Slashdot Mirror

It was worth citing the claim, I'll take that beer now. :-P

It was worth citing the claim, I'll take that beer now. :-P

On the off chance that someone might like actual information about this, instead of the random uninformed speculation most people seem to be basing their comments on, here is the official FAQ for this proposed law.

In a clear case of lying the EU commission would like to tell you that Copyright is not a monopoly!

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/08/508&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en#fnB3

That's not what I learnt in my time at UKIPO. Seriously that makes me so angry.

The rest of the reasoning in the FAQs isn't a great deal better and includes a deal of less obvious deception.

They make the point that revenues on _physical_ sales have been "characterised by a fast decline in physical sales (- 30% over the past five yeas[sic])". Notice there's a little word "physical", so internet sales aren't counted.

Then they make the point that: "One study[2] concluded that there was no systematic difference between prices of in-copyright and out-of copyright sound recordings. ". Again they don't note that downloading a copy of an out of copyright work will be free at source (barring network costs) for any work uploaded. You'd even be able to go into an internet cafe and download a load of recordings and burn them on a CD. That'd be maybe £2.50 for 200 songs? Where can I buy that in a shop?

The logic that concludes that one group having a 50 year term and another a 70 year term is inequitable is probably right. The conclusion that you should thus extend the term to 95 years is a vile indictment of the depths to which the claws of big business have sunk into the EU Commission.

To top it all they dismiss out of hand the Gowers Report and cunningly break the link - see here http://www.ipo.gov.uk/policy/policy-issues/policy-issues-gowers.htm (note to Google, the top hit is a broken link too!). See the third recommendation on "Balance" which says keep the 50 year term.

In return for these increased rights, will we get increased benefit to the public, ability to format shift (Recommendation 8 under "Flexibility" in Gowers above), etc., don't hold your breath.

The other report mentioned is not even available as a [broken] link, presumably it's not open to public scrutiny as it was commissioned by the BPI (a British RIAA type group, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Phonographic_Industry).

The Register had this yesterday, but with a different slant on the proceedings.
In summary, this is not about the songs but the performers themselves.See here, here and here

The Register had this yesterday, but with a different slant on the proceedings.
In summary, this is not about the songs but the performers themselves.See here, here and here

The world average is 52% but you are absolutely right about english speaking countries. Canada is only at 35% and England is at a mere 30% ( http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_237.en.pdf )...... then again, America is hovering at 8% bilingualism less than 1/4 Canada's... Anyways it is just a saying or a joke i've heard it wasn't meant to be particularly offensive.

This rule would still have to be approved by the European Parliament for it to become law. If you're an EU citizen, do like the FA says and write your MEP:

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/members.do?language=EN

drill down the map until you get to the member page; there are three postal addresses at the bottom of page. I'd either write to them in Brussels or their constituency address, since they're only usually in Strasbourg once a month. There's an email contact too, at the top.

On a side note, I've actually been in the mailroom at the EP building in Brussels, and it's really nice. It's in a prominent position right on one of the main corridors between the offices and the hemicycle.

Having read the original Directive 2002/58/EC and the various documents that La Quadrature say are the proposed amendments I do not see a contradiction. I am afraid that "The paragraph immediately below that" is not a sufficiently specific reference for me to understand your point. The only thing to which 'that' might refer seems to be "the proposed amendments" and that just does not make sense to me.

Neither the Directive nor any of the amendments require ISPs "to do everything in their power to prevent customer copyright infringement" as far as I can see. If you think that they do can you please be specific about which part of which document you think says that.

I have mod points at the moment but I have already commented so I can't use one here.

The original Directive 2002/58/EC is all about "processing of personal data and the protection of privacy". The original Article 14 paragraph 1 is:

1. In implementing the provisions of this Directive, Member States shall ensure, subject to paragraphs 2 and 3, that no mandatory requirements for specific technical features are imposed on terminal or other electronic communication equipment which could impede the placing of equipment on the market and the free circulation of such equipment in and between Member States.

The amendment just makes it explicit that DRM is included in the equipment that must not be required by law. I am assuming that La Quadrature has reported the amendment correctly, I can't find a link to the original.

While some might like to prohibit the sale of equipment containing DRM I don't think that is going to happen. Permitting the sale of DRM-crippled systems does not prohibit the sale of non-DRM systems.

Reading the original directive is quite informative. It seems to me that the amendment just makes it clear that concern for enforcing copyright does not override the prohibition on requiring specific technical features.

Every project funded as EU FP project (Framework Programme) must have an acronim. It is a requirement in the project proposal forms. I know that most of the acronyms are hard to read and understand. I can assure you it is much harder to create one that is new, creative, having any similarity to the project scope and matching letters with the full name of the project.

A "small" group of currently on-going projects can be found here.

I sent email about this to the European Data Protection Supervisor ( http://www.edps.europa.eu/EDPSWEB/edps/lang/en/pid/1 ), since this is within their mission. The address is edps@edps.europa.eu

The EU Council of Ministers consists of the ministers from all national governments (different ministers depending on the subject being discussed). You know, those ministers who always approve unpopular measures when they're in the Council and then later at home blame the EU for having to implement those same measures in national law.

It's a real shame that Slashdot mods can't go over +5, because this needs to be modded up to +500 and every person living in the EU needs to understand exactly how this undemocratic process is working.

The worst thing about the EU Constitution (erm, I mean Lisbon Treaty)? It enshrines this abuse. The worst thing about friend-of-Holywood Charlie McCreevy? NO ONE can directly threaten to vote him out.

Rich.

And while it started as a private initiative by an MEP, it has been accepted by the EP Culture Committee: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/expert/infopress_page/039-30532-154-06-23-906-20080602IPR30531-02-06-2008-2008-false/default_sv.htm

It was by the way accepted 33 to 1 within the Committee.

Forgot to post a link to the proposed law, so here it is. And yes, it's for real.

I think anyone who has attempted to legally link proprietary drivers, video codecs with the Linux kernel would understand some of GPL's limitations. The fact that GPL can take from so many licenses (without necessarily exporting) doesn't automagically make it the best license.

CDDL is based on MPL which has an explicit patent protection clause (bring a patent suit against another CDDL licensee and you lose all CDDL rights)

The fact that (besides Java), Sun hasn't released much GPL code should not cause us to ignore significant contributions by Sun to the opensource community. According to a E.U. study on The economic impacts of free and opensource software, Sun contributed 312 million Euro's worth of FOSS which amounts to over 51000 person months. This was 44% of all corporate contributions to FOSS. The next highest contributor was IBM with 13% then Red Hat with 8%. The rest SuSE, Netscape, AT&T... don't even add up to Sun's contribution. And this study came out before Java was GPL'd.

Echelon's existence has been pretty thoroughly described and analysed by the European Parliament: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&reference=A5-2001-0264&language=EN&mode=XML

(resolution on "the existence of Echelon": http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P5-TA-2001-0441+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN )

So I don't think you can still really call it a secret.

Echelon's existence has been pretty thoroughly described and analysed by the European Parliament: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&reference=A5-2001-0264&language=EN&mode=XML

(resolution on "the existence of Echelon": http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P5-TA-2001-0441+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN )

So I don't think you can still really call it a secret.

Actually, ships can be a bit more efficient . Depends on ship size, of course, and the availability of waterways vs. rails.

Well, his statistics do agree with my anecdotal evidence:

1) You're twice as likely to be murdered in the US than in the European Union:

(European stats source) http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-SF-07-015/EN/KS-SF-07-015-EN.PDF

(US & individual European countries stats source) http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

2) Germany has WAY lower crime rates than the US, as shown by the g-grandparent post itself, and I was comparing Austria (which probably has even lower rates) to the US, not having lived anywhere else in the EU (my brother did live in Barcelona, and while it wasn't comparatively as safe as Vienna, I do think it was much safer than your average US city).

And really, the gun culture is REALLY a US (and Canadian) thing. Not that I'm seeing things through rose-colored glasses, every country has its bad things.

Actually, systems that do that are already very common in industry and railways. It may not be welcomed by the driving public, but there's plenty of other applications.

In fact, I'd be very surprised if automation and controller companies like Sick didn't already have off-the-shelf solutions.

Such systems are already mandated in the EU for trucks weighing more than 10 metric tons. Speeds are reduced to 89 km/h or less.

This is the best source I could find.

Doesn't really seem to work, though.

Everyone is calling Open Standards these days. the EU has its own competence team called OSOR (see: http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/en/document/6728).
but were is the action ? does anyone see a "bounty" something like that ? What are the products ?

M$ had to pay several $$ fine. Why is the money not supporting a Xorg (see: the State of X11 http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/06/11/0229209) a product that truly every user uses and that gets so little attention. Several other projects are waiting for a leadership.

There are projects that could save the EU Millions, Howto ? see the german foreigen office ( http://www.heise.de/newsticker/Auswaertiges-Amt-spart-im-IT-Bereich-kraeftig-dank-Open-Source--/meldung/85977 )
the EU could offer education for people that want to add linux to there business in Europe, help with simple things like translations for OS projects.

did anyone hear/read about it ? I did not.

This is a great news. I think ISO is a bit overwhelmed at the least by the sheer pressure the world is putting on them about OOXML. Neelie Kroes by the way tell them that she can help if they ask : http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=SPEECH/08/317.

Nice that they provide a doc version (instead of a odf version). But at least pdf and html are open.

Here. There are lots of goodies.

Should we really take action to prevent the pressure safety valve in the steam engine from opening? Can we accept the possibility of a new normal and the inevitability that we must adapt as a species or die?

yes, it's directive 92/100 from 1992 (in several languages).

here is an explanation.

press release from 2002 that says that many countries have not adopted the directive yet (italy did in 1996).

wikipedia says this amount is in reality not very high, however the principle itself is chilling.

yes, it's directive 92/100 from 1992 (in several languages).

here is an explanation.

press release from 2002 that says that many countries have not adopted the directive yet (italy did in 1996).

wikipedia says this amount is in reality not very high, however the principle itself is chilling.

yes, it's directive 92/100 from 1992 (in several languages).

here is an explanation.

press release from 2002 that says that many countries have not adopted the directive yet (italy did in 1996).

wikipedia says this amount is in reality not very high, however the principle itself is chilling.

Oh, that one again? It's 2008 — time to re-tire that M$ talking point. I suppose that Ken Thompson's presentation from 24 years ago is also not an endorsement of Open Source? Re-read A5-0264/2001 and European Commission technology strategy They're quite clear and the 2001 resolution even pre-dates the main start of MS EU-level lobbying efforts.

If M$ wanted to play, it's executives could decide to release product code as open source, but the company hasn't. Further, it can't. M$ products just aren't engineered for security. In fact, M$ code is so bad that it threatens US national security. So, although ditching M$ products won't in and of itself make your site secure, it's a necessary first step.

It's about security and for that you need open source.

Oh, that one again? It's 2008 — time to re-tire that M$ talking point. I suppose that Ken Thompson's presentation from 24 years ago is also not an endorsement of Open Source? Re-read A5-0264/2001 and European Commission technology strategy They're quite clear and the 2001 resolution even pre-dates the main start of MS EU-level lobbying efforts.

If M$ wanted to play, it's executives could decide to release product code as open source, but the company hasn't. Further, it can't. M$ products just aren't engineered for security. In fact, M$ code is so bad that it threatens US national security. So, although ditching M$ products won't in and of itself make your site secure, it's a necessary first step.

It's about security and for that you need open source.

Yes. Now that (effectively) no closed source player are left. Darwinian natural selection has left us the strongest, open source projects. Many precede MS attack on the Internet. Open source is now killing Microsoft. It's a one-two, knock-out. Even most of the yahoo bid was based on stock not cash, and even some of that which is actual cash looks like it would have to borrowed.

Further, there's no market for MS, not even public-sector corporate welfare. See the mandates:

• develop open source encryption tools
• use encryption
• provide training in encryption
• closed source
• develop and use open source
• provide training in open source

Source: A5-0264/2001

For all new European projects:

• open source is the preferred development platform
• open source is the preferred deployment platform
• support open, well-documented standards is required

Source: European Commission technology strategy.

So rather than listen to nerdy Bill, slobby Ballmer, or their media proxies whine, listen to others: go open source, open standards. You save work, you save time, you increase security and you recession-proof your company.

Yes. Now that (effectively) no closed source player are left. Darwinian natural selection has left us the strongest, open source projects. Many precede MS attack on the Internet. Open source is now killing Microsoft. It's a one-two, knock-out. Even most of the yahoo bid was based on stock not cash, and even some of that which is actual cash looks like it would have to borrowed.

Further, there's no market for MS, not even public-sector corporate welfare. See the mandates:

• develop open source encryption tools
• use encryption
• provide training in encryption
• closed source
• develop and use open source
• provide training in open source

Source: A5-0264/2001

For all new European projects:

• open source is the preferred development platform
• open source is the preferred deployment platform
• support open, well-documented standards is required

Source: European Commission technology strategy.

So rather than listen to nerdy Bill, slobby Ballmer, or their media proxies whine, listen to others: go open source, open standards. You save work, you save time, you increase security and you recession-proof your company.

17.1 Introduction

As XML has no native support for binary objects such as images, [OLE] objects, or other media types, and because uncompressed XML files can get very large, OpenDocument uses a package file to store the XML content of a document together with its associated binary data, and to optionally compress the XML content. This package is a standard Zip file, whose structure is discussed below. Information about the files contained in the package is stored in an XML file called the manifest file. The manifest file is always stored at the pathname META-INF/manifest.xml. The main pieces of information stored in the manifest are as follows:

• A list of all of the files in the package.
• The media type of each file in the package.
• If a file stored in the package is encrypted, the information required to decrypt the file is stored in the manifest.

Try unzip a .odp file for example.

The manifest entries (<manifest:file-entry>) have an attribute manifest:media-type which contains the MIME-type of the blob (e.g. a picture of a cute kitten) and its location (usually in the Pictures directory).

So, as long as only open-standard MIME-types are used, I don't see why this is a problem for interoperability. Anyone can implement JPEG, GIF and PNG, for example. Maybe not in the USA but that will hopefully soon be harmonized with the more enlightened EU patent model, now that they saw the light, if I understand TEC plan (pdf) correctly ;-) (hint: I probably don't ;-))

BTW, have a look at this publication of the European Court. It is the ruling of September 17, 2007 in the antitrust case.

Sorry, the EU procedure has changed:
http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/antitrust_mail.html#complaints

You wouldn't really need any changes to the GPS for that- the satellite has no knowledge about the position of anyone receiving its signal anyway; the positioning signal is one way. In theory, a receiver could of course send an ID and the location it computed from multiple satellites back to one of them- but you'd hardly use the GPS satellites for tracking millions of individual devices. Much more likely, it would work somewhat like the EU's Galileo extension to the COSPAS-SARSAT system.

But, constantly and silently tracking the location of millions of GPS receivers is - luckily - science fiction as of today.

Plus, there would be no way of enforcing this - anyone building a Compass receiver could simply ignore the demand for a transmitter/tracker, unless the Chinese released no specs and managed to keep their system completely secret, but this would of course conflict with the availability of a 'public' signal.

A much more unpleasant thought is that, even today, your current position can be determined at any given time, albeit with low accuracy (couple of 100m in cities), if you walk around with a connected cellphone in your pocket.

I went to a seminar on building new data centers. There we a part about location of new data center. The favorite places in Europe were France and Germany, because of cheap power generated by non-polluting nuclear power plant.

Ah but nuclear power is polluting. Nuclear power pollutes from the ground to the ground, cradle to cradle.

I am aware of the end-of-life problem surrounding nuclear power, but you got to admit that if your goal is to avoid burning stuff, you cannot get any better than this.

It's not just the end-of-life, mining the uranium itself pollutes as does refining. Then there's the construction of the power plant. Nuclear power plants require prodigious amounts of steel and concrete, both of which are energy intensive and require a of mining as well.

not-so-sunny Europe

Europe has some pretty good wind sites though, as it does geothermal.

The European Union Public License, which is similar to GPLv2 to my untrained eye, is available in lots of languages, including "Portuguese Portuguese" :-)

Okay, got some links that suggest passenger occupancy rate is ~1.13

• 1,
• 2,
• 3,
• and of course the search...

Fairly indicative of a misuse of vehicles. I'd doubt that they adjusted for tradesmen vehicles that only carry 2 people like the venerated ute and the like, but even with them being included, I'd hazard that the occupancy would not rise far past 2 people/vehicle.

As for being ugly, the main problem for the masses, isn't that it is ugly but that it is outside conventional expectation. I certainly don't think it is ugly, but my reaction was that it was impractical. Having thought a bit about my own use for vehicles, I'd say it is not truly impractical for me... but I can't help think that it would be. The vehicles that fit into the suv categories are almost always ugly, but fit into convention. Heck, most vehicles are effectively oblongs stacked together! That ain't pritty! The appeal is in the impression that they can be versitile as the boxes that inspired (heh) them. The second metric of beauty would be flowing lines, I reckon, which complements symetry.

I don't know if RMS ever said anything along the same lines or not.

MySQL had always been under a dual license and some items were available in the paid version that weren't available in the community edition. From what I've read, the changes being attributed to Sun were in the works before the acquisition.

Not sure why Sun always gets a bad wrap from the F/OSS community.

Yes, it will. In fact, while it is an EU-project, there are also international partners involved in the project, such as China, India, Israel, Ukraine, South Korea, etc.

More here: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/energy_transport/galileo/doc/galileo_coop_internat_final_en.pdf [PDF]

They are not required by law to have a three year warranty here or even a one year but I have never seen a new computer have under a one year warranty.

Actually in Europe consumer goods are required to last for a reasonable length of time. Two years is the minimum period mentioned in the consumer sales directive but member states are free to institute their own (longer) periods and higher consumer standards.

Perhaps this is the reason why the OLPC wasn't sold in Europe ...

Rich.

English-language version of that same page: Taking of evidence and mode of proof - Sweden

In Sweden you can bring what ever you want into court, there are no rules which stipulate the value of different types of evidence. The court makes an independent review of as what has been proved and not proved in each case. Obviously having a conflict of interest when it comes to evidentiary issues will weaken the prosecutors case.

For those who do read swedish: http://ec.europa.eu/civiljustice/evidence/evidence_swe_sv.htm

Search for "fri bevisprövning".