Each countries government would be able to draw up a list of valid banks within their country, the procedure for getting your application for a.bank verified as being legitimate would require a large amount of red tape with the financial services authority (FSA) or equivalent body within your terretory being involved and appointed to vet the applications (who would be paid to vet applications and financially punished for allowing a bogus application through the checking process).
Maybe each country should have a 2 letter country code like.uk.bank and.us.bank. to allow for name clashes.
LOL and just how many calls do you think you'd get to make for 300 million ? How many transactions per year would be authorized in this way ?
I'm not knocking the process, that idea has been around for a while, that the bank account holder uses are seperate channel to authorize each financial transaction than the channel the transactions was taken on. This can involved using the online banking itself to authorize, a land line or probably better a mobile/SMS/WAP service or a one time usable authentication password/pin.
The operational costs for.bank would be far lower in the long run. The cost of educating for the most part is not that much, in bank leaflets, leaflets dropped into the postal statement, notice information during the login process, word of mouth. Sure its possible to go to a marketing company and spend 300 million on it, but that unecessary.
I'm pretty sure the bank doesn't actually loose any money through fradulent transactions. The credit card industry is able to recovery the money, interest and claim charge backs and the end of the day fraud actually makes money.
All your bases belong to me, is simply not true of any resource. I owe you nothing. I may choose out of my charity to provide you with something. The decisions in this process are 100% my perrogative.
You still fail to explain why placing a copyright on "public dissemination of works of the mind" (as you call it) is a bad thing for society. You also fail to explain how your interpretation of my comments "pointed out exactly why it can be a bad thing" as I can't see the bad part that you can.
Everybody is free to use their own time, effort and mind to create their own dissemination, there will obviously be influenzes from exposure to similar work but the end result should be a unique enough implementation of the idea/concept to warrent a free and independant copyright. I have nothing against people re-inventing the idea/concept emboied in the work providing they did so at their own expense.
"Copyright Law" is the mechanism society provides to facilitate the right to withhold your implementation of a work from others, which is a pretty inallienable right in most cultures and political systems.
Copyright law under pins all legal protection over the rights on a piece of work. By attaching Copyright to a piece of work you are also staking a claim to ownership to be able to then license the use of the work from that legal vantage point.
The concept of "Public Domain" only exists from the vantage point of the original Copyright holder accepting continued legal liability for any future plagerism claim that may occur in relation to that piece of work (by puting their name to it); but then explicitly granting a free for all license on its distribution and use. There is no such entity as an "anonymous Public Domain" piece of work, since if no one stakes their claim to ownership then its legally possible for anyone to make that claim (as Mr Anonymous won't be able to defend himself in a court of law).
Why is "Copyright law" a bad thing for society, it seems a very passive law that grants the creator rights over ownership of a piece of work. From that legal vantage point the Copyright holder may do anything / license anyway they choose, being the "Copyright holder" they are granted that power by law. It makes no sense for any creator of work not to involve themselves in this process, since its costs them nothing and grants them everything.
SuperKendal, if you have no idea, then you have to step aside while those with an idea take action. There are those that know that taking no action is not any form of resolution so in their eyes some action must be taken. So until you have an idea yourself your comment is worthless.
I don't think you quite understand the scale of the problem, the free market will not stop international and civil wars from breaking out by those willing to fight to preserve their standard of living. Some would argue this has already started to happen in world affair. There is talk within first world countries that we need to "secure the energy supply" under the belief that "the worlds energy resources should be distributed fairly and should not be in the control of the countries fortunate to surround them".
There is nothing wrong with alternative energy and as the cost of fossil fuel increases the return on investment in research and development verses the risk into alternatives will make advances happen. It is still unclear if those advances will happen fast enough to stop wars from starting.
But starting to change sentiment today it will get everyone thinking and accepting the issues which face us in the future in a calm and orderly way.
No most of the 'global warming' controversy is centered on "are humans the major contributor?"
If word ever got out that we are not a major contributor then I think public perception will re-appropiate funds to issues they consider are more worthy.
It is possible to read into some evidance that even if all consumption and contributions were halted to zero from human activity then the phenomena that is 'global warming' would still continue.
Maybe this is more about politics and the peak fossil fuel problem, all governments need to bring in legilation and taxation to control the masses over their fossil fuel usage ahead of any fossil fuel global crisis, now seems like an ideal time to get started.
Personally I am more concern about non-organic toxins being distributed around the plant for which there is no organic cleaning system than of trying to label a problem with a natually occuring organic gas.
Thats an interesting point. Then who would be legally held accountable for the breach of copyright. The owner and runner of the program that is causing the breach ? Or Spyke (pun intended) the vendor who are responsible for the actions of the program ?
Not with IE (or other HTTP 1.1 compliant browser), when the "Cache-Control: no-store" option is used! Or any other more restrictive Cache-Control option.
Even so, it is likely in the many months it takes to get in court that the PC cache will still have the fragments on the HDD, due to LRU. And what if you use a HTTP proxy and have IE configured for no local cache.
Even more unlikely is to find anything in SWAP space after a few days or normal usage, let alone many months to get to court.
I say the best situation for this request is to have a laptop, booted up on Knoppix Live CD, without any HDD (and only USB mem stick storage), running Linux/Firefox, talking to your mobile handset via bluetooth for Internet connect. Connected to HotMail with Exhibit A clearly visible for the judge to see the very piece of SPAM email the court claim is about. "Sure your honour, here is it, can I have a receipt for that $6000 piece of hardware, or do you just want the CD and memory stick?"
No one is saying that a "Copyright entitlement holder" doesn't have the complete rights over all distribution and use of their work.
Intellectual Property is about who has the rights over an entire "concept" that may or may not exist in an implementation, where the implementation is a copyrighted work in itself.
The patent system was setup to allow inventors to harvest money for their R&D efforts in creating an implementation, but in this modern age and in some sectors of industry patent's are not providing any greater good to the public.
What should be up for discussion is that if any man created their own unique implementation for which they are the Copyright entitlement holder by their own hard work and effort then the Intellectual property concept embodied inside that implementation should be "fair game" for that man to do with as he sees fit. This may mean exploiting it for commercial gain or may mean giving the implementation to the people, that is his choice to make.
To claim possession over any piece of terretory, you simply have to have the miliary power to keep it.
This is how our world today was formed and I'm sure as we venture into space; is how the argument will be settled in the future. That conflict might be between us Earthlings or between our race and another. LOL
Slashdot Mirror
Banks are a highly regulated industry.
.bank verified as being legitimate would require a large amount of red tape with the financial services authority (FSA) or equivalent body within your terretory being involved and appointed to vet the applications (who would be paid to vet applications and financially punished for allowing a bogus application through the checking process).
.uk.bank and .us.bank. to allow for name clashes.
Each countries government would be able to draw up a list of valid banks within their country, the procedure for getting your application for a
Maybe each country should have a 2 letter country code like
LOL and just how many calls do you think you'd get to make for 300 million ? How many transactions per year would be authorized in this way ?
.bank would be far lower in the long run. The cost of educating for the most part is not that much, in bank leaflets, leaflets dropped into the postal statement, notice information during the login process, word of mouth. Sure its possible to go to a marketing company and spend 300 million on it, but that unecessary.
I'm not knocking the process, that idea has been around for a while, that the bank account holder uses are seperate channel to authorize each financial transaction than the channel the transactions was taken on. This can involved using the online banking itself to authorize, a land line or probably better a mobile/SMS/WAP service or a one time usable authentication password/pin.
The operational costs for
I'm pretty sure the bank doesn't actually loose any money through fradulent transactions. The credit card industry is able to recovery the money, interest and claim charge backs and the end of the day fraud actually makes money.
All your bases belong to me, is simply not true of any resource. I owe you nothing. I may choose out of my charity to provide you with something. The decisions in this process are 100% my perrogative.
You still fail to explain why placing a copyright on "public dissemination of works of the mind" (as you call it) is a bad thing for society. You also fail to explain how your interpretation of my comments "pointed out exactly why it can be a bad thing" as I can't see the bad part that you can.
Everybody is free to use their own time, effort and mind to create their own dissemination, there will obviously be influenzes from exposure to similar work but the end result should be a unique enough implementation of the idea/concept to warrent a free and independant copyright. I have nothing against people re-inventing the idea/concept emboied in the work providing they did so at their own expense.
"Copyright Law" is the mechanism society provides to facilitate the right to withhold your implementation of a work from others, which is a pretty inallienable right in most cultures and political systems.
Copyright law under pins all legal protection over the rights on a piece of work. By attaching Copyright to a piece of work you are also staking a claim to ownership to be able to then license the use of the work from that legal vantage point.
The concept of "Public Domain" only exists from the vantage point of the original Copyright holder accepting continued legal liability for any future plagerism claim that may occur in relation to that piece of work (by puting their name to it); but then explicitly granting a free for all license on its distribution and use. There is no such entity as an "anonymous Public Domain" piece of work, since if no one stakes their claim to ownership then its legally possible for anyone to make that claim (as Mr Anonymous won't be able to defend himself in a court of law).
Why is "Copyright law" a bad thing for society, it seems a very passive law that grants the creator rights over ownership of a piece of work. From that legal vantage point the Copyright holder may do anything / license anyway they choose, being the "Copyright holder" they are granted that power by law. It makes no sense for any creator of work not to involve themselves in this process, since its costs them nothing and grants them everything.
SuperKendal, if you have no idea, then you have to step aside while those with an idea take action. There are those that know that taking no action is not any form of resolution so in their eyes some action must be taken. So until you have an idea yourself your comment is worthless.
I don't think you quite understand the scale of the problem, the free market will not stop international and civil wars from breaking out by those willing to fight to preserve their standard of living. Some would argue this has already started to happen in world affair. There is talk within first world countries that we need to "secure the energy supply" under the belief that "the worlds energy resources should be distributed fairly and should not be in the control of the countries fortunate to surround them".
There is nothing wrong with alternative energy and as the cost of fossil fuel increases the return on investment in research and development verses the risk into alternatives will make advances happen. It is still unclear if those advances will happen fast enough to stop wars from starting.
But starting to change sentiment today it will get everyone thinking and accepting the issues which face us in the future in a calm and orderly way.
No most of the 'global warming' controversy is centered on "are humans the major contributor?"
If word ever got out that we are not a major contributor then I think public perception will re-appropiate funds to issues they consider are more worthy.
It is possible to read into some evidance that even if all consumption and contributions were halted to zero from human activity then the phenomena that is 'global warming' would still continue.
Maybe this is more about politics and the peak fossil fuel problem, all governments need to bring in legilation and taxation to control the masses over their fossil fuel usage ahead of any fossil fuel global crisis, now seems like an ideal time to get started.
Personally I am more concern about non-organic toxins being distributed around the plant for which there is no organic cleaning system than of trying to label a problem with a natually occuring organic gas.
Thats an interesting point. Then who would be legally held accountable for the breach of copyright. The owner and runner of the program that is causing the breach ? Or Spyke (pun intended) the vendor who are responsible for the actions of the program ?
Not with IE (or other HTTP 1.1 compliant browser), when the "Cache-Control: no-store" option is used! Or any other more restrictive Cache-Control option.
Even so, it is likely in the many months it takes to get in court that the PC cache will still have the fragments on the HDD, due to LRU. And what if you use a HTTP proxy and have IE configured for no local cache.
Even more unlikely is to find anything in SWAP space after a few days or normal usage, let alone many months to get to court.
I say the best situation for this request is to have a laptop, booted up on Knoppix Live CD, without any HDD (and only USB mem stick storage), running Linux/Firefox, talking to your mobile handset via bluetooth for Internet connect. Connected to HotMail with Exhibit A clearly visible for the judge to see the very piece of SPAM email the court claim is about. "Sure your honour, here is it, can I have a receipt for that $6000 piece of hardware, or do you just want the CD and memory stick?"
I think you are missing the point completely.
No one is saying that a "Copyright entitlement holder" doesn't have the complete rights over all distribution and use of their work.
Intellectual Property is about who has the rights over an entire "concept" that may or may not exist in an implementation, where the implementation is a copyrighted work in itself.
The patent system was setup to allow inventors to harvest money for their R&D efforts in creating an implementation, but in this modern age and in some sectors of industry patent's are not providing any greater good to the public.
What should be up for discussion is that if any man created their own unique implementation for which they are the Copyright entitlement holder by their own hard work and effort then the Intellectual property concept embodied inside that implementation should be "fair game" for that man to do with as he sees fit. This may mean exploiting it for commercial gain or may mean giving the implementation to the people, that is his choice to make.
To claim possession over any piece of terretory, you simply have to have the miliary power to keep it.
This is how our world today was formed and I'm sure as we venture into space; is how the argument will be settled in the future. That conflict might be between us Earthlings or between our race and another. LOL