The only thing that courts might have to decide is if the police can compel you to say something for the public safety (the 1st amendment doesn't protect your right to say things that endanger the public, so I don't see why they shouldn't be able to force you to tell a dangerous crowd to disperse).
Actually, the first amendment should also prevent the government from coercing someone to speak; while in this case it may be "a good idea to make him say something" that's a slippry slope to head down. Of course, he should be liable (civilly and criminally) if he was resposnible for creating the conditions that resulted in teh problems. But that is different from being arrested and charged for refusing to speak.
I remember reading that what Rupert Murdoch actually wants is headlines to be trawled as currently done, but for actual news items to be paid for. He wants Google to check the story for relevance but not display it; Just a link to the place where you pay for / subscribe to the article.
Needless to say, Google said "It doesn't work like that."
Interesting. Google could simply not index any NewsCorp sites and let MS pour money into Murdoch's pockets till it gets tired and stops. Depending on how long that takes and the success of Bing vs Google to capture market share, News Corp may find that many people no longer think of their papers when looking for news, especially if viable alternatives establish stronger online presences.
Google can check and see what percentages of searches involve News Corp sites, click through rates, etc., an dteh decide on the impact of barNews Corp may be betting Google folds, but Google has pretty good idea of who holds what cards.
after all, no one ever brings work home from work, learns new skills to advance outside of work, or works through a work assignment they they hate or is hard.
Yes, a lot about school sucks. So does parts of life.
make as much money as possible for the shareholders and
pay out
AS LITTLE AS THEY CAN IN
claims. Period. End of story.
That is what they exist for.
If they don't pay claims then they might as well be all arrested for fraud.
They do their best to avoid paying claims even when there aren't people around willing to make excuses for them.
There. Fixed that for you. If my insurance simply paid any claim I couldn't afford it.
There Corrected the Misconception for all of you
regards
dave mundt
Actually, it depends on the way the insurance company is incorporated. A mutual insurance company is owned by the insured, so any claims come directly out of the insured's collective pocket through higher premiums either directly or a reduced dividend. At any rate, they should pay valid claims while still reducing their total payout in a reasonable fashion. Reviewing disability claims certainly is not unreasonable; independent of how they did it in the cited story.
Sure. Anybody that pretends a '60s British roadster can hold a candle in maneuverability, acceleration, or top speed against a modern-day fuel injected Honda Accord (!) is deluding themselves.
No, seriously. Heck, if you really want to blow your mind, consider the fact that a Honda Odyssey - yes, a minivan! - handles objectively "sportier" (i.e. has more grip, more acceleration, more top speed, etc.) than roadsters from the era of vinyl. Of course, it's not as much "fun" to drive a dependable minivan as it is to drive a two-seater with tiny tires and an engine that overheats after ten minutes, but, then again, it's not as much "fun" to listen to digitally reproduced music compared to the nostalgic experience of picking up a piece of vinyl and gently placing it on a record player.
Does that help?
I was with you until you said drive in reference to a 60's British sports car. Anyone who has ever been serious about them nows that they are designed not to be driven but to be worked on. The preferred setup is just that - setup on blocks in the back yard with the engine in pieces on the kitchen table. Like minded folks gather around to argue the merits of various mods that will never actually see the road while they drink warm beer in honor of Lucas; who apparently made British refrigerators as well as car electronics. You might take a minute from arguing about how to best tune a 4 carb setup to collectively sneer at those obviously less informed people who drove 1600's and 2002's or 3.0CSi's and clearly didn't know what the real driving experience was - chasing an unfixable electric short until the girlfriend who thought your Spitfire/TR4/Bugeye etc. was cute and fun while you were dating but replaced it with "gasp" "a real car that is reliable" once you were married.
Come to think of it, it really isn't that different from high end audio - except that it is a stereo setup that constantly needs a newer, better cable/tweeter/tube amp and you're rearranging everything for better sound while you argue the merits of unobtainium vs expensium wiring with your audiophile friends. Listening to music is secondary. Except, of course, you're a high end geek so you don't have a girlfriend to ever make you get rid of "all that junk" and buy a nice stereo at Best Buy. Of course, the true audiophile doesn't sneer at the guy who drops 30K in Best Buy to have them setup a home stereo system because you'd never set foot in Best Buy; and if you did you'd be too busy staring at the women with him to notice what he is buying anyway.
That is why you would get busted. The most frequently counter fitted bills are the smaller denominations ones, fives, and tens. The reason people don't subject them to nearly the scrutiny. All and all there is not that much counterfeiting going on, and chances are if you accept a small bill there is very little change tendered so you are only out the inventory. If you accept a large bill like a 50 or a 100 you stand to loose quite a bit; you probably give not only your inventory but tender real currency as change; so even though those are fakes less often they get looked at more.
Actually, the most counterfeited bill is the $20; probably because it is the highest denomination in common circulation. The $100 is the next.
have parents who whine and cry whenever their little darling get's less than a 100
and this:
I've spoken with college professors who say they get calls from parents complaining about kid's grades
But then:
Maybe if parents actually took an active interest in their kid's education things could get better; but I've come to the conclusion most parent's simply don't care.
Well, which is it? Parents don't care, or they care too much? Ever stop to consider the possibility that maybe it's not all the parents in the world who are screwed up, but you?
Active interest, IMHO, goes beyond merely complaining when your kid didn't get a good grade. It means making sure homework is done, looking at what their test scores are, attendance records, actually showing up at parent teacher conferences, etc.
I, personally, am amazed at the number of times I've heard stories (I am not a teacher) of kids who skip class, don't turn in work, flunk tests ans the first time the parent shows up is when the report card goes home with a bad grade; and then proceed to demand the school do something about it. Or, if a good grade comes home because the teacher just wants to avoid the hassle never questions why the grade is so high. I fear we are producing a generation that thinks they are A students when they really are C students whom it was easier to pass and hope the sore high enough on exit exams to keep the school off the failing list than deal with the parents.
My personal favorite is the kid who skipped class, did zero work, and is no facing not graduating and the parents come in and ask "What are we going to do about it?" That's why I can't be a teacher - my response would be "Unless you got a mouse in your pocket their ain't no we in this - where were you when you got progress reports and attendance notices? Why should I care if you obviously don't?
I fail to see how this raises any questions too. The schools pay the teachers, the lesson plans belong to the school.
Unless the employment contract explicitly transfers ownership of creative works to the employer then the lesson plans legally do not belong to the school. In the world of copyrights and contracts this stuff is cut and dry, the default in all cases - including software development - is for ownership to rest with the creator, full stop.
If teachers were paid on performance, they'd be earning zero per year. But hey, if you think they should be earning $100k/year for 9 months of work while your kid learns nothing, then you pay for it. I certainly won't.
If it were as simple as that. The reality is a classroom id often full of kids who don't really want to learn, expect to get an A just for trying, and have parents who whine and cry whenever their little darling get's less than a 100 despite not actually doing the work. Oh, yea, it's the teacher's fault that students don't learn. Discipline them for acting up? How dare you; obviously it's your fault he or she did what they did. Frankly, some of the things I've heard teachers say they've been called would earn you a fist in your face in most other environments. Sure, there are bad teachers, but there are many more who really care and try and finally get fed up and quit because the crap they put up with isn't worth it. Maybe if parents actually took an active interest in their kid's education things could get better; but I've come to the conclusion most parent's simply don't care. Unfortunately, it is simply less hassle to pass them and let life eventually hit them with a clue by four than actually hold them accountable to some semblance of performance.
Of course, it's getting worse - I've spoken with college professors who say they get calls from parents complaining about kid's grades and expecting them to do something about it.
Yes, and in the US we have the right of free speech. The solution is not to suppress speech but to change the concept of how past infractions are viewed. While the later is a difficult task; repressing speech in the name of protecting people's rights is far worse.
And yet you still have libel and slander laws. You have laws about obscenity and regulation of pornography. You have regulation of commercial speech. The right to freedom of speech is not so simple and universal as you are making out.
Free speech does not mean freedom from consequences. You are still responsible for what you say and the results of your speech.
Although I do agree that there is more to you to it than simply "no prior restraint" given laws regulating commercial speech as opposed to other forms of speech.
On a smaller scale, something embarrassing like erectile dysfunction is a simple fact too. But if you happened to have it, you would still not appreciate it very much if someone posted that fact to wikipedia.
That still doesn't justify reigning in free speech, IMHO.
Wikipedia and its content, including the article in question, is hosted in the US. Why should the Wikimedia foundation comply to German laws just because some articles are written in German? Should articles written in Farsi comply to Iranian law, too?
No, and I didn't say that - the US operations comply with US law; the German, German. Of course, courts in each country may take a different view about jurisdiction.
I'm sure a lot of people are going to come out against the position of Germany's culture on this, citing freedom of speech. Freedom of speech, in the United States at least, is not given to citizens so that they can harm other people's reputations or hold them accountable for their actions. It is there so that actions by the government can be openly criticized and constructive dialog be established between (and amongst) citizens and the government, without fear of reprisal. It is there for the betterment of everyone. If there is no benefit to society, no protection is granted.
Actually, no that is not the fundamental premise of the US concept of freedom of speech. It is that the prior restraint of speech is so onerous that it is not allowed; so that open debate can be had around issues.
These people have served their sentences. They have been punished according to the law of their land, and then released. In this country, a person's criminal record haunts them for life -- denying them jobs, restricting their freedoms, and in some cases leading to a greatly diminished quality of life such that they are forced into criminal enterprise in order to meet basic needs. But in Germany, these laws are crafted so that people can have a chance at a normal life again--A chance at redemption. It is recognized that people make mistakes, but these mistakes shouldn't haunt them for the rest of their lives. The government has stepped in to ensure that any adult citizen that has their freedom also has the same chances as the next.
As far as the internet -- do we really want it to be a tool that enables a person's past mistakes to haunt them forever? That any personal information, once released into it, somehow becomes public property? Those naked photos your boyfriend took of you when you thought you'd be with him forever -- are those public property once he breaks up with you and posts them online? How about the records of your divorce, or the reasons why you were fired? What about that one night when your best friend tried to walk out of the bar drunk, and you stole the car keys and the two of you got into a big fight and the police were called? You want the whole world to know about these things? Or--was it just a mistake and once amends have been made then that's the end of it?
Just because the information is out there doesn't mean it should be. Information doesn't have rights -- people do.
Yes, and in the US we have the right of free speech. The solution is not to suppress speech but to change the concept of how past infractions are viewed. While the later is a difficult task; repressing speech in the name of protecting people's rights is far worse.
Of course, as information becomes easier to access people also need to modify behaviors in light of changing technology; which they have been doing since the beginning of time. That is the real solution, IMHO.
In the spirit of this discussion, I trust that you will not mention my clients' names in your article
reminiscent of the "of course, you'll have the decency not to mention this to anyone..." line in Blazing Saddles. Which, of course, had Germans as well. And Lilli von Schtup; which is what just happened to his clients.
That these guys killed someone and were convicted of it is a recorded, historical fact. No allegations, simple fact.
Are we not allowed to state simple facts now?
Depends where "we" is - in Germany, apparently not. In the US, yes.
In my experience the "ignorance of the law is no excuse" standpoint holds up whether or not you have a good excuse for your ignorance. The police once copied down my address incorrectly on a ticket (they ignored my correct address on the copy of the ticket I mailed in) causing a summons to court, a notice of default judgement against me, a notice that my ticket was unpaid and a notice that my license had been suspended to be sent to the wrong address. I was later charged with driving with a suspended license after an accident a few months later. I discovered what had happened after some digging at the bureau of public records. I explained what had happened to the judge and he told me the ignorance of the law is ones own fault period. The fact that the state had tried to contact me was sufficient on their part. It is always your responsibility to become informed of the law regardless of any difficulties you have.
That's interesting. In general proof that the original ticket was paid is enough, in my experience to have the matter corrected.
I didn't say he had to be selling it, I said he had to be using it in a commercial capacity. Trademark applies to, well, trade. I might use a certain nickname on an ongoing basis in a particular field, but that doesn't mean I automatically get a trademark on that nickname. It would have to be a mark of trade in order for it to be trademarkable.
Fair enough, although I disagree with your definition of trademark - if you, for example, used "Dr. BugBeGone" as your name when you came to fix programming bugs for companies, I think you would have a legitimate servicemark; just as you could create a tool to fix bugs and call it "Dr BugeMeNot's Magic Programming Elixer" and have a valid trademark. I would consider making a programming language available for use sufficient to create a an unregistered trademark, as the name is a unique identifier for a particular product in a particular field.
Perhaps Mr. McCabe should have trademarked the name???
Simply using the name in a commercial capacity is enough to get an unregistered trademark. However, the problem is that he is not selling the Go! programming language. If it's not a commercial entity, then trademark doesn't apply.
I'm not sure why you think selling something is a pre-requisite for being able to trademark its name. What is key is that you use the trademark on an ongoing basis and are the first to use it in a particular field.(Amongst other things). Even if you freely give something away you can still trademark its name; all a trademark does is identify a particular product and prevents others with similar products from trading on your good (or bad) name. Google, for example gives away many services for free yet can still own the rights to Google as a servicemark or trademark; depending on whether you consider search a service or a good.
As for trademarking the name, using it should at least create an unregistered trademark which can prevent others from using it for similar products; at least in the areas where he trades. Registering provides stronger legal protections but just because you do not register a name doesn't mean someone else can use it for a similar product in the same area where you do business.
All of the above assumes the name is unique enough to be considered trademarkable; which is a separate issue.
Your analogy fails. This would be closer to the situation:
If someone bought (or were given) a CD they thought was legitimate that turned out to be an illegal copying, then turned around and made thousands of copies and sold them, then no I'd say destroying it is not reasonable.
Companies want to be treated as individuals legally when it suits them. Employees given authority to act on behalf of the company can bind the company to contracts, even if their boss doesn't know it at the time and tries to back out later. Companies should not be allowed to plead that their left hand didn't know what their right hand was doing.
If infringement happened here, it will be entirely up to MS and the copyright holder to settle or go to court, just removing the infringing code would not be enough unless the copyright holder agrees to it.
My point is that MS may not be the infringer - if a third party developed the software and MS did not know it was infringing then removing the offending product is reasonable on MS part; the copyright owner should go after the original author.
Your CD analogy is not relevant - it would be more like Apple hosted a song on iTunes that later turned out to be infringing on another's copyright - Apple would pull the song, but I would not think it reasonable to hold them liable for the copyright violation.
If somebody has an illegal copy of a music CD, would it be enough to simple destroy the copy after you've been caught in order to comply to copyright law?
Why would destroying the illegally copied code (e.g. rewriting the GPL code bits) be sufficient? It's the same copyright law that's being broken, shouldn't the same rules apply?
I'm not talking about what would be morally correct, but what would be legally correct.
IANAL, so I can't state with authority what is legally correct - but I can give a reasonable man answer:
If someone bought (or were given) a CD they thought was legitimate that turned out to be an illegal copying; then yes I'd say destroying it is not unreasonable. That's different from willfully making an illegal copy.
The same applies to software - if someone pays a third party to write code with the understanding (generally a contract) that the ode they produce is their own work and does not violate another's copyright than removing the offending code is good enough for me.
If an employee does it, think it's more of a gray area, but would not say in all case a company should be bound by the GPL; in some case removal of the code would be sufficient.
Will they release the source code?
And if not, if they just replace the GPL parts and release a new version, will people who downloaded the first version be legally able to demand the source code?
I doubt that. Replacing the GPL'd code ought to be enough; especially if the incorporation was accidental or the result of a third party's actions (as another poster pointed out it may be code they licensed from another company who claimed ownership of the rights.) I would not want someone to be forced to relseas code for such violations.
Why? Because it would be a bad precedent - what if someone used copyrighted code without permission in a GPL'd project? Should everyone who subsequently uses the code be held liable for a copyright violation, or would removing the code in question be enough? I prefer the later, simply because, IMHO, it a reasonable response in a case where the violation was not deliberate since the code was used in good faith based on the GPL.
Now, if it was code licensed from a third party, whoever wrote the code in question should be required to release the source, since one could assume they knew using GPL code required compliance with the GPL, and they distributed the derivative work. IANAL, but I would think MS has a reasonable case to sue based on the damages from the code.
If MS wrote the code, I still think a company should have the chance to fix a violation, especially if the code snippet is small - where a reasonable argument could be made that it was an unintended violation; unlike the blanket use of a major portion of a GPL'd product. Again, IANAL, but I think at some point even GPL'd code no longer is considered an original copyrighted work; much in the same way that a few words or sentence from one work that is incorporated in another is a copyright violation. YMMV on that concept.
Slashdot Mirror
The only thing that courts might have to decide is if the police can compel you to say something for the public safety (the 1st amendment doesn't protect your right to say things that endanger the public, so I don't see why they shouldn't be able to force you to tell a dangerous crowd to disperse).
Actually, the first amendment should also prevent the government from coercing someone to speak; while in this case it may be "a good idea to make him say something" that's a slippry slope to head down. Of course, he should be liable (civilly and criminally) if he was resposnible for creating the conditions that resulted in teh problems. But that is different from being arrested and charged for refusing to speak.
I remember reading that what Rupert Murdoch actually wants is headlines to be trawled as currently done, but for actual news items to be paid for. He wants Google to check the story for relevance but not display it; Just a link to the place where you pay for / subscribe to the article. Needless to say, Google said "It doesn't work like that."
Interesting. Google could simply not index any NewsCorp sites and let MS pour money into Murdoch's pockets till it gets tired and stops. Depending on how long that takes and the success of Bing vs Google to capture market share, News Corp may find that many people no longer think of their papers when looking for news, especially if viable alternatives establish stronger online presences.
Google can check and see what percentages of searches involve News Corp sites, click through rates, etc., an dteh decide on the impact of barNews Corp may be betting Google folds, but Google has pretty good idea of who holds what cards.
after all, no one ever brings work home from work, learns new skills to advance outside of work, or works through a work assignment they they hate or is hard.
Yes, a lot about school sucks. So does parts of life.
It's the insurance company's job to
make as much money as possible for the shareholders and
pay out
AS LITTLE AS THEY CAN IN
claims. Period. End of story.
That is what they exist for.
If they don't pay claims then they might as well be all arrested for fraud.
They do their best to avoid paying claims even when there aren't people around willing to make excuses for them.
There. Fixed that for you. If my insurance simply paid any claim I couldn't afford it.
There Corrected the Misconception for all of you
regards dave mundt
Actually, it depends on the way the insurance company is incorporated. A mutual insurance company is owned by the insured, so any claims come directly out of the insured's collective pocket through higher premiums either directly or a reduced dividend. At any rate, they should pay valid claims while still reducing their total payout in a reasonable fashion. Reviewing disability claims certainly is not unreasonable; independent of how they did it in the cited story.
It's the insurance company's job to pay out
valid
claims. Period. End of story.
That is what they exist for.
If they don't pay claims then they might as well be all arrested for fraud.
They do their best to avoid paying claims even when there aren't people around willing to make excuses for them.
There. Fixed that for you. If my insurance simply paid any claim I couldn't afford it.
1. Get $2 bills and dollar coins and use them for all their purchases for two weeks.
2. Then spend a week or two not spending a dime - ideally until they've saved the $400 tax.
3. Publicize it. Write articles in the student paper and letters to the editor.
4. Sit back and watch the results. Lather, rinse and repeat.
5. Profit?
Seriously, students need to show their economic impact on the local community. Using money not normally used will help make that point.
Sure. Anybody that pretends a '60s British roadster can hold a candle in maneuverability, acceleration, or top speed against a modern-day fuel injected Honda Accord (!) is deluding themselves. No, seriously. Heck, if you really want to blow your mind, consider the fact that a Honda Odyssey - yes, a minivan! - handles objectively "sportier" (i.e. has more grip, more acceleration, more top speed, etc.) than roadsters from the era of vinyl. Of course, it's not as much "fun" to drive a dependable minivan as it is to drive a two-seater with tiny tires and an engine that overheats after ten minutes, but, then again, it's not as much "fun" to listen to digitally reproduced music compared to the nostalgic experience of picking up a piece of vinyl and gently placing it on a record player. Does that help?
I was with you until you said drive in reference to a 60's British sports car. Anyone who has ever been serious about them nows that they are designed not to be driven but to be worked on. The preferred setup is just that - setup on blocks in the back yard with the engine in pieces on the kitchen table. Like minded folks gather around to argue the merits of various mods that will never actually see the road while they drink warm beer in honor of Lucas; who apparently made British refrigerators as well as car electronics. You might take a minute from arguing about how to best tune a 4 carb setup to collectively sneer at those obviously less informed people who drove 1600's and 2002's or 3.0CSi's and clearly didn't know what the real driving experience was - chasing an unfixable electric short until the girlfriend who thought your Spitfire/TR4/Bugeye etc. was cute and fun while you were dating but replaced it with "gasp" "a real car that is reliable" once you were married.
Come to think of it, it really isn't that different from high end audio - except that it is a stereo setup that constantly needs a newer, better cable/tweeter/tube amp and you're rearranging everything for better sound while you argue the merits of unobtainium vs expensium wiring with your audiophile friends. Listening to music is secondary. Except, of course, you're a high end geek so you don't have a girlfriend to ever make you get rid of "all that junk" and buy a nice stereo at Best Buy. Of course, the true audiophile doesn't sneer at the guy who drops 30K in Best Buy to have them setup a home stereo system because you'd never set foot in Best Buy; and if you did you'd be too busy staring at the women with him to notice what he is buying anyway.
I hope this helps as well...
That is why you would get busted. The most frequently counter fitted bills are the smaller denominations ones, fives, and tens. The reason people don't subject them to nearly the scrutiny. All and all there is not that much counterfeiting going on, and chances are if you accept a small bill there is very little change tendered so you are only out the inventory. If you accept a large bill like a 50 or a 100 you stand to loose quite a bit; you probably give not only your inventory but tender real currency as change; so even though those are fakes less often they get looked at more.
Actually, the most counterfeited bill is the $20; probably because it is the highest denomination in common circulation. The $100 is the next.
Ok, we have this:
and this:
But then:
Well, which is it? Parents don't care, or they care too much? Ever stop to consider the possibility that maybe it's not all the parents in the world who are screwed up, but you?
Active interest, IMHO, goes beyond merely complaining when your kid didn't get a good grade. It means making sure homework is done, looking at what their test scores are, attendance records, actually showing up at parent teacher conferences, etc.
I, personally, am amazed at the number of times I've heard stories (I am not a teacher) of kids who skip class, don't turn in work, flunk tests ans the first time the parent shows up is when the report card goes home with a bad grade; and then proceed to demand the school do something about it. Or, if a good grade comes home because the teacher just wants to avoid the hassle never questions why the grade is so high. I fear we are producing a generation that thinks they are A students when they really are C students whom it was easier to pass and hope the sore high enough on exit exams to keep the school off the failing list than deal with the parents.
My personal favorite is the kid who skipped class, did zero work, and is no facing not graduating and the parents come in and ask "What are we going to do about it?" That's why I can't be a teacher - my response would be "Unless you got a mouse in your pocket their ain't no we in this - where were you when you got progress reports and attendance notices? Why should I care if you obviously don't?
I fail to see how this raises any questions too. The schools pay the teachers, the lesson plans belong to the school.
Unless the employment contract explicitly transfers ownership of creative works to the employer then the lesson plans legally do not belong to the school. In the world of copyrights and contracts this stuff is cut and dry, the default in all cases - including software development - is for ownership to rest with the creator, full stop.
See: "Work for Hire"
If teachers were paid on performance, they'd be earning zero per year. But hey, if you think they should be earning $100k/year for 9 months of work while your kid learns nothing, then you pay for it. I certainly won't.
If it were as simple as that. The reality is a classroom id often full of kids who don't really want to learn, expect to get an A just for trying, and have parents who whine and cry whenever their little darling get's less than a 100 despite not actually doing the work. Oh, yea, it's the teacher's fault that students don't learn. Discipline them for acting up? How dare you; obviously it's your fault he or she did what they did. Frankly, some of the things I've heard teachers say they've been called would earn you a fist in your face in most other environments. Sure, there are bad teachers, but there are many more who really care and try and finally get fed up and quit because the crap they put up with isn't worth it. Maybe if parents actually took an active interest in their kid's education things could get better; but I've come to the conclusion most parent's simply don't care. Unfortunately, it is simply less hassle to pass them and let life eventually hit them with a clue by four than actually hold them accountable to some semblance of performance.
Of course, it's getting worse - I've spoken with college professors who say they get calls from parents complaining about kid's grades and expecting them to do something about it.
Yes, and in the US we have the right of free speech. The solution is not to suppress speech but to change the concept of how past infractions are viewed. While the later is a difficult task; repressing speech in the name of protecting people's rights is far worse.
And yet you still have libel and slander laws. You have laws about obscenity and regulation of pornography. You have regulation of commercial speech. The right to freedom of speech is not so simple and universal as you are making out.
Free speech does not mean freedom from consequences. You are still responsible for what you say and the results of your speech.
Although I do agree that there is more to you to it than simply "no prior restraint" given laws regulating commercial speech as opposed to other forms of speech.
On a smaller scale, something embarrassing like erectile dysfunction is a simple fact too. But if you happened to have it, you would still not appreciate it very much if someone posted that fact to wikipedia.
That still doesn't justify reigning in free speech, IMHO.
Wikipedia and its content, including the article in question, is hosted in the US. Why should the Wikimedia foundation comply to German laws just because some articles are written in German? Should articles written in Farsi comply to Iranian law, too?
No, and I didn't say that - the US operations comply with US law; the German, German. Of course, courts in each country may take a different view about jurisdiction.
I'm sure a lot of people are going to come out against the position of Germany's culture on this, citing freedom of speech. Freedom of speech, in the United States at least, is not given to citizens so that they can harm other people's reputations or hold them accountable for their actions. It is there so that actions by the government can be openly criticized and constructive dialog be established between (and amongst) citizens and the government, without fear of reprisal. It is there for the betterment of everyone. If there is no benefit to society, no protection is granted.
Actually, no that is not the fundamental premise of the US concept of freedom of speech. It is that the prior restraint of speech is so onerous that it is not allowed; so that open debate can be had around issues.
These people have served their sentences. They have been punished according to the law of their land, and then released. In this country, a person's criminal record haunts them for life -- denying them jobs, restricting their freedoms, and in some cases leading to a greatly diminished quality of life such that they are forced into criminal enterprise in order to meet basic needs. But in Germany, these laws are crafted so that people can have a chance at a normal life again--A chance at redemption. It is recognized that people make mistakes, but these mistakes shouldn't haunt them for the rest of their lives. The government has stepped in to ensure that any adult citizen that has their freedom also has the same chances as the next.
As far as the internet -- do we really want it to be a tool that enables a person's past mistakes to haunt them forever? That any personal information, once released into it, somehow becomes public property? Those naked photos your boyfriend took of you when you thought you'd be with him forever -- are those public property once he breaks up with you and posts them online? How about the records of your divorce, or the reasons why you were fired? What about that one night when your best friend tried to walk out of the bar drunk, and you stole the car keys and the two of you got into a big fight and the police were called? You want the whole world to know about these things? Or--was it just a mistake and once amends have been made then that's the end of it?
Just because the information is out there doesn't mean it should be. Information doesn't have rights -- people do.
Yes, and in the US we have the right of free speech. The solution is not to suppress speech but to change the concept of how past infractions are viewed. While the later is a difficult task; repressing speech in the name of protecting people's rights is far worse.
Of course, as information becomes easier to access people also need to modify behaviors in light of changing technology; which they have been doing since the beginning of time. That is the real solution, IMHO.
I found the line:
In the spirit of this discussion, I trust that you will not mention my clients' names in your article
reminiscent of the "of course, you'll have the decency not to mention this to anyone..." line in Blazing Saddles. Which, of course, had Germans as well. And Lilli von Schtup; which is what just happened to his clients.
the completely secular, and godless, communists, socialists and nazis all as supremely liberal groups, and they slaughtered people like ants.
You may just be trolling; but I wouldn't consider communists or nazi's as particularly liberal groups.P
and thus breaking Godwin's, but not God's, law...
That these guys killed someone and were convicted of it is a recorded, historical fact. No allegations, simple fact. Are we not allowed to state simple facts now?
Depends where "we" is - in Germany, apparently not. In the US, yes.
Different lands, different laws.
In my experience the "ignorance of the law is no excuse" standpoint holds up whether or not you have a good excuse for your ignorance. The police once copied down my address incorrectly on a ticket (they ignored my correct address on the copy of the ticket I mailed in) causing a summons to court, a notice of default judgement against me, a notice that my ticket was unpaid and a notice that my license had been suspended to be sent to the wrong address. I was later charged with driving with a suspended license after an accident a few months later. I discovered what had happened after some digging at the bureau of public records. I explained what had happened to the judge and he told me the ignorance of the law is ones own fault period. The fact that the state had tried to contact me was sufficient on their part. It is always your responsibility to become informed of the law regardless of any difficulties you have.
That's interesting. In general proof that the original ticket was paid is enough, in my experience to have the matter corrected.
I didn't say he had to be selling it, I said he had to be using it in a commercial capacity. Trademark applies to, well, trade. I might use a certain nickname on an ongoing basis in a particular field, but that doesn't mean I automatically get a trademark on that nickname. It would have to be a mark of trade in order for it to be trademarkable.
Fair enough, although I disagree with your definition of trademark - if you, for example, used "Dr. BugBeGone" as your name when you came to fix programming bugs for companies, I think you would have a legitimate servicemark; just as you could create a tool to fix bugs and call it "Dr BugeMeNot's Magic Programming Elixer" and have a valid trademark. I would consider making a programming language available for use sufficient to create a an unregistered trademark, as the name is a unique identifier for a particular product in a particular field.
Perhaps Mr. McCabe should have trademarked the name???
Simply using the name in a commercial capacity is enough to get an unregistered trademark. However, the problem is that he is not selling the Go! programming language. If it's not a commercial entity, then trademark doesn't apply.
I'm not sure why you think selling something is a pre-requisite for being able to trademark its name. What is key is that you use the trademark on an ongoing basis and are the first to use it in a particular field.(Amongst other things). Even if you freely give something away you can still trademark its name; all a trademark does is identify a particular product and prevents others with similar products from trading on your good (or bad) name. Google, for example gives away many services for free yet can still own the rights to Google as a servicemark or trademark; depending on whether you consider search a service or a good.
As for trademarking the name, using it should at least create an unregistered trademark which can prevent others from using it for similar products; at least in the areas where he trades. Registering provides stronger legal protections but just because you do not register a name doesn't mean someone else can use it for a similar product in the same area where you do business.
All of the above assumes the name is unique enough to be considered trademarkable; which is a separate issue.
Your analogy fails. This would be closer to the situation:
If someone bought (or were given) a CD they thought was legitimate that turned out to be an illegal copying, then turned around and made thousands of copies and sold them, then no I'd say destroying it is not reasonable.
Companies want to be treated as individuals legally when it suits them. Employees given authority to act on behalf of the company can bind the company to contracts, even if their boss doesn't know it at the time and tries to back out later. Companies should not be allowed to plead that their left hand didn't know what their right hand was doing. If infringement happened here, it will be entirely up to MS and the copyright holder to settle or go to court, just removing the infringing code would not be enough unless the copyright holder agrees to it.
My point is that MS may not be the infringer - if a third party developed the software and MS did not know it was infringing then removing the offending product is reasonable on MS part; the copyright owner should go after the original author.
Your CD analogy is not relevant - it would be more like Apple hosted a song on iTunes that later turned out to be infringing on another's copyright - Apple would pull the song, but I would not think it reasonable to hold them liable for the copyright violation.
If somebody has an illegal copy of a music CD, would it be enough to simple destroy the copy after you've been caught in order to comply to copyright law? Why would destroying the illegally copied code (e.g. rewriting the GPL code bits) be sufficient? It's the same copyright law that's being broken, shouldn't the same rules apply?
I'm not talking about what would be morally correct, but what would be legally correct.
IANAL, so I can't state with authority what is legally correct - but I can give a reasonable man answer:
If someone bought (or were given) a CD they thought was legitimate that turned out to be an illegal copying; then yes I'd say destroying it is not unreasonable. That's different from willfully making an illegal copy.
The same applies to software - if someone pays a third party to write code with the understanding (generally a contract) that the ode they produce is their own work and does not violate another's copyright than removing the offending code is good enough for me.
If an employee does it, think it's more of a gray area, but would not say in all case a company should be bound by the GPL; in some case removal of the code would be sufficient.
What if it IS a GPL violation?
Will they release the source code? And if not, if they just replace the GPL parts and release a new version, will people who downloaded the first version be legally able to demand the source code?
I doubt that. Replacing the GPL'd code ought to be enough; especially if the incorporation was accidental or the result of a third party's actions (as another poster pointed out it may be code they licensed from another company who claimed ownership of the rights.) I would not want someone to be forced to relseas code for such violations.
Why? Because it would be a bad precedent - what if someone used copyrighted code without permission in a GPL'd project? Should everyone who subsequently uses the code be held liable for a copyright violation, or would removing the code in question be enough? I prefer the later, simply because, IMHO, it a reasonable response in a case where the violation was not deliberate since the code was used in good faith based on the GPL.
Now, if it was code licensed from a third party, whoever wrote the code in question should be required to release the source, since one could assume they knew using GPL code required compliance with the GPL, and they distributed the derivative work. IANAL, but I would think MS has a reasonable case to sue based on the damages from the code.
If MS wrote the code, I still think a company should have the chance to fix a violation, especially if the code snippet is small - where a reasonable argument could be made that it was an unintended violation; unlike the blanket use of a major portion of a GPL'd product. Again, IANAL, but I think at some point even GPL'd code no longer is considered an original copyrighted work; much in the same way that a few words or sentence from one work that is incorporated in another is a copyright violation. YMMV on that concept.
You're the one advocating restrictions on freedoms.
You're the one advocating a nanny state to protect your property because you won't do it yourself.
And you are still 100% wrong. Inalienable rights are inalienable. You can NOT be divorced from them. Ever.
LOL Your Constitutional viewpoint is as hilarious as it is wrong. Should be moded +5 Funny.