(I'd like to consider myself a geek first, but I am employed as a lawyer, which might mean my view on this is a biased one, although, like the OP, I am questioning as to whether suing to enforce the GPL is the right approach.)
Lawyers and "interest groups" leeching on other peoples work
I'd be surprised if US law lets a lawyer take action for copyright infringement other than on behalf of the copyright owner? I can understand if you don't like the actions of the SFLC but, somewhere, someone must have instructed the lawyers — to them, perhaps the lawyers are not "leeching" from them, but helping them, even if you consider that they are not helping you?
Misleading... "Open Rather than Free" implies that there is some charge.
I'm not sure it's misleading at all — Free software and open source software are simply terms of art. "Open" no more means that it is supplied at a cost than "Free" refers to price.
I know it doesn't fulfill the criterion of helping a politician manage her email but, in terms of "getting through" to politicians, the MPs in the UK with whom I've spoken have said that they treat written correspondence with the following priority (low to, well, not so low):
mass / cut and paste email
individually written email
typed letter
handwritten letter
These were casual conversations, rather than anything official, and were with only three (then) MPs, but it seems that, for real reaction, the effort of a handwritten letter was needed. (Sadly, it was at an event in the House of Commons a few years ago, and I can't remember which MPs they were...)
I "invested" in ZionEyez, since it sounded like an interesting project, and something that I'd be pleased to see come to market. I use "invested" liberally here, since I don't for a second think that this gave me ownership in the project, or anything like that. Perhaps "gambling" would be a better term.
I gave my money to help a project get sufficient funding to go ahead. The "reward" level I paid for was listed as "You will receive the Eyez by ZionEyez HD video recording glasses with clear and shaded removable lenses" but I read this as being dependent on the project succeeding — if I don't receive the glasses, I'll be disappointed, but I wouldn't consider it a breach of contract. I expected the project to give it its best shot, and to put effort into attempting to succeed, rather than taking the money with no intention of creating the project, but it's inevitable that some projects will fail.
Whilst I'm disappointed that the project has been delayed quite considerably, and I'm mindful of the fact that I may never see the glasses, to me, this was an "investment" which did not materialise the way I had hoped rather than buying a product which was not delivered.
I feel particularly sorry for some of the feedback posted to the creator of the Hanfree project too...
My view is that that is wrong. My take on it is this:
I'd read it as the publishers arguing that copyright protection covers more than the final words on the page — that, in terms of the overall expenditure of effort / cost in writing a text book, the "original" author puts effort into research, thinking and structure / layout, and that the cost of doing this should mean that someone should be prohibited from taking a fully-research and structured book, and replacing the paragraphs and images with one's own. The licensing of the images included in that "secondary" book does not come into it.
Perhaps in a more copyright-y manner, that the expression of ideas extends to more than just the words and images on the page, and must extend to cover (at least some) issues of structure and material selection.
Under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, access to communications data without a warrant is already permitted. However, the legislation is particularly difficult to read (at least, I think it is...), so here's my approach to interpreting it:
(a) any traffic data comprised in or attached to a communication (whether by the sender or otherwise) for the purposes of any postal service or telecommunication system by means of which it is being or may be transmitted;
(b) any information which includes none of the contents of a communication (apart from any information falling within paragraph (a)) and is about the use made by any person—
(i)of any postal service or telecommunications service; or
(ii)in connection with the provision to or use by any person of any telecommunications service, of any part of a telecommunication system;
(c) any information not falling within paragraph (a) or (b) that is held or obtained, in relation to persons to whom he provides the service, by a person providing a postal service or telecommunications service.
(my emphasis — and see s21(6) for the definition of "traffic data")
Where a "designated person" (quite a long list of people are "designated") "believes that it is necessary" (s22(1)) to obtain any communications data for one of the grounds set out in s22(2) (quite a long list of grounds are set out), where it appears to the designated person that a postal or telecommunications operator is or may be in possession of, or be capable of obtaining, any communications data, the designated person may, by notice (which must be in writing (s23(2))) to the postal or telecommunications operator, require the operator (a) if the operator is not already in possession of the data, to obtain the data; and (b) in any case, to disclose all of the data in his possession or subsequently obtained by him. (s22(4)).
As well as requiring that the designated person believes that obtaining the data are necessary, no notice may be issued unless the designated person "believes that obtaining the data in question by the conduct authorised or required by the authorisation or notice is proportionate to what is sought to be achieved by so obtaining the data." (s22(5)) The notice can last up to one month (s23(4)).
As such, no warrant is required, as long as the designated person believes that obtaining the data is necessary for one of the stated grounds, and is proportionate to the outcome sought to be achieved.
It's worth noting that the operator has no say in the matter at all — it is the operator's statutory duty to comply (s22(6)), unless complying is "not reasonably practicable" (s22(7)) and the requirement can be enforced via an injunction, or as a specific performance of statutory duty (basically, an injunction...). (s22(8))
Given that the Secretary of State can order (by written notice) a communications provider to retain data for up to 12 months (see Reg. 10, Data Retention (EC Directive) Regulations 2009), there's potentially a lot of data to get hold of. See Schedule 3 of the regulations for what an operator can be ordered to retain.
The new legislation sounds — although we wait to see it — as if the scope is broadened, but access to communications data without a warrant is already in place, and has been for many years now.
Perhaps worth adding — I have not had the walls up, and don't want cables everywhere, so everything is wireless. DVDs (not Blu-Ray) get ripped to around 1.2GB each, and stream over the Wi-Fi system. I haven't had a problem with this, and so would see whether a wireless solution would suit your needs.
I guess it depends on what your friends like, and why you want to impress them. I enjoy tinkering, and have been gradually adding bits and pieces, but nothing designed to impress anyone other than me.
Playing on the Wii — four player Mario Kart, in particular — with the image projected across the lounge, is something which people seem to enjoy, though; pretty cheap (a bog standard, non-HD projector cost me about £220 about five years ago), and great fun. Just find some games which are easy enough to pick up and play, and get everyone involved, and you're off... I wouldn't put that together just to impress others, though, but it is quite good fun all the same.
The bought-broken-on-eBay-but-fixed-with-a-screwdriver Roomba is quite cool, but doesn't get as much use as I'd like, as my girlfriend is not a great fan of it. It doesn't save me much time either, to be honest, as, when I run it, I tend to stand marveling at it...
Personally, the things I find the coolest are music streamed into which ever room I want, controllable via my phone (AirTunes... nothing fancy here), and being able to select any movie and have it streamed through the projector (Apple TV and iTunes on server currently, although previously via a PS3 and a share on the server). Again, neither is fancy, but they both work a treat.
The remotely-controlled lighting was relatively inexpensive, but my setup is not free of bugs yet — I'm using HomeEasy switches, and a small RF dongle (TellStick) plugged in the back of a Linux machine, and, whilst it means I can easily control the lighting from a web browser, and easily automate when I'm away from home, I have not yet managed to get one transmission controlling just one light. Switching off the lounge lighting via the console / interface switches off the light in the kitchen and so on. A real nuisance, and one which I need to spend more time trying to resolve.
(Cameras around the house were the only things that raised objections, although agreeing on placement solved that problem.)
I guess it depends on whether the hotspot providers were doing so as a partner of the telco, or "just another user" trying to resell the service. I could see a provider looking to sponsor this kind of thing — get their brand out there, and get access to people with Wi-Fi only devices without the cost of rolling out Wi-Fi hotspots. (Even better, since savvy homeless hotspot providers are likely to move according to demand, which makes re-siting Wi-Fi access far easier than needing to move infrastructure around.)
the lawsuit of the big telecoms against whatever organization was going to provide municipal wifi coverage
Would these "big telecoms" not be providing the backhaul used here? The interface to users is Wi-Fi, but I'd have thought it was backhauled via the cellular networks to provide the actual Internet connectivity. In effect, the homeless are resellers (or re-casters, perhaps) of their telecom service?
If we work on the basis that both patents and copyright exist as a tool to secure a public benefit — a somewhat old fashioned view, I admit, when copyright is increasingly seen as a goal in its own right — one would hope that, if there is a public benefit in the patent system, an appropriate exception to copyright law would be implemented, if not already in place.
Are you looking for a company developing something, which is to be released under an open source licence?
Or to support open source platforms, irrespective of what the company itself does?
Are you looking for employment, rather than offering consultancy services / self-employed? If you have expertise with particular open source platforms, are there jobs available to work with those platforms — even if the companies in question do not realise that they are open source?
Could you be looking for jobs where the company wants a solution which does [x], and is not worried how you get to [x] as long as you are on time and on budget, and so would be amenable to an open source solution?
why have not they set up their own shark team yet ?
Google has its own legal team, but that doesn't end the need for external legal advice at times, if only because of the ability to scale up quickly by using a law firm (e.g. during a discovery phase of litigation, or due diligence during an acquisition).
(I'm employed as a lawyer in a substantial in-house legal team, which has a panel of law firms.)
Although I do my academic work in my personal life, rather than my employed life, so far, it seems to be well received by my employer's senior management (FTSE 100 company)— a couple regularly ask me for the papers I have written, and ask questions which indicate that they have at least skimmed the contents. They have been very supportive indeed, even to the extent of helping me revise my role, to enable me to work four days a week, so I can spend a day doing my own academic work.
That being said, I am doing it to increase my knowledge, and because I enjoy studying, rather than for the value of the end certification in itself, though — I am not sure how much value there is in being seen to hold a masters. That would be a bonus.
A side effect, however, might be an ability to demonstrate clearly your time management skills, as studying alongside a job may not be an easy task — if you do go for it, make sure you factor the time commitment into your life. In this regard, studying part time and once you have some experience under your belt may well be considered more of an achievement than taking another year straight after the undergraduate degree — the subject matter might be less relevant.
If you enjoy studying, and will stand to learn more by doing it, it's hard to argue against doing it, though, even if, in itself, it does not help you advance.
the fact that a specific website is accessible from country XYZ, does NOT mean this website must comply with the local laws of country XYZ.
This certainly is not a new discussion — there's plenty written and opined about the applicability of one country's laws (and the jurisdiction of courts) to services made available from other countries, generally under the title of "private international law" or "conflict of laws."
In terms of the law in the EU, at least as between Member States, the Court of Justice of the European Union has ruled on the issue, with regard to websites operated from one country and available in another — whether, for the purposes of EU law on applicable jurisdiction (i.e. which Member State's courts should hear the case*), a hotel's website amounted to an activity "directed" to other Member States (if you are interested in the law, it's Article 15(1)(c) of Regulation 44/2001). The case is Hotel Alpenhof, and the court held that:
The classic forms of advertising expressly referred to in the previous paragraph involve the outlay of, sometimes significant, expenditure by the trader in order to make itself known in other Member States and they demonstrate, on that very basis, an intention of the trader to direct its activity towards those States.
That intention is not, on the other hand, always present in the case of advertising by means of the internet. Since this method of communication inherently has a worldwide reach, advertising on a website by a trader is in principle accessible in all States, and, therefore, throughout the European Union, without any need to incur additional expenditure and irrespective of the intention or otherwise of the trader to target consumers outside the territory of the State in which it is established.
It does not follow, however, that the words ‘directs such activities to’ must be interpreted as relating to a website’s merely being accessible in Member States other than that in which the trader concerned is established.
...
It must therefore be determined, in the case of a contract between a trader and a given consumer, whether, before any contract with that consumer was concluded, there was evidence demonstrating that the trader was envisaging doing business with consumers domiciled in other Member States, including the Member State of that consumer’s domicile, in the sense that it was minded to conclude a contract with those consumers.
Such evidence does not include mention on a website of the trader’s email address or geographical address, or of its telephone number without an international code. Mention of such information does not indicate that the trader is directing its activity to one or more other Member States, since that type of information is, in any event, necessary to enable a consumer domiciled in the Member State in which the trader is established to make contact with it.
So, no, mere accessibility of a website is not enough for an EU member state to be able to seize jurisdiction — are Facebook and Google and other sites with a main entity located in another country doing more than making their sites merely accessible?
* whilst the courts of Member State A might have the power to hear the case, this is different to saying that they must apply the law of Member State A. Depending on the arguments as to applicable law, a court in one Member State may have to interpret the contract in accordance with the laws of Member State B.
If you are a geek, chances are you either worked hard, or else found computing easy, I'd have thought? In either case, you likely have a lot of knowledge which you could share, and charge for doing so? Whether running weekly classes in a local community hall, perhaps even library, or teaching remotely over the Internet (which is obviously easier to tailor to individual needs), I would have thought that there would people looking to learn from someone who does not sound like a corporate drone but comes across as knowing their stuff?
Do you have other mothers in the area, who might like to know how to take better photographs of their children, process the images and then share them with family?
Remote home tuition would likely be safer than in person home tuition, although I'd have thought that most people are perfectly harmless.
With the increase in tools like LogMeIn, could you provide remote technical support to home users, who might appreciate a more personal touch than the likes of PC World?
Starting in the local area, perhaps, to build up a reputation, then expanding? You "kill what you eat," but would need to be available at the times which suited those paying you, unlike, say, documentation writing, which would likely be more flexible on you.
Slashdot Mirror
(I'd like to consider myself a geek first, but I am employed as a lawyer, which might mean my view on this is a biased one, although, like the OP, I am questioning as to whether suing to enforce the GPL is the right approach.)
Lawyers and "interest groups" leeching on other peoples work
I'd be surprised if US law lets a lawyer take action for copyright infringement other than on behalf of the copyright owner? I can understand if you don't like the actions of the SFLC but, somewhere, someone must have instructed the lawyers — to them, perhaps the lawyers are not "leeching" from them, but helping them, even if you consider that they are not helping you?
Misleading... "Open Rather than Free" implies that there is some charge.
I'm not sure it's misleading at all — Free software and open source software are simply terms of art. "Open" no more means that it is supplied at a cost than "Free" refers to price.
I know it doesn't fulfill the criterion of helping a politician manage her email but, in terms of "getting through" to politicians, the MPs in the UK with whom I've spoken have said that they treat written correspondence with the following priority (low to, well, not so low):
These were casual conversations, rather than anything official, and were with only three (then) MPs, but it seems that, for real reaction, the effort of a handwritten letter was needed. (Sadly, it was at an event in the House of Commons a few years ago, and I can't remember which MPs they were...)
I "invested" in ZionEyez, since it sounded like an interesting project, and something that I'd be pleased to see come to market. I use "invested" liberally here, since I don't for a second think that this gave me ownership in the project, or anything like that. Perhaps "gambling" would be a better term.
I gave my money to help a project get sufficient funding to go ahead. The "reward" level I paid for was listed as "You will receive the Eyez by ZionEyez HD video recording glasses with clear and shaded removable lenses" but I read this as being dependent on the project succeeding — if I don't receive the glasses, I'll be disappointed, but I wouldn't consider it a breach of contract. I expected the project to give it its best shot, and to put effort into attempting to succeed, rather than taking the money with no intention of creating the project, but it's inevitable that some projects will fail.
Whilst I'm disappointed that the project has been delayed quite considerably, and I'm mindful of the fact that I may never see the glasses, to me, this was an "investment" which did not materialise the way I had hoped rather than buying a product which was not delivered.
I feel particularly sorry for some of the feedback posted to the creator of the Hanfree project too...
... such as Flash...
I'm sure there's a joke in here somewhere, but I can't find it...
So... is that wrong? I don't get it.
My view is that that is wrong. My take on it is this:
I'd read it as the publishers arguing that copyright protection covers more than the final words on the page — that, in terms of the overall expenditure of effort / cost in writing a text book, the "original" author puts effort into research, thinking and structure / layout, and that the cost of doing this should mean that someone should be prohibited from taking a fully-research and structured book, and replacing the paragraphs and images with one's own. The licensing of the images included in that "secondary" book does not come into it.
Perhaps in a more copyright-y manner, that the expression of ideas extends to more than just the words and images on the page, and must extend to cover (at least some) issues of structure and material selection.
(Just my reading of it, but hope it helps!)
Under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, access to communications data without a warrant is already permitted. However, the legislation is particularly difficult to read (at least, I think it is...), so here's my approach to interpreting it:
"Communications data" is defined (s21(4)) widely:
(a) any traffic data comprised in or attached to a communication (whether by the sender or otherwise) for the purposes of any postal service or telecommunication system by means of which it is being or may be transmitted;
(b) any information which includes none of the contents of a communication (apart from any information falling within paragraph (a)) and is about the use made by any person— (i)of any postal service or telecommunications service; or (ii)in connection with the provision to or use by any person of any telecommunications service, of any part of a telecommunication system;
(c) any information not falling within paragraph (a) or (b) that is held or obtained, in relation to persons to whom he provides the service, by a person providing a postal service or telecommunications service.
(my emphasis — and see s21(6) for the definition of "traffic data")
Where a "designated person" (quite a long list of people are "designated") "believes that it is necessary" (s22(1)) to obtain any communications data for one of the grounds set out in s22(2) (quite a long list of grounds are set out), where it appears to the designated person that a postal or telecommunications operator is or may be in possession of, or be capable of obtaining, any communications data, the designated person may, by notice (which must be in writing (s23(2))) to the postal or telecommunications operator, require the operator (a) if the operator is not already in possession of the data, to obtain the data; and (b) in any case, to disclose all of the data in his possession or subsequently obtained by him. (s22(4)).
As well as requiring that the designated person believes that obtaining the data are necessary, no notice may be issued unless the designated person "believes that obtaining the data in question by the conduct authorised or required by the authorisation or notice is proportionate to what is sought to be achieved by so obtaining the data." (s22(5)) The notice can last up to one month (s23(4)).
As such, no warrant is required, as long as the designated person believes that obtaining the data is necessary for one of the stated grounds, and is proportionate to the outcome sought to be achieved.
It's worth noting that the operator has no say in the matter at all — it is the operator's statutory duty to comply (s22(6)), unless complying is "not reasonably practicable" (s22(7)) and the requirement can be enforced via an injunction, or as a specific performance of statutory duty (basically, an injunction...). (s22(8))
Given that the Secretary of State can order (by written notice) a communications provider to retain data for up to 12 months (see Reg. 10, Data Retention (EC Directive) Regulations 2009), there's potentially a lot of data to get hold of. See Schedule 3 of the regulations for what an operator can be ordered to retain.
The new legislation sounds — although we wait to see it — as if the scope is broadened, but access to communications data without a warrant is already in place, and has been for many years now.
Perhaps worth adding — I have not had the walls up, and don't want cables everywhere, so everything is wireless. DVDs (not Blu-Ray) get ripped to around 1.2GB each, and stream over the Wi-Fi system. I haven't had a problem with this, and so would see whether a wireless solution would suit your needs.
I guess it depends on what your friends like, and why you want to impress them. I enjoy tinkering, and have been gradually adding bits and pieces, but nothing designed to impress anyone other than me.
Playing on the Wii — four player Mario Kart, in particular — with the image projected across the lounge, is something which people seem to enjoy, though; pretty cheap (a bog standard, non-HD projector cost me about £220 about five years ago), and great fun. Just find some games which are easy enough to pick up and play, and get everyone involved, and you're off... I wouldn't put that together just to impress others, though, but it is quite good fun all the same.
The bought-broken-on-eBay-but-fixed-with-a-screwdriver Roomba is quite cool, but doesn't get as much use as I'd like, as my girlfriend is not a great fan of it. It doesn't save me much time either, to be honest, as, when I run it, I tend to stand marveling at it...
Personally, the things I find the coolest are music streamed into which ever room I want, controllable via my phone (AirTunes... nothing fancy here), and being able to select any movie and have it streamed through the projector (Apple TV and iTunes on server currently, although previously via a PS3 and a share on the server). Again, neither is fancy, but they both work a treat.
The remotely-controlled lighting was relatively inexpensive, but my setup is not free of bugs yet — I'm using HomeEasy switches, and a small RF dongle (TellStick) plugged in the back of a Linux machine, and, whilst it means I can easily control the lighting from a web browser, and easily automate when I'm away from home, I have not yet managed to get one transmission controlling just one light. Switching off the lounge lighting via the console / interface switches off the light in the kitchen and so on. A real nuisance, and one which I need to spend more time trying to resolve.
(Cameras around the house were the only things that raised objections, although agreeing on placement solved that problem.)
I guess it depends on whether the hotspot providers were doing so as a partner of the telco, or "just another user" trying to resell the service. I could see a provider looking to sponsor this kind of thing — get their brand out there, and get access to people with Wi-Fi only devices without the cost of rolling out Wi-Fi hotspots. (Even better, since savvy homeless hotspot providers are likely to move according to demand, which makes re-siting Wi-Fi access far easier than needing to move infrastructure around.)
the lawsuit of the big telecoms against whatever organization was going to provide municipal wifi coverage
Would these "big telecoms" not be providing the backhaul used here? The interface to users is Wi-Fi, but I'd have thought it was backhauled via the cellular networks to provide the actual Internet connectivity. In effect, the homeless are resellers (or re-casters, perhaps) of their telecom service?
I hope the patent trolls lose everything over this.
I'm not sure that the inevitable outcome of this, strengthening the trolling of copyright, would be a good thing?
If we work on the basis that both patents and copyright exist as a tool to secure a public benefit — a somewhat old fashioned view, I admit, when copyright is increasingly seen as a goal in its own right — one would hope that, if there is a public benefit in the patent system, an appropriate exception to copyright law would be implemented, if not already in place.
a startup that provides online storage and software for web and Wi-Fi cams
Sadly omitted from the summary (albeit in the article) — the user gets "free" storage in exchange for the analytics.
Far too little to convince me to share such data, though.
all about space saving?
-bash: rc: command not found
Are you looking for a company developing something, which is to be released under an open source licence?
Or to support open source platforms, irrespective of what the company itself does?
Are you looking for employment, rather than offering consultancy services / self-employed? If you have expertise with particular open source platforms, are there jobs available to work with those platforms — even if the companies in question do not realise that they are open source?
Could you be looking for jobs where the company wants a solution which does [x], and is not worried how you get to [x] as long as you are on time and on budget, and so would be amenable to an open source solution?
why have not they set up their own shark team yet ?
Google has its own legal team, but that doesn't end the need for external legal advice at times, if only because of the ability to scale up quickly by using a law firm (e.g. during a discovery phase of litigation, or due diligence during an acquisition).
(I'm employed as a lawyer in a substantial in-house legal team, which has a panel of law firms.)
Finally, a positive news story.
Although I do my academic work in my personal life, rather than my employed life, so far, it seems to be well received by my employer's senior management (FTSE 100 company)— a couple regularly ask me for the papers I have written, and ask questions which indicate that they have at least skimmed the contents. They have been very supportive indeed, even to the extent of helping me revise my role, to enable me to work four days a week, so I can spend a day doing my own academic work.
That being said, I am doing it to increase my knowledge, and because I enjoy studying, rather than for the value of the end certification in itself, though — I am not sure how much value there is in being seen to hold a masters. That would be a bonus.
A side effect, however, might be an ability to demonstrate clearly your time management skills, as studying alongside a job may not be an easy task — if you do go for it, make sure you factor the time commitment into your life. In this regard, studying part time and once you have some experience under your belt may well be considered more of an achievement than taking another year straight after the undergraduate degree — the subject matter might be less relevant.
If you enjoy studying, and will stand to learn more by doing it, it's hard to argue against doing it, though, even if, in itself, it does not help you advance.
Just to confirm — the case is on applicable jurisdiction, not applicable law.
the fact that a specific website is accessible from country XYZ, does NOT mean this website must comply with the local laws of country XYZ.
This certainly is not a new discussion — there's plenty written and opined about the applicability of one country's laws (and the jurisdiction of courts) to services made available from other countries, generally under the title of "private international law" or "conflict of laws."
In terms of the law in the EU, at least as between Member States, the Court of Justice of the European Union has ruled on the issue, with regard to websites operated from one country and available in another — whether, for the purposes of EU law on applicable jurisdiction (i.e. which Member State's courts should hear the case*), a hotel's website amounted to an activity "directed" to other Member States (if you are interested in the law, it's Article 15(1)(c) of Regulation 44/2001). The case is Hotel Alpenhof, and the court held that:
The classic forms of advertising expressly referred to in the previous paragraph involve the outlay of, sometimes significant, expenditure by the trader in order to make itself known in other Member States and they demonstrate, on that very basis, an intention of the trader to direct its activity towards those States.
That intention is not, on the other hand, always present in the case of advertising by means of the internet. Since this method of communication inherently has a worldwide reach, advertising on a website by a trader is in principle accessible in all States, and, therefore, throughout the European Union, without any need to incur additional expenditure and irrespective of the intention or otherwise of the trader to target consumers outside the territory of the State in which it is established.
It does not follow, however, that the words ‘directs such activities to’ must be interpreted as relating to a website’s merely being accessible in Member States other than that in which the trader concerned is established.
It must therefore be determined, in the case of a contract between a trader and a given consumer, whether, before any contract with that consumer was concluded, there was evidence demonstrating that the trader was envisaging doing business with consumers domiciled in other Member States, including the Member State of that consumer’s domicile, in the sense that it was minded to conclude a contract with those consumers.
Such evidence does not include mention on a website of the trader’s email address or geographical address, or of its telephone number without an international code. Mention of such information does not indicate that the trader is directing its activity to one or more other Member States, since that type of information is, in any event, necessary to enable a consumer domiciled in the Member State in which the trader is established to make contact with it.
So, no, mere accessibility of a website is not enough for an EU member state to be able to seize jurisdiction — are Facebook and Google and other sites with a main entity located in another country doing more than making their sites merely accessible?
* whilst the courts of Member State A might have the power to hear the case, this is different to saying that they must apply the law of Member State A. Depending on the arguments as to applicable law, a court in one Member State may have to interpret the contract in accordance with the laws of Member State B.
If you are a geek, chances are you either worked hard, or else found computing easy, I'd have thought? In either case, you likely have a lot of knowledge which you could share, and charge for doing so? Whether running weekly classes in a local community hall, perhaps even library, or teaching remotely over the Internet (which is obviously easier to tailor to individual needs), I would have thought that there would people looking to learn from someone who does not sound like a corporate drone but comes across as knowing their stuff?
Do you have other mothers in the area, who might like to know how to take better photographs of their children, process the images and then share them with family?
Remote home tuition would likely be safer than in person home tuition, although I'd have thought that most people are perfectly harmless.
With the increase in tools like LogMeIn, could you provide remote technical support to home users, who might appreciate a more personal touch than the likes of PC World?
Starting in the local area, perhaps, to build up a reputation, then expanding? You "kill what you eat," but would need to be available at the times which suited those paying you, unlike, say, documentation writing, which would likely be more flexible on you.