Aside from crimes regulated in the criminal code itself (and copyright infringement is not), Brottsbalken 23:4 only applies to crimes with prescribed prison sentences (which is not the case for most copyright infringements). Hence, while it is technically true that Sweden does have a concept similar to contributory infringement (albeit relying on much more general principles of law), in practice, this would seem to have relatively little relevance.
It seems to me that the loudest complainants against the concept of intellectual property are either RMS, or people who do not actually create any IP of their own.
Given that I reject the term, I would have to be a member of the second set, though from your perspective, I am probably a member of the null set, given that I have created a few copyrighted works.
Here is what Judge John T. Noonan of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit had to say about treating "intellectual property" as physical property in MGM v. Grokster, 2004-02-03:
Let me say what I think your problem is. You can use these harsh terms, but you are dealing with something new, and the question is, does the statutory monopoly that Congress has given you reach out to that something new. And that's a very debatable question. You don't solve it by calling it "theft". You have to show why this court should extend a statutory monopoly to cover the new thing. That's your problem. Address that if you would. And curtail the use of abusive language.
Now, I don't even play a lawyer on TV, but that doesn't exactly read to me like the Honourable Judge considers immaterial rights equivalent to property rights. Then again, you specifically referred to the civilised world and not the USA.
Even so, other Common Law jurisdictions follow the same principles. In Western Australia, for example (since I am somewhat familiar with its laws), the crime of stealing requires the subject of theft to be property (and the explicit definition thereof is limited to real and personal property, money, debts, bank credits, legacies, and deeds thereto relating) capable of being stolen (which requires it to be movable). The definition further requires the subject to be moved or otherwise dealt with by some physical act. I fail to see how this can be done with immaterial things. You will notice that the Criminal Code makes plenty of other references to property, none of which relate to immaterial things. Then yet again, WA may not meet your definition of the civilised world.
Copyrights, patent rights, and rights relating to trade secrets are generally not protected by the same laws that protect material rights. In fact, jurisdiction over the former are (in the USA) generally part of the enumerated powers, whereas the latter are largely residual.
Furthermore, the term property implies scarcity, which is what distinguishes it from the things you seek to include in your nebulous (and unfounded) definition.
Lastly, it is not a matter of wishing to take rights away from people; it is about distinguishing that which is distinct, and to treat things as what they are. Doing so allows us to apply distinct principles appropriate to each distinct area of law and recognise rights accordingly. Not doing so merely allows us to be confused about the world in which we live.
It appears the organisations throwing the term "intellectual property" around have managed to confuse you. Property rights relate to physical property.
A format is not property. It may be a trade secret. Unduly revealing it, though illegal, does not constitute theft.
I'm not disputing Nikon's intellectual rights to choose which of their trade secrets they disclose (rather, I think it is a matter of consumer choice, not manufacturer obligation). But to drag property rights into the discussion is just deliberately confusing.
Under Load/Save, General in the options dialogue, the administrator can specify the default format used by Open Office for saving. Does that address your concerns?
0. This License applies to any program
or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License. The "Program", below, refers to any such program or work...
In economic terms: hardware is rivalrous and excludable, which makes it a private good. Digital information is neither (so trying to pimp it is as silly as selling a fireworks display).
The people they are suing are either liable or not liable, but that's up for a court to decide. They are not guilty until they have been convicted of a crime. Since they haven't even been accused of a crime, I don't see why you'd drag criminal law into this.
I suppose it would be okay if they actually did sue the users, rather than blackmailing with the threat of legal action. But that would require actually having a case.
No, seeing as Firebi^H^Hfox is only a provisional name for a provisional piece of software that will eventually replace one of the components of the Mozilla suite, where it should get the name "Mozilla Browser", the proper name would be "The Browser Not Yet Known as Browser".
Another one of her students jumped out of her second story window while she was teaching class, and she didn't know until he came back upstairs through the door.
That happened to the Spanish teacher at the U.S. high school I went to as an exchange student a few years ago as well. Either you also attended IHS or this is a common thing in American schools. I'm not sure which scenario would be the most shocking.
Thanks for the tip, and pardon my ignorance (three seconds later, I also realise that you can configure it to use global paint options...), but where do I do that?
Agreed on MDI applications for inexperienced users (not for other users though, so having it as an option would be ideal), but the Gimp's (at least the earlier version; I haven't looked at the latest one) spawning of separate toolbars for each image is (was?) terrible. You select the crop tool and find out you chose the crop tool for the wrong image, and you're still paintbrushing in the image you wanted to crop -- things like that.
That combined with the philosophy of "everything is done from the context menu", the fact that said menu is broken down into hierarchies several levels deep (however logical) with few shortcuts (Adobe spent an insane amount of money on this part of their UI design and it shows) and the messy array of tool and property boxes that inevitably clutter the screen (on that point, Photoshop isn't much better), makes the Gimp slower to work with than I'd like, regardless of how impressively powerful the underlying framework is. I'm looking forward to see what has improved so far, though, and I have good hopes for the future.
If I recall correctly, the KGB surveillance in the USSR was pretty heavy too when I visited, but not as bad as it once was.
I don't think anyone's exactly applauding the fact that China is tailing visitors, but there are probably other things that regime should be criticized for first if we are to prioritize.
I was hoping the U.S. might set its standards of freedom slightly higher than to point to third world contries and dictatorial regimes as examples of similar or more invasive systems as excuses for their own procedures, but it wouldn't be the first time they opt to be the black sheep of the world community in some aspect.
I know you're kidding about the fat and loud thing, but I'm not laughing. Most Americans that I know are great people, and many of them are as skinny as I am. I guess I'm just not too fond of stereotyping or sorting out any perceived groups no matter which way it goes, since we're all individuals. Sorry to be such a killjoy, I got a bit disturbed by all the xenophobic ACs earlier.
damnit, you HAD to go and invoke Godwin's law AND make plenty of good points
It wasn't something I did without consideration, and I didn't exactly mean to insinuate that the U.S. administration plans to set up extermination camps, but we deal here with ethnic registration to combat a supposedly ethnic threat, and that alone, even if it were to be an ultimate phase of xenophobic populism with no further implications, is sufficiently bothersome to draw the limited parallel that I did.
Okay, that was news to me. There's still no reason they wouldn't fake passport from whitelisted countries instead, though.
(There's no need to e-mail me to get my attention. My preferences ensure I get a message when I get a reply, and I keep an eye on the reply counts. If I don't reply to someone it's likely because a) I can't be arsed b) they're rude idiots c) they're anonymous cowards or d) they're rude, idiotic, anonymous cowards (got a lot of those today).)
They carried knives, which should have been caught in those detectors or scanners.
None of them used fake identities, presumably because checking their identities would not have raised any alarms. And if the terrorists have run out of people with clear records, forging a passport from one of the "safe" countries excepts them from being scrutinized, so these checks will only invade the privacy of honest travelers.
The right to privacy and integrity may be more nebulous than those specifics listed in the U.S. Constitution, but that doesn't make it any less real.
The big deal is that these are invasive tactics being deployed to cater to public opinion without actually solving any real problems. I am fully aware that the U.S. is free to make any laws walking all over any human rights not explicitly protected by the U.S. Constitution, but correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe I also have the right to voice my opinion about it. If the Swedish government wanted to fingerprint you upon entry, besides being ashamed, I would also encourage you to have a problem with it and to voice your opinion, but that's just me. The fact that a decision is intra vires does not mean that it is a proper decision to make.
There are human rights beyond those listed in your little constitution, and there's no reason for ad hominem attacks, at least if you have interest in making a respectable argument.
The FBI, DIS, OSI and Air Force has my prints. The ATF has it when I applied (and received) my FFL (Federal Firearms License). The sherrif has them from when I filled out (and received) my conceal to carry permit.
Good for you! I personally don't have the need or desire for lethal weapons likely to be used to commit crimes. All I'd like is to visit my American friends and see more of your beautiful country.
I think you are a bit too paranoid bub. I understand if you don't want your prints taken, well fine. Then don't join the military, or get an FFL, or a conceal to carry permit, or come to my country. Its your choice. But quit bitching about it, since it is NOT mandantory. No one is forced to come here.
Says Anonymous Coward. Anyone else see the irony of the situation here? Anyway, I will think long and hard before visiting the US again, even though I am from one of the 28 excluded countries, since customs and immigration seems to be ignoring their instructions at will and just fingerprint the hell out of everybody anyway. I visited relatives in what was at the time held as part of the Soviet Union with less invasion of my privacy back in the 80s. It's really sad to see such a beautiful country fall victim to such totalitarianism.
The reason I am "bitching" about it is that this is a highly unusual procedure conducted on foreign nationals merely for the fact that they are just that, and I hope more countries follow Brazil's excellent example. Perhaps we could also get American travellers to wear something... a little yellow star, say, with the word American printed on it, you know, just in case, just so we know who they are.
Slashdot Mirror
If you knew about them, they wouldn't be secret, now would they?
Aside from crimes regulated in the criminal code itself (and copyright infringement is not), Brottsbalken 23:4 only applies to crimes with prescribed prison sentences (which is not the case for most copyright infringements). Hence, while it is technically true that Sweden does have a concept similar to contributory infringement (albeit relying on much more general principles of law), in practice, this would seem to have relatively little relevance.
Given that I reject the term, I would have to be a member of the second set, though from your perspective, I am probably a member of the null set, given that I have created a few copyrighted works.
Here is what Judge John T. Noonan of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit had to say about treating "intellectual property" as physical property in MGM v. Grokster, 2004-02-03:
Now, I don't even play a lawyer on TV, but that doesn't exactly read to me like the Honourable Judge considers immaterial rights equivalent to property rights. Then again, you specifically referred to the civilised world and not the USA.
Even so, other Common Law jurisdictions follow the same principles. In Western Australia, for example (since I am somewhat familiar with its laws), the crime of stealing requires the subject of theft to be property (and the explicit definition thereof is limited to real and personal property, money, debts, bank credits, legacies, and deeds thereto relating) capable of being stolen (which requires it to be movable). The definition further requires the subject to be moved or otherwise dealt with by some physical act. I fail to see how this can be done with immaterial things. You will notice that the Criminal Code makes plenty of other references to property, none of which relate to immaterial things. Then yet again, WA may not meet your definition of the civilised world.
Copyrights, patent rights, and rights relating to trade secrets are generally not protected by the same laws that protect material rights. In fact, jurisdiction over the former are (in the USA) generally part of the enumerated powers, whereas the latter are largely residual.
Furthermore, the term property implies scarcity, which is what distinguishes it from the things you seek to include in your nebulous (and unfounded) definition.
Lastly, it is not a matter of wishing to take rights away from people; it is about distinguishing that which is distinct, and to treat things as what they are. Doing so allows us to apply distinct principles appropriate to each distinct area of law and recognise rights accordingly. Not doing so merely allows us to be confused about the world in which we live.
It appears the organisations throwing the term "intellectual property" around have managed to confuse you. Property rights relate to physical property.
A format is not property. It may be a trade secret. Unduly revealing it, though illegal, does not constitute theft.
I'm not disputing Nikon's intellectual rights to choose which of their trade secrets they disclose (rather, I think it is a matter of consumer choice, not manufacturer obligation). But to drag property rights into the discussion is just deliberately confusing.
At least here, it deletes the cell contents. If it doesn't do what you want, keyboard shortcuts can be reconfigured. Have a look at Tools/Configure.
Under Load/Save, General in the options dialogue, the administrator can specify the default format used by Open Office for saving. Does that address your concerns?
In economic terms: hardware is rivalrous and excludable, which makes it a private good. Digital information is neither (so trying to pimp it is as silly as selling a fireworks display).
So how many times did you go down?
Whoa there. Back to school!
The people they are suing are either liable or not liable, but that's up for a court to decide. They are not guilty until they have been convicted of a crime. Since they haven't even been accused of a crime, I don't see why you'd drag criminal law into this.
I suppose it would be okay if they actually did sue the users, rather than blackmailing with the threat of legal action. But that would require actually having a case.
No, seeing as Firebi^H^Hfox is only a provisional name for a provisional piece of software that will eventually replace one of the components of the Mozilla suite, where it should get the name "Mozilla Browser", the proper name would be "The Browser Not Yet Known as Browser".
That happened to the Spanish teacher at the U.S. high school I went to as an exchange student a few years ago as well. Either you also attended IHS or this is a common thing in American schools. I'm not sure which scenario would be the most shocking.
Uh, just checking... You are aware that the USSR was dissolved 12 years ago, right? Right?
X Windows? I've never heard of such a thing. Perhaps you are thinking of the X Window System?
Thanks for the tip, and pardon my ignorance (three seconds later, I also realise that you can configure it to use global paint options...), but where do I do that?
Looks like they've fixed some of my main gripes with the UI. Good on them!
But ack! They've gone and made it German!
Agreed on MDI applications for inexperienced users (not for other users though, so having it as an option would be ideal), but the Gimp's (at least the earlier version; I haven't looked at the latest one) spawning of separate toolbars for each image is (was?) terrible. You select the crop tool and find out you chose the crop tool for the wrong image, and you're still paintbrushing in the image you wanted to crop -- things like that.
That combined with the philosophy of "everything is done from the context menu", the fact that said menu is broken down into hierarchies several levels deep (however logical) with few shortcuts (Adobe spent an insane amount of money on this part of their UI design and it shows) and the messy array of tool and property boxes that inevitably clutter the screen (on that point, Photoshop isn't much better), makes the Gimp slower to work with than I'd like, regardless of how impressively powerful the underlying framework is. I'm looking forward to see what has improved so far, though, and I have good hopes for the future.
If I recall correctly, the KGB surveillance in the USSR was pretty heavy too when I visited, but not as bad as it once was.
I don't think anyone's exactly applauding the fact that China is tailing visitors, but there are probably other things that regime should be criticized for first if we are to prioritize.
I was hoping the U.S. might set its standards of freedom slightly higher than to point to third world contries and dictatorial regimes as examples of similar or more invasive systems as excuses for their own procedures, but it wouldn't be the first time they opt to be the black sheep of the world community in some aspect.
I know you're kidding about the fat and loud thing, but I'm not laughing. Most Americans that I know are great people, and many of them are as skinny as I am. I guess I'm just not too fond of stereotyping or sorting out any perceived groups no matter which way it goes, since we're all individuals. Sorry to be such a killjoy, I got a bit disturbed by all the xenophobic ACs earlier.
It wasn't something I did without consideration, and I didn't exactly mean to insinuate that the U.S. administration plans to set up extermination camps, but we deal here with ethnic registration to combat a supposedly ethnic threat, and that alone, even if it were to be an ultimate phase of xenophobic populism with no further implications, is sufficiently bothersome to draw the limited parallel that I did.
Okay, that was news to me. There's still no reason they wouldn't fake passport from whitelisted countries instead, though.
(There's no need to e-mail me to get my attention. My preferences ensure I get a message when I get a reply, and I keep an eye on the reply counts. If I don't reply to someone it's likely because a) I can't be arsed b) they're rude idiots c) they're anonymous cowards or d) they're rude, idiotic, anonymous cowards (got a lot of those today).)
They carried knives, which should have been caught in those detectors or scanners.
None of them used fake identities, presumably because checking their identities would not have raised any alarms. And if the terrorists have run out of people with clear records, forging a passport from one of the "safe" countries excepts them from being scrutinized, so these checks will only invade the privacy of honest travelers.
The right to privacy and integrity may be more nebulous than those specifics listed in the U.S. Constitution, but that doesn't make it any less real.
The big deal is that these are invasive tactics being deployed to cater to public opinion without actually solving any real problems. I am fully aware that the U.S. is free to make any laws walking all over any human rights not explicitly protected by the U.S. Constitution, but correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe I also have the right to voice my opinion about it. If the Swedish government wanted to fingerprint you upon entry, besides being ashamed, I would also encourage you to have a problem with it and to voice your opinion, but that's just me. The fact that a decision is intra vires does not mean that it is a proper decision to make.
There are human rights beyond those listed in your little constitution, and there's no reason for ad hominem attacks, at least if you have interest in making a respectable argument.
Good for you! I personally don't have the need or desire for lethal weapons likely to be used to commit crimes. All I'd like is to visit my American friends and see more of your beautiful country.
Says Anonymous Coward. Anyone else see the irony of the situation here? Anyway, I will think long and hard before visiting the US again, even though I am from one of the 28 excluded countries, since customs and immigration seems to be ignoring their instructions at will and just fingerprint the hell out of everybody anyway. I visited relatives in what was at the time held as part of the Soviet Union with less invasion of my privacy back in the 80s. It's really sad to see such a beautiful country fall victim to such totalitarianism.
The reason I am "bitching" about it is that this is a highly unusual procedure conducted on foreign nationals merely for the fact that they are just that, and I hope more countries follow Brazil's excellent example. Perhaps we could also get American travellers to wear something... a little yellow star, say, with the word American printed on it, you know, just in case, just so we know who they are.