PostIdent looks like it's supposed to allow identification of the recipient of regular mail. This is not the same as digital signatures where I can sign a document digitally, e-mail it to somebody else, and that other person can verify that it was indeed me who signed it. Deutsche Post used to provide a part of the infra structure for that.
Shortly after digital signatures became legally equivalent to regular signatures in Germany, Deutsche Post (the German postal service) offered digital authentication. Last time I heard about it, it was being scrapped due to a lack of demand.
A break? You want to give him a break? He's been elected to a four year term to be the best men to represent the American people. He doesn't have the option or opportunity to make mistakes. That's why he has the largest staff in the country working for him. Whatever he does, it's impossible for it to be a coincidence because his plans go through dozens of people before the public ever hears of them.
s the person making the original statements on a web site to be held responsible for the factual accuracy of the reply which she is obligated to post (or at least post a link to)?
No. Only the author of the reply or counter-statement is responsible for its accuracy. That's why you will often find some kind of disclaimer before such things in newspapers that basically states that the law requires them to print this statement, that no verification of its truthfulness has been made by the editor and that printing this reply does not constitute agreement with its contents.
This is not a right to reply to offensive material. This is a right to reply to statements made about you that you believe are factually untrue. You only get that right if the statements pertain to you as an individual.
I think what needs to happen here is a reform of what copyright laws are all about. I thought that copyrights were invented to give artists an incentive to be creative and get something in return for their creation. If that is so, then one could easily argue that letting people privately sell their used CD's shouldn't be a problem, regardless of whether they made copies before or not as long as such sales don't bring any commercial gain.
The problem is, that it's impossible to enforce a law that makes keeping those copies illegal and that any attempt so far has caused an undue burden on the customer (i.e. the various copy-protection schemes the industry has come up with).
People that sell their CD's on the second-han market aren't making a profit. The people that buy such second-hand CD's usually buy them, because they aren't willing to pay the full retail price for them. And why wouldn't that be a good thing? Right now, because of the artifical monopoly that the recording industry enjoys, the prices of CD's can be set to any price. The second-hand market could be some healthy competition potentially lowering the prices for retail CD's as well.
I don't buy into the argument that without copy protection and perpetual copyright, the recording industry wouldn't be able to provide the quality and quantity of music they provide now. As long as there is demand--and there is no doubt that there is--somebody will be willing to supply that demand. The recording industry already has the infrastructure to satisfy that demand. They just need to get with the times and extend their horizons beyond what is available today.
I'm the opposite way: I ripped all my CDs to
mp3s, backed 'em up on some CDs and my entertainment server, and sold the originals. Couldn't care about the art or the liner notes or the lyrics sheets. I have my music, I'm happy.
He paid for the CD's he ripped, kept the music and sold it again on the second-hand market. At what part does he become a thief? It's not like those buying in the second-hand market would buy new CD's at Best Buy anyway. After all, the reason they buy there is because they can't afford the $15 a CD that retail asks of them.
If you write something false or disparaging on your blog, how is my posting a correction on my blog going to make any difference to the people reading your blog?
The point of this is to let me correct a statement you made about me to the same people you made the statement to in the first place.
Whether you agree or not, a religeous organization has the right to speak out against activities that it views as bad from their own pulpits without the government forcing access to that same pulpit to the opposition. For instance, imagine the outcome if the government forced a mosque to allow a Jew to respond to Islamic accusations made in that mosque.
That is correct and good that way.
A newspaper, radio show, web log, or other online site should have the equivalent respect.
That is not. Religious organizations enjoy special rights that no other organization has. In particular, religions are mostly free from governmental influence. They are still subject to the same constitutional rules as everybody else, but they can mostly do what they want. The print and broadcast media does not have that freedom. This is partially because both print and broadcast media publish to an anonymous, potentially unlimited audience. Those people in the houses of worship are there because they choose to do so. The priests/ministers/rabbis/etc. know who they are talking to and they know that most of those that they are talking to will be in agreement with them. Print and broadcast media are appealing to the general population and as such will have to follow stricter rules than those catering to a specific and exclusive subset of the general population.
So, lets see, you have the Holocaust Deniers who can force News sites to link to them every time they are mentioned in a news post
Denying the holocaust is a crime in most European countries that will send you straight to jail or make you pay a hefty fine. No "Holocause Denier" could ever exercise his right to rebuttal because he has no right to express his view in the first place.
What ever happened to the Marketplace of Ideas? Thomas Jefferson championed it in the USA, but the original idea came from European philosophers (Locke, etc).
Over time, people here came to the realization that leaving freedom of speach unlimited does more harm than good. As mentioned above, you don't have the right to publicly deny the holocaust. Many European countries also put other limits on your freedom of speech such as
opposing democracy and promoting the establishment of any kind of non-representative government. This is also why Hitler's "Mein Kampf" can't be sold, bought or possessed in Germany except for the purpose of scientific research.
libel and slander
infringing on a person or organization's honor and dignity by, for example, publishing personal, intimate information that the person gave no consent to being published or publishing something without respect to the persons or organizations involved. This is also why the statement "soldiers are murderers" is a violation of law in Germany.
Oh, please. German privacy laws are some of the toughest you will ever find. There are very good reasons for the registration requirements to exist. For one, it allows law officals to track down your recent residence in case of criminal charges.
For another, there's no such thing as the American social security number in Germany. Almost twenty years ago, the German Supreme Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) ruled that the ubiquitous use of a number to track citizens is unconstitutional. The registration requirements allow the government to keep some information on you while it bars the private sector from access to the same information.
This stirs up so much debate because there's no such law in the US. The Supreme Court ruled that newspapers cannot be compelled to publish anything by law because that would infringe on their right to free speech.
If you publish a periodic newspaper/newsletter and in it you say something nasty about Tony Blair, you better believe that Downing Street has the right to publish a correction in your newspaper.
You have the right to express your opinion. But you also have the responsibility that in doing so you don't infringe on somebody else's honor and dignity. If you make a biased comment in your newspaper or blog, why wouldn't you want to also publish the other side? The purpose of the press is to be a neutral party delivering facts to the readers. Why should publishing online be any different than publishing on paper or on Radio/TV?
If you publish a diary, it's no longer a diary. If you publish anything, you better make sure that what you publish isn't libel. While you might say that "X has shit for brains" in your diary, if you put that in your blog and X can prove that he indeed does not have fecal matter in his head, he can sue you for libel in your blog. I doubt any judge will care much for your view that your blog is just a diary.
You are responsible for what you say. Sometimes, what you say has consequences that might not be in *your* best interest but definitely in the interest of other people, namely those you were talking about. This just means that before you say something, you do some research before you splurt it out.
All rights have limitations. Even the right to own property or free speech.
I find it hard to believe that any of the countries will make a law of this...
I would actually have to disagree. Most European countries already have such laws that cover traditional media (e.g. newspaper have to print counter-statements by the people involved in the story). This is merely an extension to the online world.
There is no precedent. This is a settlement. In the eyes of the court, the fact question whether the recordingf industry has fixed prizes has not been determined yet.
Re:How much do you actually want to do, while mobi
on
Is 3G Irrelevant?
·
· Score: 1
From what I remember, there are areas where landline companies compete. This is definitely true for a handful of metropolitan regions in German and the US.
Re:How much do you actually want to do, while mobi
on
Is 3G Irrelevant?
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
The mobile phone service providers are frantically adding extra features to their phones and networks to prevent cell phones from becoming a commodity. Companies don't want to compete on the prize because that cuts right into the margins. So they try to compete on value. If they stopped adding those features to your phone, cell phones could be treated like land line phones where it looks like the only reason to switch providers is to enjoy lower prices. When have you switched your home phone because somebody else offered a new/better feature not related to pricing?
You get sued for breach of your employment contract. That's what happens. Do you really think a company will just let you walk out and ignore it? Their loss of profits because of your lack of productivity is something they can sue you for in court. The only way around this is a unionized strike. You as a worker on your own have no right to strike.
P.S. The jurisdiction here is Germany where no employment happens without a contract. The lack thereof was quite an adjustment when I came to the US.
That is the real point of this. If the governments in question were really interested in collecting taxes, they would be doing so at the customs level, improving oversight and checking of incoming packages. Something that, given the amount of smuggling that goes on wrt drugs, weapons, and who knows what sort of biotoxins and other nice things in the decades to come, they really ought to be doing anyway.
In many EU member states, there are rather strict laws about what access the government has to your mail. If you get a package from somebody, they might not have the right to open it and see what's in it. If the difference between paying and not paying tax is how much I tell the customs officer the contents are worth, guess what I will tell them.
Something to remember, the consumer never actually pays the tax, the vendor does. They increase the price, and show you how much tax is involved in the price so that both you don't think they're too expensive, and to explain differences between the price advertised and the price charged, however the vendor is the one paying the tax (which is required by law).
I'm not sure about other EU member states, but in Germany in contrast to the US, VAT is not usually marked on the sales receipt. It is part of the total that you pay. When you go into a grocery story in Berlin, get a liter of milk and the price says â0.50, then â0.50 is what you pay at the register.
Slashdot Mirror
PostIdent looks like it's supposed to allow identification of the recipient of regular mail. This is not the same as digital signatures where I can sign a document digitally, e-mail it to somebody else, and that other person can verify that it was indeed me who signed it. Deutsche Post used to provide a part of the infra structure for that.
Shortly after digital signatures became legally equivalent to regular signatures in Germany, Deutsche Post (the German postal service) offered digital authentication. Last time I heard about it, it was being scrapped due to a lack of demand.
Actually, if he decryped the signal, he could possibly be charged for violation of the DMCA.
I doubt such a notice has any legal bearing, not to mention that you have to show actual damages as a consequence of their action.
A break? You want to give him a break? He's been elected to a four year term to be the best men to represent the American people. He doesn't have the option or opportunity to make mistakes. That's why he has the largest staff in the country working for him. Whatever he does, it's impossible for it to be a coincidence because his plans go through dozens of people before the public ever hears of them.
s the person making the original statements on a web site to be held responsible for the factual accuracy of the reply which she is obligated to post (or at least post a link to)?
No. Only the author of the reply or counter-statement is responsible for its accuracy. That's why you will often find some kind of disclaimer before such things in newspapers that basically states that the law requires them to print this statement, that no verification of its truthfulness has been made by the editor and that printing this reply does not constitute agreement with its contents.
This is not a right to reply to offensive material. This is a right to reply to statements made about you that you believe are factually untrue. You only get that right if the statements pertain to you as an individual.
I think what needs to happen here is a reform of what copyright laws are all about. I thought that copyrights were invented to give artists an incentive to be creative and get something in return for their creation. If that is so, then one could easily argue that letting people privately sell their used CD's shouldn't be a problem, regardless of whether they made copies before or not as long as such sales don't bring any commercial gain.
The problem is, that it's impossible to enforce a law that makes keeping those copies illegal and that any attempt so far has caused an undue burden on the customer (i.e. the various copy-protection schemes the industry has come up with).
People that sell their CD's on the second-han market aren't making a profit. The people that buy such second-hand CD's usually buy them, because they aren't willing to pay the full retail price for them. And why wouldn't that be a good thing? Right now, because of the artifical monopoly that the recording industry enjoys, the prices of CD's can be set to any price. The second-hand market could be some healthy competition potentially lowering the prices for retail CD's as well.
I don't buy into the argument that without copy protection and perpetual copyright, the recording industry wouldn't be able to provide the quality and quantity of music they provide now. As long as there is demand--and there is no doubt that there is--somebody will be willing to supply that demand. The recording industry already has the infrastructure to satisfy that demand. They just need to get with the times and extend their horizons beyond what is available today.
What are you talking about? Read his post again:
I'm the opposite way: I ripped all my CDs to mp3s, backed 'em up on some CDs and my entertainment server, and sold the originals. Couldn't care about the art or the liner notes or the lyrics sheets. I have my music, I'm happy.
He paid for the CD's he ripped, kept the music and sold it again on the second-hand market. At what part does he become a thief? It's not like those buying in the second-hand market would buy new CD's at Best Buy anyway. After all, the reason they buy there is because they can't afford the $15 a CD that retail asks of them.
If you write something false or disparaging on your blog, how is my posting a correction on my blog going to make any difference to the people reading your blog?
The point of this is to let me correct a statement you made about me to the same people you made the statement to in the first place.
Whether you agree or not, a religeous organization has the right to speak out against activities that it views as bad from their own pulpits without the government forcing access to that same pulpit to the opposition. For instance, imagine the outcome if the government forced a mosque to allow a Jew to respond to Islamic accusations made in that mosque.
That is correct and good that way.
A newspaper, radio show, web log, or other online site should have the equivalent respect.
That is not. Religious organizations enjoy special rights that no other organization has. In particular, religions are mostly free from governmental influence. They are still subject to the same constitutional rules as everybody else, but they can mostly do what they want. The print and broadcast media does not have that freedom. This is partially because both print and broadcast media publish to an anonymous, potentially unlimited audience. Those people in the houses of worship are there because they choose to do so. The priests/ministers/rabbis/etc. know who they are talking to and they know that most of those that they are talking to will be in agreement with them. Print and broadcast media are appealing to the general population and as such will have to follow stricter rules than those catering to a specific and exclusive subset of the general population.
So, lets see, you have the Holocaust Deniers who can force News sites to link to them every time they are mentioned in a news post
Denying the holocaust is a crime in most European countries that will send you straight to jail or make you pay a hefty fine. No "Holocause Denier" could ever exercise his right to rebuttal because he has no right to express his view in the first place.
What ever happened to the Marketplace of Ideas? Thomas Jefferson championed it in the USA, but the original idea came from European philosophers (Locke, etc).
Over time, people here came to the realization that leaving freedom of speach unlimited does more harm than good. As mentioned above, you don't have the right to publicly deny the holocaust. Many European countries also put other limits on your freedom of speech such as
Oh, please. German privacy laws are some of the toughest you will ever find. There are very good reasons for the registration requirements to exist. For one, it allows law officals to track down your recent residence in case of criminal charges.
For another, there's no such thing as the American social security number in Germany. Almost twenty years ago, the German Supreme Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) ruled that the ubiquitous use of a number to track citizens is unconstitutional. The registration requirements allow the government to keep some information on you while it bars the private sector from access to the same information.
This stirs up so much debate because there's no such law in the US. The Supreme Court ruled that newspapers cannot be compelled to publish anything by law because that would infringe on their right to free speech.
If you publish a periodic newspaper/newsletter and in it you say something nasty about Tony Blair, you better believe that Downing Street has the right to publish a correction in your newspaper.
You have the right to express your opinion. But you also have the responsibility that in doing so you don't infringe on somebody else's honor and dignity. If you make a biased comment in your newspaper or blog, why wouldn't you want to also publish the other side? The purpose of the press is to be a neutral party delivering facts to the readers. Why should publishing online be any different than publishing on paper or on Radio/TV?
If you publish a diary, it's no longer a diary. If you publish anything, you better make sure that what you publish isn't libel. While you might say that "X has shit for brains" in your diary, if you put that in your blog and X can prove that he indeed does not have fecal matter in his head, he can sue you for libel in your blog. I doubt any judge will care much for your view that your blog is just a diary.
All rights have limitations. Even the right to own property or free speech.
I find it hard to believe that any of the countries will make a law of this...
I would actually have to disagree. Most European countries already have such laws that cover traditional media (e.g. newspaper have to print counter-statements by the people involved in the story). This is merely an extension to the online world.
There is no precedent. This is a settlement. In the eyes of the court, the fact question whether the recordingf industry has fixed prizes has not been determined yet.
enjoy
From what I remember, there are areas where landline companies compete. This is definitely true for a handful of metropolitan regions in German and the US.
The mobile phone service providers are frantically adding extra features to their phones and networks to prevent cell phones from becoming a commodity. Companies don't want to compete on the prize because that cuts right into the margins. So they try to compete on value. If they stopped adding those features to your phone, cell phones could be treated like land line phones where it looks like the only reason to switch providers is to enjoy lower prices. When have you switched your home phone because somebody else offered a new/better feature not related to pricing?
You get sued for breach of your employment contract. That's what happens. Do you really think a company will just let you walk out and ignore it? Their loss of profits because of your lack of productivity is something they can sue you for in court. The only way around this is a unionized strike. You as a worker on your own have no right to strike.
P.S. The jurisdiction here is Germany where no employment happens without a contract. The lack thereof was quite an adjustment when I came to the US.
That is the real point of this. If the governments in question were really interested in collecting taxes, they would be doing so at the customs level, improving oversight and checking of incoming packages. Something that, given the amount of smuggling that goes on wrt drugs, weapons, and who knows what sort of biotoxins and other nice things in the decades to come, they really ought to be doing anyway.
In many EU member states, there are rather strict laws about what access the government has to your mail. If you get a package from somebody, they might not have the right to open it and see what's in it. If the difference between paying and not paying tax is how much I tell the customs officer the contents are worth, guess what I will tell them.
Something to remember, the consumer never actually pays the tax, the vendor does. They increase the price, and show you how much tax is involved in the price so that both you don't think they're too expensive, and to explain differences between the price advertised and the price charged, however the vendor is the one paying the tax (which is required by law).
I'm not sure about other EU member states, but in Germany in contrast to the US, VAT is not usually marked on the sales receipt. It is part of the total that you pay. When you go into a grocery story in Berlin, get a liter of milk and the price says â0.50, then â0.50 is what you pay at the register.