i can. stallman had some great ideas and wrote some k3wl essays, but time has changed.
As time has passed, Stallman has looked more and more like a visionary with an uncanny knack of seeing how the future would unfold. Go back and read his essays again. The story about not having the right to read books doesn't now look quite so far-fetched as the first time you read it. We owe RMS a debt of gratitude.
The difference is, that locksmiths are considered to be professional artisans. It is not illegal for people to know how to break the locks on your house, to possess the tools to do so, or to instruct others in the techniques required. A crime is only committed when someone actually tries to break the lock on your house.
The DMCA is not equivalent to the laws preventing house-breaking. Under the DMCA, it is not even legal to teach someone else how to circumvent the lock. Big difference.
I'm not sure what the solution to the problem is, but somehow investors need to start holding corporations responsible for long-term success, and long-term sacrifices to yield short-term gains need to be severely punished.
You have hit the nail squarely upon the head. The complete lack of regard for the long-term that is now endemic in the US and, increasingly, the UK is a recipe for disaster.
Assuming that there is absolutely no chance of investors (whether individual or institutional) getting a sudden attack of morality, the best way that I can conceive of to fix the problem is to use the tax system. Increase the capital gains tax on stocks and shares which are sold without being held for long and decrease the tax on long-held stocks and shares.
If taxes decayed to near zero for investments held for 25 years or more, you can bet that pension companies would start taking the long-term view. This would exert a significant beneficial pressure on the behaviour of company directors.
You're forgetting the 4% of people who gave up their password without the need for a bribe, but then insisted on being given the chocolate anyway when they discovered what the deal was.
It should however set precedent throughtout the EU(?)
I don't think it sets a precedent for the rest of the EU anymore than the US. Laws across Europe vary considerably. Even within the UK, Scottish law is distinct from English and Welsh law (it is based on the continental civil law model rather than English common law).
Partial harmonisation of laws across the EU takes place through directives which are passed by the EU institutions. These place an obligation on the member states to enact laws that implement the directives. The directives derive power from treaties that the member nations have signed, so even they do not always apply when various nations opt out of certain aspects of the treaties.
current legislation does not allow for software to be patented. However, some software patents had been granted, and the directive is an attempt to legalize that. This means that, if the directive is accepted, we can expect more patents to be granted, BUT there is a good chance they will be in accordance with the directive, which used to have various provisions to protect rights like reverse-esgineering to achieve interoperability.
The original intent of the directive was to legalize the patenting of software. The commission introduced the directive with the stated aim of harmonising and clarifying patent law in Europe. The actual aim was to codify current practice of the European Patent Office which has recently been issuing software patents despite Article 52(2) of the European Patent Convention which states that computer programs are not patentable inventions. The original fight, therefore, was an attempt to prevent a change in the law which would make software patentable. Although patents have been granted by the EPO, we have not yet seen many adverse effects because the patent holders would risk having their patents invalidated by the courts if they tried to enforce them - hence the desire (by the pro-patent lobby) to introduce the directive.
However, the European Parliament significantly amended the text of the directive. The most important change was that they explicitly reinforced Article 52(2) and insisted that software not be patentable. This is the reason that the European Commission threatened to withdraw the directive entirely rather than allow it to pass in its amended form. The directive was originally a Bad Thing, but in its form as last seen by the parliament it is definitely a Good Thing.
I would consider myself an average-volume email user
Are you sure? You may be an average volume tech-savvy user, but there are people out their who feel the need to e-mail every message as a powerpoint/word document and have absolutely no qualms whatsoever about mailing large movie files to their friends (even if their friends only have dial-up access!)
I think that comparing Blunkett to Ashcroft is rather unfair. Ashcroft is nowhere near that right wing and has much more respect for human rights than Blunkett does. Still, come the revolution, at least Blunkett won't need a blindfold.
The ignored e-mails were part of a public consultation. The civil service will always find some way to manipulate a consultation to match their desired view. However, the aim when writing to MPs is not the same. Whereas consultations are really non-binding referendums, where votes in favour and against are tallied, letters/e-mails to MPs are a means of communicating with an individual. Constituency MPs are less likely to ignore e-mails than the government. I get the feeling that they actually appreciate thte dialogue with their constituents. Certainly, they are always very, very happy to point out where they agree with you.
This will fall under the label of civil disobediance perhaps, but a really good way to get attention to the anti-patent cause would be for those with technical power to shut down as much as was safely possible (not power stations, etc.) in protest.
I am strongly opposed to software patents. I have written to my MP and MEPs on numerous occasions. I protest on my own web page about the issue. But doing something to my employer's site against my employers wishes is definitely a step too far.
It may be true that the majority of people don't have an opinion on software patents, but that also means that it is a fair bet that they are not writing to their representatives about the issue. Therefore, it is up to those of us that do care to make enough noise.
The ministers involved don't even know the difference between copyrights and patents, so don't hold your breath.
Lawyers are disproportionately represented in parliament and the cabinet (in the UK, at least). I don't doubt for a minute that they are generally aware of the differences between copyrights and patents. Of course, they may sometimes find it convenient to blur the issues by referring to "intellectual property", but that doesn't mean they don't understand themselves.
There is an imporant lesson here. That lesson is that these issues are never finally resolved.
The first round victory was just the first reading of the directive in parliament. However, if (and it is a big if) we can ultimately get the directive passed in the form approved by the parliament, that will effectively put an end to the possibility of software patents in Europe for the foreseeable future.
It will be a long fight, but it is not a hopeless one. If the good version of the directive gets passed, all EU member states will have to enact legislation preventing software from being patented. At the speed that European legislation gets enacted, it would be a very long time before anyone got a chance to alter this.
Excuse me, but how are you supposed to write or call your Prime Minister?
If you write to ministers directly, you will rarely receive a reply; even if you do, it will be a standard civil service reply. The correct way to contact ministers (in the UK at least) is to write to your MP and ask them to pass your concerns on to the minister responsible. They will then forward your letter/e-mail to the minister and (eventually) send you back the reply.
If you have a really good MP, you may be able to get them to take an interest and raise the issue themselves, in parliament.
After the stunning victory in round 1, we just need to make sure our parliamentarians stand firm. I am sure they will not appreciate this attempt to trample over their amendments. Time to get writing again...
I think a Fahrenheit 451 remake has a lot of potential too, with all the modern camera and computer technology today, they could really recreat the world of Guy Montag to such a degree.
Have you seen "Equilibrium"? It's basically F451 with a bit of the Matrix and 1984 thrown in. It is emotion rather than books which are banned, but it makes little difference. Unfortunately, it isn't a particularly good film.
I develop aircraft safety software... Windows cannot be qualified as a valid development tool or environment
Perhaps that may be true of civilian aircraft systems, but the DoD certainly has no objection to using Windows as a development environment for military aircraft. The Common Operating Environment may change that in the future, but MS Windows is definitely used at the moment.
Slashdot Mirror
As time has passed, Stallman has looked more and more like a visionary with an uncanny knack of seeing how the future would unfold. Go back and read his essays again. The story about not having the right to read books doesn't now look quite so far-fetched as the first time you read it. We owe RMS a debt of gratitude.
The DMCA is not equivalent to the laws preventing house-breaking. Under the DMCA, it is not even legal to teach someone else how to circumvent the lock. Big difference.
You have hit the nail squarely upon the head. The complete lack of regard for the long-term that is now endemic in the US and, increasingly, the UK is a recipe for disaster.
Assuming that there is absolutely no chance of investors (whether individual or institutional) getting a sudden attack of morality, the best way that I can conceive of to fix the problem is to use the tax system. Increase the capital gains tax on stocks and shares which are sold without being held for long and decrease the tax on long-held stocks and shares.
If taxes decayed to near zero for investments held for 25 years or more, you can bet that pension companies would start taking the long-term view. This would exert a significant beneficial pressure on the behaviour of company directors.
You're forgetting the 4% of people who gave up their password without the need for a bribe, but then insisted on being given the chocolate anyway when they discovered what the deal was.
I don't think it sets a precedent for the rest of the EU anymore than the US. Laws across Europe vary considerably. Even within the UK, Scottish law is distinct from English and Welsh law (it is based on the continental civil law model rather than English common law).
Partial harmonisation of laws across the EU takes place through directives which are passed by the EU institutions. These place an obligation on the member states to enact laws that implement the directives. The directives derive power from treaties that the member nations have signed, so even they do not always apply when various nations opt out of certain aspects of the treaties.
That's not really true
they just get the other half
to carry them on their behalf.
Why else would men have two?
Here's one! (You didn't think they were serious, did you?)
It might be good to start with a look at the European Software Patent Horror Gallery which is being assembled by the FFII.
The original intent of the directive was to legalize the patenting of software. The commission introduced the directive with the stated aim of harmonising and clarifying patent law in Europe. The actual aim was to codify current practice of the European Patent Office which has recently been issuing software patents despite Article 52(2) of the European Patent Convention which states that computer programs are not patentable inventions. The original fight, therefore, was an attempt to prevent a change in the law which would make software patentable. Although patents have been granted by the EPO, we have not yet seen many adverse effects because the patent holders would risk having their patents invalidated by the courts if they tried to enforce them - hence the desire (by the pro-patent lobby) to introduce the directive.
However, the European Parliament significantly amended the text of the directive. The most important change was that they explicitly reinforced Article 52(2) and insisted that software not be patentable. This is the reason that the European Commission threatened to withdraw the directive entirely rather than allow it to pass in its amended form. The directive was originally a Bad Thing, but in its form as last seen by the parliament it is definitely a Good Thing.
Are you sure? You may be an average volume tech-savvy user, but there are people out their who feel the need to e-mail every message as a powerpoint/word document and have absolutely no qualms whatsoever about mailing large movie files to their friends (even if their friends only have dial-up access!)
If your MP really says that, take the opportunity to educate them!
Unfortunately, mine isn't interested until the issue comes before the Westminster parliament (by which time it will be _far_ too late).
The ignored e-mails were part of a public consultation. The civil service will always find some way to manipulate a consultation to match their desired view. However, the aim when writing to MPs is not the same. Whereas consultations are really non-binding referendums, where votes in favour and against are tallied, letters/e-mails to MPs are a means of communicating with an individual. Constituency MPs are less likely to ignore e-mails than the government. I get the feeling that they actually appreciate thte dialogue with their constituents. Certainly, they are always very, very happy to point out where they agree with you.
I am strongly opposed to software patents. I have written to my MP and MEPs on numerous occasions. I protest on my own web page about the issue. But doing something to my employer's site against my employers wishes is definitely a step too far.
It may be true that the majority of people don't have an opinion on software patents, but that also means that it is a fair bet that they are not writing to their representatives about the issue. Therefore, it is up to those of us that do care to make enough noise.
Lawyers are disproportionately represented in parliament and the cabinet (in the UK, at least). I don't doubt for a minute that they are generally aware of the differences between copyrights and patents. Of course, they may sometimes find it convenient to blur the issues by referring to "intellectual property", but that doesn't mean they don't understand themselves.
The first round victory was just the first reading of the directive in parliament. However, if (and it is a big if) we can ultimately get the directive passed in the form approved by the parliament, that will effectively put an end to the possibility of software patents in Europe for the foreseeable future.
It will be a long fight, but it is not a hopeless one. If the good version of the directive gets passed, all EU member states will have to enact legislation preventing software from being patented. At the speed that European legislation gets enacted, it would be a very long time before anyone got a chance to alter this.
If you write to ministers directly, you will rarely receive a reply; even if you do, it will be a standard civil service reply. The correct way to contact ministers (in the UK at least) is to write to your MP and ask them to pass your concerns on to the minister responsible. They will then forward your letter/e-mail to the minister and (eventually) send you back the reply.
If you have a really good MP, you may be able to get them to take an interest and raise the issue themselves, in parliament.
What we really need is to get sites like google involved. That would have an impact.
e-mail works fine. Most of the ones I write to (we have 8 Scottish MEPs) are generally happy to receive and reply to e-mails.
Experience?
Have you seen "Equilibrium"? It's basically F451 with a bit of the Matrix and 1984 thrown in. It is emotion rather than books which are banned, but it makes little difference. Unfortunately, it isn't a particularly good film.
Surely the Modern Language Association of America is not really a central committee for the use of English
American English perhaps, but that is only a small subset of the true language.
Why doesn't he just buy toys that don't have blue LEDs then. Manufacturers will respond quickly if toys with green LEDs sell better than blue ones.
Perhaps that may be true of civilian aircraft systems, but the DoD certainly has no objection to using Windows as a development environment for military aircraft. The Common Operating Environment may change that in the future, but MS Windows is definitely used at the moment.