From TFA: "However, environmental groups have criticised the project, saying there was no guarantee that the billions of euros would result in a commercially viable energy source." This baffles me, just whose side are the environmentalists on again? It doesn't matter that there is no gaurantee. The likelyhood of it being a comercially viable energy source is very high
I think their point is if 10 Billion Euros were spent on developing solar, wind, and other renewable energies, there would be a much quicker and surer return on investment. On the other hand, the potential for Fusion is imense. If Fusion has the same benefits as it did in Simcity 2000, after 2050, we won't use anything else.
It took quite a few months before games that really took advantage of the DS's capabilities (the two screens as well as the touch capabilities) came out, but now the market is full of them, and the PSP is largely being ignored. It might take a while for developers to appreciate what the Wii can do, but hopefully they will make the most of it when they understand its potential.
As with all law, and much of the rest of the world, there are legitimate uses, and illegitimate uses. Limiting a lawyers payout to what an individual plaintiff would get is ludicrous. Consider the lawsuit against the RIAA over price fixing. The individual payout was in the order of $20 or so. It would be silly to expect anyone to work hundreds of hours, win tens of millions of dollars for the community, and only be paid $20 (There might be some who are willing to donate their time for such a cause, but to expect people to donate their time is something else.) On the other hand, I am aware of a number of class action suits where lawyers acting on behalf of a class settled the suit for an amount that only covered their expenses, leaving nothing for the plaintiffs. This is also clearly ludicrous. There isn't a perfect solution, but perhaps the solution some way to limit the percent of a settlement that the representing lawyer can claim.
The wikipedia entries for Democracy and Free Speech are overwhelmingly pro-Democracy and Free Speech. There is no discussion of the notable issues associated with them (compare that to the entry on the US constitution's second amendment, which has a much more balanced discussion). I am a strong proponent of democracy, and I think free speech is a wonderful thing, but that doesn't mean there are not issues with them. One must wonder how these entries became such one-sided discussions of the topics. Was every contributer a blind proponent of the ideas? Were the contrary views edited out over time? Neither is a pleasant thought.
Even assuming it is legal to make backups (and it might not be in the US thanks to the DMCA) it wouldn't be legal to make a backup and send it to your 100 closest friends. While I can imagine there might be a legitimate reason to mail backups, it isn't that much of a strech to say that the majority of burnt DVDs of copyrighted movies that are shipped through the mail would not be legitimate backups.
I remember back in the day hotline servers insisted that they were just "backup" servers. They weren't.
That said, this is ludicrous. I can't imagine that many people would be sending DVDs through the post.
I understand that in some areas DRM can inconvenience people, but how can an encrypted video signal affect people? The only components that should ever encounter this are the video card and the monitor.
It would be a greater inconvenience if the protocol did not support encryption, and the HD video players refused to play HD at full resolution over the protocol. In any case it is an *optional* part of the spec. Complaining about it would be like a mac user refusing to buy an intel mac for the sole reason that it is possible to install windows on it.
The 1 year old monitor is junk because it doesn't support encrypted video, not because it supports it. If this new display protocol didn't support encryption, it would be obsolete before it was even shipped.
if XCOM2 has taught me anything, if aliens attack a shipping vessel, you first need to clear them from the deck of the ship, and only then you can move inside. It is also important for most of your crew to carry motion detectors, because otherwise it can take many many turns to find the last hiding alien.
What is the negative effect of optionally encrypting the video signal sent to the monitor? Making the (safe) assumption that it will be visually indistinguishable, and as easy to connect and set up, how would this disadvantage a regular consumer? The only "negative" impact of this would be for people who would intend to intercept the signal, convert it into raw video, and encode it (presumably to circumvent the DRM on the HD-DVD disks). Given that the vast majority of people have not bothered with circumventing the DRM on DVDs, and the process of intercepting a video signal would be vastly more costly, and inconvenient, I would be surprised if even 0.1% of consumers would be inconvenienced by this.
Unfortunately you don't live in the real world. While your ideas might be nice, they have no basis in reality. You might as well be arguing that Vulcans, as a purely logical species, should be in control of the unified earth government. Your knowlege of property law is also a fantasy. The right to own real property is also a government created monopoly. As for being an "inalienable right", it wasn't too long ago that Women were not allowed to own property after they were married. I would not be surprised if this was not still true somewhere. Some countries give limited rights for children to own real property, and some countries deny land ownership to some immigrants... not to mention that (at least in commonlaw countries) property is never owned by an individual. It is owned by the government, and certain rights to the land are granted to individuals. Under specified circumstances, these rights revert to the government.
The fragility of patents
on
Public Patents?
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Everyone knows that prior art defeats patents. If you are the first person to develop an idea, and you publish your work immediately, then you are immune from a subsequent patent. This does not cost anything.
Where open source/Free software runs into trouble is when they are replicating the work of others, such as GIF, MPEG4 etc. To a lesser extent, there are very broad patents, such as some online shopping patents, and UI patents. The broader a patent is, the easier it should be to find prior art. Again, if you publish your work (and CVS, etc would count) then you have nothing to worry about.
Anyway, if you intend to share the patent with the world, there is no need to apply for a patent then "free" it... just make the information available to the public, and it should have the same effect.
Do you really think company x are still going to be in business after being found guilty of premeditated murder ?
Many companies that have been responsible for human deaths are still running... pharmaceutical companies that knowingly release unsafe products to the public, chemical companies that dump toxic chemical into the environment. Oil companies that support corrupt/totalitarian regimes, or eliminate critics of those regimes. In any case, a criminal charge requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. For a company that could save millions of dollars, it wouldn't be too hard to find someone behind the scenes to do the deed.
Are there not already laws that deal with generating money from the proceeds of crime ?
Yes there are, but they are not for rich people, only poor people and drug addicts.
Why should the situation for copyright holders be any different to the situation for anyone else ? Does an employer keep paying their employees wages to the family after their death ?
It appears that you don't understand what copyright means. Would you like it if after a person dies, all of their property returns to the government/public domain?
No, outside of extraordinary circumstances, copyright shouldn't last even close to the lifetime of a person in the first place.
I am not a fan of the insane copyright lengths that some countries (most notably the US) have been introducing. On the other hand, I don't understand why people think they are "entitled" to copyrighted work. These aren't patents, where a novel and inventive idea is shared with the world in exchange for a limited protection. There are virtually infinite potential novels, songs, computer programs, paintings, poems, television programs (despite what it might appear in modern TV) etc. There is no restriction from you writing your own novels or songs or computer programs or poems etc. While it is true that with computers and other digital technology, there is a very low cost of duplication and distribution, but this is far from granting someone a "right" to the work. If a movie theatre is half empty, it does not cost the proprietor of the cinema complex anything for me to sit in and watch the movie, this does not mean I have a right to sit in the half-empty movie theatre and watch the movie.
> Very few movies ever show a profit. This is not because they don't make money for the studio, but because it makes tax sense to calculate it that way.
This is a flaw in laws dealing with corporate accounting, and should be dealt with there.
If you have an idea, please publish it to the world. Governments would love to know your secret. Governments have been struggling to find an equitable, effective, infallible way to tax citizens. Unfortunately this does not exist. It is true that it would be nice for it to be fixed with corporate accounting, it hasn't, and it won't... not because accountants are stupid, but because it is a lot more complex than you think, and there isn't any neat solution.... a lot more stuff...
Your suggestion puts a lot of emphasis on work needed to be done by the copyright holder. The great thing about copyrights is they are available to protect everyone's work. As I said above, you do not have a "right" to someone else's labour. You never did. You appear to fundamentally misunderstand what copyright is. You should find a text book on IP and read the copyright chapter.
There are many countries in the world which have effectively zero state powers... afghanistan, iraq, much of africa... Few would call these places "ideal".
Are you suggesting that a company who contracts someone to write a pamphlet for them, or to design a webpage for them should not get copyright over that work? Consider the situation of a movie producer who pays a scriptwriter $1,000,000 to write a script for a movie, why should the scriptwriter maintain copyright? It would be the same as me paying a woodworker $5,000 to construct a table, and the woodworker insisting on maintaining ownership of it. As property, copyright can be bought and sold.
Also, a company is a person. This has been true for over 400 years. You really should get with the times.
> There is no justifiable reason whatsoever for copyright to last a second past the creator's death
How about the situation: company x wants to make a book based on novel by author Y. Y refuses, company X kills Y. Should company X be able to make a movie without any access rights issues? (This is not an unheard of situation) What about Author z wishes to provide for Zs family, so writes a book on deathbed. should this book become public domain when Z dies? It would defeat the purpose of Zs actions (this is also not an unheard of situation)
Companies and organizations can hold copyright. Generally this copyright is held for a fixed period of years (as companies do not have to "die"). Should companies' copyrights be protected more than humans (whose copyrights would expire when they die?
> Successful work -> copyright expires quickly -> creator has to generate more works to keep the money flowing -> higher net benefit to society.
How do you propose to measure success? Very few movies ever show a profit. This is not because they don't make money for the studio, but because it makes tax sense to calculate it that way. Many of the wealthiest people in the world pay less income tax than a regular person earning $50,000. It isn't because they are not earning an income, but because they can pay very creative accountants. Income is a lot simpler to measure than "economic success".
Well, Microsoft's argument is that while the fonts are, for all intents and purposes identical, there is no conclusive evidence that Frutiger Next existed prior to Segoe. All their opponent proved was they were selling a font called "Frutiger Next" back in 2000, and in 2005 the font they were calling "Frutiger Next" was essentially identical to Segoe.
Of course, Microsoft's argument is shaky at best, but you would think the creators of "Frutiger Next" would have a version of the font saved from before 2005.
I don't deny that there is a lot of independent content. The comment I was responding to was arguing that the primary reason for DRM was to prevent people from accessing alternative content, and not to reduce privacy. While I am sure that they would prefer seeing you buying content from them rather than getting free independent content, I have seen no connection between that and the way that DRM has been handled so far. The large media companies have done plenty of nasty stuff for real without all of the player haters inventing additional, phony, evil motives for their actions.
Thats an interesting idea, but do you have anything to back it up? All of the encryption systems I have heard of are entirely optional (at the option of the content producer.) CSS and region restrictions have always been optional on DVDs. All of the fancy DRM techniques used in the next generation HD disks are also optional (consider Sony's choice to use a lower level of protection for their (at least initial) releases) and once the burnable variety is available (likely to be a lot earlier in the cycle than for CDs and perhaps even DVDs) the different groups will want consumers to be creating HD disks using their own technologies. The original mp3.com had 2 services: one where small content producers were able to make their songs available to the public for free (or at least at low cost); and one where people were able to register their purchase of regular CDs, and stream it over the internet. Unsurprisingly, the recording industry went after the second service, and did not care about the distribution of independent content. Bit-torrent is used to distribute linux ISOs, independent games, independently produced movies and independent "TV" shows. Torrent sites focusing on the legal distribution of these are not sued or prosecuted while sites that solely distribute "pirate" material are targeted.
Even ignoring the fact that "Apple" appears in the title bar, the lawsuit isn't over IP (trademark) infringement, but breaking of a contract between apple and apple. Whether Apple Computer's actions have broken this contract is up to the court, but whatever conclusion they reach, it will be based on interpretation of contract, rather than trademark.
Everyone remembers how wonderful the previous starwars TV shows have been. I hope this lives up to the brilliance of "droids", and the Christmas special. I would like to see a "Luke in the Middle" sitcom style... except without any brothers... perhaps they could adopt a jawa. later on, it could morph into a "the OC" style show, set in Mos Eisley... "the ME"
>Upon closer observation, however, this reason leaks like a sieve. The parody websise is not a direct copy...far from it, since the content is radically different. This reason also conveniently glosses over the rather important fact that the Melbourne IT was ordered to yank the website by the Australian Government.
Copyright can exist in the layout of a website. In many countries, parody would be protected under a "fair use" provision, however Australia doesn't protect fair use, and additionally has no rights of free speech. The Australian Government was entirely within their rights to do this... however that doesn't make it right.
Most developed countries have a department that is concerned with ensuring the quality of food that is available in the country. This department is generally able to prosecute a business if they do not comply with food safely regulations. So, while you are right in that a business who sells poisonous food is liable regardless of who eats it, they are not liable to every person who eats it which was my original point. ie They will be "done in" by the government, but can't be "done in" by the person who picks up the product off the street.
Sony has a duty of care to their customers, not to every joe on the street. If the grandparent found the CD on the street and put it into his computer, should he have a right to compensation? Or to remove the CD altogether, if he found a bottle of pills on the street, and took a few, should he sue the pharmaceutical company? On the other hand, he can sue his friend, who lent him the CD.
> Then he could have been able to argue "You can't have it - returning it to you would be self-incrimination."
That is bullshit. If that were true: a company could argue that the government can't look at their financial records because it would incriminate them; a murderer could deny police access to their premises because they would find a body in her freezer that would incriminate her. Self incrimination is when you are used directly as a source of evidence such as through a confession, or affidavit, and only applies to a criminal case.
It is clear that the grandparent intended on using "you're", but omitted the word "a" and accidentally inserted "is". The poster intended to say "You are a joke in bad taste".
Slashdot Mirror
From TFA:
"However, environmental groups have criticised the project, saying there was no guarantee that the billions of euros would result in a commercially viable energy source."
This baffles me, just whose side are the environmentalists on again? It doesn't matter that there is no gaurantee. The likelyhood of it being a comercially viable energy source is very high
I think their point is if 10 Billion Euros were spent on developing solar, wind, and other renewable energies, there would be a much quicker and surer return on investment.
On the other hand, the potential for Fusion is imense. If Fusion has the same benefits as it did in Simcity 2000, after 2050, we won't use anything else.
It took quite a few months before games that really took advantage of the DS's capabilities (the two screens as well as the touch capabilities) came out, but now the market is full of them, and the PSP is largely being ignored. It might take a while for developers to appreciate what the Wii can do, but hopefully they will make the most of it when they understand its potential.
As with all law, and much of the rest of the world, there are legitimate uses, and illegitimate uses. Limiting a lawyers payout to what an individual plaintiff would get is ludicrous. Consider the lawsuit against the RIAA over price fixing. The individual payout was in the order of $20 or so. It would be silly to expect anyone to work hundreds of hours, win tens of millions of dollars for the community, and only be paid $20 (There might be some who are willing to donate their time for such a cause, but to expect people to donate their time is something else.)
On the other hand, I am aware of a number of class action suits where lawyers acting on behalf of a class settled the suit for an amount that only covered their expenses, leaving nothing for the plaintiffs. This is also clearly ludicrous.
There isn't a perfect solution, but perhaps the solution some way to limit the percent of a settlement that the representing lawyer can claim.
The wikipedia entries for Democracy and Free Speech are overwhelmingly pro-Democracy and Free Speech. There is no discussion of the notable issues associated with them (compare that to the entry on the US constitution's second amendment, which has a much more balanced discussion). I am a strong proponent of democracy, and I think free speech is a wonderful thing, but that doesn't mean there are not issues with them. One must wonder how these entries became such one-sided discussions of the topics. Was every contributer a blind proponent of the ideas? Were the contrary views edited out over time? Neither is a pleasant thought.
Even assuming it is legal to make backups (and it might not be in the US thanks to the DMCA) it wouldn't be legal to make a backup and send it to your 100 closest friends. While I can imagine there might be a legitimate reason to mail backups, it isn't that much of a strech to say that the majority of burnt DVDs of copyrighted movies that are shipped through the mail would not be legitimate backups.
I remember back in the day hotline servers insisted that they were just "backup" servers. They weren't.
That said, this is ludicrous. I can't imagine that many people would be sending DVDs through the post.
I understand that in some areas DRM can inconvenience people, but how can an encrypted video signal affect people? The only components that should ever encounter this are the video card and the monitor.
It would be a greater inconvenience if the protocol did not support encryption, and the HD video players refused to play HD at full resolution over the protocol.
In any case it is an *optional* part of the spec. Complaining about it would be like a mac user refusing to buy an intel mac for the sole reason that it is possible to install windows on it.
The 1 year old monitor is junk because it doesn't support encrypted video, not because it supports it. If this new display protocol didn't support encryption, it would be obsolete before it was even shipped.
if XCOM2 has taught me anything, if aliens attack a shipping vessel, you first need to clear them from the deck of the ship, and only then you can move inside. It is also important for most of your crew to carry motion detectors, because otherwise it can take many many turns to find the last hiding alien.
What is the negative effect of optionally encrypting the video signal sent to the monitor? Making the (safe) assumption that it will be visually indistinguishable, and as easy to connect and set up, how would this disadvantage a regular consumer? The only "negative" impact of this would be for people who would intend to intercept the signal, convert it into raw video, and encode it (presumably to circumvent the DRM on the HD-DVD disks). Given that the vast majority of people have not bothered with circumventing the DRM on DVDs, and the process of intercepting a video signal would be vastly more costly, and inconvenient, I would be surprised if even 0.1% of consumers would be inconvenienced by this.
Unfortunately you don't live in the real world. While your ideas might be nice, they have no basis in reality. You might as well be arguing that Vulcans, as a purely logical species, should be in control of the unified earth government.
Your knowlege of property law is also a fantasy. The right to own real property is also a government created monopoly. As for being an "inalienable right", it wasn't too long ago that Women were not allowed to own property after they were married. I would not be surprised if this was not still true somewhere. Some countries give limited rights for children to own real property, and some countries deny land ownership to some immigrants... not to mention that (at least in commonlaw countries) property is never owned by an individual. It is owned by the government, and certain rights to the land are granted to individuals. Under specified circumstances, these rights revert to the government.
Everyone knows that prior art defeats patents. If you are the first person to develop an idea, and you publish your work immediately, then you are immune from a subsequent patent. This does not cost anything.
Where open source/Free software runs into trouble is when they are replicating the work of others, such as GIF, MPEG4 etc. To a lesser extent, there are very broad patents, such as some online shopping patents, and UI patents. The broader a patent is, the easier it should be to find prior art. Again, if you publish your work (and CVS, etc would count) then you have nothing to worry about.
Anyway, if you intend to share the patent with the world, there is no need to apply for a patent then "free" it... just make the information available to the public, and it should have the same effect.
Do you really think company x are still going to be in business after being found guilty of premeditated murder ?
... a lot more stuff ...
Many companies that have been responsible for human deaths are still running... pharmaceutical companies that knowingly release unsafe products to the public, chemical companies that dump toxic chemical into the environment. Oil companies that support corrupt/totalitarian regimes, or eliminate critics of those regimes.
In any case, a criminal charge requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. For a company that could save millions of dollars, it wouldn't be too hard to find someone behind the scenes to do the deed.
Are there not already laws that deal with generating money from the proceeds of crime ?
Yes there are, but they are not for rich people, only poor people and drug addicts.
Why should the situation for copyright holders be any different to the situation for anyone else ? Does an employer keep paying their employees wages to the family after their death ?
It appears that you don't understand what copyright means. Would you like it if after a person dies, all of their property returns to the government/public domain?
No, outside of extraordinary circumstances, copyright shouldn't last even close to the lifetime of a person in the first place.
I am not a fan of the insane copyright lengths that some countries (most notably the US) have been introducing. On the other hand, I don't understand why people think they are "entitled" to copyrighted work. These aren't patents, where a novel and inventive idea is shared with the world in exchange for a limited protection. There are virtually infinite potential novels, songs, computer programs, paintings, poems, television programs (despite what it might appear in modern TV) etc. There is no restriction from you writing your own novels or songs or computer programs or poems etc. While it is true that with computers and other digital technology, there is a very low cost of duplication and distribution, but this is far from granting someone a "right" to the work. If a movie theatre is half empty, it does not cost the proprietor of the cinema complex anything for me to sit in and watch the movie, this does not mean I have a right to sit in the half-empty movie theatre and watch the movie.
> Very few movies ever show a profit. This is not because they don't make money for the studio, but because it makes tax sense to calculate it that way.
This is a flaw in laws dealing with corporate accounting, and should be dealt with there.
If you have an idea, please publish it to the world. Governments would love to know your secret. Governments have been struggling to find an equitable, effective, infallible way to tax citizens. Unfortunately this does not exist. It is true that it would be nice for it to be fixed with corporate accounting, it hasn't, and it won't... not because accountants are stupid, but because it is a lot more complex than you think, and there isn't any neat solution.
Your suggestion puts a lot of emphasis on work needed to be done by the copyright holder. The great thing about copyrights is they are available to protect everyone's work. As I said above, you do not have a "right" to someone else's labour. You never did. You appear to fundamentally misunderstand what copyright is. You should find a text book on IP and read the copyright chapter.
There are many countries in the world which have effectively zero state powers... afghanistan, iraq, much of africa... Few would call these places "ideal".
Are you suggesting that a company who contracts someone to write a pamphlet for them, or to design a webpage for them should not get copyright over that work? Consider the situation of a movie producer who pays a scriptwriter $1,000,000 to write a script for a movie, why should the scriptwriter maintain copyright? It would be the same as me paying a woodworker $5,000 to construct a table, and the woodworker insisting on maintaining ownership of it. As property, copyright can be bought and sold.
Also, a company is a person. This has been true for over 400 years. You really should get with the times.
> There is no justifiable reason whatsoever for copyright to last a second past the creator's death
How about the situation:
company x wants to make a book based on novel by author Y. Y refuses, company X kills Y. Should company X be able to make a movie without any access rights issues? (This is not an unheard of situation)
What about Author z wishes to provide for Zs family, so writes a book on deathbed. should this book become public domain when Z dies? It would defeat the purpose of Zs actions (this is also not an unheard of situation)
Companies and organizations can hold copyright. Generally this copyright is held for a fixed period of years (as companies do not have to "die"). Should companies' copyrights be protected more than humans (whose copyrights would expire when they die?
> Successful work -> copyright expires quickly -> creator has to generate more works to keep the money flowing -> higher net benefit to society.
How do you propose to measure success? Very few movies ever show a profit. This is not because they don't make money for the studio, but because it makes tax sense to calculate it that way. Many of the wealthiest people in the world pay less income tax than a regular person earning $50,000. It isn't because they are not earning an income, but because they can pay very creative accountants. Income is a lot simpler to measure than "economic success".
Do you ever buy macrovision "protected" VHS tapes?
Well, Microsoft's argument is that while the fonts are, for all intents and purposes identical, there is no conclusive evidence that Frutiger Next existed prior to Segoe. All their opponent proved was they were selling a font called "Frutiger Next" back in 2000, and in 2005 the font they were calling "Frutiger Next" was essentially identical to Segoe.
Of course, Microsoft's argument is shaky at best, but you would think the creators of "Frutiger Next" would have a version of the font saved from before 2005.
I don't deny that there is a lot of independent content. The comment I was responding to was arguing that the primary reason for DRM was to prevent people from accessing alternative content, and not to reduce privacy. While I am sure that they would prefer seeing you buying content from them rather than getting free independent content, I have seen no connection between that and the way that DRM has been handled so far. The large media companies have done plenty of nasty stuff for real without all of the player haters inventing additional, phony, evil motives for their actions.
Thats an interesting idea, but do you have anything to back it up? All of the encryption systems I have heard of are entirely optional (at the option of the content producer.) CSS and region restrictions have always been optional on DVDs. All of the fancy DRM techniques used in the next generation HD disks are also optional (consider Sony's choice to use a lower level of protection for their (at least initial) releases) and once the burnable variety is available (likely to be a lot earlier in the cycle than for CDs and perhaps even DVDs) the different groups will want consumers to be creating HD disks using their own technologies.
The original mp3.com had 2 services: one where small content producers were able to make their songs available to the public for free (or at least at low cost); and one where people were able to register their purchase of regular CDs, and stream it over the internet. Unsurprisingly, the recording industry went after the second service, and did not care about the distribution of independent content.
Bit-torrent is used to distribute linux ISOs, independent games, independently produced movies and independent "TV" shows. Torrent sites focusing on the legal distribution of these are not sued or prosecuted while sites that solely distribute "pirate" material are targeted.
Even ignoring the fact that "Apple" appears in the title bar, the lawsuit isn't over IP (trademark) infringement, but breaking of a contract between apple and apple. Whether Apple Computer's actions have broken this contract is up to the court, but whatever conclusion they reach, it will be based on interpretation of contract, rather than trademark.
Everyone remembers how wonderful the previous starwars TV shows have been. I hope this lives up to the brilliance of "droids", and the Christmas special. I would like to see a "Luke in the Middle" sitcom style... except without any brothers... perhaps they could adopt a jawa.
later on, it could morph into a "the OC" style show, set in Mos Eisley... "the ME"
>Upon closer observation, however, this reason leaks like a sieve. The parody websise is not a direct copy...far from it, since the content is radically different. This reason also conveniently glosses over the rather important fact that the Melbourne IT was ordered to yank the website by the Australian Government.
Copyright can exist in the layout of a website. In many countries, parody would be protected under a "fair use" provision, however Australia doesn't protect fair use, and additionally has no rights of free speech. The Australian Government was entirely within their rights to do this... however that doesn't make it right.
Most developed countries have a department that is concerned with ensuring the quality of food that is available in the country. This department is generally able to prosecute a business if they do not comply with food safely regulations. So, while you are right in that a business who sells poisonous food is liable regardless of who eats it, they are not liable to every person who eats it which was my original point. ie They will be "done in" by the government, but can't be "done in" by the person who picks up the product off the street.
Sony has a duty of care to their customers, not to every joe on the street. If the grandparent found the CD on the street and put it into his computer, should he have a right to compensation? Or to remove the CD altogether, if he found a bottle of pills on the street, and took a few, should he sue the pharmaceutical company?
On the other hand, he can sue his friend, who lent him the CD.
> Then he could have been able to argue "You can't have it - returning it to you would be self-incrimination."
That is bullshit. If that were true: a company could argue that the government can't look at their financial records because it would incriminate them; a murderer could deny police access to their premises because they would find a body in her freezer that would incriminate her.
Self incrimination is when you are used directly as a source of evidence such as through a confession, or affidavit, and only applies to a criminal case.
It is clear that the grandparent intended on using "you're", but omitted the word "a" and accidentally inserted "is". The poster intended to say "You are a joke in bad taste".