blueblood

When I purchased my house it came with a covenant the restricts what I can do with the land that the house sits on. This covenant is different from a zoning bylaw because it was imposed by the original seller. Here is more information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restrictive_covenant So in theory if all the farmers got together and drew up some stipulations for selling grain/canola, the buyer would have to honor them or face breech of contract charges?

He has won alot of elections under different circumstances. Regardless, someone misused his office. BTW Are you able to vote on Barley or just wheat? Right now just barley. I wouldn't worry about cheap political gains like someone misusing his office, the NDP + Liberals combined vote only amounted to half of his total votes. He flat out smoked them in the election.

Giving the DVDs away is just as bad as selling them, you are denying the company profit.

A seller can demand whatever terms they want and you have to agree or refuse to buy. There is nothing wrong someone trying to sell you a truck and telling you that you cannot put big tires on it - you can simply refuse to pruchase it because of the ridiculous conditions. However, if you do agree to purchase then you have no right to later break the contract because you 'own' the good. You cannot buy a DVD that does not come with a contract that prevents you from copying it. If you don't like that then you should not buy the DVD. Personally I haven't signed any contract buying a DVD, but I will say this as adamant as I am that copyrighting is BS, I don't partake in that as a law abiding citizen. Other than that your pretty much right. Can a seller legally put stipulations like that on selling things? I'm very interested in hearing this response. This could set a pretty crazy precedent.

It's also illegal to steal rental cars even though you "pay" for them. As far as rentals go, making copies of a movie doesn't affect the rental shop owner, he still gets his copy back. If the guy rented a movie and kept it without paying the full price, then he is stealing. Copyright laws are hypocritical of the free market.

Some Manitobans do get royalty rights on the minerals on their land. The government owns the rights over all Canadian airspace. Yah if your an 80+ year old geezer and the U of M. Mineral rights are not transferable though rendering them useless.

I doubt it. There are lots of things he could do that would destroy the value of the land as crop land (i.e. he could turn it into a parking lot). All rental agreements come with conditions that would entitle you to sue the other if those terms are broken. You are making an artificial distinction between a sale and a rental. A seller is free to impose whatever terms they want on the purchaser. If the purchaser buys the good then the purchaser agrees to those terms. If you buy a good marked with a copyright notice then you agree to the contract implied by the notice. If you don't want to be bound by the contract then you don't buy the good.For example, you might want to purchase land from a neighbor who is an organic farmer. Assume this neighbor insisted that you sign a contract promising not to use pesticides on the land and you agreed. Do you beleive that you should be able to break that promise anytime you want because your neighbor 'sold' you the land? Your sort of missing my point. I was discussing in monetary terms if buddy wants to rent it, I can only get X amount, if he makes money with it, I'm not entitled to a certain percentage. Renting land and making money at it is like renting a movie, making copies and making money at it. A small fee for use is paid, then money is made, also the movie better come back in good shape like the land or else penalties are levied. I have no business in buddy making a profit, why should the movie industry have any business in Timmy the taperecorders profits. The movie industry should have to compete. If I'm renting the land from the neighbor he has a point and I'd respect it. But if I'm flat out buying it, it's none of his damn business, if he doesn't want pesticides on it then he'd be wise to sell it to another organic farmer. That scenario makes as much sense as me selling you a truck and saying your not allowed to put big tires on it. That's bunk it's your truck you can do what you want with it.

That's false. If you buy a car or a gun, you can't do anything you want with it. And if you buy land, you can't prevent someone from extracting oil beneath it or flying a plane above it. Your property rights are restricted.In the case of a copyrighted DVD, you do not have the right to copy and sell it. This is eminently sensible for the same reason it is illegal to steal cars. Who would produce, buy or own a car if it were legal to steal them? Why shouldn't the entertainment's property rights be restricted then? They get to charge royalties for use of their property, and I don't get royalties from oil or get to charge someone for flying a plane over my land, that's quite a double standard there. That stealing cars analogy won't work. The theif doesn't pay me for the car. My beef and the entertainment company's beef is someone paying, then turning around and making a profit without paying royalties. IMO BS canadian copyright laws. Also as far as cars go, people buy cars modify them and privately sell them quite possibly making some money at it, is the private seller entitled to pay the car company? I think it's time the entertainment industry learned how to play in the free market.

I get X dollars for Canola, Artist gets X dollars for album/movie. Company buys and manipulates it and gets X+Y dollars. Timmy buys album/movie, manipulates it and gets X+Y dollars. Manipulation can be making copies and changing it. Either way it's all about the money. Both are getting screwed out of money, only difference is the Movie Companies can do something about it. Double Standard. A rental is not a purchase though. Buddy can rent my land and do what he wants with it. It's his 45 bucks an acre to do what he wants. He can sit on his ass and let it go to weeds and is out 45 bucks an acre. He can also grow a bumper crop and get 300+ bucks an acre. bottom line is I get paid 45 bucks either way, I am not entitled to anymore, that's how it goes. If I want 300+ bucks an acre I'll grow a crop myself. By the way if said farmer pulled a stunt like that with me, all I do is roll in with my sprayer and the problem ends right there. Logically speaking, the movie owner sold me a DVD, that's mine. Even if I rent it from a store, that time with it is mine. The truth is the only reason why the entertainment industry is profitable is because of copyright laws, we as many people on this forum have stated should not subsidize an inefficient industry. I believe that if this industry is getting royalties and protection, why can't mine?

It's funny how it works, something about it recirculating can warm things up quite a bit. That water in those pipes can get pretty hot from the ground. No alternate heater is needed. The water from the pipes warms the air up, a fan shoots the hot air through the ducts and warms the house up. For me space isn't an issue so I don't have it drilled to deep per say, it sprawls out. Insulating isn't that bad of a job, just time. But if your going to throw this in there, I suggest spending a lot of time in your cottage. Plus you get AC in the summer time. the fact that you don't have a program with Ontario hydro sucks though.

There is no double standard here. If you buy a physical DVD from a store you resell the physical DVD for whatever you want. What you can't do is make a copy of the DVD and sell it AND keep the original. If you were selling pictures of Canola that could easily copied then you have a right to prevent people from selling COPIES of those pictures. You could not stop them from reselling the physical picture.I support the idea of copyrights, however, the music/movie industry has gotten way too arrogant and now think that they have a right to block fair use. If I buy a digital product I should be able to make personal backups and I should be able to transfer it to any device for personal use. In logical terms, I buy a physical DVD, it's my property now, I can do what I want with it. I manipulated the original into something better (more of them). If I want to make copies and sell them so what. I bought it fair and square. Copyright laws are a distortion of the free market, you know this. Having an original or not is irrelevant. Agribusiness and food companies buy my Canola/Wheat and manipulate it into something better and sell it. By the logic of copyright laws, I am entitled to some of the profits of it. Unfortunately agriculture is exempt, well except for Monsanto and it's draconian copyright laws and plant breeders act. Double standard stands. If Monsanto and the entertainment industry can collect royalties why can't I? Timmy should be able to sell copies of movies based on this BS Canadian copyright law. Copyright laws are a method of supply management, I dont know how a supporter of a free market can be in favour of copyright laws.

Good old Inky, my boy. The board has a purpose, just not the one it has now.

Do you have a ground source heating system? Is that the same? Pardon my rudeness but could you give me a rough estimate of cost to install, to run and where about s are you ? I am currently entertaining ideas of what to do at my cottage in the future. I love groundsource, but pretty sure som small thing called the Canadian Shield might prevent me from doing that. Yah it's the same, it's got water pipes underground circulating water if we're on the same page. I've got a soft clay field instead of rock mind you. It's about 12 grand to install but Manitoba Hydro has a program where they subsidize it and you pay installments on your hydro bill. For me even though paying the installments, the bill is still cheaper than without it, mind you I live in an energy inefficient house. If your cottage is energy efficient, then it might not be that good of an idea. It also doubles as an air conditioner.

Guyser: They do have a GM strain of Corn, It's roundup ready, the same as Canola. Which means you cannot save the seed from your stockpile which you just harvested. BS. But as a grower I don't get copyrights, what gives. It's a frustrating double standard. As i've stated farmers taxes compensate for fuel benefit. The plant breeders act is really a giant pain in my ass, thank you LPOC. If Monsanto didn't get a patent for corn, western canadian canola producers are going to be IRATE. Our copyright laws need to be changed or tossed out. Then I don't think that Bunge, Nestle, Robin Hood, etc. should be allowed to do the same thing with my grain, I'd like royalties too. If that doesn't happen, then timmy can sell pirated movies.

Your power bill will go up regardless unless you have converted to thermal heating and cooling. Everything is tied to oil and gas and they trend upwards always. Likewise, I'm sure if your power goes off, you won't be happy either. An east-west power grid is supposed to help in that regard. I'm already on geothermal heating and cooling, power bill took a nosedive even though I'm paying the friggin thing off. Manitoba Hydro has a sweet deal for that, you should hop on board (providing your home isn't energy efficient). If we go out to Ontario to where the demand is, I'm worrying about my electric bill going up faster than it should.

You have three legitimate options: 1.- Charge more for your Canola. 2.- Buy shares in Becel. 3.- Produce and sell your own margarine. You should stop blaming others who invest large amounts of money to make money and then turn around and reap their rewards for little effort. My point exactly, the movie industry should stop blaming others who invest a small amount of money to make money and then turn around to reap their rewards for little effort. They have options: 1. Drop the price for movie theatres 2. Release DVD's Sooner 3. Learn Free Market Economics The defence of a double standard like this is mind boggling.

How is that restricting? I don't see what public displays of religious imagery have to do with private religious practices. I'd agree with you except there's one small problem, a member of the government endorsed that they could do friday night prayers there, which IMV is the state meddling in religious affairs. I have no problem with them going there, but the gov't did grease the wheels, which I think should be the issue. What I'd be interested in seeing is how far the state will meddle in this. Since it is a public square and anyone can use it, will the state quell protests that might pop up there, what if they did decide to get the two graham's to have a friday night brew ha ha. The state should have stayed out of it. It's a two way street, if they want friday night prayers, they should be prepared to put up with friday night protests.

I must disagree. As soon as you mention "he wants to sell them , thats his business "..you cross a line. I agree that one can copy an owned copy, but only for personal use. He cannot sell nor financially gain from it . OOOOHHHH I see. So it's all right for Bunge to buy my Canola, crush it, turn around and sell it to Becel to make margerine, making a huge profit over me. Nope, if they can do that, Timmy can make copies of a movie and turn around and sell them and make a profit. It happens all the time here. That's quite the double standard isn't it?

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha nicely done.

"Hide behind copyright laws to make a fortune." Is this not what copyright laws are for? I really don't know how you can call copying movies that are 'protected by copyright' and selling copies to countries of the world or for commercial use here in Canada, legitimate competition. I call it theft and the federal government should implement laws to stop this outright theft. Copyright laws are 100% BS. It's making the consumer subsidize an inefficient industry. A guy is allowed to have a camcorder and tape what he wants. The tapes are his property. What are on those tapes doesn't matter, and if he wants to sell them that's his business. Unfortunately our hypocritical ass backwards law prevents this. IMV the guy paid his 10 bucks to go see it, so he didn't steal it. If he can distribute the films more efficiently than the movie companies, that's the movie company's problem. If I can deal with this whenever I sell my grain, the movie companies can deal with it.

your forgetting the 3 months of holiday time on top of that.

I have no sympathy for that particular industry. They hide behind copyright laws to make a fortune. Oh my God they're going to have to compete with somebody. This is like when Monsanto nailed Percy Schmeiser. Where the hell are my copyright laws? If I got the same protection as the movie industry there wouldn't be a farm income crisis. Those boys from hollywood can learn to compete the same way we do. Good on the RCMP for brushing this off.

Well if a guy doesn't want to dole out child support or not want an STD/AIDS, he should be responsible. I'm sorry, it's just very hard to sympathize with problems such as these when they are so easily preventable. Now I'll have to deal with evangelists running around town blabbering about how all those problems are "God's punishment for promiscuity" DAMMIT!!! Call true blue catholicism and Victorian era thinking oppressive and all that, but damn it kept things somewhat under control. Maybe those bastards were on to something and are more clever than we give them credit for.

Jeez I got my question sidestepped and not a direct answer. Personally I'd choose the lesser of two evils which was the point of the question, but you make the good point of the possibility of new evidence which is why we don't execute. Let me rephrase the question to replace execute to slap on dangerous offender status. Say 11 guys were caught and were serial killers who would definetely kill again. 1 turned out to be an accomplice, but at court there was sufficient evidence to charge them all, would you send all 11 to jail for the rest of their lives? The thing that's alarming is how some very dangerous criminals don't get the dangerous offender tag put on them. Mom Boucher comes to mind (or did he get it?)

I don't think there is such thing as a traditional marriage, I think the definition is arbitrary, and marriages and the benefits of marriage as a whole, should be swept away, they have no purpose in modern society (this coming from a conservative). I think that marriages in general break down due to laziness, selfishness and culture. This is one of the rare times I agree with CatchMe.