https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The very first sentence: "The history of copyright law starts with early privileges and monopolies granted to printers of books."
The current take on Copyright, globally and especially in US is ridiculous. The origin of Copyright is to protect original typesetters from the fact that was much easier to copy an already typeset and printed work than to do an original typeset based on a handwritten manuscript. The purpose was to ensure that books got printed. Obviously, this no longer applies. In order to maximize public good, copyright may still have a place, but then we need to ask the question: "What time horizon of revenue is necessary to make an artist find it worthwhile to create a new work of art?" The answer is of course not lifetime + 95 years or something similarly stupid. In the day of immediate global distribution, no cost for duplication and very fast changes in what's popular, the argument can be made for 1 year, 5 years or possibly 10 years. Anything longer than that is not for maximizing public good, but for enriching publishing houses. It is not a self evident right that you and all your descendants for a hundred years can live of a revenue stream from some work you did a very long time ago.
It's time for a change.
This case is huge for Microsoft, Google and Apple. If the ruling goes against Microsoft, this likely means that no company with business in EU can use an American provider for emails for their EU employees under GDPR. GDPR which comes into effect in a couple of months has enough teeth to make compliance mandatory. To stay in business in EU, the three big ones would need to separate their hosting of EU data to a separate legal entity not under their control. License technology to a company, spin off the company and list it on a EU stock exchange or something similar. Sharing of data for interoperability then becomes a problem that has to be solved. This would not be unsolvable, but likely expensive and leading to service degradation in many ways.
EU Governments would probably not be unhappy with this turn of events, but a large number of businesses will suffer in the short term, though none as much as Microsoft and Google.
Only Norway has significant oil. Sweden and Finland has nothing and Denmark has 1,4% of what Saudi or Russia has. Denmark actually is a small net importer of oil. For Sweden and Finland, energy imports for the transport sector is a major cost. Replacing this with domestic electricity will strengthen economies rather than weakening them. For Norway, the change will bring about a significant decrease of spending power.
One thing they didn't do was disclose in a timely manner. This is a breach of paragraph 38, which is a 2% administrative fine. I agree, it's not likely they would see $420 Million, but willfully not disclosing for 9 months would likely qualify them for a very significant fine.
You are wrong. 20 M Euro is not a ceiling, it's a floor. A lot of other arm-chair advocates here are also wrong. This legislation, as written, has quite a bit of teeth in it and is extremely hostile to big business. Outsourcing only works if you do your due diligence very thoroughly and then there shouldn't be a breach, should there. It will be very interesting to see some of the pilot cases come through the legal system over the next two years. I assume Google, Microsoft Apple and Amazon will all be targeted early on.
The site below has a lot of information.
http://www.eugdpr.org/key-chan...
” Under GDPR organizations in breach of GDPR can be fined up to 4% of annual global turnover or €20 Million (whichever is greater). This is the maximum fine that can be imposed for the most serious infringements e.g.not having sufficient customer consent to process data or violating the core of Privacy by Design concepts. There is a tiered approach to fines e.g. a company can be fined 2% for not having their records in order (article 28), not notifying the supervising authority and data subject about a breach or not conducting impact assessment. It is important to note that these rules apply to both controllers and processors -- meaning 'clouds' will not be exempt from GDPR enforcement.”
In terms of legislation, you are correct. I am in fact decently aware of how US is organized. The main issue here though is not legislation, it's purchasing patterns. In 2016, US was indeed the second largest market for cars in the world by number of vehicles sold, outpaced by China and closely followed by the EU/EFTA region. However, US car market grows at 4% per year, EU by 7% and China by 13% over the last 4 years. If that trend holds, the Chinese car market will be more than twice as big as the US in 8 years. At the same time, rural population percentage in US will drop further due to continued urbanization.
http://www.best-selling-cars.c...
I would further argue that new car sales happen more in densely populated high income areas and used cars go to low income rural areas to a greater extent. The Montanas of the world will have an ample supply of second hand clunkers for a long time.
Based on gas price versus electricity price, the break-even point for electric cars come much sooner in EU (EU 4.5-7 $/gallon) and China (3.6$/gallon) than in US (2.6$/gallon)
http://www.globalpetrolprices....
All of this will lead to that there is going to be a huge push towards electric cars over the coming years, which in turn will lead to efficiencies of scale and lower prices. I do believe that the interviewee of the original article is too optimistic on time, but I expect electric cars will beat gas cars on TCO over the life of the car in Europe already 2018 or latest 2019.
I may have overstated the percentage of US citizens living in rural areas, most of the references I see has the number around 20%, not 37.
This, I really don't understand. Once the election was over, Hillary is irrelevant. Now it's only about Trump. There is no scenario where Hillary will ever be President.
I would recommend you to actually read the article. I know this breaks ancient Slashdot traditions, but the article is actually really good. It doesn't get bogged down with the Trump is stupid, Hillary is evil garbage that we usually hear. (Why still discuss Hillary's relative merits at all, that ship has sailed?). The trends are very clear: Coal doesn't make sense financially and even if it did, it wouldn't generate significant jobs. That means that the powers that be don't have to be convinced about the massive environmental damage from mining and burning coal, including droughts, famine, rising sea levels, extreme weather and the social unrest that will follow. Counting dollars will do the trick. Unfortunately the same isn't true about tar sand based oil production which is a total mess of its own.
From a European perspective, the conversion to electric cars will be extremely quick. Most people would rather drive electric if it was cost neutral and the range was adequate. With a gas price of 6$ per gallon and rising (from taxes mostly), new cheaper/better electric cars coming out 2018/19 and a rapidly growing fast charge network I know my next car will be electric.
Again, RTFA.
A typical case where "Follow the money" is needed. What were the incentives to pass this legislation and where did they come from? It is hard to see that this 2014 legislation came from concern over the public good.
It's just so sad that they don't. The cost of spam to the world must heavily outweigh the cost of copyright infringements, even if you don't happen to share my view that the true cost of most copyright infringements is zero for the owner and beneficial for the world at large. On top of that you have all the harm the botnetters cause to all those inadvertent botowners and all of us who try to protect ourselves from becoming one.
This is the thought police gaining entry to our homes.
This should not be confused with discussions over IP. That is a totally different issue and I have strong views on that as well:-)
What is happening here is that private organizations gain the same or more rights that the police have to track net activity of private citizens. The possibilities for abuse are endless...
The sane counter measure would be for everyone to set up at least two anonymizing accounts: one for all their net activities that may leave traces of their real identity and one for everything that should be traceless.
Enough encrypted traffic on the net will make it impossible for the powers that be to single out the traffic they have an interest in. Widespread use of anonymizers will also stop the argument that these services exist for file sharing alone.
The tired old argument that "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." is a truly bad one. There is a good poem about this:
Als die Nazis die Kommunisten holten, habe ich geschwiegen; ich war ja kein Kommunist.
Als sie die Sozialdemokraten einsperrten, habe ich geschwiegen; ich war ja kein Sozialdemokrat.
Als sie die Gewerkschafter holten, habe ich nicht protestiert; ich war ja kein Gewerkschafter.
Als sie die Juden holten, habe ich geschwiegen; ich war ja kein Jude.
Als sie mich holten, gab es keinen mehr, der protestieren konnte.
translated:
When the Nazis came for the communists, I remained silent; I was not a communist.
Then they locked up the social democrats, I remained silent; I was not a social democrat.
Then they came for the trade unionists, I did not speak out; I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, I did not speak out; I was not a Jew.
When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.
By Martin Niemöller (from Wikipedia)
Finally, it is time to let our politicians know that they are treading down the wrong path, it's indeed a slippery slope.
Slashdot Mirror
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... The very first sentence: "The history of copyright law starts with early privileges and monopolies granted to printers of books."
The current take on Copyright, globally and especially in US is ridiculous. The origin of Copyright is to protect original typesetters from the fact that was much easier to copy an already typeset and printed work than to do an original typeset based on a handwritten manuscript. The purpose was to ensure that books got printed. Obviously, this no longer applies. In order to maximize public good, copyright may still have a place, but then we need to ask the question: "What time horizon of revenue is necessary to make an artist find it worthwhile to create a new work of art?" The answer is of course not lifetime + 95 years or something similarly stupid. In the day of immediate global distribution, no cost for duplication and very fast changes in what's popular, the argument can be made for 1 year, 5 years or possibly 10 years. Anything longer than that is not for maximizing public good, but for enriching publishing houses. It is not a self evident right that you and all your descendants for a hundred years can live of a revenue stream from some work you did a very long time ago. It's time for a change.
This case is huge for Microsoft, Google and Apple. If the ruling goes against Microsoft, this likely means that no company with business in EU can use an American provider for emails for their EU employees under GDPR. GDPR which comes into effect in a couple of months has enough teeth to make compliance mandatory. To stay in business in EU, the three big ones would need to separate their hosting of EU data to a separate legal entity not under their control. License technology to a company, spin off the company and list it on a EU stock exchange or something similar. Sharing of data for interoperability then becomes a problem that has to be solved. This would not be unsolvable, but likely expensive and leading to service degradation in many ways. EU Governments would probably not be unhappy with this turn of events, but a large number of businesses will suffer in the short term, though none as much as Microsoft and Google.
Only Norway has significant oil. Sweden and Finland has nothing and Denmark has 1,4% of what Saudi or Russia has. Denmark actually is a small net importer of oil. For Sweden and Finland, energy imports for the transport sector is a major cost. Replacing this with domestic electricity will strengthen economies rather than weakening them. For Norway, the change will bring about a significant decrease of spending power.
One thing they didn't do was disclose in a timely manner. This is a breach of paragraph 38, which is a 2% administrative fine. I agree, it's not likely they would see $420 Million, but willfully not disclosing for 9 months would likely qualify them for a very significant fine.
You are wrong. 20 M Euro is not a ceiling, it's a floor. A lot of other arm-chair advocates here are also wrong. This legislation, as written, has quite a bit of teeth in it and is extremely hostile to big business. Outsourcing only works if you do your due diligence very thoroughly and then there shouldn't be a breach, should there. It will be very interesting to see some of the pilot cases come through the legal system over the next two years. I assume Google, Microsoft Apple and Amazon will all be targeted early on. The site below has a lot of information. http://www.eugdpr.org/key-chan... ” Under GDPR organizations in breach of GDPR can be fined up to 4% of annual global turnover or €20 Million (whichever is greater). This is the maximum fine that can be imposed for the most serious infringements e.g.not having sufficient customer consent to process data or violating the core of Privacy by Design concepts. There is a tiered approach to fines e.g. a company can be fined 2% for not having their records in order (article 28), not notifying the supervising authority and data subject about a breach or not conducting impact assessment. It is important to note that these rules apply to both controllers and processors -- meaning 'clouds' will not be exempt from GDPR enforcement.”
Maria, $ 85 Billion, 30 dead Irma, $ 100 Billion Harvey, $ 180 Billion, 70 dead
In terms of legislation, you are correct. I am in fact decently aware of how US is organized. The main issue here though is not legislation, it's purchasing patterns. In 2016, US was indeed the second largest market for cars in the world by number of vehicles sold, outpaced by China and closely followed by the EU/EFTA region. However, US car market grows at 4% per year, EU by 7% and China by 13% over the last 4 years. If that trend holds, the Chinese car market will be more than twice as big as the US in 8 years. At the same time, rural population percentage in US will drop further due to continued urbanization. http://www.best-selling-cars.c... I would further argue that new car sales happen more in densely populated high income areas and used cars go to low income rural areas to a greater extent. The Montanas of the world will have an ample supply of second hand clunkers for a long time. Based on gas price versus electricity price, the break-even point for electric cars come much sooner in EU (EU 4.5-7 $/gallon) and China (3.6$/gallon) than in US (2.6$/gallon) http://www.globalpetrolprices.... All of this will lead to that there is going to be a huge push towards electric cars over the coming years, which in turn will lead to efficiencies of scale and lower prices. I do believe that the interviewee of the original article is too optimistic on time, but I expect electric cars will beat gas cars on TCO over the life of the car in Europe already 2018 or latest 2019. I may have overstated the percentage of US citizens living in rural areas, most of the references I see has the number around 20%, not 37.
Only 4% of the World population live in US, only 37% of US citizens live outside cities.So no, we don't need to consider Montana.
This, I really don't understand. Once the election was over, Hillary is irrelevant. Now it's only about Trump. There is no scenario where Hillary will ever be President.
Comparing Snowden to the pope is grossly unfair to Snowden.
I would recommend you to actually read the article. I know this breaks ancient Slashdot traditions, but the article is actually really good. It doesn't get bogged down with the Trump is stupid, Hillary is evil garbage that we usually hear. (Why still discuss Hillary's relative merits at all, that ship has sailed?). The trends are very clear: Coal doesn't make sense financially and even if it did, it wouldn't generate significant jobs. That means that the powers that be don't have to be convinced about the massive environmental damage from mining and burning coal, including droughts, famine, rising sea levels, extreme weather and the social unrest that will follow. Counting dollars will do the trick. Unfortunately the same isn't true about tar sand based oil production which is a total mess of its own. From a European perspective, the conversion to electric cars will be extremely quick. Most people would rather drive electric if it was cost neutral and the range was adequate. With a gas price of 6$ per gallon and rising (from taxes mostly), new cheaper/better electric cars coming out 2018/19 and a rapidly growing fast charge network I know my next car will be electric. Again, RTFA.
A typical case where "Follow the money" is needed. What were the incentives to pass this legislation and where did they come from? It is hard to see that this 2014 legislation came from concern over the public good.
It's just so sad that they don't. The cost of spam to the world must heavily outweigh the cost of copyright infringements, even if you don't happen to share my view that the true cost of most copyright infringements is zero for the owner and beneficial for the world at large. On top of that you have all the harm the botnetters cause to all those inadvertent botowners and all of us who try to protect ourselves from becoming one.
This is the thought police gaining entry to our homes.
This should not be confused with discussions over IP. That is a totally different issue and I have strong views on that as well :-)
What is happening here is that private organizations gain the same or more rights that the police have to track net activity of private citizens. The possibilities for abuse are endless...
The sane counter measure would be for everyone to set up at least two anonymizing accounts: one for all their net activities that may leave traces of their real identity and one for everything that should be traceless.
Enough encrypted traffic on the net will make it impossible for the powers that be to single out the traffic they have an interest in. Widespread use of anonymizers will also stop the argument that these services exist for file sharing alone.
The tired old argument that "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." is a truly bad one. There is a good poem about this:
Als die Nazis die Kommunisten holten,
habe ich geschwiegen;
ich war ja kein Kommunist.
Als sie die Sozialdemokraten einsperrten,
habe ich geschwiegen;
ich war ja kein Sozialdemokrat.
Als sie die Gewerkschafter holten,
habe ich nicht protestiert;
ich war ja kein Gewerkschafter.
Als sie die Juden holten,
habe ich geschwiegen;
ich war ja kein Jude.
Als sie mich holten,
gab es keinen mehr, der protestieren konnte.
translated:
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
Then they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
I did not speak out;
I was not a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out for me.
By Martin Niemöller
(from Wikipedia)
Finally, it is time to let our politicians know that they are treading down the wrong path, it's indeed a slippery slope.