> if you pronounce cam with an unaspirated /k/ it may sound slightly odd but you’ll still consider it the same word cam
/g/ is devoiced word-initially, so you're more likely to think that the word is 'gam'. [1]
Even though the Korean 'normal' [k] is not marked for aspiration, it is too aspirated; it's just that the voice onset time is shorter. [k͈], on the other hand, is unaspirated.
107(2A) Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988:
“A person who infringes copyright in a work by communicating the work in public
(a) in the course of business, or
(b) otherwise than in the course of business but to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright commits an offence if he knows or has reason to believe that, by doing so he is infringing copyright in that work”.
What's meant by 'communicating' here then? And wouldn't the second clause---by the same standard---make linking to copyrighted material that is illegally distributed unlawful in any case? What a terribly written law.
Are you a UK lawyer? I'm not. I don't feel like I can productively argue this point with you. What I can say is that the citation of that law and the conclusion that O'Dwyer should be tried for violating it came from a UK judge; I linked to the ruling upthread.
Where do you draw the line? ISP's aren't government agencies, either; should we stop going on the internet altogether? Neither are telephone companies. Should we abandon the telephone?
And were they government agencies, would the privacy concerns just have dissipated?
I think what it boils down to is: what is a right and what is a privilege? Is it that Facebook is a privilege, but my privacy remains my right?
Is there anything to 'right' and 'privilege' beyond legal context?
I don't think the OP is suggesting phone support should be phased out; he's saying that email support should be there too and be on par. I can name a couple of companies I've had to interact with in the past few days that only offer phone support: Student Finance, EDF Energy.
