Bullshit. NATO only cares about civilian casualties not being reported by press too much. Other than that, they're happy taking out thousands of civilians and polluting the land with missiles that failed to explode, carpet bombs, radioactive materials, and whathaveyou in the process. And due to careful planning, most of the 'confirmed hits' on military equipment turned out to be hits on decoy cardboard models during the bombing of Serbia, 1999.
You don't understand what a monopoly is in the legal sense.
That could well be true. But given the only service for application developers to sell their apps to users of non-jailbroken iPhones is the Appstore, Apple has the power to control access to it, and therefore is in position to monopolize it. I wasn't talking about smartphones. I was talking about iPhone apps.
Your comment makes sense only as much as saying HP is the primary and only market for new HP systems, and is therefore a monopoly.
Apple is not the primary and only market for smartphones, which is the point. It's not even #2.
As I said above, I was referring to the Appstore itself, as a market for iPhone apps, in which Apple has complete control over who gets what, including the iPhone and similar devices as a development platform. The correct comparison would be the Android store, whatever its name is.
In fact, I don't think the concept of monopoly is relevant in itself. This is a situation where Apple has the power to deny apps that are competing directly or indirectly with the device's own features. Whether this happens through TOS is, in my opinion, less relevant. It's a form of control over competition that is very similar to monopoly, even if it doesn't directly affect the price end-users will be paying for the feature (i.e, they don't necessarily pay more because there's no competition). It certainly affects the capacity of 3rd party developers to capitalize on the platform.
Trademarks are first-come, first-served. The only question is whether the developer applied for trademark protection.
Under the US law, trademark protection is automatic, just like copyright protection. Use of the signature is completely optional, and its absence does not remove the protection.
Hmm, Apple Airport - released in 1999 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AirPort). Note that wireless icon there, it looks rather familiar, eh? If you click the picture, you'll note the original picture was uploaded in April 2007 (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/archive/a/a0/20110415032314%21Connectwaves_20070109.png), months before the iPhone was released.
You can combine generic imagery to create original piece of art. It's a very very difficult topic for judges. For example, would changing the color of the airport icon constitute creation of the original art? Would changing the number of stripes do it? Would skewing the circle in the iSync app do it? Problem with both those icons is that they are too generic. It would be dangerous to allow such things to be protectable with all possible variations of color and texture. It's ok to allow that particular instance: combination of shape, color, and texture. But allowing protected variations would be dangerous to the design community as a whole.
In case of the WiFi Sync logo, it's a grey area. The logos combine these generic items in the exact same way, except that the circular arrows in the original WiFi Sync logo are skewed, and colors are different. Depending no how you look at it, it may swing either way. You can say that the particular way of combining those generic elements comprises artistic expression, and hence the logo is protected. On the other hand, you may say that the combination itself is too generic (that's different from saying that the elements are too generic, because in most artworks, individual elements ARE generic). Personally, I think the latter argument would be harder to claim, but I suppose there might be judges that would allow it.
Secondly, the logo combines the wireless logo (which is standard and is not an invention of this student) with the sync logo (two arrows round a circle) which is again standard and predates this student's app.
And the word 'appstore' combines the words 'app', and 'store' in a way that is not spectacularly innovative, and both of which predate Apple's Appstore brand. So if you say that this logo is not an original piece of graphic, then Appstore is also not an original brand name. Therefore, the hypocrisy theory still stands.
IP can be considered tangible goods in every since of the word. But I seriously doubt the military gives a damn about the nuances of copyright law in this instance.
And you're right. Military doesn't give a shit about copyright protection because there is none. They do care about copyrighted work of their contractors, but that's a different matter, and certainly has nothing to do with diplomatic cables in question. Diplomatic staff are all government people, so whatever material they produce is considered public domain, regardless of their classification. So, they cannot care about copyright laws even if they wanted to. What they do care about is the way classified documents are treated.
They went directly to classifying the material protected under the laws governing military and state secrets.
Exactly.
If copyright laws would be applied the theft and dissemination of the classified government documents it would be like hacking into a publishers library and downloading a new unreleased novel or song before it was officially released under the applicable copyright laws.
Fixed it for you. And no, it would not be the same, because an unreleased novel is protected by copyright law the moment it is put on paper (or an eletronic document, like LaTeX source). This doesn't hold true for government documents, and hence your analogy fails.
Basically encouraging theft for the purpose of avoiding the restrictions of copyright laws.
No. They don't encourage theft. They encourage secrecy. Which is withholding information from "we the People". Some argue that this is justified in some circumstances, some argue that it is not, but that's what they are doing, basically. Personally, I do not agree they should, but I'm not from US, so I don't care too much either.
The really sad thing in this whole situation is that none of the material released so far has been of any great importance or impact. No grand conspiracies or lies exposed that are worthy of spending 1 year let alone 25 years in jail.
Obviously the US government doesn't think so, right?
That's like saying I can steal your car and then leave it in parking lot some where with the keys in the ignition.
Here we are talking about intellectual property, as opposed to tangible goods.
The military documents were definitely not in the public domain.
On one hand, you have information as completely abstract concept which is not a property, and you have documents (classified or otherwise) which are tangible copyrightable work of the US agencies. Since US has a rule that government-produced work cannot be copyrighted it does not enjoy the level of protection that other copyrighted works enjoy. This applies to all documents produced within the government. Military documents are, naturally, covered by this, as well as documents produced by CIA, NSA, and any other government agency, with a few exceptions like USPTO.
I imagine that the only people who could be charged are those that released the material first.
You'd have to find out who wrote the original law, then.:)
The guy charged with the theft has so far only been charged in respect to the military material.
Manning is charged with lots and lots of stuff. These include not only unauthorized transmission of classified documents (breaking the rules of handling classified documents, right?) but also aiding the enemy, and other stuff like illegal installation of software to extract the documents, etc. If you care, look up "Bradley Manning charges" and you'll find many articles on the topic.
The protection of government documents is facilitated through the system of classification. This system prescribes storage options and handling rules to all government subjects depending on the level of classification and their level of clearance. So, if someone leaves a document out there "with the keys in the ignition", he is breaking the handling procedure, not the copyright law. The documents are already in public domain, so they can't break copyright laws. Therefore, those documents are not stolen, but mishandled. The crimes of mishandling do not (at least should not) extend to non-government people, and especially not the press.
The government is probably using the charges which have the harshest penalties such as execution in an attempt to gain his cooperation. Personally I hope the military and government prosecutors show some restraint if the guy is convicted.
The reason the military and the government have not shown any restraint whatsoever when treating Manning in a way that borders on torture is that they needed to make it clear that they won't tolerate such leaks. He was more of a message to others working within the government.
As someone already pointed out, you can't really steal information that is in the public domain to begin with. As for WikiLeaks selling the intel, I would be very sceptical of such reports. There's a lot of disinfo mixed in with the real information regarding WikiLeaks.
Are tyrants and warlords really worse than the current situation? At least with warlords there is a meritocracy of sorts. (The strongest are in charge). In the current situation the most duplicitous make the laws for their own benefit, while enriching their pockets, and claiming to serve society. The most conniving are the alpha dogs. Give me a meritocracy based on steel and might any day over a meritocracy based on duplicity and lies.
Imagine a system that is far more scarier. A virtual-reality-like world where most choices you make when you vote, buy, recommend, write about, lead all in the direction of supporting the system, regardless of how radical or crazy it may seem to you. In such a system, compliance to the rules of the system is manufactured not by physical threat or something equally tangible and readily perceivable as bad, but by subliminal system of reward and punishment. Correct behaviour may be to "watch a good movie", or "eat lots and lots of tasty food", or "buy something nice for you", "get a diploma", "drive a car"... and anything that may obstruct the system leads to denial of those rewards that you are taught to crave, creates anxiety, causes suffering. It is difficult to fight this type of system because you don't see it doing anything bad to you, and you don't see a need to fight it. It keeps you in check by satisfying your "needs" that it manufactures itself. It is also difficult to fight such a system because it's not represented by governments, police, or any singular entity that can be identified as the system. It's a perfect system: completely transparent to its subjects, and highly effective.
On the other hand, tyrants and warlords do not last long, because they are readily identified. Even when it's hard to get rid of them, at least you know the actual source of repression.
It's a difference between a brutally violent father, and a manipulative daddy that gives you candy to suck his buddy's dick.
You keep referring to the former, while I have been discussing the latter.
If you were referring to the 'Anonymous' in your original post, which I presume you were, I am arguing that it is not something that needs an organization to run it. An organization (or even an individual) can incite its movement, but once the wheels start rolling, it doesn't need any coordination or anything of the kind. It will chaotically coordinate itself. Point is, 'Anonymous' itself doesn't have to have 'hierarchical structure of some sort', and especially not at the level of military organizations. Also, this phenomenon may invalidate point 3, because there is no need for anyone to take leadership. There is a complete disconnect between those who incite the movement and the ones participating in it. The reason for your point 1 in this case is precisely the fact that the movement has become out of chaos the way I've already described, and that it has no definitive leadership that keeps members in check and orchestrates the movement.
You don't see recent changes in the way modern 'revolution' is organized, because you don't want to see, or you don't know how to see. I've had a first-hand experience of one of these, and the mechanics of it seem to date at least as far back to the Nazi revolution and Communist revolutions. I am talking about revolutions, massive stuff, where a majority of citizens arise to change whole countries, overthrow regimes, etc, not small underground movements lead by a handful of idealistic people, that usually becomes labelled as terrorism or something along those lines. When you are dealing with huge crowds, it's a different story. Point is, the more massive the scale, less effective organization becomes. For maximum effect with large masses, you want the exact opposite: disorganization and chaos.
(2) Eventually, in order to coordinate major "projects", an hierarchical structure of some sort becomes necessary, even if only to facilitate planning or organize resources.
This is not true.
If you put a lamp out in the dark, insects gather around it. It's not organized, or coordintated in any way, but all insects go the same destination. When applied to humans, if you have an issue that enough people feel strongly about, a chaotic mass will move together towards is as a disorganized mob, and the sheer size of the mob will accomplish the goal. It has worked in many cases throughout history (starting with the more recent Serbian "democratic uprising" of 2000, and earlier communist revolution). The issue for the mob to feel strongly about doesn't have to be real. It can be injected from outside using propaganda, too, which is a very effective method, and very cheap.
There is one valid argument about the cloud insecurity, and that's the fact that government agencies do not (or did not? has the law changed meanwhile?) have to have a warrant to access cloud data, whereas they do need one to access servers in your company building. At least it holds (or held?) true in the US from what I've read.
I doubt that anyone officially on payroll for cyberwarfare are actually responsible (at present) for attacks coming out of China. China has too little to gain by doing anything that obviously has their fingerprints on it.
No, it's not. But some might get that impression, that's the point. Also, it does have unparalleled military spendings, which would suggest US considers military supremacy one of the its top priorities.
Slashdot Mirror
Bullshit. NATO only cares about civilian casualties not being reported by press too much. Other than that, they're happy taking out thousands of civilians and polluting the land with missiles that failed to explode, carpet bombs, radioactive materials, and whathaveyou in the process. And due to careful planning, most of the 'confirmed hits' on military equipment turned out to be hits on decoy cardboard models during the bombing of Serbia, 1999.
You don't understand what a monopoly is in the legal sense.
That could well be true. But given the only service for application developers to sell their apps to users of non-jailbroken iPhones is the Appstore, Apple has the power to control access to it, and therefore is in position to monopolize it. I wasn't talking about smartphones. I was talking about iPhone apps.
Your comment makes sense only as much as saying HP is the primary and only market for new HP systems, and is therefore a monopoly.
Apple is not the primary and only market for smartphones, which is the point. It's not even #2.
As I said above, I was referring to the Appstore itself, as a market for iPhone apps, in which Apple has complete control over who gets what, including the iPhone and similar devices as a development platform. The correct comparison would be the Android store, whatever its name is.
In fact, I don't think the concept of monopoly is relevant in itself. This is a situation where Apple has the power to deny apps that are competing directly or indirectly with the device's own features. Whether this happens through TOS is, in my opinion, less relevant. It's a form of control over competition that is very similar to monopoly, even if it doesn't directly affect the price end-users will be paying for the feature (i.e, they don't necessarily pay more because there's no competition). It certainly affects the capacity of 3rd party developers to capitalize on the platform.
Trademarks are first-come, first-served. The only question is whether the developer applied for trademark protection.
Under the US law, trademark protection is automatic, just like copyright protection. Use of the signature is completely optional, and its absence does not remove the protection.
Hmm, Apple Airport - released in 1999 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AirPort). Note that wireless icon there, it looks rather familiar, eh? If you click the picture, you'll note the original picture was uploaded in April 2007 (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/archive/a/a0/20110415032314%21Connectwaves_20070109.png), months before the iPhone was released.
They should sue Mozilla for using that icon in a slightly modified way: http://mattbrett.com/blog/design/2005/the-new-standard-feed-icon/
You can combine generic imagery to create original piece of art. It's a very very difficult topic for judges. For example, would changing the color of the airport icon constitute creation of the original art? Would changing the number of stripes do it? Would skewing the circle in the iSync app do it? Problem with both those icons is that they are too generic. It would be dangerous to allow such things to be protectable with all possible variations of color and texture. It's ok to allow that particular instance: combination of shape, color, and texture. But allowing protected variations would be dangerous to the design community as a whole.
In case of the WiFi Sync logo, it's a grey area. The logos combine these generic items in the exact same way, except that the circular arrows in the original WiFi Sync logo are skewed, and colors are different. Depending no how you look at it, it may swing either way. You can say that the particular way of combining those generic elements comprises artistic expression, and hence the logo is protected. On the other hand, you may say that the combination itself is too generic (that's different from saying that the elements are too generic, because in most artworks, individual elements ARE generic). Personally, I think the latter argument would be harder to claim, but I suppose there might be judges that would allow it.
[sarcasm]Microsoft is pure evil, whereas Apple is nothing by good.[/sarcasm]
Secondly, the logo combines the wireless logo (which is standard and is not an invention of this student) with the sync logo (two arrows round a circle) which is again standard and predates this student's app.
And the word 'appstore' combines the words 'app', and 'store' in a way that is not spectacularly innovative, and both of which predate Apple's Appstore brand. So if you say that this logo is not an original piece of graphic, then Appstore is also not an original brand name. Therefore, the hypocrisy theory still stands.
Appstore is the primary and only market for non-jailbroken iPhones. So yes, it's a monopoly.
So Apple seems to need more capable developers, because this guy obviously didn't take 'several years' to implement this feature.
These are the same people who are suing Amazon for the use of "Appstore"
Because the name appstore is not a mashup of two generic words 'app', and 'store... oh wait... it is.
It may be true that the guy broke the appstore rules, but that's besides the point. Appstore rules are irrelevant in IP issues.
That's when a dink is coinked.
A "Controversial Working Draft" is not a specification!
It's not a standard, but it is a spec.
IP can be considered tangible goods in every since of the word. But I seriously doubt the military gives a damn about the nuances of copyright law in this instance.
And you're right. Military doesn't give a shit about copyright protection because there is none. They do care about copyrighted work of their contractors, but that's a different matter, and certainly has nothing to do with diplomatic cables in question. Diplomatic staff are all government people, so whatever material they produce is considered public domain, regardless of their classification. So, they cannot care about copyright laws even if they wanted to. What they do care about is the way classified documents are treated.
They went directly to classifying the material protected under the laws governing military and state secrets.
Exactly.
If copyright laws would be applied the theft and dissemination of the classified government documents it would be like hacking into a publishers library and downloading a new unreleased novel or song before it was officially released under the applicable copyright laws.
Fixed it for you. And no, it would not be the same, because an unreleased novel is protected by copyright law the moment it is put on paper (or an eletronic document, like LaTeX source). This doesn't hold true for government documents, and hence your analogy fails.
Basically encouraging theft for the purpose of avoiding the restrictions of copyright laws.
No. They don't encourage theft. They encourage secrecy. Which is withholding information from "we the People". Some argue that this is justified in some circumstances, some argue that it is not, but that's what they are doing, basically. Personally, I do not agree they should, but I'm not from US, so I don't care too much either.
The really sad thing in this whole situation is that none of the material released so far has been of any great importance or impact. No grand conspiracies or lies exposed that are worthy of spending 1 year let alone 25 years in jail.
Obviously the US government doesn't think so, right?
That's like saying I can steal your car and then leave it in parking lot some where with the keys in the ignition.
Here we are talking about intellectual property, as opposed to tangible goods.
The military documents were definitely not in the public domain.
On one hand, you have information as completely abstract concept which is not a property, and you have documents (classified or otherwise) which are tangible copyrightable work of the US agencies. Since US has a rule that government-produced work cannot be copyrighted it does not enjoy the level of protection that other copyrighted works enjoy. This applies to all documents produced within the government. Military documents are, naturally, covered by this, as well as documents produced by CIA, NSA, and any other government agency, with a few exceptions like USPTO.
I imagine that the only people who could be charged are those that released the material first.
You'd have to find out who wrote the original law, then. :)
The guy charged with the theft has so far only been charged in respect to the military material.
Manning is charged with lots and lots of stuff. These include not only unauthorized transmission of classified documents (breaking the rules of handling classified documents, right?) but also aiding the enemy, and other stuff like illegal installation of software to extract the documents, etc. If you care, look up "Bradley Manning charges" and you'll find many articles on the topic.
The protection of government documents is facilitated through the system of classification. This system prescribes storage options and handling rules to all government subjects depending on the level of classification and their level of clearance. So, if someone leaves a document out there "with the keys in the ignition", he is breaking the handling procedure, not the copyright law. The documents are already in public domain, so they can't break copyright laws. Therefore, those documents are not stolen, but mishandled. The crimes of mishandling do not (at least should not) extend to non-government people, and especially not the press.
The government is probably using the charges which have the harshest penalties such as execution in an attempt to gain his cooperation. Personally I hope the military and government prosecutors show some restraint if the guy is convicted.
The reason the military and the government have not shown any restraint whatsoever when treating Manning in a way that borders on torture is that they needed to make it clear that they won't tolerate such leaks. He was more of a message to others working within the government.
As someone already pointed out, you can't really steal information that is in the public domain to begin with. As for WikiLeaks selling the intel, I would be very sceptical of such reports. There's a lot of disinfo mixed in with the real information regarding WikiLeaks.
Are tyrants and warlords really worse than the current situation? At least with warlords there is a meritocracy of sorts. (The strongest are in charge). In the current situation the most duplicitous make the laws for their own benefit, while enriching their pockets, and claiming to serve society. The most conniving are the alpha dogs. Give me a meritocracy based on steel and might any day over a meritocracy based on duplicity and lies.
Imagine a system that is far more scarier. A virtual-reality-like world where most choices you make when you vote, buy, recommend, write about, lead all in the direction of supporting the system, regardless of how radical or crazy it may seem to you. In such a system, compliance to the rules of the system is manufactured not by physical threat or something equally tangible and readily perceivable as bad, but by subliminal system of reward and punishment. Correct behaviour may be to "watch a good movie", or "eat lots and lots of tasty food", or "buy something nice for you", "get a diploma", "drive a car"... and anything that may obstruct the system leads to denial of those rewards that you are taught to crave, creates anxiety, causes suffering. It is difficult to fight this type of system because you don't see it doing anything bad to you, and you don't see a need to fight it. It keeps you in check by satisfying your "needs" that it manufactures itself. It is also difficult to fight such a system because it's not represented by governments, police, or any singular entity that can be identified as the system. It's a perfect system: completely transparent to its subjects, and highly effective.
On the other hand, tyrants and warlords do not last long, because they are readily identified. Even when it's hard to get rid of them, at least you know the actual source of repression.
It's a difference between a brutally violent father, and a manipulative daddy that gives you candy to suck his buddy's dick.
You keep referring to the former, while I have been discussing the latter.
If you were referring to the 'Anonymous' in your original post, which I presume you were, I am arguing that it is not something that needs an organization to run it. An organization (or even an individual) can incite its movement, but once the wheels start rolling, it doesn't need any coordination or anything of the kind. It will chaotically coordinate itself. Point is, 'Anonymous' itself doesn't have to have 'hierarchical structure of some sort', and especially not at the level of military organizations. Also, this phenomenon may invalidate point 3, because there is no need for anyone to take leadership. There is a complete disconnect between those who incite the movement and the ones participating in it. The reason for your point 1 in this case is precisely the fact that the movement has become out of chaos the way I've already described, and that it has no definitive leadership that keeps members in check and orchestrates the movement.
Think of it as of a social hack on massive scale.
You don't see recent changes in the way modern 'revolution' is organized, because you don't want to see, or you don't know how to see. I've had a first-hand experience of one of these, and the mechanics of it seem to date at least as far back to the Nazi revolution and Communist revolutions. I am talking about revolutions, massive stuff, where a majority of citizens arise to change whole countries, overthrow regimes, etc, not small underground movements lead by a handful of idealistic people, that usually becomes labelled as terrorism or something along those lines. When you are dealing with huge crowds, it's a different story. Point is, the more massive the scale, less effective organization becomes. For maximum effect with large masses, you want the exact opposite: disorganization and chaos.
And the accompanying "Chauvinist Act", which enables the same capabilities as the "Patriot" but online. Right?
(2) Eventually, in order to coordinate major "projects", an hierarchical structure of some sort becomes necessary, even if only to facilitate planning or organize resources.
This is not true.
If you put a lamp out in the dark, insects gather around it. It's not organized, or coordintated in any way, but all insects go the same destination. When applied to humans, if you have an issue that enough people feel strongly about, a chaotic mass will move together towards is as a disorganized mob, and the sheer size of the mob will accomplish the goal. It has worked in many cases throughout history (starting with the more recent Serbian "democratic uprising" of 2000, and earlier communist revolution). The issue for the mob to feel strongly about doesn't have to be real. It can be injected from outside using propaganda, too, which is a very effective method, and very cheap.
Did you forget to eat a banana today?
It's on the EC2, which is having an outage. If he'd kept it on his home server, he might have had it by now.
There is one valid argument about the cloud insecurity, and that's the fact that government agencies do not (or did not? has the law changed meanwhile?) have to have a warrant to access cloud data, whereas they do need one to access servers in your company building. At least it holds (or held?) true in the US from what I've read.
I doubt that anyone officially on payroll for cyberwarfare are actually responsible (at present) for attacks coming out of China. China has too little to gain by doing anything that obviously has their fingerprints on it.
speaking of which:
"The Pentagon has concluded that computer sabotage coming from another country can constitute an act of war, a finding that for the first time opens the door for the U.S. to respond using traditional military force." Read more: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304563104576355623135782718.html#ixzz1NyHVe9Xg
Who said anything about saving money? I did say something about distribution of funds, though.
No, it's not. But some might get that impression, that's the point. Also, it does have unparalleled military spendings, which would suggest US considers military supremacy one of the its top priorities.