Slashdot Mirror
Lobbying For Linux
Telex4 writes "Slashdot has heard a lot lately about why software patents are bad, and the passage of the legislation in the EU. But other than the online demo and a few pictures of the demonstration outside the European Parliament, Slashdotters hear little about the real behind-the-scenes lobbying. I've just put an article up on Newsforge describing and discussing my experiences lobbying inside the Parliament that might shed a little light on what we mortal geeks can do to save ourselves. There are some accompanying photos on my web site for those who like visual aids." (NewsForge and Slashdot are both part of OSDN.)
I just want to say congratulations for what you have done. Many of us bitch and complain about these issues, but you took time out of your life to do something about it. I just wanted to thank you for that.
What about the BSD family?
The cluelessness amoung MEPs is interesting. I am a firm believer that organizational incompetence is the one unifying factor amoung all political systems. Yet these MEPs are the ones will make the decision on this matter affecting everyone. It makes you wonder how many people in government actually know what is going on even a small percentage of the time.
"I never think of the future. It comes soon enough."
It's that simple.
Don't lobby for Linux. Besides being a FreeBSD user hating to see EU nations ban everything but Linux, it also doesn't do anything to correct the pervasion monoculture in governments. While 100% use of Linux is better than 100% use of Windows, 100% use of anything is still bad.
So lobby for Open Source instead. Lobby for Open Standards. Those will also be much easier to get acceptance.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Time is running out. We will not stop this directive but we can support important amendments filed by some MEPs in order to get a sufficient directive.
p ar tition?ipid=0&ilg=EN&iorig=home&imsg=
l en 0309/index.en.html/ eubsa-swpat0202/plen 0309/kond/index.en.html
a t0202/tech /index.en.html
a t0202/prog /index.en.html
p at0202/itop /index.en.html
Adresses of EU - representatives
http://wwwdb.europarl.eu.int/ep5/owa/p_meps2.re
personal > telephone call > Fax > letter > email
The directive is called COM(02)92, it will be voted on Wednesday.
Info about Amendments (please directly refer to these, no general texts, the first link is a must read):
http://swpat.ffii.org/papiere/eubsa-swpat0202/p
http://swpat.ffii.org/papiere
It is especially useful to support Mrs. Kauppi against patent radical Wurmling in the conservative group
http://swpat.ffii.org/#wuermeling-pr030919
Background
General:
http://swpat.ffii.org/analyse/index.de.html
Technical contribution (what is really meant, we want a definition in the directive based on the "natural forces" theory):
http://swpat.ffii.org/papiere/eubsa-swp
Program claims (dangerous for web site owners):
http://swpat.ffii.org/papiere/eubsa-swp
Interoperability (support ITRE against Juri proposal)
http://swpat.ffii.org/papiere/eubsa-sw
Don't write to Green party members or EFA as they are convinced yet, focus on Liberals, Conservative(Finnish MEP Kauppi has made good amendments)
and Social democrats
One of the funniest arguments was Wurmling's text who stated that Eolas vs. Microsoft showed best practise for SME. Incompetence and lies rule within the EU parliament. We shall not let patent lawyer interest groups win this battle.
The debate over the use of open-source software is underway, with the ALP adopting a strong pro open-source policy.
It will be interesting to see if they actually do anything about it when the conservatives finally get dumped.
"The "Free Software Alliance" (FSA) is an imaginary organisation, created by Arlene McCarthy (MEP, UK Labour) in August 2003 for the purpose of press briefings. The FSA is a mirror of the BSA: it fights aggressively and intrusively for the right of its members to free-ride on other people's intellectual property. The FSA supports a caricature of the positions of the FFII (Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure) and the Eurolinux Alliance. Unlike FFII, Eurolinux and BSA, the FSA consists only of computer rights campaigners, and enjoys no support among commercial software producers."
http://swpat.ffii.org/players/fsa/
Of all of my local MEPs that I've emailed, Caroline Lucas (Green) has been both the most responsive, and the most supportive of our position. If they were only pro-Euro, they'd get my vote every time...
(Christopher Hume (LibDem) has sent me a number of letters, the most recent of which (16/09/2003) says that "software should not be patentable simply because it is running on generic computer equipment", and goes on to say that they want a Directive to "enforce the original EPC, rather than codifying what has become common practice - and illegal practice - of allowing the patenting of computer-implemented inventions".)
Being unemployed (hence having lots of free time), living in western germany (hence being able to travel to Brussels easily) and being a free software supporter, even with some experience in political work (from being a students representative of various kinds back when life rocked), I'd like to contribute to effective lobbying in the EU. However, the only really serious EU-wide organization seems to be the FSF Europe, and I happen to disagree with the FSF on some major points. (And there's Attac, which I happen to disagree on more points with.) There doesn't seem to be any organized forums for european FLOSS supporters outside the FSF Europe right now, or is there? Maybe something more "Open Source"-related? Is there a way for someone who's experience ranges from writing code over writing press releases to organizing demonstations and legal help for demonstrators to throwing yoghurt at malevolent policemen to effectively contribute, without having to adopt the FFS mantra?
Programming can be fun again. Film at 11.
Organizations that lobby to pass free-software-unfriendly legislation will be shut down immediately after they begin lobbying.
Companies that write software that produces unpublicized data formats will be shut down.
People who review free software and compare it to commercial software, and who point out any sort of disadvantage to using the free software, or any advantage to using the commercial software, will be shot immediately.
I know, some BSD funs may dislike it. But in many cases it's really easier to approve "Linux in general" and later specify that sometime it can be BSD :)
Well, historically Linux was stealing a lot open source applications from BSD world. And that time for many managers Linux was one of BSD kinds. Now time is changed.
Less is more !
Britian not in the EU: Madame Arlene McCarthy and the radical Uk patent movement would be left off the fences.
Arlene McCarthy? Never heard of her. She doesn't represent me. That was, of course my point.
# init 5
Connection closed.
Oh...
Before you troll, just compare with a typical big business/RIAA mode "lobbying" and what this guy has done. He has followed a plain and transperant way and has tried to convince the leaders in a perfectly democratic way for a genuine purpose. On the contray, big business "lobbying" is often non-transperant and undemocratic .They shower millions in to the party fund(and often personal pockets of leaders) and then manage to have totally stupid laws like DMCA.
http://www.nasirudheen.blogspot/
Trade issues like IP and patentability are among the roots of wars, famine and poverty. It is a small step from this issue to the availability of cheap AIDS medicines in Third World countries, or the exploitation of Third World farmers by Western control of genetically modified monocultures. If we want to do something about international justice we need to start at home - and that means things we understand better than most. I am not qualified to explain the problems of GM crops to a representative, but I am qualified to explain the problems created by software patents. So that's what I should do. Don't criticise the people trying to bring down the wall with pickaxes because other people are using hammers.
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
Oh yeah?
And you believe that the world really works like that? You just show a plain, transparent and a democratic way? Let me play the devil's advocate: where's the profit in that?
The only way you opne source/anti-patent people can outlobby the lobbyists it to use the "typical big business/RIAA mode": show where the maximal profit lies.
You are smart people. I don't understand why it is so hard to comprehend!
BOO! TERRO
Euro elections are held every 5 years.
The last UK Europarl election was on June 10 1999.
If you are on the electoral roll you will get a ballot card for all elections at all levels. If you are not sure whether you are registered, fill out the Electoral Commission form and send it to your local registry.
There is nothing special about Euro elections as far as registration/notification is concerned.
I'm not sure I follow your other concerns - can you elucidate?
She's top on the Uk labour list for EU elections. and responsible for this directive proposal.
rm -rf /home/leia
In a free, democractic society that's perfectly acceptable.
Your point is?
BOO! TERRO
Well you can have a chance to vote next year since you missed the election in 1999.
You can find out who your MEP is here and complain to them.
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
>The only way you opne source/anti-patent people can outlobby the lobbyists it to use the "typical big business/RIAA mode"
Wrong! Even without following "typical big business/RIAA mode", they were successful so far. Thats why the voting was postponed more than once.
http://www.nasirudheen.blogspot/
Thanks for that.
# init 5
Connection closed.
Oh...
Its because using their methods is an inherent evil. To do so would be to lessen ourselves more than simply losing the fight will do. That is why many people fight so hard yet still have difficulty winning.
The headline is crap. It is not even about Open Source but about the future of informations society at large, because shareware programmers and IT giants (see: MS vs. Eolas) are targeted as well.
Maybe this is old news, but funny nonetheless in this context: Resources for competing with Linux
Ok.
I've got nothing more to say except that if you believe that, you are too naive for your own good.
BOO! TERRO
When are these elections held? I'm on the electoral register and have been for years - I've voted in two general elections and a number of local elections, I may have moved a couple of times but I've never had any notice or ballot cards through for European elections, not once.
EU parliament positions are generally for a duration of 5 years, and are usually similar to national elections (I'm not sure if there's still a representative vote in some member states). For the UK, this means parliament members are elected as described here (note that it changed before the 1999 elections). Your not getting a ballot has to be blamed on local government; I've had to elect my representatives twice already.
All in all, this type of democracy isn't much different from the representative system that's used in the US (Except that we don't bother trying to elect a central president. We know that won't work in Europe.) Each member state has a proportional number of parliament members, and will supply members depending on a national vote. That puts countries like the UK, France, Italy and Germany in a serious advantage compared to Belgium, Luxemburg and The Netherlands. If your government doesn't attempt to represent your views, take it up with them. The distributions of seats sure shouldn't stop them. :)
And I take it you are a person who has dedicated your entire life to lobbying for the poor, and to solve poverty. Or are you just playing Counter-Strike and posting to Slashdot? Maybe before you complain he isn't addressing important issues, you should thank him for addressing issues at all...
>It was postponed so that more political capital could be gained from its acceptance
Honestly, I dont think this is the reason and I have not found any article/report poiting to that. On the contray many reports were poiting to the other way.If you have any link to substantiate it , I would appreciate.
http://www.nasirudheen.blogspot/
I did not say that they were evil in their entirety or avoidable, just that they are inherently evil, as are very many things.
The method of lobbying by money using corporate power exploits flaws in the political system which cannot be repaired by any political models proposed to date.
That does not mean that using those holes is not wrong, just a stealing from someone who cannot stop it (such as the RIAA) is wrong.
Mostly because BSD doesn't need lobbying.
BSD doesn't have a license that gets it into all sorts of legal scuffles.
BSD users don't care what everyone else is using.
BSD users don't see what they're doing as competing against microsoft. If microsoft went away, they would still be trying to make the best operating systems available.
We're not looking to take over the world, it's more fun to compute.
--
the strongest word is still the word "free"
The next EU election will be on June 13th, 2004
Depends where you live. June 10th in the UK, we don't do Sunday elections. What's more, the government has moved the UK local elections from May to 10th June in an attempt to increase turnout at the European elections, on the grounds that people will go out to vote for their local councils and might as well vote for the European parliament at the same time.
The other theory, the one I believe, is that people will think "oh, it's the European election today, how boring" and stay at home, so the net result will be a decrease in turnout for the local elections.
" In these times of wars and famine and poverty..."
You mean the entirety of human existance?
You sound like all of the other luddites; 'why are we developing X technology when millions are starving in Y', etc.
News flash: Career politicians, like every other human, are not experts in everything.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
...it isn't just a limited term dictatorship by the biggest party. Just don't believe the crap from the S*N and the Daily Fascist - Murdoch, Rothermere and Black have their own WASP agendas.
:). Like a growing number of people in the UK, I don't read newspapers (I take the Telegraph for the General Knowledge crossword on Saturday, but I don't bother with the rest of the copy). I get my news from Radio4. I've been educated sufficiently well that I'm able to evaluate bias in my sources - thank you!
You're making a large assumption there (as Grauniad readers often do
I'm prejudiced: I've been involved for years in technical standards making and lobbying politicians. My kids between them have racked up years in working on the EU mainland and can't understand the British isolationist attitude.
You understand my concern though. In what way have I been consulted in any EU legislation? As far as I'm concerned - they're dicta.
# init 5
Connection closed.
Oh...
This may be slightly offtopic, but it relates, I believe, so here it is.
..(code)... Then: (code)" A real If statement can be more complex than this, of course, since it can take any set of arguments that can be reduced to a boolean true or false. (alternatively, the 'EAX' and 'EBX' may be the reduced values created by C and dropped into the function call.) At this, it may be obvious to anyone who has coded assembly that you can make the same statement basically by replacing JZ (jump on zero) with JNZ (jump on not zero), and switching the two blocks of code. This would not count as patentable, in my opinion.
Software (code) is a lot like music. Its really complicated in the end, but the pieces that it is made up of (chords, phrases, arpeggios, melody lines, etc) can be very simple. In fact, basic chord progressions are reused so many times it borders on the ridiculous. In the same way, certain pieces of code are re-used in a similar form many times. If someone can get a software patent on smallish pieces of code, like getting a copyright on a phrase of music, you could skewer a lot of people for royalties.
Similarly, if you could copyright a general form of music, whose parts are somewhat understood, but nonetheless vague enough that someone could write it without trying to, you could again swim in royalties.
There is, fortunately, in music, a rule against this. But in software it seems that the line may be fuzzy. What we really need is a length-of code range for copyrights.
For instance (As mentioned in one of the articles linked to) it would have been unreasonable for Mozart to say, patent the Symphony. Not to say that some musician might want to try to. Likewise, it would be unreasonable to patent something as wide-reaching and ambiguous as 'one-click shopping'. Patents, to my experience, are usually rather complex, so that people will know if they are using it or not. A detailed description is given, so that there is NO confusion. This rule MUST apply to code as well.
In like terms, it would stupid for Mozart to patent, say, the first phrase from '10 Variations' (the melody is identical to 'Twinkle, Twinkle, little Star'.) how many written pieces of music have used the note progression 'C C G G A A G'? Well, I'm not going to look it up. But as a musician should know, the notes Db Db Ab Ab Bb Bb Ab' are analogous to the original progression. So, then, if you consider that as well to be the same melody (it is) and thus under the patent, you can get the idea of what kind of ridiculousness would ensue.
In software, you likewise should not be able to patent significantly minor parts of code. Heck, the size of the patentable pieces should probably relate to how complex they are a combination of the basic parts of a programming language. I mean, eveyone can see that you can't patent an 'if' statement in C. After all, you aren't the first person to make up the If statement and how it is implemented in machine code. If, however, you created a new 'If' function in assembly, could you patent that? I would think that would depend on how complex a combination of machine instructions you need to produce your statement.
Why is that? Well, generally, you would have to consider the chances that someone else writing an 'If' statement would produce the exact same pieces of code you have by accident. If there were, for instance, 1000 machine instructions required to create an If statement (obviously not, but stay with me) and there were a large number of different combinations of commands that would produce the effect (there could be, in fact, but more later..) then your more efficient If statement would be patentable.
But say, for instance, that there are about 5 lines of assembly required to make this 'If'. Basically something to the effect of "Test EAX EBX
JZ Then
So, I think that software patents should be:
1. Clear and unambiguous. A patent's viability should be judged on whether someone could be under the umbrella of the patent eas
This isn't a redundant post; I just set my threshold to 6.
No, I'm just trying to get by myself. But if I did get active in any way, I wouldn't be trying to pretend that fighting for some silly software law is this great, noble effot. That's just ridiculous.
Out finde more about the EU IPR Enforcement directive here or here.
In these times of wars and famine and poverty, I just can't help but being disgusted by the smugness of people who treat something as trivial as software so seriously. If you want to spend time lobbying, try working on important issues.
What is *your* problem, smug? Please explain me what makes you so self-important to condemn people who fight for freedoms they percieve as critical for our future? Especially when you concede that you did nothing for any cause at all.
I just can't help being disgusted by the smugness of peoplem ho only think there causes matter and are too short sighted to relize all most all causes impant each other.
If we allow single entities to control important things (software, Drug patents, IP) there will be more famine and poverty, because no one will be able to use them to help themselves.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
In a free, democractic society that's perfectly acceptable.
You confuse freedom of speech with the freedom to tell lies. The latter is not acceptable because it infringes the freedom of other people.
Well, to be frank, IP and Copyrights if left unchecked as they are in the US cause the following:
1) Incredibly high drug prices and stagnant research.
Nothing will hurt the poor more, than when you can't buy a statin drug for heart or the large number of other problems statins fix, than high medication prices.
2) IP and Copyright law on software specifically, is shipping jobs for US workers over seas.
Why? Well, if you can design software in countries that do not recognize software or copyright patents, and sell into yet like markets, you make a killing.
The US tech sector is a desert now, with unemployment reaching 7.2% for this year so far.
It is only going to increase.
3) IP and Copyright law has sealed the fate of the US computer industry to a very gloomy future.
Why? Well the answer is very complex, but I will try and make it short and sweet, without soundling like an Economist.
Everyone who has bought a computer in the US has already bought one and the price of the computer now has hit rock bottom. Not because computers can't get still cheaper, it is because Microsoft's OS keeps getting more expensive.
Everyone agrees, that the far east is the next boom market. Billions of Chinese will need a computer one day, a Cell Phone, PDA..etc.
Thanks to senators like Hatch in Utah, and other politically ($$$) bought power players in Washington, no country in their right mind would buy US tech products.
Primarily because Hatch advocated remote control, blowing up any electronic device that downloads Copyrighted material.
Well, that and the CIA and NSA have approached Microsoft in a not so private way advocating backdoors into Windows products sold in foreign countries.
No country in its right mind would buy those products. It doesn't even matter if they exist or not. The damage has been done:
a) China and a group of Nations representing what I call the "Far East Block" or the limbs of the "Dragon" as I call them, are building their own OS. I am almost 100% sure it will probably be a modified resold package based around "Red Flag" Linux.
b) These countries, are having a great deal of recent success in building their own motherboards and processors, with Red Flag Linux preloaded.
c) It is already a matter of public record the Chinese have mandated the use of Red Flag Linux in all matters of government starting in 2004, and are investing billions in eGovernment that is US tamper proof.
(i.e. They recently told Microsoft to go take a hike.)
Of course, the far east represents an enourmous market potential. Whatever country, or countries taps that markets consumer tech goods potential WILL hold the title "Super Power", make no mistake about it.
But those markets have vastly different ideas of what software is, and what IP and Copyrights are.
Thanksfully, they are much more sane than the US, and you won't read about Chinese going to jail for making backups of their DVD's, or for doing research on software related topics in computer security.
What this represents to the US and Europe are fading political power, a vastly reduced tax base, growth position, and of course.
MANY MANY more return pages in Kanjii, Chinese when you fire up Google...
If I was a Slashdot reader, I would start learning Chinese in earnest. I certainly am.
-Hack
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
Software patents are bad, mmmmkaaay??
Yeah, thanks for that wierdo. "Yes" to the only question that you've posed which I could possibly have been asked, the fewer tyrants around the better. We should get rid of Mugabe next. Seriously.
# init 5
Connection closed.
Oh...
Id you know a European language it is very helpful if you could translate part of the thing on Sunday. (Erik needs this by monday morning. There are persons working on it, help is needed help for it, subscribe to the translations mailing list and the info page for more info).
Once doing that whetted your appetite for coming to Strasbourg (there is a demo), help is also appreciated of distributing this inside the parliament (write to europarl ATt ffii DOtT org or call +49-174-7313590, sleeping between 1 am and 9 am CET).
Also note that before there are some supporting events in Greece, Stuttgart and Berlin.
Has no commonality of experience? Are you mad?
Five minutes of genealogical research should enlighten that misconception. Europe such as it is drawn today is as artificial as it has been at any point in time. "Germany" and "Italy," for example, are complete fabrications of the barely more than the last century. For the past 1200 years at least, the countries and people of Europe have been highly interrelated.
The Czars of Russia you mention were hardly Russian at all. Czarina Dagmar was a Danish princess, sister of King George of Greece and Queen Alexandra of England. Czarina Alexandra was a Hessen princess and granddaughter of Queen Victoria. Catherine the Great was a German of nordic descent (Danish, Swedish and Norwegian).
The Holy Roman Empire, neither Holy nor Roman, discuss, is full of these relations like King Philip II of Spain (actually he was Portugeuse) marrying Queen Mary of England only to have her drop dead, cutting him off from England, but then having Charles V (his father), a Belgian who was raised by his Austrian aunt (actually she was Flemmish), hand him the Netherlands and Sicily, leading eventually to his marriage to Elizabeth de Valois, giving him interest in France, which isn't so surprising since his Grandmother was French.
Those ruling family common interests date back
over a thousand years of European history and have had more than a small effect on commonality between nations, good or bad. It is nearly impossible to speak of Europe without speaking of interrelation.
forgot the translation info page url (asking for your cooperation):h eAnalysis
wiki.ael.be/index.php/TranslatingT
You know, in these heightened times, it disgusts me that people waste time with things like "Geek Girls Naked!"
You only help the terrorists and you make baby jesus cry. Besides, think of the kittens.
By making it about free software you weaken the argument, it isn't just about Linux, FreeBSD, or Apache - it is about all software developers that can't afford a large patent portfolio, and it is about all software consumers.
Software is more than GNOME, GNU, KDE, Linux, PHP and whatever other big-name projects you can think of.
Software is, ultimately, the programming of forces of nature. We will see a time come to light when all material construction, all manipulation of space and time, is fundamentally the movement of information between one form and another.
There is a long path to travel between now and a future where all things are understood to be, essentially, computers. Closer to present times, you may expect to see the intellectual endevour of programming becomes more and more a basic part of making the machines we rely on in modern - and yes, eventually - even the poorest societies.
Software at its heart is the construction of complex information processes from mathematical fundamentals. Today we have cellphones and the internet. Tomorrow, who knows - teleportation, personal power generators, individually crafted weapons, and defensive mechanisms.
In a utopic future, you are always able to grow your food on your little patch of private land. But if you want to visit your friends 1000 miles away, you need technology. Today that technology is managed by large institutions - governments, businesses - on a far larger scale than local cohesive communities. Tomorrow, you may expect the distribution of technology to change as smaller communities are more and more able to create their own high technologies.
Today, you cannot build a silicon chip without multi-billion dollar factories, intense pollution, and a deep hierarchy separating rich from poor, so that the many poor feed resources up to the apex of the pyramid, where high technologies - such as your cellphone - are created.
Today, war wages riot through many of the richest countries - in terms of natural resources - precisely because those resources are so sought after. No, I don't mean Iraq, although there are many seeking resources who will find them there. Civil war in many of the African countries is supported by our technological dependence on oil. Social instabilities are - literally - fueled by a continual striving for those who are resource rich yet need to sell those resources, because they are fiscally (and one might say morally) poor.
It is widely commented that poverty is a product of war, and poverty is not solved without solving the problems of war. It is - though less commonly - often noted that war revolves around competition for natural resources: land, water, mineral resources, geographic safety, trading routes, and so on.
I believe that war does not reflect a fundamental failure of the human psyche, but rather is a product of certain social instabilities which either flourish or die out according to the situation. Much as a cloud may precipitate rain or simply blow by, according to delicate balances one way or the other.
One of these social forces is the distribution of wealth, and of desire. It is not a simple of matter of "levelling out" wealth, but rather rigging the systems through which the imbalances of wealth are maintained, so that for the most part, people aren't too bothered by the perceived injustices, rather than being so bothered they catalyse into war.
In any case, individuals do not make for wars. It is an epiphenomenon: the result of many collective decisions. It takes two to tango. It takes two million to have a world wide war. To avoid war, alter the systems which govern the epiphenomenon.
As an individual, I don't know what the best possible role to play in this is. I wager that not only does no other individual, but that the aggregate collectives do not have the self-awareness to deduce those answer either.
Yet, as an individual, I know this much: I have been shown how to use software to make machines which can make people's lives happier, and easier. I have been shown how to develop the most amazing, fantastic technologies - yes, teleportation, personal force fields and being fully independent of others for your basic resource need
As the author, I'd like to ask you to have a look at my web site, and find out just how ridiculous your post is.
Along with the FFII, I actively campaign with Greenpeace, Drop the Debt (Jubilee), the Trade Justice coalition and the Stop AIDS coalition.
I agree that it is a bit odd to get very worked up about software patents and not about other issues that affect more people in more dire ways, but that doesn't make lobbying for something less pressing wrong. I take the time to campaign on software patents precisely because it is low profile, and important in its way, and if people don't stand out and make a noise about it, it will just slip quietly by.
You usually win an election by winning on differential turnout - getting your people to turn out and the opposition to stay at home. Usually you don't win by persuading people to change their vote.
In Brent East the four hundred activists were told "go out and get 20 votes each and we've won". They succeeded. But the opposition didn't; hence result.
Did you vote for every Act of Parliament? Oh dude, we really ought to have an annual vote on that, in case people disagree with parts of it. Come to think of it, maybe we ought to have them monthly, just in case people don't like to spend a month being so "undemocratic".
Your comment is right up there with the most ludicrous Euro-sceptic comments I've read. If you want your views represented, go to your local MEPs and make them known. If you're in a tiny minority, and your minority's views aren't compatable with everyone else's (e.g. if you want Britain to leave the EU), then you either just make do with being represented and unhappy, or you leave for a country outside of the EU. That's the way Democracy works in the UK, I'm afraid.
There's no freedom being infringed upon when someone is told a lie.
You don't seem to have much trust in your right of free speech, anonymous. Why the fear, coward? Why don't you attach your name to your words and stand upright when you proclaim them? You are entitled to say them, you know.
Just to echo what others have said, you are an inspiration to us all - even those of us not directly involved with the European Union (from Texas here - :)
Bravo - well done!
I am afraid it will take the man in the street getting hit by a two-by-four in the forehead before real grass roots pressure can be brought to bear on these issues. Unfortunately, by then, the internet and software development as we have known it may have gone the way of the Dodo...
Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
Oh God, another little-Englander. When will people like you get with the program, and realise that the EU is here to stay, that it's good for Britain, and that it's in our interests to be actively involved in all apsects of it so that we can shape it from within...
My only problem with it is that it's not as democratic as I would like it to be, and that was largely due to the fact that the Brits and Scandinavians weren't in it at the beginning. Maastricht saw a sea change, and the new constitution should help somewhat. It's not perfect but a definate improvement, and the EU *IS* reforming slowly.
And besides, do you have any idea what would hapen if we were to leave the EU? Foreign investment in Britain from outside the EU fell by 73% in 2002, while rising in countries that have adopted the Euro, as a result of us staying out of the currency so far. Why would anyone invest in us if we left the EU?
It's simple marketing: See the penguin. He is happy. Use Linux, and you will be happy.
Happy penguins to all, and to all a good night.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
not more hackers playing politics.
I have seen so many arguments alleging cluelessness on the parts of politicians, simply because you disagree with their positions and where in the end they might come out. This is naive and arrogant in the extreme. And the more we do this, the more we actually help those seeking stronger technology regulation. What fools we can be sometimes.
In the ongoing debates, I have pointed out the hopelessness and fallacy of taking extreme and unprovable positions in opposition to a bil, even though you may well believe deeply in the righteousness and correctness of your position. Politics doesn't work that way -- and neither does logic.
There is a fundamental difference between offering strong and nonfalsifiable rhethoric and making a strong and provable case. The problem is that a single plausible potential counterexample can shatter the credibility of the former. If you overreach with your rhetoric, you will simply talk yourself out of the debate -- as soon as someone begins to doubt the certainty of an extreme position, they wilt and start counting votes.
There is also a fundamental difference between making a strong and provable case that something might happen, and making a strong political case that it matters whether it happens. Even if you can demonstrate that bill A might cause effect B, you have to go much further, and show that the costs of B outweigh the benefits of passing A.
Finally, there are times to realize that something will happen, because a constiuency feels a need for something to happen, and that it is more important to have the bill that WILL be passed, not be the worst it can be.
ACM and academic groups made this mistake during DMCA debates in the US, missing many opportunities to slow down the train in the foolish hope of stopping it altogether. The end result is that it was almost the worst of all possible bills. The few gracious benefits derived from the efforts of those who fought for crypto and reverse engineering exceptions. Much more could have been done, but for the arrogance of those who thought they could kill it dead with raw rhetoric.
We don't just need more individual effort, we need better advice. We need lobbyists who can tell us effectively and impassively when we are simply going to lose, and it is time to salvage what we can, and when we are going to lose unless we temper our rhetoric. Sometimes (like last years Stupid Hollings Bills), we can kill a bad bill -- because the bill on its face is unneeded and is demonstrably dangerous. Othertimes we cannot.
Politics is a different system to hack, requiring significantly different skills. We need better political hackers, not more hackers trying to play politics.
Of course, the main factor here that helped is that the positions of the MEPs were not formulated to win campaign contributions from lobbyists.
In the "land of democracy", the chances that a handful of people can actually get people to listen without massive campaign budgets are a lot smaller.
As I've said, though the EU has done some very wrongheaded things with respect to legislation and technology, the odds on getting them to stop doing them may be considerably better than in the USA if individuals will organize and put in their time and individual-scale money to . . . do something. The war isn't lost there yet. Perhaps it won't be.
The one point that I think based on the article didn't get made as strongly as it should be is that NOT passing software patent bills gives the EU an advantage the USA with respect to individual and small business contributions to technology of the sort that leads to businesses that provides jobs and that the EU can tax.
Remember that the committments of legislators to follow the lead of the US aren't as strong as that of US legislators who got campaign contribution from interested multinationals, i.e. except for a few, I'd guess that a great many are willing to listen to reason if the reason is put in terms that they can understand.
Props to the people who lobbied on behalf of us all.
Tech Public Policy stuff
First of all, their is nothing wrong with Google.
The news is diverse, and it makes an excellent UP TO DATE news and research tool.
Please spare US your OUT OF DATE book based research in your personal academic library and spare us your OUT OF DATE opinions.
You obviously do not have have any money invested personally in those markets. I have.
I get dividends, do you? Probably not if you have invested in any American company. The EM areas very much push dividends. In fact over 80% of the EME companies PAY DIVIDENDS, regardless of stock price.
As for Asia not growing, you are out of your mind.
Everything is made in Asia, including your semiconductors in your computer guy. For the past 40 years, it has grown tremendously.
You have a very bad way of making examples as well. A $12,000 dollar salary for a Chinese city worker, is fine, as long as you don't pay $3.00 for a Latte like you do here in the US and pay more like $0.80 cents.
Goods are DRASTICALLY CHEAPER for a Chinese city worker, you just happened to neglect mentioning that. Perhaps you should use google more and stop consulting your 40 year old book on your desk.
Wow, perhaps you could actually take a trip to China and do some field work! Can't leave your classroom eh? Awe...TOO BAD.
I point these price costing issues out because using their own motherboards, and RedFlag Linux, China is going to start producing Pentium class computers for about $80 bucks a piece, complete with monitor.
Even I could buy a computer with $80 bucks if I made $12000 a year in the US!
Without Microsoft on their ass, Chinese PC manufacturers are going to take computing prices on hardware to all time lows. They have to, because as you so noted, the average person doesn't make much.
No, patents haven't lead to stagnating anything.
Your are a poor economist. Don't quit your day teaching job guy.
Patents have held back many products and markets in high tech goods. I mention drugs because you see it ALL THE TIME.
Judge installs injunction for SO AND SO because of patent infringement.
Even the Wall Street Journal or Fox Financial News has stories on how drug companies are constantly in a legal battle over drugs stuck in the quagmire of US IP and Copyright law.
Perhaps you should read/watch those publications/news shows more often.
It isn't google either, try it, you might like it, and you do not have to leave your class room or office either! How about that.
But your idea that patents are not holding back American business, for the worse, obviously never had to live through the early days of Ecommerce in this country.
RSA held back the US for many years, charging outrageous fees for that HTTPS url. Europe didn't have that problem, and they moved much more quickly to take advantage of the economic benefits of doing business online.
But then of course, everything is business as usual. The US patent laws and copyright laws are throwing people in Jail in their own countries, and people like you are suggesting everything is OK. BE happy.
Nothing to see here....move along.
You my friend, quoting a famous Rooster, "You are a nut case."
-Hack
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
I'm better qualified to speak about the US situation.
Money talks, bullshit walks.
In a real sense, how "extreme" the concerns of the community in favor of freedom for computer users and developers are completely irrelevant.
Whether the positions are moderated or made even more extreme means absolutely nothing.
Given a decently funded PAC along the lines of the NRA or AARP funded by individual $5 and $20 and $100 contributions aggregated into contributions big enough to match what Hollywood is handing out and tons of faxes (NOT e-mails!) the politicians will not only treat our positions with respect, but frequently act on them, especially if we concentrate on politicians the *AA and MS hasn't seen fit to hand campaign money to.
Unfortunately, none of the high-tech millionaires and billionaires who made their pile largely off our work as well as their own have seen fit to provide the leadership required, i.e. the willingness to spend a few megabucks of their own money in order to build a political organization capable of hiring the top-bracket political lobbyistss with checkbooks needed to keep our situation from going into the crapper. What they have done when they've done anything at all is spend just enough money in DC to protect their own narrow and selfish interests. So instead of stopping DMCA, they bought extension of H1B instead. As computer security research is forced to move out of the US, they'll simply outsource it to where it can be done, in the cases where they decide to fix their product line security problems instead of depending on the ability to use the DMCA and computer anti-hacking legislation to suppress computer security research publication. The vulns will still be out there, we just will have to sit there and take them because we aren't able to legally publically share the info required so we can handle response to attacks as a community.
The multimillionaires and frequently, billionaires of the Hollywood cartel have shown no such reluctance, and MS learned from the antitrust case that buying politicians to represent their interests is a good investment.
While you are actually correct about our community's need for representation, it has demonstrated that nobody in a position to pay the price of freedom while it still can be paid in dollars gives a flying fuck. And so, soon, the freedom to use the computers we paid for as we see fit instead of the way our corporate masters want them to be used is going to vanish. History will say that our freedom vanished without a fight. Correctly.
Our "geek-activism" as represented by the EFF and Public Knowledge is basically meaningless in this context. This kind of fight is one that non-profit organizations can not effectively participate in regardless of funding level simply because it is illegal for non-profit organizations to contribute to political campaigns. This kind of fight can not be won without our community buying its own politicians.
It's already too late for the US high-tech community to win this kind of fight, even if the money became available now, it's unlikely that the FEC and state election committee filing deadlines can be complied with in order to allow a high-tech community PAC to raise and spend money on/for/against candidates in time for Election Day 2004.
So, if you want freedom of computing. . . time to start shopping for a new country to live in.
"People always get the kind of local government they deserve"
E.E."Doc"Smith
The only people in our community in a position to act chose to do nothing.
Tech Public Policy stuff
Evidence, please. That you have the slightest clue as to what you're talking about or that your lobbying has had any effect will do. Has the DMCA disappeared before your eyes or something?
Tech Public Policy stuff
Mostly fine rant about Chinese & Linux -- prolly Europe (like Munich?) will be following. Sell MS shares. Maybe sell them short? (or is it too late?) BUT ...
The Chinese are learning English; more are studying English in China (2nd lang) than in the USA (only lang).
Freedom with responsibility
Id you know a European language it is very helpful if you could translate part of the thing on Sunday.
I know English, does that help?
(Sorry, I couldn't help myself.)
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.