That's a matter of perspective. It could easily be argued that the US' present housing bubble state was caused by a lack of regulation and furthermore the non-enforcement of what regulations did actually exist. While the 1997 regulation may or may not have required banks to give loans that were unlikely to be repaid (not knowing this regulation I can't confirm or deny the veracity of your claim), there was likely nothing in this regulation which required them to engage in predatory lending practises which was another factor in the collapse.
The BP spill is another example, what regulations existed were not enforced by the EPA and the companies had little interest in bothering to maintain and self-regulate on trivialities like safety when it risks eating into their profit margins.
There are plenty of regulations in force which do plenty of good -- it's just a lot easier to remember the ones that were terrible.
I'd just like to point out that the Australian regulation you describe is proposed legislation only and does NOT currently exist as law. I know the world at the moment wants to paint Australian internet law as an example of terribleness (and it is a terrible idea), but you should probably hold off until the regulation actually exists.
I too wonder about the ambiguous word "legitimate" and worry about the potential it has for creative interpretation - but lets not get ahead of ourselves and decry the concept of regulation in its entirety - especially when it seems to be upholding the rights of its citizens for now.
Fair cop, my sardonic tar-brush was a little too wide. I'll be the first to admit copyright law has valid applications (GPL, etc.); but then you get instances like this where the courts' time and resources are tied up in what is just frivolous crap. Makes it just that little bit more difficult to remember what good can come of copyright and I for one can't help but idly wonder about the pros and cons of the entire concept itself.
I went and looked through a handful of the pdfs, most of what he's claiming are just variable declarations with intuitive naming (as they well should be). Really? What's next, someone claiming copyright infringement based on using the letter i as a temporary variable?
Thank god for copyright law, or else people might just get away with such atrocious fraud...
Furthermore, if it takes that many red lines to elucidate the copy&pasting, surely that's visual indication enough that you're clutching at straws.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a matter of perspective. It could easily be argued that the US' present housing bubble state was caused by a lack of regulation and furthermore the non-enforcement of what regulations did actually exist. While the 1997 regulation may or may not have required banks to give loans that were unlikely to be repaid (not knowing this regulation I can't confirm or deny the veracity of your claim), there was likely nothing in this regulation which required them to engage in predatory lending practises which was another factor in the collapse. The BP spill is another example, what regulations existed were not enforced by the EPA and the companies had little interest in bothering to maintain and self-regulate on trivialities like safety when it risks eating into their profit margins. There are plenty of regulations in force which do plenty of good -- it's just a lot easier to remember the ones that were terrible.
I'd just like to point out that the Australian regulation you describe is proposed legislation only and does NOT currently exist as law. I know the world at the moment wants to paint Australian internet law as an example of terribleness (and it is a terrible idea), but you should probably hold off until the regulation actually exists. I too wonder about the ambiguous word "legitimate" and worry about the potential it has for creative interpretation - but lets not get ahead of ourselves and decry the concept of regulation in its entirety - especially when it seems to be upholding the rights of its citizens for now.
Fair cop, my sardonic tar-brush was a little too wide. I'll be the first to admit copyright law has valid applications (GPL, etc.); but then you get instances like this where the courts' time and resources are tied up in what is just frivolous crap. Makes it just that little bit more difficult to remember what good can come of copyright and I for one can't help but idly wonder about the pros and cons of the entire concept itself.
I went and looked through a handful of the pdfs, most of what he's claiming are just variable declarations with intuitive naming (as they well should be). Really? What's next, someone claiming copyright infringement based on using the letter i as a temporary variable? Thank god for copyright law, or else people might just get away with such atrocious fraud... Furthermore, if it takes that many red lines to elucidate the copy&pasting, surely that's visual indication enough that you're clutching at straws.