The interesting thing to me in that article is the line suggesting that by unbundling the security features to make the EU regulators happy, eurozone computer users will have the choice of buying a less robust OS locally or buying the more fully featured US variant. Segers is undoubtedly correct that, given that choice, customers will choose the US version over the regulator-approved EU package...in essence coming up with a workaround to the EU.
Besides, do we really want regulators deciding software features?
Perhaps the EU folks will come up with some clever wording, but this looks to me like MS bashing by reflex. It would be completely inappropriate to release an OS that isn't as secured as it's possible to be (and MS has had more than enough well documentd problems with security) - and yet the EU seems to be suggesting that MS should leave holes, presumably for smaller companies offering anti-spyware and anti-virus protection.
It's a Catch 22 for MS - no matter which way they go they'll run afoul of one group or another, users or regulators.
It started when an enterprising Postal Inspector in Kansas thought, hell, I'll subscribe to Screw Magazine, then, when they send it, bust Al Goldstein for violating *LOCAL* porn laws - even though the magazine was published in New York. A prosecutor in Montgomery Alabama pulled the same stunt on an adult movie provider who used satellite delivery.
The fact is, US law recognizes that if you do business in a jurisdiction, you become subject to the local law.
The French are trying to take it a step further by saying if you do business here, we reserve the right to regulate how you do business elsewhere... but isn't that the point of a variety of US legislation, starting with all those laws banning trade with Cuba, and South Africa during apartheid?
I'm all for telling France to bugger off...but this country's hands aren't clean.
Just something to remember about Law Review articles. Not all are created equal. I used to edit 'em...some are great...others...aren't.
First, the Fences in Cyberspace piece isn't an article, actually, it's a student note...there's a big difference. An article is written by a professor or practicioner. A note is written by a law student. Not that profs or lawyers are always right and students wrong...but there's an analytical and experiential factor to consider.
Second, remember that the note makes a proposal and argues a point, rather than being indicative of what the law actually says, or how a court might interpret it.
This isn't a negative comment about Finding Fences, but rather an overlay that may be helpful in considering what you're reading...
This is an extremely complex legal issue, and I'd advise Flikx to contact the local chapter of the ACLU immediately, assuming he/she has no independent legal counsel available.
Ordinarily the owner of a computer system has the power to do with it as he/she/it wants. However, the assertion that intellectual property posted on a server belongs to the owner of the system is patently absurd.
Copyright vests in the author of anything not created as a work for hire immediately upon what the law calls fixation in a tangible medium. Translated from our own version of geek speak, that means when you create it, then write it down, it's yours for the full period of Copyright Proection.
Ergo, unless I'm missing something (always a possibility) Flikx *owns* the IP rights to whatever it was on the system. Among the things I could be missing, however, is an agreed to contract under which Flikx and other users grant the IP rights to the University by the act of using the system. See your owners manual for details, YMMV, etc.
Then there's the question of the University, which probably is a state/governmental actor, which subjects it to the First Amendment. I'm not close enough to the situation to determine whether there has been a violation here -- and there may not have been. But competent legal counsel is needed to check this, *AND* to determine what recourse Flikx has with regard to the academic fallout from this.
And the poster seems to misunderstand the Hague Convention, which protects established IP rights, not new concepts of cultural sensitivities, no matter how many groups endorse these concepts.
The nice thing about hiring a lawyer (or having one in your family) is that they'll write letters for almost nothing. Actually litigating something gets VERY expensive - and I doubt the Maori people want to waste their money, as much as my colleagues in the legal profession would be happy to take it.
The one I found most effective when I discovered spammers had appropriated my e-mail address was to contact the internet casinos on whose behalf the spam was being sent out. I sent them a very strongly worded cease and desist letter, threatening litigation for both trademark violations and defamation. (The former is a federal issue, the latter, state.)
It took a couple of days, and I had to wade through some tiresome denials that the casinos had anything to do with the spam - but as quickly as the offenders had begun, they disappeared.
If folks would like to contact me regarding this kind of issue, I'm - of course - available to do so, at my usual ridiculous rates. I'm using a fake mail address above - but you can reach me at david.browde@browdelaw.com
Regards!
Slashdot Mirror
The interesting thing to me in that article is the line suggesting that by unbundling the security features to make the EU regulators happy, eurozone computer users will have the choice of buying a less robust OS locally or buying the more fully featured US variant. Segers is undoubtedly correct that, given that choice, customers will choose the US version over the regulator-approved EU package...in essence coming up with a workaround to the EU.
Besides, do we really want regulators deciding software features?
Perhaps the EU folks will come up with some clever wording, but this looks to me like MS bashing by reflex. It would be completely inappropriate to release an OS that isn't as secured as it's possible to be (and MS has had more than enough well documentd problems with security) - and yet the EU seems to be suggesting that MS should leave holes, presumably for smaller companies offering anti-spyware and anti-virus protection.
It's a Catch 22 for MS - no matter which way they go they'll run afoul of one group or another, users or regulators.
Disclosure: No, I've represented either side.
http://www.browdelaw.info/
It started when an enterprising Postal Inspector in Kansas thought, hell, I'll subscribe to Screw Magazine, then, when they send it, bust Al Goldstein for violating *LOCAL* porn laws - even though the magazine was published in New York. A prosecutor in Montgomery Alabama pulled the same stunt on an adult movie provider who used satellite delivery. The fact is, US law recognizes that if you do business in a jurisdiction, you become subject to the local law. The French are trying to take it a step further by saying if you do business here, we reserve the right to regulate how you do business elsewhere... but isn't that the point of a variety of US legislation, starting with all those laws banning trade with Cuba, and South Africa during apartheid? I'm all for telling France to bugger off...but this country's hands aren't clean.
Just something to remember about Law Review articles. Not all are created equal. I used to edit 'em...some are great...others...aren't. First, the Fences in Cyberspace piece isn't an article, actually, it's a student note...there's a big difference. An article is written by a professor or practicioner. A note is written by a law student. Not that profs or lawyers are always right and students wrong...but there's an analytical and experiential factor to consider. Second, remember that the note makes a proposal and argues a point, rather than being indicative of what the law actually says, or how a court might interpret it. This isn't a negative comment about Finding Fences, but rather an overlay that may be helpful in considering what you're reading...
This is an extremely complex legal issue, and I'd advise Flikx to contact the local chapter of the ACLU immediately, assuming he/she has no independent legal counsel available. Ordinarily the owner of a computer system has the power to do with it as he/she/it wants. However, the assertion that intellectual property posted on a server belongs to the owner of the system is patently absurd. Copyright vests in the author of anything not created as a work for hire immediately upon what the law calls fixation in a tangible medium. Translated from our own version of geek speak, that means when you create it, then write it down, it's yours for the full period of Copyright Proection. Ergo, unless I'm missing something (always a possibility) Flikx *owns* the IP rights to whatever it was on the system. Among the things I could be missing, however, is an agreed to contract under which Flikx and other users grant the IP rights to the University by the act of using the system. See your owners manual for details, YMMV, etc. Then there's the question of the University, which probably is a state/governmental actor, which subjects it to the First Amendment. I'm not close enough to the situation to determine whether there has been a violation here -- and there may not have been. But competent legal counsel is needed to check this, *AND* to determine what recourse Flikx has with regard to the academic fallout from this.
Thank you. You made an excellent point, and, as you can see, I did.
And the poster seems to misunderstand the Hague Convention, which protects established IP rights, not new concepts of cultural sensitivities, no matter how many groups endorse these concepts. The nice thing about hiring a lawyer (or having one in your family) is that they'll write letters for almost nothing. Actually litigating something gets VERY expensive - and I doubt the Maori people want to waste their money, as much as my colleagues in the legal profession would be happy to take it.
The one I found most effective when I discovered spammers had appropriated my e-mail address was to contact the internet casinos on whose behalf the spam was being sent out. I sent them a very strongly worded cease and desist letter, threatening litigation for both trademark violations and defamation. (The former is a federal issue, the latter, state.) It took a couple of days, and I had to wade through some tiresome denials that the casinos had anything to do with the spam - but as quickly as the offenders had begun, they disappeared. If folks would like to contact me regarding this kind of issue, I'm - of course - available to do so, at my usual ridiculous rates. I'm using a fake mail address above - but you can reach me at david.browde@browdelaw.com Regards!