They obviously want an 'opt-in' system, because that reduces the number of books competing to just the current commercial books, and removes possible public domain, orphan works and smaller publishers authors.
Joe public on the other hand, *is* best served by 'opt-out' because that includes orphaned work & possible public domain books.
So they want Google to index their books,just not index everyone elses. That's what the lawsuit is about, getting an opt-in to reduce the number of competing works. All the 'copyright infringment / worried about security / worried about snippet size' claims are just bollocks that make no sense. Since Google has offered them an opt out, if they were truely worried, they could just flag their books as opt out and that would end it.
They lied, Google called them on their lie and now they will go to court and look real dumb. By giving them the opt-out Google has outmaneuvered them. So now they will lose, but if they could win it, it would have be in their interests.
They will say "we are worried about Google scanning our books", Google will say "but we are not going to scan your books, because as soon as we realised you didn't want that, we took you off the list", end of case.
" It's only popular amongst a small set of jobless geeks with high-speed Internet access. "
They're sharing full screen DVD movies in DIVX format, so I don't think thats true. Suppose I could tell my computer I want to watch 'John Steward', its a half hour show = approx 200MB at DVD quality, a lot less at TV quality.
I have a slow 600kbps currently connection to my flat, bittorrent gets about 50k/sec thats just over an hour to download the show. Sure its not realtime, but thats my point, I should be able to tell the PC what I'm interested in, and it obtains it for me to watch when I get spare time. Its no different than waiting till 11:30 for a show to come on TV, or seeing an advert on Wednesday for a Mega Movie and going to see it on Friday night at the movies.
They may be starting in Korea and Japan, but there's a market in the slower bandwidth countries too. They just need to get the recipe right.
Why is P2P piracy of tv shows popular then?
on
YahooTV
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
"Not to say that it might not be successful; Just kind of sounds like a round peg in a square hole."
But TV shows via Internet is *already* successful, its just a pirate market at the moment with p2p download. Its just that *streaming* of television isn't successful, but then having tried to watch The Daily Show with John Stewart via http://www.comedycentral.com/ its often stop-start-stop-start, and small window only, its nearly unwatchable. Streaming sucks. They should take a look at how p2p works and send the programs via p2p with ads embedded in the middle rather than try to stream.
"If we wanted to end the resistance tomorrow, we could bomb every house to rubble, kill every camel, torch every tree, and machine gun anything that moves."
You would: 1. Destroy the Iraqi oil 2. Fail to kill the insurgency, it would simply spring up in other muslim contries. 3. It would cause war with Iran and every other Arab nation, they would stop shipping you oil. 4. Your oil dependant economy would collapse.
So, no you can't do that because its not a winning scenario. If it was that simple I have no doubt that Bush would nuke them, or more likely use conventional bombs (because it has less of a stigma and you have enough to achieve the same level of destruction). You just bomb a northern Iraqi city in an attempt to quell insurgents, so you are trying that on a mini-scale. Did the bombing work - did the insurgency stop or even reduce? No? If you bombed the whole of Iraq would it work? But you say the insurgency comes from Syria, so you bomb Syria too would that work? No? You'd have to bomb Iran and then Saudi Arabia, Palestine, Yemen, Turkey, Serbia, Albania, Croatia, Germany, France, Netherlands, UK.
"If you never played past the crest, then you really didn't play URU."
Isn't that my point, if the control system doesn't work well it spoils the game because the control system is all the way through it. Whatever sense of satisfaction you get from solving the puzzles countered by the quit-walking-into-the-fucking-walls-you-stupid-ava tar.
I played Myst, Riven, Myst III all the way through and loved them, but URU, no. I've tried it twice and twice is enough for anything.
I preferred Monkey Island 3 to Monkey Island 4 too. I wish companies would stop thinking that everything has to be 3D first person.
" It's not as cut and dry as the story title and summary implies."
It is you know, the judge clearly thinks its a good idea for Lexmark to be able to refill its own cartridges, but the only way the judge could do it was to accept that the shrink wrap EULA is valid - throwing out doctrine of first sale. That judgement can't stand because anyone could put anything they want in those EULAs disclaiming any buyer right, creating super IP rights and god knows what other horrors.
On the other hand if the judge had said it wasn't valid, Lexmark could have simply offered the $30 refund on the NEXT cartridge purchase if you have a voucher for refilling your LAST cartridge. So there was an easy way for Lexmark to fix it without screwing over every consumer on the planet.
This is a total disaster in terms of consumer rights.
I thought URU was terrible, the 3D gets in the way, I never played past the gourge because it was just such a pain walking around. If you didn't point the person exactly in the right direction then she/he would bump against the wall. I thought I knew how to walk, but apparently I have to re-learn walking skills in every 3D game.
It's a pity that companies feel the need to make everything 3D now, Age of Mythology was crap compared to Age of Empires, URU was rubbish compared to Myst. In both cases its the problems of controlling something in 3D on a 2D screen.
Next time Microsoft gets sued and pretends it has destroyed the emails, they should point to this incident as an example of how they find emails when they want to - even deleted emails on a local PC.
We've been here before, we have a "you must keep your invention secret to be able to patent it" clause.
So the first patent to arrive IS the inventor (because its not already out there - he kept it secret so this can't be someone else whose seen his idea and is trying to patent it), except for cases where prior art is hidden (e.g. software algo's, internal business processes etc.).
With that half done amendment, you will get patent companies based around the patent office reading the internet for things to patent ahead of the inventor.
Can you prove they didn't invent it? Nope, because there's zero test for whether they invented it, you simply have to take their word.
"It is vital to avoid non-confidential disclosure of a possible invention before an appropriate patent application has been filed. This is because patent law in the UK, Europe and much of the rest of the world requires an invention to be both new and non-obvious over everything known to the public anywhere in the world (the "prior art") at the relevant date. If you make a non-confidential disclosure before filing a patent application, then that disclosure could deprive your invention of novelty and render it impossible to achieve a valid granted patent."
"A patent can be invalidated by an act as simple as telling your idea to one person who is not under an obligation to keep the idea confidential. You can talk to professional advisers, such as patent attorneys and solicitors, who are by the nature of their business under an obligation of confidentiality to their clients. Otherwise, you should take professional advice and file any necessary patent applications before you make any non-confidential disclosure."
"The idea that a company spends lots of money to develop algorithms, and that those algorithms should be protected is a good one."
I don't think this is true. There is an ideal way to protect algorithms and thats via trade secrets. Thats why NVIDIA, for example, supply binary only drivers for Linux, even though they also use patents, for real protection trade secrets are used.
Since there is an easy cheaper and more effective way to protect a good algorithm (trade secrets), those patents must be junk - if they were any good they would be kept secret!
"The nature of the economies that support industries resting on intellectual properties must shift, perhaps acknowledging that intellectual property should not be a luxury, but a commonplace product in most everyone's lives."
I think they have to reexamine the use of patents in a global economy. When patents were on macro sized *physical* things, a patent in the USA could protect the USA market from copies from abroad (where the patent doesn't cover). They could stop the physical goods at the port! That's not true of software you can ship across the internet, or of business process ideas where you ship the *result* of the process not the process itself!
Imagine a patent on a new telesales equipments in the USA, its worthless because telesales is largely outsourced to India. If you made telesales more expensive (by charging for the patent) in the USA, more telesales work would be exported to India! The exact opposite of what you want!
Welcome to freedom of speech, sometimes people say things you don't like. Google should have responded to the story with an *answer* not an *attack*.
"Why shouldn't they be allowed to decide some reporters piss off their chief executive, and they are going to ignore them?"
Because Eric isn't Google and Google has a legal duty to dislcose, not disclose through 'rose-coloured-reporters' only.
"I imagine it's possible Google might have let this slip after a while, espically with a brief apology."
Apology? For what? The article was spot on he had every right to say it and should not fear retribution from companies because of what he reports about them.
EU Commission is busy trying to make patent infringment as crime (it was in that Criminialise-all-IP-infingements directive they just released). Not only could they close down the EU Patent office website, they could get them locked up for up to 4 years if this patent existed in Europe.....
The EU Commission really has to be raked in before its too late. How about their power to propose directives is removed. That would be similar to a proper Parliamentary directive where the civil servants don't create the laws.
A crime is transnational in Europe. If you commit a crime in any country in the EU, you are not immune because you are not in that country. The bigger a multi-national you are the more markets you are liable in and the more opportunity to infringe.
That means that any country (i.e. UK patent office) that decides to implement software patents will force them onto everyone for the whole of Europe.
Anyone that wants a software patent for their smileys will apply in the UK and file criminal charges against the company that infringes in that country.
The Commission really shows its colours here, its a straight grab for power even bigger than the Council & Parliament combined has.
So it would make it a criminal offence to infringe a patent. No kidding, imagine Philips Siemens, Nokia and their officers all vulnerable to a criminal infringment of some 'smiley' patent.
"If you look around you see this absurd childish opposition to any kind of laws that enforce copyright,"
Thats a falsehood, the exact opposite is true. The high tech community is busy making all computers locked down with DRM to make big money from the *AA....erm... protect copyright for the *AA.
The backlash is against that, the idea that we can't make anything that MIGHT infringe copyright.
Here p2p is a good example of a corrupted data pool, it could be any body of deliberately corrupt data. Slashdot itself could improve its moderation system using this. But because you're so hung up on protecting copyright, you would prevent these guys looking into the problem?
" I really don't believe that people will innovate just for the fun it. "
No they innovate to sell and they need to sell to eat.
"The people who wrote it were not doing it for fame or glory, they are doing it for money."
Yes money. This is what it comes down to, its why I make new things BECAUSE I HAVE FUCKING BILLS TO PAY AND NOBODY WILL PAY ME FOR THE SAME CRAP OVER AND OVER AGAIN.
This is why companies make things too. They have made software things for years without software patents, so software patents aren't the cause of the innovation!
I am so sick of this protectionist crap. If Nokia can't compete then it should go out of business, if Ericcson can't compete then let the fuckers die, if Microsoft can't compete then they should go out of business.
People still want phones, networks and operating systems and if they die then a new company will spring up to take their place. Its harsh I know but mollycoddling them doesn't help.
Even if you give them a cosy closed European market where 'smiley patents' are the norm, they just won't be able to compete out in the big bad world.
"Would you expect a company that makes it money by having patents to stay in a country that refuse to enact laws which protect its primary business model."
Companies always hate competition, its in the nature of companies. But if any country ever lets them have a monopoly in exchange for a short term gain then they lose in the long run.
"I am all for patents personally as they do foster innovation."
Competition fosters innovation. Competitive markets are the fastest moving and software grew huge during NON patent times.
"and most consumer market patents are the sole reason a company will bother to produce a product."
If they don't make new stuff they go out of business and they don't eat. Welcome to my world.
Look, I now it sucks, you develop your new idea and a couple of year later you have to develop YET ANOTHER NEW IDEA and a few years later YET ANOTHER. Those damn fucking competitors! Why can't I make just 1 new thing and block my competitors and coast for the rest of my life.
"If business are expected to give up their right to software patents"
"Some governments ceded to threats from mega-corporations. Danish newspapers reported in 2004 that Microsoft had threatened to move a recently acquired company out of Denmark if the government did not put its hand up for patents. Earlier this year, after we had thanked the Polish government for rejecting patents, it bowed to four European mega-corps that threatened to move a laboratory out of the country where they spent perhaps $15m (£8.5m) a year."
So lets go after the lobby money. Nobody in Europe wants the same distortions of politics we see in the USA, so lets seek to get laws in place that make it a crime to influence political decisions in inappropriate ways. Threats, hiring direct or indirect of politicians and family, forced disclosure of payments to lobbyists etc..
"If you walked into a forest every day for 3 months, and everytime the owner or one of his neighbours came past you hid or ran away (acting suspiciously), you definitely could end up paying a fine for trespassing."
I'll settle for that.
If you have explicit or implied concent then trespass is only a crime if you refuse to leave when concent is removed. So you can walk in the open forest, even every day for a year if you like and it only becomes a crime if you refuse to leave when you're told its private property.
You can argue whether he thought he didn't have permisson by his behaviour, fine. But hacking should be more like 'breaking and entering' a much more serious crime.
There's a world of difference between connecting to an open network and hacking. Just as there is between common trespass and breaking and entering.
Slashdot Mirror
"and make them available online "
Not so, it makes tiny snippets of these books available. Less than a typical Slashdot review extract.
They obviously want an 'opt-in' system, because that reduces the number of books competing to just the current commercial books, and removes possible public domain, orphan works and smaller publishers authors.
,just not index everyone elses. That's what the lawsuit is about, getting an opt-in to reduce the number of competing works. All the 'copyright infringment / worried about security / worried about snippet size' claims are just bollocks that make no sense. Since Google has offered them an opt out, if they were truely worried, they could just flag their books as opt out and that would end it.
Joe public on the other hand, *is* best served by 'opt-out' because that includes orphaned work & possible public domain books.
So they want Google to index their books
They lied, Google called them on their lie and now they will go to court and look real dumb. By giving them the opt-out Google has outmaneuvered them. So now they will lose, but if they could win it, it would have be in their interests.
They will say "we are worried about Google scanning our books", Google will say "but we are not going to scan your books, because as soon as we realised you didn't want that, we took you off the list", end of case.
It's sounds the same as Sony's MagicGate:
d =fto092220051313320477&referrer_id=yahoo&utm_sourc e=Yahoo&utm_medium=OrganicSearch&utm_campaign=URLC rawl
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MagicGate
The copy protected memory stick from Sony they did as part of the failed SDMI system.
In other COMPLETELY UNRELATED news, Sony plans 10000 job cuts after poor product sales:
http://us.ft.com/ftsuperpage/superpage.php?news_i
" It's only popular amongst a small set of jobless geeks with high-speed Internet access. "
They're sharing full screen DVD movies in DIVX format, so I don't think thats true. Suppose I could tell my computer I want to watch 'John Steward', its a half hour show = approx 200MB at DVD quality, a lot less at TV quality.
I have a slow 600kbps currently connection to my flat, bittorrent gets about 50k/sec thats just over an hour to download the show. Sure its not realtime, but thats my point, I should be able to tell the PC what I'm interested in, and it obtains it for me to watch when I get spare time. Its no different than waiting till 11:30 for a show to come on TV, or seeing an advert on Wednesday for a Mega Movie and going to see it on Friday night at the movies.
They may be starting in Korea and Japan, but there's a market in the slower bandwidth countries too. They just need to get the recipe right.
"Not to say that it might not be successful; Just kind of sounds like a round peg in a square hole."
But TV shows via Internet is *already* successful, its just a pirate market at the moment with p2p download. Its just that *streaming* of television isn't successful, but then having tried to watch The Daily Show with John Stewart via http://www.comedycentral.com/ its often stop-start-stop-start, and small window only, its nearly unwatchable. Streaming sucks. They should take a look at how p2p works and send the programs via p2p with ads embedded in the middle rather than try to stream.
"If we wanted to end the resistance tomorrow, we could bomb every house to rubble, kill every camel, torch every tree, and machine gun anything that moves."
You would:
1. Destroy the Iraqi oil
2. Fail to kill the insurgency, it would simply spring up in other muslim contries.
3. It would cause war with Iran and every other Arab nation, they would stop shipping you oil.
4. Your oil dependant economy would collapse.
So, no you can't do that because its not a winning scenario. If it was that simple I have no doubt that Bush would nuke them, or more likely use conventional bombs (because it has less of a stigma and you have enough to achieve the same level of destruction). You just bomb a northern Iraqi city in an attempt to quell insurgents, so you are trying that on a mini-scale. Did the bombing work - did the insurgency stop or even reduce? No? If you bombed the whole of Iraq would it work? But you say the insurgency comes from Syria, so you bomb Syria too would that work? No? You'd have to bomb Iran and then Saudi Arabia, Palestine, Yemen, Turkey, Serbia, Albania, Croatia, Germany, France, Netherlands, UK.
"If you never played past the crest, then you really didn't play URU."
a tar.
Isn't that my point, if the control system doesn't work well it spoils the game because the control system is all the way through it. Whatever sense of satisfaction you get from solving the puzzles countered by the quit-walking-into-the-fucking-walls-you-stupid-av
I played Myst, Riven, Myst III all the way through and loved them, but URU, no. I've tried it twice and twice is enough for anything.
I preferred Monkey Island 3 to Monkey Island 4 too. I wish companies would stop thinking that everything has to be 3D first person.
" It's not as cut and dry as the story title and summary implies."
It is you know, the judge clearly thinks its a good idea for Lexmark to be able to refill its own cartridges, but the only way the judge could do it was to accept that the shrink wrap EULA is valid - throwing out doctrine of first sale. That judgement can't stand because anyone could put anything they want in those EULAs disclaiming any buyer right, creating super IP rights and god knows what other horrors.
On the other hand if the judge had said it wasn't valid, Lexmark could have simply offered the $30 refund on the NEXT cartridge purchase if you have a voucher for refilling your LAST cartridge. So there was an easy way for Lexmark to fix it without screwing over every consumer on the planet.
This is a total disaster in terms of consumer rights.
I thought URU was terrible, the 3D gets in the way, I never played past the gourge because it was just such a pain walking around. If you didn't point the person exactly in the right direction then she/he would bump against the wall. I thought I knew how to walk, but apparently I have to re-learn walking skills in every 3D game.
It's a pity that companies feel the need to make everything 3D now, Age of Mythology was crap compared to Age of Empires, URU was rubbish compared to Myst. In both cases its the problems of controlling something in 3D on a 2D screen.
Next time Microsoft gets sued and pretends it has destroyed the emails, they should point to this incident as an example of how they find emails when they want to - even deleted emails on a local PC.
They taste like duck eggs, only slightly more salty and a slight bitterness (its difficult to describe, but they look worse than they are).
_ eggs_khai.html
If you want to try something similar, the Thais eat salty eggs (egg stored in brine to preserve them):
http://www.khiewchanta.com/archives/2005/08/salty
Thats just because MSN is the default start page for Internet Explorer, it doesn't mean Alexa isn't accurate.
Take a look, their online part is he 11th most popular English language site:
n g&lang=en
http://www.alexa.com/site/ds/top_sites?ts_mode=la
They're ahead of CNN, ahead of NBC, Fox all the USA networks, all print media. They're even ahead of Fastclick (the web advertising network!).
You gotta be impressed at how they've grasped the Internet.
We've been here before, we have a "you must keep your invention secret to be able to patent it" clause.
So the first patent to arrive IS the inventor (because its not already out there - he kept it secret so this can't be someone else whose seen his idea and is trying to patent it), except for cases where prior art is hidden (e.g. software algo's, internal business processes etc.).
With that half done amendment, you will get patent companies based around the patent office reading the internet for things to patent ahead of the inventor.
Can you prove they didn't invent it? Nope, because there's zero test for whether they invented it, you simply have to take their word.
http://www.hindlelowther.com/patent6.htm
"It is vital to avoid non-confidential disclosure of a possible invention before an appropriate patent application has been filed. This is because patent law in the UK, Europe and much of the rest of the world requires an invention to be both new and non-obvious over everything known to the public anywhere in the world (the "prior art") at the relevant date. If you make a non-confidential disclosure before filing a patent application, then that disclosure could deprive your invention of novelty and render it impossible to achieve a valid granted patent."
"A patent can be invalidated by an act as simple as telling your idea to one person who is not under an obligation to keep the idea confidential. You can talk to professional advisers, such as patent attorneys and solicitors, who are by the nature of their business under an obligation of confidentiality to their clients. Otherwise, you should take professional advice and file any necessary patent applications before you make any non-confidential disclosure."
"The idea that a company spends lots of money to develop algorithms, and that those algorithms should be protected is a good one."
I don't think this is true. There is an ideal way to protect algorithms and thats via trade secrets. Thats why NVIDIA, for example, supply binary only drivers for Linux, even though they also use patents, for real protection trade secrets are used.
Since there is an easy cheaper and more effective way to protect a good algorithm (trade secrets), those patents must be junk - if they were any good they would be kept secret!
"The nature of the economies that support industries resting on intellectual properties must shift, perhaps acknowledging that intellectual property should not be a luxury, but a commonplace product in most everyone's lives."
I think they have to reexamine the use of patents in a global economy. When patents were on macro sized *physical* things, a patent in the USA could protect the USA market from copies from abroad (where the patent doesn't cover). They could stop the physical goods at the port! That's not true of software you can ship across the internet, or of business process ideas where you ship the *result* of the process not the process itself!
Imagine a patent on a new telesales equipments in the USA, its worthless because telesales is largely outsourced to India. If you made telesales more expensive (by charging for the patent) in the USA, more telesales work would be exported to India! The exact opposite of what you want!
Welcome to freedom of speech, sometimes people say things you don't like. Google should have responded to the story with an *answer* not an *attack*.
"Why shouldn't they be allowed to decide some reporters piss off their chief executive, and they are going to ignore them?"
Because Eric isn't Google and Google has a legal duty to dislcose, not disclose through 'rose-coloured-reporters' only.
"I imagine it's possible Google might have let this slip after a while, espically with a brief apology."
Apology? For what? The article was spot on he had every right to say it and should not fear retribution from companies because of what he reports about them.
Wake up,
EU Commission is busy trying to make patent infringment as crime (it was in that Criminialise-all-IP-infingements directive they just released). Not only could they close down the EU Patent office website, they could get them locked up for up to 4 years if this patent existed in Europe.....
The EU Commission really has to be raked in before its too late. How about their power to propose directives is removed. That would be similar to a proper Parliamentary directive where the civil servants don't create the laws.
A crime is transnational in Europe. If you commit a crime in any country in the EU, you are not immune because you are not in that country. The bigger a multi-national you are the more markets you are liable in and the more opportunity to infringe.
That means that any country (i.e. UK patent office) that decides to implement software patents will force them onto everyone for the whole of Europe.
Anyone that wants a software patent for their smileys will apply in the UK and file criminal charges against the company that infringes in that country.
The Commission really shows its colours here, its a straight grab for power even bigger than the Council & Parliament combined has.
It covers all Intellectual property crimes, including criminalizing patent infringement.
The items covered are the same as 2005/295/EC
http://wiki.ffii.de/Ipred0504En
So it would make it a criminal offence to infringe a patent. No kidding, imagine Philips Siemens, Nokia and their officers all vulnerable to a criminal infringment of some 'smiley' patent.
"If you look around you see this absurd childish opposition to any kind of laws that enforce copyright,"
Thats a falsehood, the exact opposite is true. The high tech community is busy making all computers locked down with DRM to make big money from the *AA....erm... protect copyright for the *AA.
The backlash is against that, the idea that we can't make anything that MIGHT infringe copyright.
Here p2p is a good example of a corrupted data pool, it could be any body of deliberately corrupt data. Slashdot itself could improve its moderation system using this. But because you're so hung up on protecting copyright, you would prevent these guys looking into the problem?
" I really don't believe that people will innovate just for the fun it. "
No they innovate to sell and they need to sell to eat.
"The people who wrote it were not doing it for fame or glory, they are doing it for money."
Yes money. This is what it comes down to, its why I make new things BECAUSE I HAVE FUCKING BILLS TO PAY AND NOBODY WILL PAY ME FOR THE SAME CRAP OVER AND OVER AGAIN.
This is why companies make things too. They have made software things for years without software patents, so software patents aren't the cause of the innovation!
I am so sick of this protectionist crap. If Nokia can't compete then it should go out of business, if Ericcson can't compete then let the fuckers die, if Microsoft can't compete then they should go out of business.
People still want phones, networks and operating systems and if they die then a new company will spring up to take their place. Its harsh I know but mollycoddling them doesn't help.
Even if you give them a cosy closed European market where 'smiley patents' are the norm, they just won't be able to compete out in the big bad world.
"Would you expect a company that makes it money by having patents to stay in a country that refuse to enact laws which protect its primary business model."
Companies always hate competition, its in the nature of companies. But if any country ever lets them have a monopoly in exchange for a short term gain then they lose in the long run.
"I am all for patents personally as they do foster innovation."
Competition fosters innovation. Competitive markets are the fastest moving and software grew huge during NON patent times.
"and most consumer market patents are the sole reason a company will bother to produce a product."
If they don't make new stuff they go out of business and they don't eat. Welcome to my world.
Look, I now it sucks, you develop your new idea and a couple of year later you have to develop YET ANOTHER NEW IDEA and a few years later YET ANOTHER. Those damn fucking competitors! Why can't I make just 1 new thing and block my competitors and coast for the rest of my life.
"If business are expected to give up their right to software patents"
Nobody has a right to a monopoly.
So what were the 8 sentences that Nutzwerk wanted FFII banned from saying?
"Some governments ceded to threats from mega-corporations. Danish newspapers reported in 2004 that Microsoft had threatened to move a recently acquired company out of Denmark if the government did not put its hand up for patents. Earlier this year, after we had thanked the Polish government for rejecting patents, it bowed to four European mega-corps that threatened to move a laboratory out of the country where they spent perhaps $15m (£8.5m) a year."
So lets go after the lobby money. Nobody in Europe wants the same distortions of politics we see in the USA, so lets seek to get laws in place that make it a crime to influence political decisions in inappropriate ways. Threats, hiring direct or indirect of politicians and family, forced disclosure of payments to lobbyists etc..
"If you walked into a forest every day for 3 months, and everytime the owner or one of his neighbours came past you hid or ran away (acting suspiciously), you definitely could end up paying a fine for trespassing."
I'll settle for that.
If you have explicit or implied concent then trespass is only a crime if you refuse to leave when concent is removed. So you can walk in the open forest, even every day for a year if you like and it only becomes a crime if you refuse to leave when you're told its private property.
You can argue whether he thought he didn't have permisson by his behaviour, fine. But hacking should be more like 'breaking and entering' a much more serious crime.
There's a world of difference between connecting to an open network and hacking. Just as there is between common trespass and breaking and entering.