Look at the German data protection laws and regulations: they have explicit exemptions for national security and police work; often, a justification from the executive branch is sufficient (no court order). I trust you are at least capable of Googling this yourself?
A British company has moral, ethical and legal obligations to protect its customers' data.
So do US companies, that's not the issue. The US government can legally get at that data under some circumstances, just like the UK government can get at data at UK companies under some circumstances.
Exposing that data to the US by hosting on a server in the EU would be negligent, yet is the situation that Microsoft have admitted anybody using their service could find themselves in.
That's your opinion. What matters is legal fact.
Throw in the almost certain misuse of secret corporate data for industrial espionage purposes (and don't even pretend the US Government don't play there)
I'm not aware of any cases of corporate espionage conducted by the US government; can you name any? In contrast, the French government clearly has been conducting corporate espionage against US companies.
there's a very compelling case to use EU only cloud providers (or host in-house).
There is: it simplifies legal cases, and as a non-US citizen, you effectively have fewer rights under US law than US citizens. But don't live under any illusion that that makes your data safer or more private. Your data is probably still safer in the US, but your legal recourse is better in Europe. Take your pick.
The two aren't just correlated, they are causally related: the federal government has been essential in securing liberties for many Americans. One area has been civil rights. But another area has been the spread of totalitarianism in Asia and Europe in the 20th century, something that it took massive military action by the US to correct. Without that external threat, the federal government wouldn't need to be as strong. And mainly for that purpose you're paying federal income tax.
Actually, the Wikileaks cables showed how the USA has a plan to systematically push their copyright and patent legislation onto other nations
Your point being? The US is a sovereign nation. Of course, it is going to have strategies for defending its interests. Do you seriously think European governments don't have their own strategies? That's not "bullying", that's called "negotiations" and "diplomacy".
I'm not sure why European politicians are leaning over backwards for the USA. Part of the reason may be that USA has such a large military, they're helping to protect Europe too.
Yes, that is one reason. That's not bullying, though. The US spends hundreds of billions of dollars a year on that military, and Europe saves tons of money because of it. The US keeps telling Europe that Europe should start carrying its own weight in its defense and keeps getting ignored. 3/4 of NATO expenses come from the US, and the 1/4 that Europe contributes is mostly useless in terms of defense effectiveness.
Part of the reason may be the USA is simply better and have more experience at the lobbying game.
It's not "lobbying" (=national interest groups pressuring governments), it's diplomacy. And the US isn't better at diplomacy than Europe, the home of Machiavelli and two millennia of diplomatic and political games. What makes the US more successful at diplomacy is that it actually has a goal, while Europe is still a bunch of squabbling nation states that is united only in pointing at the US when they can't get their act together, as they usually can't. The US can't make Europe happy because Europe doesn't even have a consistent voice.
It's has always been a very interventionist nation.
That's quite funny, given that pretty much the only wars the US has engaged in have been wars that the Europeans or Asians dropped on its doorstep. While European nations were busy raping and pillaging across the globe, American was mostly farming and building up an industrial base. Most Americans didn't want to enter WWI or WWII either, but the US didn't have a choice. After WWII, Europe had left a power vacuum and a mess that the US needed to fill, and it still needs to fill it because Europeans still refuse to do their job, spending their money on lavish retirement benefits instead of building up their militaries again and policing their own backyard.
They're not in "beta", they're not even in "alpha"; Google+ is a prototype, and experiment. It's has promise, but it also has significant limitations and problems. They want to get the bugs out with a smaller user community before letting it loose on the world.
Oh, that old canard of the "US bullying Europe". Is Europe some impotent banana republic? Of course not. Europe has nearly twice as many people and a bigger economy than the US. How exactly do you think the US is forcing Europe to do anything European governments don't want to do? By what magical means is this "bullying" supposed to happen?
If European governments enter treaties with the US that Europeans don't like, there are only two explanations: (1) Europe's diplomats and politicians are totally incompetent or (2) we have a case of policy laundering. Either way, take your complaints to European governments, don't blame the US.
While EU data protection is actually worse than US data protection, you're probably still somewhat better off because suing a European company is probably easier for you than suing a US company.
In different words, it's not the "US gubmint" you should be worried about, it's the French, German, British, Italian, and other European governments, who have really bad records historically.
I'm sorry... who are you talking about? Europeans are supposed to be "the only friends" of the US? The always-whining always-complaining Europeans? I don't think so.
And let's see what you are actually complaining about: the US government reserves the right to access data held by US companies in the US. Well, golly, European companies reserve the same right in Europe, but without many of the niceties and legal protections that exist in the US.
The real difference is that few Americans actually have data on European servers, while lots of Europeans have data on American servers. And that's probably the real reason Europeans keep whining.
Congress and the states have had half a century for reversing the shift of power from the states to the federal government, but there hasn't been any serious effort to do that. At this point, that's the new consensus and that's the law, and it doesn't matter anymore what the founders wanted.
If you don't like this shift, then make a good and convincing argument to have it reversed by a Constitutional amendment that restores what you consider the original intent.
Note I'm not defending these decisions; there are problems with the current system, but there were other problems when the federal government was weaker.
EU countries also have the ability to access pretty much everything they like in the interest of national security. Some European nations even allow government access to data for police work without a court order. And they don't ask questions whether the data involved comes from Europeans or US citizens.
So I really don't see what the fuss is about. The only reason this matters more in the EU->US direction is because there are a lot more US companies that EU citizens like to use than the other way around. But that's hardly America's fault or problem.
The declaration of independence created the nation, period.
Afterwards, Britain's refusal to recognize the new nation and take it back by force was really no different from an attack by Britain on any other sovereign country.
<sarcasm>Yeah, why can't the whole world be as peaceful and tolerant as the people who issued death sentences against the Danish cartoonists or Salman Rushdie?</sarcasm>
You mean Wickard v. Filburn? That wasn't to "feed his family", it was to run his farm. There was no vague language involved and the court's reasoning was valid and easy to follow, even if one disagrees with it.
Well, PalmOS, many of the devices running WinCE, the Sharp Zaurus and other devices running mobile Qt, UIQ, the PARC Tab, the IBM Simon, to name just a few. (Some of those were PDAs, a few were phones, but that doesn't affect the question of the originality of the UI.)
Such as? I guess you mean Samsung....for blatantly copying the iPhone and iPad?
Yeah, because we all know that having a touch screen phone with a square screen and a grid for launcher icons is such a unique concept! Only a few dozen companies that had that sort of thing before!
Really, Apple has a history going back 30 years of ripping off other people's technologies and then suing over it as if they had invented it. The sleazy tricks they have been playing with iPhone and iPad are completely in character.
The result of aggressive filtering and censorship like that in the US will be a decentralization of the Internet. Instead of relying on a few easily controlled DNS servers and other components, people will move to decentralized, self-validating systems that will be even harder for governments to control. And people will start encrypting their traffic regularly. So, go ahead, make our days!
Good going, man! Don't let facts get in the way of a good-sounding argument! There's hope for liberals yet: our arguments are starting to be as illogical and unfounded in facts ad those of Republicans!
Contrary to what the GP implied, that quote is not from Adam Smith, it is one interpretation of his work. (I happen to think it's a good interpretation, but that's besides the point.)
Incorrect. "Derecho de cita" grants much the same rights as fair use, no matter what you just read on the Wikipedia
The article is correct: "derecho de cita" is a specific exemption for research and teaching; fair use is a much broader exemption. If you think it grants "much of the same rights", you don't understand fair use.
On the "feeling superior to the US", I'm merely pointing out the misconception by the post I was replying to that the EU equalises all their members legal framework to the same uniform mess
I implied that Europe does not guarantee fair use rights. That means "not all European nations have fair use rights", which is true. Your assumption that I see Europe as a diffuse mess is merely your prejudice.
Europe is not just the UK, Germany and France.
The point is that international copyright law is becoming more restrictive due in large part to a push from European governments and corporations, and the bigger they are, the more power they have.
In addition, if a nation like Spain has limits on copyrights, the most likely outcome is that interest groups in that country will use international treaties (EU, global) to force their nation to change the law without ever needing to associate with that unpopular policy change.
Small hint: a lot of us still have or had relatives that were actually there during WW2.
Small hint, so do I, and they aren't even Americans. You should ask your relatives some time where "your country" would be if it weren't for the US.
Is it so hard to defend your country based on its merits that you have to resort to baseless bashing of another nation of which you don't even understand the basic workings?
I don't really give a damn about what you think about my country. But I want copyright fixed, and that requires that people get active at one of the major sources of the problem, in Europe. Until European voters start to realize that their nations are a major cause of this and other international problems, nothing is going to change.
Shall we start another discussion about the necessity of the war in Iraq and why that war was started? I thought not.
That's precious coming from a Belgian: your nation ran a corrupt and bloody colonial empire well into the 20th century. One of the consequences of that, Rwanda, turned into a genocide, and neither Belgium nor the UN managed to handle it. Even the churches you installed in that country couldn't be bothered to do as much as condemn the genocide.
Yes, the US kicked out Saddam Hussein--a mass murderer and brutal dictator--and is now paying tons of money trying to rebuild the country. I was against that war as being expensive and unwise (and I found Bush's transparent lies offensive), but there's nothing to apologize for.
No, "derecho de cita" is not the same as "fair use"; it's a much more limited exception. The only jurisdictions within Europe that have anything like "fair use" are the common law jurisdictions.
Europe as a whole does not have fair use rights. In particular, the biggest and most significant countries (Germany, France) do not, and instead have been at the forefront of creating draconian copyright measures. Germany even forces universities and schools to pay steep fees for the right to copy content for teaching.
Pointing the finger at the US may make Europeans feel smug and superior, but it's not going to solve the problem, because the problem with copyright is largely a problem created in Europe and by Europeans. But hey, feeling superior to the US while going to hell in a handbasket is standard m.o. for Europe.
Slashdot Mirror
Look at the German data protection laws and regulations: they have explicit exemptions for national security and police work; often, a justification from the executive branch is sufficient (no court order). I trust you are at least capable of Googling this yourself?
So do US companies, that's not the issue. The US government can legally get at that data under some circumstances, just like the UK government can get at data at UK companies under some circumstances.
That's your opinion. What matters is legal fact.
I'm not aware of any cases of corporate espionage conducted by the US government; can you name any? In contrast, the French government clearly has been conducting corporate espionage against US companies.
There is: it simplifies legal cases, and as a non-US citizen, you effectively have fewer rights under US law than US citizens. But don't live under any illusion that that makes your data safer or more private. Your data is probably still safer in the US, but your legal recourse is better in Europe. Take your pick.
The two aren't just correlated, they are causally related: the federal government has been essential in securing liberties for many Americans. One area has been civil rights. But another area has been the spread of totalitarianism in Asia and Europe in the 20th century, something that it took massive military action by the US to correct. Without that external threat, the federal government wouldn't need to be as strong. And mainly for that purpose you're paying federal income tax.
Your point being? The US is a sovereign nation. Of course, it is going to have strategies for defending its interests. Do you seriously think European governments don't have their own strategies? That's not "bullying", that's called "negotiations" and "diplomacy".
Yes, that is one reason. That's not bullying, though. The US spends hundreds of billions of dollars a year on that military, and Europe saves tons of money because of it. The US keeps telling Europe that Europe should start carrying its own weight in its defense and keeps getting ignored. 3/4 of NATO expenses come from the US, and the 1/4 that Europe contributes is mostly useless in terms of defense effectiveness.
It's not "lobbying" (=national interest groups pressuring governments), it's diplomacy. And the US isn't better at diplomacy than Europe, the home of Machiavelli and two millennia of diplomatic and political games. What makes the US more successful at diplomacy is that it actually has a goal, while Europe is still a bunch of squabbling nation states that is united only in pointing at the US when they can't get their act together, as they usually can't. The US can't make Europe happy because Europe doesn't even have a consistent voice.
That's quite funny, given that pretty much the only wars the US has engaged in have been wars that the Europeans or Asians dropped on its doorstep. While European nations were busy raping and pillaging across the globe, American was mostly farming and building up an industrial base. Most Americans didn't want to enter WWI or WWII either, but the US didn't have a choice. After WWII, Europe had left a power vacuum and a mess that the US needed to fill, and it still needs to fill it because Europeans still refuse to do their job, spending their money on lavish retirement benefits instead of building up their militaries again and policing their own backyard.
They're not in "beta", they're not even in "alpha"; Google+ is a prototype, and experiment. It's has promise, but it also has significant limitations and problems. They want to get the bugs out with a smaller user community before letting it loose on the world.
Once they're in beta, you will be able to join.
Oh, that old canard of the "US bullying Europe". Is Europe some impotent banana republic? Of course not. Europe has nearly twice as many people and a bigger economy than the US. How exactly do you think the US is forcing Europe to do anything European governments don't want to do? By what magical means is this "bullying" supposed to happen?
If European governments enter treaties with the US that Europeans don't like, there are only two explanations: (1) Europe's diplomats and politicians are totally incompetent or (2) we have a case of policy laundering. Either way, take your complaints to European governments, don't blame the US.
Host them in Europe with European companies.
While EU data protection is actually worse than US data protection, you're probably still somewhat better off because suing a European company is probably easier for you than suing a US company.
In different words, it's not the "US gubmint" you should be worried about, it's the French, German, British, Italian, and other European governments, who have really bad records historically.
I'm sorry... who are you talking about? Europeans are supposed to be "the only friends" of the US? The always-whining always-complaining Europeans? I don't think so.
And let's see what you are actually complaining about: the US government reserves the right to access data held by US companies in the US. Well, golly, European companies reserve the same right in Europe, but without many of the niceties and legal protections that exist in the US.
The real difference is that few Americans actually have data on European servers, while lots of Europeans have data on American servers. And that's probably the real reason Europeans keep whining.
Congress and the states have had half a century for reversing the shift of power from the states to the federal government, but there hasn't been any serious effort to do that. At this point, that's the new consensus and that's the law, and it doesn't matter anymore what the founders wanted.
If you don't like this shift, then make a good and convincing argument to have it reversed by a Constitutional amendment that restores what you consider the original intent.
Note I'm not defending these decisions; there are problems with the current system, but there were other problems when the federal government was weaker.
EU countries also have the ability to access pretty much everything they like in the interest of national security. Some European nations even allow government access to data for police work without a court order. And they don't ask questions whether the data involved comes from Europeans or US citizens.
So I really don't see what the fuss is about. The only reason this matters more in the EU->US direction is because there are a lot more US companies that EU citizens like to use than the other way around. But that's hardly America's fault or problem.
The declaration of independence created the nation, period.
Afterwards, Britain's refusal to recognize the new nation and take it back by force was really no different from an attack by Britain on any other sovereign country.
And what blessed place are you from where you delude yourself into believing that the kids have some magical affinity for history?
Well, that's a relief!
I still prefer Disney's lawyers to Putin.
<sarcasm>Yeah, why can't the whole world be as peaceful and tolerant as the people who issued death sentences against the Danish cartoonists or Salman Rushdie?</sarcasm>
Many Android apps work fine on bigger screens, so there is no need for a separate "HD" version. The HD version of iPad apps is really a boondoggle.
You mean Wickard v. Filburn? That wasn't to "feed his family", it was to run his farm. There was no vague language involved and the court's reasoning was valid and easy to follow, even if one disagrees with it.
The law isn't mathematics. Contracts are interpreted by courts and that is clearly not a reasonable interpretation.
Well, PalmOS, many of the devices running WinCE, the Sharp Zaurus and other devices running mobile Qt, UIQ, the PARC Tab, the IBM Simon, to name just a few. (Some of those were PDAs, a few were phones, but that doesn't affect the question of the originality of the UI.)
Yeah, because we all know that having a touch screen phone with a square screen and a grid for launcher icons is such a unique concept! Only a few dozen companies that had that sort of thing before!
Really, Apple has a history going back 30 years of ripping off other people's technologies and then suing over it as if they had invented it. The sleazy tricks they have been playing with iPhone and iPad are completely in character.
The result of aggressive filtering and censorship like that in the US will be a decentralization of the Internet. Instead of relying on a few easily controlled DNS servers and other components, people will move to decentralized, self-validating systems that will be even harder for governments to control. And people will start encrypting their traffic regularly. So, go ahead, make our days!
Good going, man! Don't let facts get in the way of a good-sounding argument! There's hope for liberals yet: our arguments are starting to be as illogical and unfounded in facts ad those of Republicans!
Contrary to what the GP implied, that quote is not from Adam Smith, it is one interpretation of his work. (I happen to think it's a good interpretation, but that's besides the point.)
The article is correct: "derecho de cita" is a specific exemption for research and teaching; fair use is a much broader exemption. If you think it grants "much of the same rights", you don't understand fair use.
I implied that Europe does not guarantee fair use rights. That means "not all European nations have fair use rights", which is true. Your assumption that I see Europe as a diffuse mess is merely your prejudice.
The point is that international copyright law is becoming more restrictive due in large part to a push from European governments and corporations, and the bigger they are, the more power they have.
In addition, if a nation like Spain has limits on copyrights, the most likely outcome is that interest groups in that country will use international treaties (EU, global) to force their nation to change the law without ever needing to associate with that unpopular policy change.
Small hint, so do I, and they aren't even Americans. You should ask your relatives some time where "your country" would be if it weren't for the US.
I don't really give a damn about what you think about my country. But I want copyright fixed, and that requires that people get active at one of the major sources of the problem, in Europe. Until European voters start to realize that their nations are a major cause of this and other international problems, nothing is going to change.
That's precious coming from a Belgian: your nation ran a corrupt and bloody colonial empire well into the 20th century. One of the consequences of that, Rwanda, turned into a genocide, and neither Belgium nor the UN managed to handle it. Even the churches you installed in that country couldn't be bothered to do as much as condemn the genocide.
Yes, the US kicked out Saddam Hussein--a mass murderer and brutal dictator--and is now paying tons of money trying to rebuild the country. I was against that war as being expensive and unwise (and I found Bush's transparent lies offensive), but there's nothing to apologize for.
No, "derecho de cita" is not the same as "fair use"; it's a much more limited exception. The only jurisdictions within Europe that have anything like "fair use" are the common law jurisdictions.
Europe as a whole does not have fair use rights. In particular, the biggest and most significant countries (Germany, France) do not, and instead have been at the forefront of creating draconian copyright measures. Germany even forces universities and schools to pay steep fees for the right to copy content for teaching.
Pointing the finger at the US may make Europeans feel smug and superior, but it's not going to solve the problem, because the problem with copyright is largely a problem created in Europe and by Europeans. But hey, feeling superior to the US while going to hell in a handbasket is standard m.o. for Europe.