I think maybe you missed the intermediate alternative, a system that works offline but demands periodic calls home.
No, I didn't miss this. Thing is, that sounds good for a moment, but once you start thinking about it, it just plain doesn't work. I'll try to explain why not briefly.
If a player is capable og playing a "protected" song (or movie or whatever) while offline, then this *must* mean that the player contains all required info to do so, including any required keys.
If the player contains the keys, then sooner or later someone is going to figure out how to aquire those keys.
*truly* tamper-proof hardware is, if not impossible, then atleast impossible at a budget that'll let it fit in $50 portable players.
Once you have the keys, you can make a player that plays, or produces unencrypted copies, and never calls home.
You migth think this could be prevented by for example periodically issuing new keys, so that players that don't call home won't learn the new keys, and thus won't be able to play new media.
That also won't work. In that case the hacked players could also call home, report nothing, and aquire the new keys. Authenticating "unhacked" players won't work because the hacked ones knows everything the unhacked ones know, including any secrets used for authenthication.
With *truly* tamper-proof hardware it'd work, but that's a long shot. I'd like to see the chip that can be produced in volume for max $5 or so, and that can successfully protect a secret worth (conservatively) millions.
Won't help. What is doable with cheap
(remember, dvd-players can be had for $40, people are unlikely to accept a DRM-technology that costs say more than the rest of the player combined.) special-purpose hardware today is doable with standard computers a few years later, and with powerful general-purpose computers at once.
Even if you assume that the special-purpose chip is 1000 times as effective at this operation as a general-purpose chip of the same price, this just means that if a $10 special-purpose chip can display video in realtime, then a $100 general-purpose cpu can decode a 2 hour movie in 200 hours, or about a week.
And that only needs to be done once, thereafter the decoded copy can be shared freely online. Do you really doubt that crackers will leta computer run for a week to decode a fresh movie ? Or that they can gather up 10 computers and be done in a day ?
If you factor in Moores law your idea goes from bad to useless.
I think you're a little too pessimistic. (or optimistic, depending on POV).
a DRM-system that does not work offline is severly hampered. A system which does not, for example, allow you to listen to music in your portable player is not going to be success.
Even with a offline-capable system, you need to dissect Alice. But you only need to do so once, and you can then create any number of Alindas.
For example, the current DVD-encryption. The design has issues, but even if we assume a similar system that does not, the fact remains that every existing hardware or software dvd-player *must* have all the info (including any secret keys) required to read and display the DVD. Given this it was only a matter of time before someone figured out how to dissect a dvd-player sufficiently to learn the key.
A system where every player has a separate key, and every medium is encrypted with a different key would allow blocking compromised keys. But it'd have multiple other difficulties that would be hard to work around.
I somehow doubt that people will love a movie-player that only works when the internet-connection works. That nessecarily reports to a central server what movie you watch when. That is a paperweigth the day the company running the online keyserver decide to stop doing so.
I also sorta doubt that it'd be possible to find a party for running the online keyserver that all the other parties would trust. (i.e. I somehow doubt that te different electronics and content-creation companies trust eachothers that much.)
It can be done even simpler than that, and indeed it tzpicallz is here in Europe. (atleast Norway and Germany which are the two countries I have bank-accounts online in.)
The bank sends you a list of one time passwords, you need to enter one of them to authorise a transaction. Once your list is almost used up, you get a new list in the mail.
So, even if your fake front managed to get me to give up username and password, you'd still need a valid TAN, and tricking that away is harder, because users are accustomed that those are only needed to do transactions, not to log in.
This method also secures against trojans, key-loggers and the like. Even if a trojan sniffed username, password and a TAN, that still can't be used to empty the account since each TAN (Transaction Authorisation Number) is only valid once.
Simple. Cheap. Significantly more secure. No idea why US banks don't use it.
This ain't nessecarily so at all. It is true that *sometimes* there's a trade-off between security and ease of use, but it's no natural law like you pretend.
An example; When you meet your spouse, within a fraction of a second both of you have securily identified eachothers. The identification is very secure, totally effortless, and still pretty darn hard for an attacker to spoof.
Similarily, having a security-guard at the door who happens to *know* the dozen people working in an area is *not* much of a burden to those people working there, and still quite secure.
Having a system where you need to insert a usb-key and type a 5-digit pin to use a system is *also* very secure, assuming it's done rigth. It is also *easier* to use that the typical current-day username+cryptic password thing.
I could give dozens more examples, but I don't think it's needed. Better security should mean *smarter* security, not only "let's require 16 character randomly generated passwords" (that'd only make people write them down anyways)
Question is, are you then saying something useful, or are you just playing with words for the fun of it ?
One person says statistics often don't say what they seem to say, because there's a lot of background-info you need that isn't obvious from the numbers alone.
You first seem to disagree with this, but then sorta turn around and say that allthough statistics is the straigth truth, and it's perfectly reasonable to believe that, statistics still have very limited use due to for example numbers from different countries seldom being comparable.
So, the way I see it, in reality we agree; We agree that just reading the numbers, and concluding much from them, without knowing a lot about how they're collected, what they include and not, and so on, will often give a misleading picture.
I don't quite agree with you by the way. It's not that hard to find examples of statistics, especially time-series that, when collected consistently give different numbers that are quite comparable and give a quite accurate picture of reality.
Both. The distance is pretty large, and you will probably add something like 25% due to the roads.
The *quality* ain't the problem with the roads, the problem is that there's fjords which the road will either have to go around, or include a ferry, and mountains with similar problems.
I assume in principle bridges *could* be built for a few more fjords than there already is, but for some it's hard to see it. How *do* you reasonably build a bridge over a 3km wide fjord where the water is 200 meters deep ? (even if you could, is it reasonable to do so if the average traffic crossing is 300 autos/day ?)
I think that even including this, driving between the two most extreme points of the US is longer. It's just that it's similar, in the sense that 2000 and 2500 are similar. In *hours* Nordkapp-Lindesnes is probably longer, given that no part of the road is more than 60mph allowed and the typical speed-limit is 50mph.
We get the people who doesn't understand distance in Europe, it's just that not *all* of Europe has that problem.
I had a penfriend from Belgium, from there you can reasonably *bike* to anywhere in the country in a day. She had ideas like, let's visit Norway, then one day we can look at Oslo, the day after Bergen, and the following Nordkapp.
It was sorta hard to get across that going to Nordkapp with a car typically involves driving for like a week -- each way. (okay, so it's doable in less, but then you don't get to actually *see* much.)
Sure, such things are totally arbitrary. I suspect there's 7 "continents" just because someone at some point happened to like that number.
It's sorta like Greenland being the biggest island on earth.
Well, that is true. But it is also true that this is so ONLY because the definition of "island" is something along the lines of; "connected landmass no larger than Greenland" (the ones that are larger, we arbitrarily label "continents"
I agree, sorta. The US states are similar in size and population to many countries, atleast some of them are.
But they are more homogenous politically and historically than any collection of 50 countries you can find, even if you deliberately try to select 50 similar countries.
That said the typical European *will* have a fair idea about many of the US states, allthough not all. And oftentimes the ideas will be vague, of the type "Ain't New-York somewhere on the north of the Atlantic coast?"
Anyway, that wasn't what was quoted here. What was quoted was that a majority of a sampled population of Americans where unable to say where the Pacific is.
That's in a different category altogether. If you know 10 features of the earth, the pacific would be one of them. It's more like meeting a person who has no clue where Australia, or Asia is.
Works both ways. Many Americans are shocked to discover that driving from one end of Norway to the other is a trip similarily long as driving from one end of the USA to the other.
Actually, a compass-needle has two ends, both equal, one pointing north, and one pointing south. Which one is what is *also* arbitrary.
Re:Myth 7: IT Journalists know the field...
on
IT Myths
·
· Score: 1
Idunno about bridges, but I think that's kinda unfair. A bridge is a pretty well-known standard device. There's like a dozen basic designs, and it's pretty much a question of choosing one and building it at the rigth size.
I do know the failure rate for new types of satelites. (Hubble, for example, the first space-based large telescope was 40% over budget, and had a wrongly shaped lens, so needed a costly repair adding another 20% to the cost before it actually did anything.
I know the failure rate for new weapon-systems, not precisely, but well enough to be able to say for sure that 34% full success and 50% partial success would be an order of magnitude improvement.
No, your first hunch was rigth, it was arbitrary, or rather, it was because the people who made the first globuses prefered to think of themselves as living on "top".
Saying that "up" was choosen because that's where north is is a nonsenical statement, there's nothing more up about north than about south.
Yes, earlier maps also frequently had north on the "up" end, but that was *also* an arbitrary decision.
That's probably *also* true, but it doesn't stop my point from also carrying weigth.
It's probably true that teenage parents would do *better* than they do today if society surrounding them acted differently than todays society does.
But it's probably still not a stretch to say that the typical teenager has less ability/will to think things trough to their logical conclusion and to act responsibly even when that means an inconvenience at the moment than does the typical 25 year old.
I think it's quite probable, for example, that more teenage mothers would continue to smoke trough the pregnancy, even though information about the greatly increased risks is widely available, *EVEN* if society around the teenagers did not act with horror at their pregnancy like is today all too common.
Biologically, it's quite likely a 16 year old is more fit to get healthy children than a 25 year old, and that is even more true if you compare to say a 30 year old. Still, I really do think it's reasonable to assume that increased maturity is more than enough to compensate for this in other ways.
It also illustrates that read the rigth way, the first study actually does say something useful, it only doesn't say what you'd think at first look.
What it actually does say is that teens are *physically* able to have healthy children, but that they are typically *emotionally* not grown up enough to care properly about pre-natal care and suchlike.
I actually think this is a pretty good reason to wait until 20ies with children. Not that I see the connection with sex. With todays contraceptives the risk of pregnancy is (in my opinion) acceptably low. And even though teenagers may not be able to take responsibility (before and after birth) for the well-being of a child, they are certainly capable of enjoying sex.
What is that supposed to mean? Why aren't (true) statistics the straight truth?
The problem is with the definition of "true statistics". There are a few cases where relatively objective statistics are possible and common. But these are by far the minority, and are seldom the interesting issues.
Let me give an example. Say, how big a part of GDP a government allocates to healthcare. Assume that all statistics are perfectly collected, there are no errors whatsoever in how the data are collected . A "true statistic" no ?
http://www.globalis.no/indicator.cfm?IndicatorID=1 42&year=2001
Look at Germany. 0.8% less that ALL but 5 other countries, all the others being countries in the category "Afghanistan", "Nigeria" and so on.
The real reason ?
Let's compare to Norway. For a typical person in Norway, there's maybe 35% taxes. of those, the state gives out around 1/3rd, so 12% of your gross for healthcare.
In Germany, there's instead maybe a 20% tax plus a MANDATORY (by law) "healthcare insurance" that costs something like 14% of your gross.
End result, the statistics say that Germany pays only 0.8% of GDP for healthcare, only 1/8th that of Norway, while in REALITY the typical German pays around 15% (14% + 0.8%) of his gross for healthcare compared to 12% in Norway.
What difference does it make if the subtraction from your salary is labeled "taxes" or "health-insurance" when in both cases you are required by law to pay it, and in both cases the money goes to pay for the very same thing ?
This sort of thing is not the exception when it comes to gathering and using statistics, it's more the rule.
By playing the example game you make it too easy on yourself though.
As you demonstrated, it is easy to give an example of ethical, but ilegal action, and similarily easy to give an example of unethical but legal action.
But it is similarily easy to find examples of law that are seemingly only supported by some peoples understanding of ethics and/or morals, and where it is very hard to show what harm would come to society where the law repealed.
What harm would come to society if an adopted boy married the real daugther of his parents ? (i.e his law, but not biology "sister") It's still illegal everywhere that I know of.
In which way would society be burdened if we made it legal for a doctor to give you a letal injection where you to a) clearly ask for it and b) be sane. ?
Law is not created by some sterile theoretical concept. Law is created trough politics. This means any and all different interests, groups and reasons play a role. Saying that law is never created on the basis of ethics is just about equally stupid as saying that law is always created on the basis of ethics.
These days, you get the impression that the biggest influence on new law is which interests has the most money, *that* is for sure no way to make law, but it's still how it happens.
You are correct that we should not outlaw something solely because we consider it unethical or unmoral. But the oposite is also true; if society considers a certain action ethical and moral, then that society should not at the same time make that action illegal. (If you don't agree, can you provide an example of something that you consider ethical and moral which you nevertheless think should be (or remain) illegal ? )
Relevant! I'm a firm believer that if someone creates a work of art they should be able to charge whatever they want to people who want a reproduction or to view/listen to that art. Now art is defined pretty loosely here, especially considering some of the stuff that hits the theatres. If I don't want to pay $x to see a movie or purchase a CD, then I have that right.
Fine. But it's not quite that simple. Many people say, like you, that the creators gets control. An interesting question is, how much control ?
Here's a few examples of things a copyrigth-owner migth want to control. I don't think anyone would say it'd be sensible to let him control all of these.
People who whistle a Beatles-song when walking down the street are publicly performing a copyrigthed work. A policeman witnessing such should stop you and ask for your license.
Rudolf the red nosed reindeer (and about a gazillion other songs) should no longer be sung in schools and kindergardens, unless fully paid up.
*certainly* these songs should not form part of the childrens repertoire on , say, a fundraising performance for a local charity.
People who buy a legal movie on their vacation in Japan should be prevented by law from watching this movie at home in the US.
The US supreme courts interpretation of the constitution is correct and reasonable when they say that the "for limited times" clause is satisfied aslong as there is *any* limit. A copyrigth-law that stipulates copyrigth lasting for 10^200 years is constitutional.
Some knowledge is just too dangerous. While it is, and remains, legal to make a website explaining how to, for example, make fertilizer bombs, synthesize drugs, kill efficiently with a knife or construct your own nuclear bomb, it should remain forbidden to write stuff like: "autorun (and thus DRM-driver-loading) in Windows can be disable by holding down the shift key."
Copyrigth was supposed to be a/balance/.
Currently it is anything but, and getting worse by the day.
Sure it tastes better. Atleast aslong as you *know* it's organic.
There was a test in the German version of Consumer Report recently. 50 people where fed organic and non-organic fruit, meat and vegetables, blind and non-blind. And asked to rate the food.
Nonsurprisingly, when told what is what, most people rated the organic stuff significantly better then the non-organic.
Almost equally unsurprising; when served the food without info as to what is what, the large and obvious difference disapperared, and in one case (the meat) even changed to a statistically significant preference for the non-organic variety.
I agree. Exception being sites you have to deal with. For example public sites for online tax-returns and other services of the state or such where there simply is no option to take it elsewhere.
I generally silently go elsewhere when I can, and complain loudly when I can not.
You're rigth. Adding one more type of address to the list is stupid and futile, there'll always be new types of adresses.
The correct solution (or atleast the better one!) is law similar to the Norwegian one;
It is illegal for marketing purposes to adress communications to individually adressable telecommunications-units except when either the user has given prior, informed consent, or the user is a current customer of yours.
Applies to spam SMS, Fax, Email, voicemail, telephone etc.
The logic behind allowing companies you're a customer of to spam you is that sometimes stuff changes in an offer that is good to inform customers of, and as a customer you've always got the option of saying: "Call me again and I'm an ex-customer" anyway.
Copyrigth is a *balance*, or atleast it was meant to be. The artists (or today corporations) get something, namely the rigth to control copying and distribution of a work, in exchange for which the public gets something, namely increased creation of creative works. Atleast that's the intention as stated in the constitution.
If something is balanced, you can't add on one side without adding on the other, and still maintain the balance.
This is a sale. The state says you can have this and this, it'll cost you so-and-so. That's no tax. That's a sale.
I agree with you that it's tricky to ensure that a system does not unfairly promote the bigger companies on the cost of the "small man". But I'm thinking that the typical work exhausts most of it's profit-potential in 10-20 years (many like sofware and boybands much sooner !), and the main idea behind such legislation would be to insure that works that are no longer comersially relevant gets available.
Not like today when 99% of all creative works loose comersial relevance and become unavailable decades before copyrigth expire, leading to the current situation where copying is not done at all and works go lost because "We don't want to, and you are not allowed to."
Slashdot Mirror
No, I didn't miss this. Thing is, that sounds good for a moment, but once you start thinking about it, it just plain doesn't work. I'll try to explain why not briefly.
If a player is capable og playing a "protected" song (or movie or whatever) while offline, then this *must* mean that the player contains all required info to do so, including any required keys.
If the player contains the keys, then sooner or later someone is going to figure out how to aquire those keys.
*truly* tamper-proof hardware is, if not impossible, then atleast impossible at a budget that'll let it fit in $50 portable players.
Once you have the keys, you can make a player that plays, or produces unencrypted copies, and never calls home.
You migth think this could be prevented by for example periodically issuing new keys, so that players that don't call home won't learn the new keys, and thus won't be able to play new media.
That also won't work. In that case the hacked players could also call home, report nothing, and aquire the new keys. Authenticating "unhacked" players won't work because the hacked ones knows everything the unhacked ones know, including any secrets used for authenthication.
With *truly* tamper-proof hardware it'd work, but that's a long shot. I'd like to see the chip that can be produced in volume for max $5 or so, and that can successfully protect a secret worth (conservatively) millions.
Even if you assume that the special-purpose chip is 1000 times as effective at this operation as a general-purpose chip of the same price, this just means that if a $10 special-purpose chip can display video in realtime, then a $100 general-purpose cpu can decode a 2 hour movie in 200 hours, or about a week.
And that only needs to be done once, thereafter the decoded copy can be shared freely online. Do you really doubt that crackers will leta computer run for a week to decode a fresh movie ? Or that they can gather up 10 computers and be done in a day ?
If you factor in Moores law your idea goes from bad to useless.
a DRM-system that does not work offline is severly hampered. A system which does not, for example, allow you to listen to music in your portable player is not going to be success.
Even with a offline-capable system, you need to dissect Alice. But you only need to do so once, and you can then create any number of Alindas.
For example, the current DVD-encryption. The design has issues, but even if we assume a similar system that does not, the fact remains that every existing hardware or software dvd-player *must* have all the info (including any secret keys) required to read and display the DVD. Given this it was only a matter of time before someone figured out how to dissect a dvd-player sufficiently to learn the key.
A system where every player has a separate key, and every medium is encrypted with a different key would allow blocking compromised keys. But it'd have multiple other difficulties that would be hard to work around.
I somehow doubt that people will love a movie-player that only works when the internet-connection works. That nessecarily reports to a central server what movie you watch when. That is a paperweigth the day the company running the online keyserver decide to stop doing so.
I also sorta doubt that it'd be possible to find a party for running the online keyserver that all the other parties would trust. (i.e. I somehow doubt that te different electronics and content-creation companies trust eachothers that much.)
The bank sends you a list of one time passwords, you need to enter one of them to authorise a transaction. Once your list is almost used up, you get a new list in the mail.
So, even if your fake front managed to get me to give up username and password, you'd still need a valid TAN, and tricking that away is harder, because users are accustomed that those are only needed to do transactions, not to log in.
This method also secures against trojans, key-loggers and the like. Even if a trojan sniffed username, password and a TAN, that still can't be used to empty the account since each TAN (Transaction Authorisation Number) is only valid once.
Simple. Cheap. Significantly more secure. No idea why US banks don't use it.
An example; When you meet your spouse, within a fraction of a second both of you have securily identified eachothers. The identification is very secure, totally effortless, and still pretty darn hard for an attacker to spoof.
Similarily, having a security-guard at the door who happens to *know* the dozen people working in an area is *not* much of a burden to those people working there, and still quite secure.
Having a system where you need to insert a usb-key and type a 5-digit pin to use a system is *also* very secure, assuming it's done rigth. It is also *easier* to use that the typical current-day username+cryptic password thing.
I could give dozens more examples, but I don't think it's needed. Better security should mean *smarter* security, not only "let's require 16 character randomly generated passwords" (that'd only make people write them down anyways)
One person says statistics often don't say what they seem to say, because there's a lot of background-info you need that isn't obvious from the numbers alone.
You first seem to disagree with this, but then sorta turn around and say that allthough statistics is the straigth truth, and it's perfectly reasonable to believe that, statistics still have very limited use due to for example numbers from different countries seldom being comparable.
So, the way I see it, in reality we agree; We agree that just reading the numbers, and concluding much from them, without knowing a lot about how they're collected, what they include and not, and so on, will often give a misleading picture.
I don't quite agree with you by the way. It's not that hard to find examples of statistics, especially time-series that, when collected consistently give different numbers that are quite comparable and give a quite accurate picture of reality.
The trick is just to figure out when that is.
The *quality* ain't the problem with the roads, the problem is that there's fjords which the road will either have to go around, or include a ferry, and mountains with similar problems.
I assume in principle bridges *could* be built for a few more fjords than there already is, but for some it's hard to see it. How *do* you reasonably build a bridge over a 3km wide fjord where the water is 200 meters deep ? (even if you could, is it reasonable to do so if the average traffic crossing is 300 autos/day ?)
I think that even including this, driving between the two most extreme points of the US is longer. It's just that it's similar, in the sense that 2000 and 2500 are similar. In *hours* Nordkapp-Lindesnes is probably longer, given that no part of the road is more than 60mph allowed and the typical speed-limit is 50mph. We get the people who doesn't understand distance in Europe, it's just that not *all* of Europe has that problem.
I had a penfriend from Belgium, from there you can reasonably *bike* to anywhere in the country in a day. She had ideas like, let's visit Norway, then one day we can look at Oslo, the day after Bergen, and the following Nordkapp.
It was sorta hard to get across that going to Nordkapp with a car typically involves driving for like a week -- each way. (okay, so it's doable in less, but then you don't get to actually *see* much.)
It's sorta like Greenland being the biggest island on earth.
Well, that is true. But it is also true that this is so ONLY because the definition of "island" is something along the lines of; "connected landmass no larger than Greenland" (the ones that are larger, we arbitrarily label "continents"
But they are more homogenous politically and historically than any collection of 50 countries you can find, even if you deliberately try to select 50 similar countries.
That said the typical European *will* have a fair idea about many of the US states, allthough not all. And oftentimes the ideas will be vague, of the type "Ain't New-York somewhere on the north of the Atlantic coast?"
Anyway, that wasn't what was quoted here. What was quoted was that a majority of a sampled population of Americans where unable to say where the Pacific is.
That's in a different category altogether. If you know 10 features of the earth, the pacific would be one of them. It's more like meeting a person who has no clue where Australia, or Asia is.
Works both ways. Many Americans are shocked to discover that driving from one end of Norway to the other is a trip similarily long as driving from one end of the USA to the other.
Actually, a compass-needle has two ends, both equal, one pointing north, and one pointing south. Which one is what is *also* arbitrary.
I do know the failure rate for new types of satelites. (Hubble, for example, the first space-based large telescope was 40% over budget, and had a wrongly shaped lens, so needed a costly repair adding another 20% to the cost before it actually did anything.
I know the failure rate for new weapon-systems, not precisely, but well enough to be able to say for sure that 34% full success and 50% partial success would be an order of magnitude improvement.
I could give a dozen more examples.
Okay okay, I'm nitpicking. I'll stop.
Saying that "up" was choosen because that's where north is is a nonsenical statement, there's nothing more up about north than about south.
Yes, earlier maps also frequently had north on the "up" end, but that was *also* an arbitrary decision.
It's probably true that teenage parents would do *better* than they do today if society surrounding them acted differently than todays society does.
But it's probably still not a stretch to say that the typical teenager has less ability/will to think things trough to their logical conclusion and to act responsibly even when that means an inconvenience at the moment than does the typical 25 year old.
I think it's quite probable, for example, that more teenage mothers would continue to smoke trough the pregnancy, even though information about the greatly increased risks is widely available, *EVEN* if society around the teenagers did not act with horror at their pregnancy like is today all too common.
Biologically, it's quite likely a 16 year old is more fit to get healthy children than a 25 year old, and that is even more true if you compare to say a 30 year old. Still, I really do think it's reasonable to assume that increased maturity is more than enough to compensate for this in other ways.
It also illustrates that read the rigth way, the first study actually does say something useful, it only doesn't say what you'd think at first look.
What it actually does say is that teens are *physically* able to have healthy children, but that they are typically *emotionally* not grown up enough to care properly about pre-natal care and suchlike.
I actually think this is a pretty good reason to wait until 20ies with children. Not that I see the connection with sex. With todays contraceptives the risk of pregnancy is (in my opinion) acceptably low. And even though teenagers may not be able to take responsibility (before and after birth) for the well-being of a child, they are certainly capable of enjoying sex.
The problem is with the definition of "true statistics". There are a few cases where relatively objective statistics are possible and common. But these are by far the minority, and are seldom the interesting issues.
Let me give an example. Say, how big a part of GDP a government allocates to healthcare. Assume that all statistics are perfectly collected, there are no errors whatsoever in how the data are collected . A "true statistic" no ?
http://www.globalis.no/indicator.cfm?IndicatorID=1 42&year=2001
Look at Germany. 0.8% less that ALL but 5 other countries, all the others being countries in the category "Afghanistan", "Nigeria" and so on.
The real reason ?
Let's compare to Norway. For a typical person in Norway, there's maybe 35% taxes. of those, the state gives out around 1/3rd, so 12% of your gross for healthcare.
In Germany, there's instead maybe a 20% tax plus a MANDATORY (by law) "healthcare insurance" that costs something like 14% of your gross.
End result, the statistics say that Germany pays only 0.8% of GDP for healthcare, only 1/8th that of Norway, while in REALITY the typical German pays around 15% (14% + 0.8%) of his gross for healthcare compared to 12% in Norway.
What difference does it make if the subtraction from your salary is labeled "taxes" or "health-insurance" when in both cases you are required by law to pay it, and in both cases the money goes to pay for the very same thing ?
This sort of thing is not the exception when it comes to gathering and using statistics, it's more the rule.
As you demonstrated, it is easy to give an example of ethical, but ilegal action, and similarily easy to give an example of unethical but legal action.
But it is similarily easy to find examples of law that are seemingly only supported by some peoples understanding of ethics and/or morals, and where it is very hard to show what harm would come to society where the law repealed.
What harm would come to society if an adopted boy married the real daugther of his parents ? (i.e his law, but not biology "sister") It's still illegal everywhere that I know of.
In which way would society be burdened if we made it legal for a doctor to give you a letal injection where you to a) clearly ask for it and b) be sane. ?
Law is not created by some sterile theoretical concept. Law is created trough politics. This means any and all different interests, groups and reasons play a role. Saying that law is never created on the basis of ethics is just about equally stupid as saying that law is always created on the basis of ethics.
These days, you get the impression that the biggest influence on new law is which interests has the most money, *that* is for sure no way to make law, but it's still how it happens.
You are correct that we should not outlaw something solely because we consider it unethical or unmoral. But the oposite is also true; if society considers a certain action ethical and moral, then that society should not at the same time make that action illegal. (If you don't agree, can you provide an example of something that you consider ethical and moral which you nevertheless think should be (or remain) illegal ? )
Fine. But it's not quite that simple. Many people say, like you, that the creators gets control. An interesting question is, how much control ?
Here's a few examples of things a copyrigth-owner migth want to control. I don't think anyone would say it'd be sensible to let him control all of these.
Copyrigth was supposed to be a /balance/.
Currently it is anything but, and getting worse by the day.
There was a test in the German version of Consumer Report recently. 50 people where fed organic and non-organic fruit, meat and vegetables, blind and non-blind. And asked to rate the food.
Nonsurprisingly, when told what is what, most people rated the organic stuff significantly better then the non-organic.
Almost equally unsurprising; when served the food without info as to what is what, the large and obvious difference disapperared, and in one case (the meat) even changed to a statistically significant preference for the non-organic variety.
I generally silently go elsewhere when I can, and complain loudly when I can not.
Your cellphone migth transmit with 0.1 Watts, but it is perhaps 5cm from your brain.
A AM-tower 100 meters away would have to transmit with 400KW to have the same intensity radiation hit your brain.
The correct solution (or atleast the better one!) is law similar to the Norwegian one;
It is illegal for marketing purposes to adress communications to individually adressable telecommunications-units except when either the user has given prior, informed consent, or the user is a current customer of yours.
Applies to spam SMS, Fax, Email, voicemail, telephone etc.
The logic behind allowing companies you're a customer of to spam you is that sometimes stuff changes in an offer that is good to inform customers of, and as a customer you've always got the option of saying: "Call me again and I'm an ex-customer" anyway.
Copyrigth is a *balance*, or atleast it was meant to be. The artists (or today corporations) get something, namely the rigth to control copying and distribution of a work, in exchange for which the public gets something, namely increased creation of creative works. Atleast that's the intention as stated in the constitution.
If something is balanced, you can't add on one side without adding on the other, and still maintain the balance.
This is a sale. The state says you can have this and this, it'll cost you so-and-so. That's no tax. That's a sale.
I agree with you that it's tricky to ensure that a system does not unfairly promote the bigger companies on the cost of the "small man". But I'm thinking that the typical work exhausts most of it's profit-potential in 10-20 years (many like sofware and boybands much sooner !), and the main idea behind such legislation would be to insure that works that are no longer comersially relevant gets available.
Not like today when 99% of all creative works loose comersial relevance and become unavailable decades before copyrigth expire, leading to the current situation where copying is not done at all and works go lost because "We don't want to, and you are not allowed to."