'"Officials say the postings were defamatory and a misappropriation of confidential company information...It's not about the First Amendment," says Terry Budd..."It's to stop people from spreading vicious lies."'
Interesting. So these employees are spreading 'vicious lies' that contain actual 'confidential company information'. Perhaps they're spreading 'vicious truths'?
From the MS website:
"Q. What does XP stand for?
A. "eXPerience". Microsoft likes to say that previous versions of Windows bundled applications, but that Windows XP bundles experiences."
Sure, you could have your OS running seamlessly and quietly in the background but it would be less rewarding for the user. Windows XP encourages a user to engage and interact with their computer in new and compelling ways. Fully multi-media enhanced, it pushes the user to develop ever richer relationships with their PC, employing the full range of human communications, from vocal language to kinetic expression.
1) You seem to assume that all corporate pollution takes place on land-leased from the Government; that corporations will only pollute Government land (and move on), they won't pollute their own land (and move on).
This is wrong for a few reasons:
(i) uh, many corporations do already run their operations on private property. Check a map to see how much of the US is free-hold;
(ii) a corporation may continue to use polluted land because the pollution, while harmful in some way, does not interfere with the money-making activity carried out on the land.
And (iii) the pollution generating activity may be very profitable and the land relatively cheap, allowing the corporation to buy, pollute, move on many many times. One day of course the supply of free land may be exhausted, but it may be too late then...
(2) You say that if harm is caused to others through pollution, YOU WILL BE LIABLE. Um, isn't this a form of environmental regulation? If you pollute a river, cause cancer in townsfolk and they sue you, is this so different from you polluting a river and being fined by the Government? The chief differences may be the time-scale and the harm caused...
(And without laws of some kind (ie, regulation), how can anyone sue (in which court?) and have a penalty enforced against the polluter?)
In the first case, you pollute the river, 10 years later people die of cancer in disproportionately large numbers. 20 years after that a link is finally proved to your pollution (after much scientific debate where the other side was funded by you in order to prevent just such legal liability). Then comes the lawsuit. But you say, substance-X caused cancer? jeez, who would have guessed. OK, we stop now that we know for sure. You certainly can't sue us going back 30 years because we just didn't know... By this stage, many people have died.
In the second case, government scientists with no vested interested in the polluting activities conduct research. As soon as they discover the activity is harmful, the activity is outlawed. Much quicker and it doesn't depend on the families of the dead bringing lawsuits...
I mean, in your example, LIABILITY can only result after the harm has actually been caused. A little rough if you're one of the victims in question...
Yes, the Copyright Amendment (Digital Agenda) Act 2000 contains some terrible new law. But:
This legislation has been kicking around for about 5 years now. There has been quite a lot of public consultation. Yes, we all know that the Government should be knocking on our door all the time to tell us about new laws it is considering but it is equally the resposibility of all of us as citizens to keep informed. This legislation was discussed on Australian Internet lists (such as LINK for example) for years...
Australia is not blindly following the US. They are both (kind of blindly) following the two World Intellectual Property Organisation treaties finalised in Geneva in 1996. Making international treaties and then implementing them in domestic law is pretty common.
The Australian Digital Alliance (www.digital.org.au) is a broad coalition created to represent the public interest with respect to new intellectual property laws such as this one. We welcome new members. Stop complaining and get involved.
This legislation is being reviewed in 3 years time (or even sooner). You can't say you weren't warned. If you don't act now then you can't complain down the track...
Some things wrong with the Act:
* right of reproduction covers temporary reproductions (such as reproductions on your screen or in your RAM) meaning that you need a licence to read delectroniclly in some cases.
* provisions against circumvention devices are too broad and are potentially harmful to new technology.
* cultural insitutiuons such as libraries and galleries are too restricted in how they may use new technologies to serve the public interest.
Nick Smith
Executive Officer:: Australian Digital Alliance
Email: nsmith@nla.gov.au
Web: www.digital.org.au
Slashdot Mirror
'"Officials say the postings were defamatory and a misappropriation of confidential company information...It's not about the First Amendment," says Terry Budd..."It's to stop people from spreading vicious lies."'
Interesting. So these employees are spreading 'vicious lies' that contain actual 'confidential company information'. Perhaps they're spreading 'vicious truths'?
Nick
From the MS website:
"Q. What does XP stand for?
A. "eXPerience". Microsoft likes to say that previous versions of Windows bundled applications, but that Windows XP bundles experiences."
Sure, you could have your OS running seamlessly and quietly in the background but it would be less rewarding for the user. Windows XP encourages a user to engage and interact with their computer in new and compelling ways. Fully multi-media enhanced, it pushes the user to develop ever richer relationships with their PC, employing the full range of human communications, from vocal language to kinetic expression.
Problems with this idea:
1) You seem to assume that all corporate pollution takes place on land-leased from the Government; that corporations will only pollute Government land (and move on), they won't pollute their own land (and move on).
This is wrong for a few reasons:
(i) uh, many corporations do already run their operations on private property. Check a map to see how much of the US is free-hold;
(ii) a corporation may continue to use polluted land because the pollution, while harmful in some way, does not interfere with the money-making activity carried out on the land.
And (iii) the pollution generating activity may be very profitable and the land relatively cheap, allowing the corporation to buy, pollute, move on many many times. One day of course the supply of free land may be exhausted, but it may be too late then...
(2) You say that if harm is caused to others through pollution, YOU WILL BE LIABLE. Um, isn't this a form of environmental regulation? If you pollute a river, cause cancer in townsfolk and they sue you, is this so different from you polluting a river and being fined by the Government? The chief differences may be the time-scale and the harm caused...
(And without laws of some kind (ie, regulation), how can anyone sue (in which court?) and have a penalty enforced against the polluter?)
In the first case, you pollute the river, 10 years later people die of cancer in disproportionately large numbers. 20 years after that a link is finally proved to your pollution (after much scientific debate where the other side was funded by you in order to prevent just such legal liability). Then comes the lawsuit. But you say, substance-X caused cancer? jeez, who would have guessed. OK, we stop now that we know for sure. You certainly can't sue us going back 30 years because we just didn't know... By this stage, many people have died.
In the second case, government scientists with no vested interested in the polluting activities conduct research. As soon as they discover the activity is harmful, the activity is outlawed. Much quicker and it doesn't depend on the families of the dead bringing lawsuits...
I mean, in your example, LIABILITY can only result after the harm has actually been caused. A little rough if you're one of the victims in question...
Nick
Yes, the Copyright Amendment (Digital Agenda) Act 2000 contains some terrible new law. But:
:: Australian Digital Alliance
This legislation has been kicking around for about 5 years now. There has been quite a lot of public consultation. Yes, we all know that the Government should be knocking on our door all the time to tell us about new laws it is considering but it is equally the resposibility of all of us as citizens to keep informed. This legislation was discussed on Australian Internet lists (such as LINK for example) for years...
Australia is not blindly following the US. They are both (kind of blindly) following the two World Intellectual Property Organisation treaties finalised in Geneva in 1996. Making international treaties and then implementing them in domestic law is pretty common.
The Australian Digital Alliance (www.digital.org.au) is a broad coalition created to represent the public interest with respect to new intellectual property laws such as this one. We welcome new members. Stop complaining and get involved.
This legislation is being reviewed in 3 years time (or even sooner). You can't say you weren't warned. If you don't act now then you can't complain down the track...
Some things wrong with the Act:
* right of reproduction covers temporary reproductions (such as reproductions on your screen or in your RAM) meaning that you need a licence to read delectroniclly in some cases.
* provisions against circumvention devices are too broad and are potentially harmful to new technology.
* cultural insitutiuons such as libraries and galleries are too restricted in how they may use new technologies to serve the public interest.
Nick Smith
Executive Officer
Email: nsmith@nla.gov.au
Web: www.digital.org.au