their breakfast is a mystery to me.
Certainly the ABC is the better choice if you are sick and really have
nothing else to watch at that time of morning.

MrT.

 

[Noodnik]

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
news:4c9affcb$0$8341$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...

"keithr" <keith@nowhere.com.au> wrote in message
news:4c99ed9c$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
and that's ignoring the Morning shows that are *nothing but* ads
from start to finish. Amazed that ANYBODY still watches those. I wonder
if
anyone really does?

The one on the ABC is OK

I was really referring to Kerri-Anne and it's clones (or maybe I should
say
all the current clones of the old Bert Newton morning show) rather than
the
breakfast "News" shows. Although how anyone watches Karl or Koshie for
more
than 30 seconds without throwing up their breakfast is a mystery to me.
Certainly the ABC is the better choice if you are sick and really have
nothing else to watch at that time of morning.

MrT.


I saw the ultimate form of this on weekend sat TV at a hotel in Brazil. Some

channels run nothing but mega-ads over the weekend, all day long, no program
at all. I confess to doing spot checks throughout a day out of pure
curiosity, to see how appalling it could be. Some of the ads were more than
30 minutes long, and they were just a succession of glamour chicks waving
the product around to an inane commentary.

Two that I recall (unfortunately) are the George Foreman grill and Flat
Hose.

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 23/09/2010 5:18 PM, Wolfgang Wildeblood wrote:

On Sep 23, 3:04 pm, "Mr.T"<MrT@home> wrote:
"Sylvia Else"<syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote in message

news:8fu6rpFuj3U2@mid.individual.net...

You don't have to have money for lawyers, you only need to make them
think you do, and that you're suing on principle.

Dead right, so how many people CAN make a TV company think they have more
money than them? It's easy enough for them to check if you are on the Top
100 Rich List after all! For the rest of us, it's futile. The legal system
is mostly about protecting the interests of the rich after all.

MrT.

Well firstly, you need to be a body corporate. Natural persons have no
rights these days. So spend a few hundred dollars and get a company.
Don't call it MrT's Family Company Pty Ltd, call it Microsoft Nominees
(Australia) Ltd or Westpac Virgin Convergent Ventures Ltd or something
like that. Always borrow the name of an overseas based multi-national
to help obscure the lack of local history of your recently
incorporated company.

I can see you've put a lot of thought into this already

Sylvia.

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 23/09/2010 5:04 PM, Mr.T wrote:

"Sylvia Else"<sylvia@not.here.invalid> wrote in message
news:8fu6rpFuj3U2@mid.individual.net...
You don't have to have money for lawyers, you only need to make them
think you do, and that you're suing on principle.

Dead right, so how many people CAN make a TV company think they have more
money than them? It's easy enough for them to check if you are on the Top
100 Rich List after all! For the rest of us, it's futile. The legal system
is mostly about protecting the interests of the rich after all.

I didn't say that you have to show you have more money than they do,
only that you have enough and are willing to spend it. It's not as if
the company can expect to win on the merits of the case.

Sylvia

 

[Wolfgang Wildeblood]

On Sep 23, 3:04 pm, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:

"Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote in message

news:8fu6rpFuj3U2@mid.individual.net...

You don't have to have money for lawyers, you only need to make them
think you do, and that you're suing on principle.

Dead right, so how many people CAN make a TV company think they have more
money than them? It's easy enough for them to check if you are on the Top
100 Rich List after all! For the rest of us, it's futile. The legal system
is mostly about protecting the interests of the rich after all.

MrT.

Well firstly, you need to be a body corporate. Natural persons have no
rights these days. So spend a few hundred dollars and get a company.
Don't call it MrT's Family Company Pty Ltd, call it Microsoft Nominees
(Australia) Ltd or Westpac Virgin Convergent Ventures Ltd or something
like that. Always borrow the name of an overseas based multi-national
to help obscure the lack of local history of your recently
incorporated company.

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 23/09/2010 9:53 PM, kreed wrote:

On Sep 23, 7:06 pm, Sylvia Else<syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote:
On 23/09/2010 5:04 PM, Mr.T wrote:

"Sylvia Else"<syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote in message
news:8fu6rpFuj3U2@mid.individual.net...
You don't have to have money for lawyers, you only need to make them
think you do, and that you're suing on principle.

Dead right, so how many people CAN make a TV company think they have more
money than them? It's easy enough for them to check if you are on the Top
100 Rich List after all! For the rest of us, it's futile. The legal system
is mostly about protecting the interests of the rich after all.

I didn't say that you have to show you have more money than they do,
only that you have enough and are willing to spend it. It's not as if
the company can expect to win on the merits of the case.

Sylvia

I don't know how you can prove it is yours,

You only have to prove it on balance of probility. Likely you'd have the
original which will be of a higher quality that what appears on youTube.
Failing that, a demonstration that you have the password for the user
who apparently posted it on youTube (or first posted it, given the
tendency for people to repost other people's videos), together with your
evidence that you created the footage, and an admission from the
broadcaster (which they wouldn't be able to avoid giving) that they got
it off youTube, would be sufficient.

In fact I'm amazed (knowing that most of us on here know how
processors and memory devices work)
that computer based evidence can even be admissible on its own
standing considering how easily manipulated / tampered with it
is. (photos, date, time stamps for example) and the impossibility of
anyone proving it is/isn't legit.

Sometimes the law makes specific provision for it, such as with speed
cameras. Otherwise the court has to take into account the factors you
mention when assessing the evidence. Typically there would also have to
be evidence from the person responsible for creating the images.

Sylvia.

 

[kreed]

On Sep 23, 5:06 pm, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:

"kreed" <kenreed1...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:a069df39-a355-4c75-bf73-0b9147dbb89e@z30g2000prg.googlegroups.com...

Could go in and represent yourself, like that hippie couple did some
years back in the UK with that Mc Donalds defamation case.
Even though they didn't win, they had no assets to sue for

Exactly, but if you own a house or car you don't wish to lose, you better
think twice!

MrT.

I guess you could sell to pay "legal bills" ?

 

[kreed]

On Sep 23, 7:06 pm, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote:

On 23/09/2010 5:04 PM, Mr.T wrote:

"Sylvia Else"<syl...@not.here.invalid>  wrote in message
news:8fu6rpFuj3U2@mid.individual.net...
You don't have to have money for lawyers, you only need to make them
think you do, and that you're suing on principle.

Dead right, so how many people CAN make a TV company think they have more
money than them? It's easy enough for them to check if you are on the Top
100 Rich List after all! For the rest of us, it's futile. The legal system
is mostly about protecting the interests of the rich after all.

I didn't say that you have to show you have more money than they do,
only that you have enough and are willing to spend it. It's not as if
the company can expect to win on the merits of the case.

Sylvia

I don't know how you can prove it is yours,
In fact I'm amazed (knowing that most of us on here know how
processors and memory devices work)
that computer based evidence can even be admissible on its own
standing considering how easily manipulated / tampered with it
is. (photos, date, time stamps for example) and the impossibility of
anyone proving it is/isn't legit.

 

[kreed]

On Sep 23, 5:04 pm, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:

"Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote in message

news:8fu6rpFuj3U2@mid.individual.net...

You don't have to have money for lawyers, you only need to make them
think you do, and that you're suing on principle.

Dead right, so how many people CAN make a TV company think they have more
money than them? It's easy enough for them to check if you are on the Top
100 Rich List after all! For the rest of us, it's futile.

The legal system
is mostly about protecting the interests of the rich after all.

MrT.

You know your stuff.
I'm also glad you correctly said "legal" system and not "justice"
system.

I saw in the paper recently about a Gold Coast couple who spent some
$6 million
on legal fees for a defense for their son on a murder charge. He
didn't win.

Regardless of his guilt or innocence - the fact that this sum had to
be forked out for "justice"
demonstrates clearly that anyone not filthy rich - or qualifies for
legal basically has
zero chance of a fair hearing.


In the case of being up against a major corporation in a civil suit -
with their massive legal budget,
I doubt $6 mil would go very far if they chose to drag it out. The
only advantage here is that
at worst you only can go bankrupt, rather than go bankrupt and to
jail.

 

[kreed]

On Sep 23, 5:18 pm, Wolfgang Wildeblood <wolfgangwildebl...@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Sep 23, 3:04 pm, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:

"Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote in message

news:8fu6rpFuj3U2@mid.individual.net...

You don't have to have money for lawyers, you only need to make them
think you do, and that you're suing on principle.

Dead right, so how many people CAN make a TV company think they have more
money than them? It's easy enough for them to check if you are on the Top
100 Rich List after all! For the rest of us, it's futile. The legal system
is mostly about protecting the interests of the rich after all.

MrT.

Well firstly, you need to be a body corporate. Natural persons have no
rights these days. So spend a few hundred dollars and get a company.
Don't call it MrT's Family Company Pty Ltd, call it Microsoft Nominees
(Australia) Ltd or Westpac Virgin Convergent Ventures Ltd or something
like that. Always borrow the name of an overseas based multi-national
to help obscure the lack of local history of your recently
incorporated company.

I don't know what you mean by that, but AFAIK a body corporate is a
committee of
owners that manage real estate that has separate dwellings (like
apartment blocks,
separately owned shops in shopping centre complexes, industrial
units)
owned by a number of different people but on commonly owned land.

They decide on various issues related to the common property
& usually arrange common insurance, external maintenance and charge a
fee
to the owners to cover their share of all of this.

I fail to see how this is going to protect your assets from you being
sued.

At very best (if its a lawsuit involving common property) all of the
owners
might be liable, rather than you losing your assets, all the members
lose their assets, or a good chunk of them, as well as you.



I think that what you are thinking of is setting up a company (Pty
Ltd) or a
trust for asset protection.

Probably isnt a bad idea depending on your circumstances, but the
possible problems with these things:

1> this entity can probably be sued if it does something wrong, and
the assets be taken anyway

2> you have to lodge company/trust tax returns and ASIC documents
every year,
if you don't have a great lot of money or assets involved, (or very
little equity in the asset)
this can cost a lot of money that is ongoing.

3> Possible stamp duty and tax issues involved in transferring real
estate from your name into the trust / company name.

4> if you are a wage earner, and YOU were sued and lost, your pay
would probably be taken (or a portion) for the rest of your life
to pay back the debt.



This is all a matter for proper legal advice, these are just my views
and they may be wrong or laws have changed.

 

[Wolfgang Wildeblood]

On Sep 23, 8:30 pm, kreed <kenreed1...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sep 23, 5:18 pm, Wolfgang Wildeblood <wolfgangwildebl...@gmail.com
wrote:

On Sep 23, 3:04 pm, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:

"Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote in message

news:8fu6rpFuj3U2@mid.individual.net...

You don't have to have money for lawyers, you only need to make them
think you do, and that you're suing on principle.

Dead right, so how many people CAN make a TV company think they have more
money than them? It's easy enough for them to check if you are on the Top
100 Rich List after all! For the rest of us, it's futile. The legal system
is mostly about protecting the interests of the rich after all.

MrT.

Well firstly, you need to be a body corporate. Natural persons have no
rights these days. So spend a few hundred dollars and get a company.
Don't call it MrT's Family Company Pty Ltd, call it Microsoft Nominees
(Australia) Ltd or Westpac Virgin Convergent Ventures Ltd or something
like that. Always borrow the name of an overseas based multi-national
to help obscure the lack of local history of your recently
incorporated company.

I don't know what you mean by that, but AFAIK a body corporate is a
committee of
owners that manage real estate that has separate dwellings (like
apartment blocks,
separately owned shops in shopping centre complexes, industrial
units)
owned by a number of different people but on commonly owned land.

That's one example of a body corporate, and sorry for causing
confusion. It's also a general term for all corporate legal "persons":
companies, incorporated associations etc.

I haven't read upthread for several days (the discussion has obviously
moved on from 4 colour TVs), and dropped in at MrT's reply to this
comment from Sylvia:-

You don't have to have money for lawyers, you only need to make them
think you do...

and I was replying only to that, not to its context. I don't know
who's wishing they could sue whom, or why. I'll go back and read it
now.

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 24/09/2010 12:26 AM, kreed wrote:

On Sep 23, 11:10 pm, Sylvia Else<syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote:
On 23/09/2010 9:53 PM, kreed wrote:

A computer expert stated that "compromising pictures", "company
secrets" (that the person shouldn't have, and didn't steal), and child
porn
were being routinely planted on unsuspecting individuals computers
(either physically, by hacking or specially written viruses) leading
to
blackmail, or allowing the use of search warrants to take the machine
and get hold of other files on it.

That doesn't actually sound terribly plausible. What are you going to
do? Say "if you don't pay me $X, I'll tell the police about the child
porn I've put on your PC"? The mark's obvious response is to destroy the
HD and buy a new one.

As for using them to get a search warrant - "We need a search warrant."
"Why?" "Because we suspect the person of having child porn on their PC."
"Why do you suspect that?" "Um..."

The point being that to get a search warrant you have to have grounds
for suspicion. Hacking the PC, or otherwise putting incriminating
evidence on it, is not an effective way of getting those grounds. What
you need is an allegation that there is child porn on it. Whether or not
there actually is makes little difference.

Sylvia.

 

[kreed]

On Sep 23, 11:10 pm, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote:

On 23/09/2010 9:53 PM, kreed wrote:



On Sep 23, 7:06 pm, Sylvia Else<syl...@not.here.invalid>  wrote:
On 23/09/2010 5:04 PM, Mr.T wrote:

"Sylvia Else"<syl...@not.here.invalid>    wrote in message
news:8fu6rpFuj3U2@mid.individual.net...
You don't have to have money for lawyers, you only need to make them
think you do, and that you're suing on principle.

Dead right, so how many people CAN make a TV company think they have more
money than them? It's easy enough for them to check if you are on the Top
100 Rich List after all! For the rest of us, it's futile. The legal system
is mostly about protecting the interests of the rich after all.

I didn't say that you have to show you have more money than they do,
only that you have enough and are willing to spend it. It's not as if
the company can expect to win on the merits of the case.

Sylvia

I don't know how you can prove it is yours,

You only have to prove it on balance of probility. Likely you'd have the
original which will be of a higher quality that what appears on youTube.
Failing that, a demonstration that you have the password for the user
who apparently posted it on youTube (or first posted it, given the
tendency for people to repost other people's videos), together with your
evidence that you created the footage, and an admission from the
broadcaster (which they wouldn't be able to avoid giving) that they got
it off youTube, would be sufficient.

In fact I'm amazed (knowing that most of us on here know how
processors and memory devices work)
that computer based evidence can even be admissible on its own
standing considering how easily manipulated / tampered with it
is. (photos, date, time stamps for example) and the impossibility of
anyone proving it is/isn't legit.

Sometimes the law makes specific provision for it, such as with speed
cameras. Otherwise the court has to take into account the factors you
mention when assessing the evidence. Typically there would also have to
be evidence from the person responsible for creating the images.

Things like that are specifically made for evidence gathering
purposes
likely have features that give a strong standard of evidence. With a
speed camera
it likely takes more than one pic, and if you are speeding in excess
of traffic flow, that
should make it obvious showing you having moved much further ahead in
the time between the 2 pics,
in relation to other traffic. In speed camera vans I think they have
to have a human operator doing the job.

Stuff like that is not likely to be contested in court anyway, it isnt
financially worth it,
so usually the fine will just be paid without any incident.


You tube servers would be less likely to be fiddled with, though on
the other hand the Media outlet could hit you tube
with a copyright claim and probably get it pulled, depending on their
procedures and there goes the evidence.


Typical PC's are not made for such purposes, and are ripe for
tampering, planting stuff etc.

One discussion on this was on 4 corners episode regarding mining
executive Stern Hu and his trial for espionage
in China.

A computer expert stated that "compromising pictures", "company
secrets" (that the person shouldn't have, and didn't steal), and child
porn
were being routinely planted on unsuspecting individuals computers
(either physically, by hacking or specially written viruses) leading
to
blackmail, or allowing the use of search warrants to take the machine
and get hold of other files on it.

As you could imagine could lead to very severe embarrassment, loss of
credibility, loss of one's career or even jail - as Stern Hu found
out. (assuming he was a victim of this).


> Sylvia.

 

[kreed]

On Sep 24, 1:13 am, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote:

On 24/09/2010 12:26 AM, kreed wrote:

On Sep 23, 11:10 pm, Sylvia Else<syl...@not.here.invalid>  wrote:
On 23/09/2010 9:53 PM, kreed wrote:
A computer expert stated that "compromising pictures", "company
secrets" (that the person shouldn't have, and didn't steal), and child
porn
were being routinely  planted on unsuspecting individuals computers
(either physically, by hacking or specially written viruses) leading
to
blackmail, or allowing the use of search warrants to take the machine
and get hold of other files on it.

That doesn't actually sound terribly plausible. What are you going to
do? Say "if you don't pay me $X, I'll tell the police about the child
porn I've put on your PC"? The mark's obvious response is to destroy the
HD and buy a new one.

As for using them to get a search warrant - "We need a search warrant."
"Why?" "Because we suspect the person of having child porn on their PC."
"Why do you suspect that?" "Um..."

The point being that to get a search warrant you have to have grounds
for suspicion. Hacking the PC, or otherwise putting incriminating
evidence on it, is not an effective way of getting those grounds. What
you need is an allegation that there is child porn on it. Whether or not
there actually is makes little difference.

Sylvia.

Watch the program, I think you can see back episodes or transcripts
online at the ABC website.