>Not really. First, downloading IS the part that relates to copying. Upploading is part of the various forms of making a work >available to the public for example public performance or available by wire or wireless to someone at another place. The last one >covers for example making it available over the internet while not covering laying a copy down on the street for everyone. This >part got somewhat restructed in the change in 2005 but is basically the same. So the uploading has really been illegal even >before the change.
As far as I know the "Upploading is part of the various forms of making a work >available to the public for example public performance or available by wire or wireless to someone at another place. " wasn't present before 2005.
Rather only the 3 options of public performance, public viewing and public duplication existed and neither of them properly applied. In the only known case where someone was actually found guilty it was decided it was public performance, I have that case lying around somewhere in my room but I can't find it right now..
Anyhow the logic deciding it was public performance was rather sketchy, basically it went like "He has to be guilty, he didn't do public viewing, he didn't do duplication so it has to be public performance".
Are you an expert in Swedish criminal law when it comes to copyright? Because if not I'm rather confused about how you can know the end of the trial much better then the actual experts in Swedish criminal law who are fairly unsure how this will go.
Your scenario would require a huge set of new laws so it's highly unlikely.
Up until recently Swedish Law didn't view it differently, copying for personal use was legal regardless of source. I can't remember exactly how they changed the law but I think downloading is still legal but uploading is not.
For example there's massive amounts of regulation in the food industry but I don't see people having any problems trying to bring new products to the market if they think it's cheaper or better.
And the way regulation works isn't that you need a license, lots of paperwork or anything that. How it works in the EU is generally like this.
To be allowed to call your product for X your product has to fulfill certain criteria and if a sample doesn't fulfill it then you'll be fined and disallowed to sell your product as X.
There is afaik already lots of standards a cellphone is legally required to follow, mostly to do with the broadcasting and the battery.
The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoners_dilemma means that it's really bad economically to be a pioneer when it comes to standardized connections since you lose out a lot of the profits from the proprietary ones, however once EU have forced them all to use a standard (Either one they come up with amongst eachother, or if they fail at playing nice, the one EU comes up with)then they can just move the profit margin from the connectors to the cellphone.
The market thrives on the concept of tricking consumers into a cheap sample (usually the cellhpone) and then onces they're locked they have no choice but to pay for the very expensive accessories. I would prefer the market to be honest and open with the consumers about the real cost of the cellphone.
Market theory is after all based on the fact the consumer is informed.
The entire point is that they're willing to accept MORE EXPENSIVE non standardized connectors, the prize would be forced to become LOWER due to more competition. The problem is based on the fact there is no choice, you can't buy model A with a standard connector and model B with a proprietary one, if you want a certain brand of phone you usually have to deal with their crappy proprietary connector.
The entire purpose of using non standard connectors is to lock out competition so you can charge a premium, there doesn't exist any realistic scenario where a reasonable(keyword, don't fantasize about potential horrors) standard can be bad for the consumers.
The cost of making a mini-usb connector is most likely trivial compared to the rest of the phone, we're talking about a dumb interface here not a high end processing chip. Your argument has no grounding in reality.
USB is imo a neater solution since that means that it handles everything with one connector, you use the same connector for charging as you do for connecting to the computer(which will charge the phone at the same time) as you do for your headset.
They've been very reluctant to bring this case because they can't make one. There's a reason that TBP has operated freely for years and it's taken them 3 years to get the case to court.
Science doesn't actually assume causality, it deals with causality as it does with everything else, that is that so far all experiments have shown that cause and effect work and thus it's accepted by consensus until it is disprove. Ofcourse if casuality stopped existing science would become rather hard to do since experiments wouldn't be reproducible anymore but the scientific method as such doesn't assume anything.
There's no deadline, the thing is that unless you can actually predetermine the event which you can't due to the complexity of the system then the fact that it's determined is irrelevant.
And what do you mean with "Computers, as hardware, are deterministic only if reality is deterministic. ", the entire point of computers is that they're deterministic (outside of hardware bugs), if they weren't they would be rather useless.
It's more scientific since it's impossible to prove a negative, it's not so much that an agnostic thinks that there is a reasonable chance that fairies and gods exist as much as they realize that there is a close to insignificant chance that the laws of physics might stop being consistent.
Since the chance exist you have to accept that the agnostic position is the correct one, however that doesn't mean you're meant to accept faith as reasonable.
Computers are deterministic, doesn't stop them from understanding or communicating, we've not quite mastered "enjoying" yet though.
Determinism doesn't mean that an behavior or outcome can't be changed, it just means that the result of an action can be predetermined, however due to the complexity of the universe that calculation is impossibly complex.(would require the entire universe to simulate hte universe, seems a bit silly).
So due to the fact we can't actually predict anything I argue that it's irrelevant if the universe is deterministic.
Does free wills existence really matter? Either way we want to promote good behavior so it doesn't matter if it's deterministic if we can change the outcome by using our semi rational minds.
That's a problem with low level scientific teachings in general, noone takes time to explain why people think things work like they do, they just go on and speak about everything as if it is truth. Rather then giving the students the formulas for everything I think they should rather let the students derive them by themselves from experiments.
Slashdot Mirror
>Not really. First, downloading IS the part that relates to copying. Upploading is part of the various forms of making a work >available to the public for example public performance or available by wire or wireless to someone at another place. The last one >covers for example making it available over the internet while not covering laying a copy down on the street for everyone. This >part got somewhat restructed in the change in 2005 but is basically the same. So the uploading has really been illegal even >before the change.
As far as I know the "Upploading is part of the various forms of making a work >available to the public for example public performance or available by wire or wireless to someone at another place. " wasn't present before 2005.
Rather only the 3 options of public performance, public viewing and public duplication existed and neither of them properly applied. In the only known case where someone was actually found guilty it was decided it was public performance, I have that case lying around somewhere in my room but I can't find it right now ..
Anyhow the logic deciding it was public performance was rather sketchy, basically it went like "He has to be guilty, he didn't do public viewing, he didn't do duplication so it has to be public performance".
Are you an expert in Swedish criminal law when it comes to copyright? Because if not I'm rather confused about how you can know the end of the trial much better then the actual experts in Swedish criminal law who are fairly unsure how this will go.
Your scenario would require a huge set of new laws so it's highly unlikely.
Up until recently Swedish Law didn't view it differently, copying for personal use was legal regardless of source. I can't remember exactly how they changed the law but I think downloading is still legal but uploading is not.
You're obviously living in a fantasy world.
For example there's massive amounts of regulation in the food industry but I don't see people having any problems trying to bring new products to the market if they think it's cheaper or better.
And the way regulation works isn't that you need a license, lots of paperwork or anything that. How it works in the EU is generally like this.
To be allowed to call your product for X your product has to fulfill certain criteria and if a sample doesn't fulfill it then you'll be fined and disallowed to sell your product as X.
There is afaik already lots of standards a cellphone is legally required to follow, mostly to do with the broadcasting and the battery.
Have you been living under a rock? Standards are being enforced all over the place without any of these issues.
The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoners_dilemma means that it's really bad economically to be a pioneer when it comes to standardized connections since you lose out a lot of the profits from the proprietary ones, however once EU have forced them all to use a standard (Either one they come up with amongst eachother, or if they fail at playing nice, the one EU comes up with)then they can just move the profit margin from the connectors to the cellphone.
The market thrives on the concept of tricking consumers into a cheap sample (usually the cellhpone) and then onces they're locked they have no choice but to pay for the very expensive accessories. I would prefer the market to be honest and open with the consumers about the real cost of the cellphone.
Market theory is after all based on the fact the consumer is informed.
Internet is meant to be able to route around broken nodes and it seems to do this rather well, just not as quickly as some would like.
The entire point is that they're willing to accept MORE EXPENSIVE non standardized connectors, the prize would be forced to become LOWER due to more competition. The problem is based on the fact there is no choice, you can't buy model A with a standard connector and model B with a proprietary one, if you want a certain brand of phone you usually have to deal with their crappy proprietary connector.
The entire purpose of using non standard connectors is to lock out competition so you can charge a premium, there doesn't exist any realistic scenario where a reasonable(keyword, don't fantasize about potential horrors) standard can be bad for the consumers.
The cost of making a mini-usb connector is most likely trivial compared to the rest of the phone, we're talking about a dumb interface here not a high end processing chip. Your argument has no grounding in reality.
How exactly would defining a standard connector like mini-USB hurt cellhpone investment o.O? It's just such a mindboggling leap of logic.
USB is imo a neater solution since that means that it handles everything with one connector, you use the same connector for charging as you do for connecting to the computer(which will charge the phone at the same time) as you do for your headset.
Not if the profit margin for non standard connectors make that market much nicer to be in.
Are you on drugs? All they're doing is saying that their stuff has to be interoperable.
They've been very reluctant to bring this case because they can't make one. There's a reason that TBP has operated freely for years and it's taken them 3 years to get the case to court.
afaik women are a majority not a minority and were probably even more of a majority back then due to wars.
I'd assume it comes with an on/off switch.
It is afaik legal to tell people where they can buy drugs.
Science doesn't actually assume causality, it deals with causality as it does with everything else, that is that so far all experiments have shown that cause and effect work and thus it's accepted by consensus until it is disprove. Ofcourse if casuality stopped existing science would become rather hard to do since experiments wouldn't be reproducible anymore but the scientific method as such doesn't assume anything.
There's no deadline, the thing is that unless you can actually predetermine the event which you can't due to the complexity of the system then the fact that it's determined is irrelevant.
And what do you mean with "Computers, as hardware, are deterministic only if reality is deterministic. ", the entire point of computers is that they're deterministic (outside of hardware bugs), if they weren't they would be rather useless.
I'll make this clearer.
You don't have to truly consider that santa exists, however you can't scientifically claim he does not.
It's more scientific since it's impossible to prove a negative, it's not so much that an agnostic thinks that there is a reasonable chance that fairies and gods exist as much as they realize that there is a close to insignificant chance that the laws of physics might stop being consistent.
Since the chance exist you have to accept that the agnostic position is the correct one, however that doesn't mean you're meant to accept faith as reasonable.
I saw a great movie by an agnostic a few days ago:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0815241/
And I agree with him that doubt is the correct position to take in all things that can't be proven.
Computers are deterministic, doesn't stop them from understanding or communicating, we've not quite mastered "enjoying" yet though.
Determinism doesn't mean that an behavior or outcome can't be changed, it just means that the result of an action can be predetermined, however due to the complexity of the universe that calculation is impossibly complex.(would require the entire universe to simulate hte universe, seems a bit silly).
So due to the fact we can't actually predict anything I argue that it's irrelevant if the universe is deterministic.
Does free wills existence really matter? Either way we want to promote good behavior so it doesn't matter if it's deterministic if we can change the outcome by using our semi rational minds.
That's a problem with low level scientific teachings in general, noone takes time to explain why people think things work like they do, they just go on and speak about everything as if it is truth. Rather then giving the students the formulas for everything I think they should rather let the students derive them by themselves from experiments.
The main problem is imo that he's an atheist rather then agnostic which is imo the only possible scientific position to take.