>Until you buy much less bread because it might >not work in one of your toasters. Find the best >bread, buy it and the toaster needed and let the >other rot on the shelf.
Ahh, but then the breadmakers will be up in arms, claiming the fall in bread sales are due to all this piratebread (after all, they will be losing tons of money due to it) that can be toasted in any toaster and they call for laws requiring you to buy different type of bread and that the bread honour the toasters lock for type or.... wait, this sounds utterly silly, such a thing would never happen would it?
Yes, because none of them do that. And they all read every single ad in a newspaper before turning page, they stop in the subway to read each ad before jumping on the train (even if they miss 10 of them while reading the ads) and so on. Yup, seems likely...
Just wait until the toaster manufacturer finds out about this brilliant idea. They will make special toasters that only take one specific type of bread. Want to make toast of different kind of toasts? Well, get toasters that are locked to that specific kind of bread, problem solved!!!
Why should companies be able to "shop arround" then if people are not? One obvious way of course, is to start paying more for those working on int cheaper countries. Sure, cuts out some of the profit but still, helps out. I think it is quite obvious that when you start to globalize and move things around more freely, things will eventually even out unless one start to insert artifical barriers, be it for the companies or the consumers. There will always be differences of course, but I don't see any specific benefits to allowing companies but not general people to have free trade. Sure, a whole bunch of companies might be more rich than they would otherwise but that does not nessecarilly mean it is something good (except for those specific companies of course).
It was not meant to argue with you, I understood you did not take sides with what you said, my comment was more in general.
Of course costs, prices and what money people have varies. But just as companies take advantage of it, why should not the consumers? If they manage to manufacture cheap in a country were they pay les, why should I pay so much more just to have them make more money? Obvously they still make a profit by selling at those lower prices or they would not do it.
Just as companies are greedy and want to make as much money as possible, consumers are greedy in the way that they don't want to pay more than what they need. So if one go for globalisation, it works both way and I don't think it should be something just benefitting companies.
Well, since they collect all those things, the obvious thing to do if you don't like it is of course to not give your real info and just enter some bogus one. Problem in part solved.
Ahh, but you see, the world is changing, in a few years you will not at all own things you buy. In fact, you won't be buying things, you will only be licensing things. For each thing in your house, you will typically have a 10 page contract telling in detail how, when, why and under what other circumstances you are allowed to use it. Half your house will be stuffed with those contracts and you will spend 16 hours a day reading them. No, not the new ones, the same old ones, just to see if anything has changed since yesterday. Just get used to it....
So, why should Sonly be able to inport/export at will across the world but consumers should not? If they want regoin coding, why should it not also apply to their manufacturing and production for example?
Of COURSE they want to squeeze out the most money, heck, I would say they would be even more happy if no one else would be able to seel products that would compete with them, that way they can make even more money. Even better, make it mandatory for everyone to buy everything from them, instant profit as much as they want.
It is time to stop caring only about companies and start caring for the general consumers and the public as well.
>but if it is one you could get where you are, >then it hurts them because you are bypassing >their region strategic pricing...
And turning it into laws that you can't "hurt" companies that way is good how? This is typically the same companies that scream about free trade in the world is soooooo important. I guess it only applies for the companies, not for us nasty consumers who is only out for hurting those poor companies trying to make as much money as possible, how dare we interfer with that!
>1.) You look at the code, and gee, it looks the >same.
Which of course is easy if you have access to the source code of course. What about otherwise? Even if one would in some way be able to compare compiled code, how to handle those that thik EULAs are enforcable which normally prevent any way to actually look at the code.
Even with no EULAs, many copyright laws only permit for example reverse engineering for specific purposes, not to see if the code is the same as another one.
Finally, countries with DMCA like laws that include access (and not just for copyright infringement cases) have further problems to get to the actual code.
So how do one get arround all that? Indeed, disregarding GPL, how will anyone (including big software companies) really be able to check to see if someone is using their code at all?
>Big companies should just register all big top >level domains so you don't get this nonsense >later.
Out of curiosity, what would you say is the point in having all the different top level domains if each one is still assigned to the very same company???? Sort of defeats the purpose and need of them, would you not say?
From the looks of it, in many cases you can take whatever trivial or simple process and just add "with a computer" and get your patent, which to me seems completely rediculous. Try going through most of those patents and simply remove the computer part and it often gets laughable.
On the other hand, in addition for no prior art, it can't be something that is trivial to someone in the field. I would cal it trivial for someone in the field come up with the idea "lets put it all in a single file".
>In the same way that if I make files available >on my machine and you download them illegally, I >am really being held liable for your illegal >actions.
This is not really how it works. You don't get "responsible" for the copying. What happens is two different actions.
One is making a work available to the public. This is done by the one who shares. This is typically copyright infringement in most every country in most situations.
The other act is the copying, done by the downloader, this is infringement in some countries and not infringement in others. Usually the difference being if the country allows for copies made for private/personal use to not be considered infringement.
To me, the logical consequences is that a country that allows copying for private/personal use, can never outlaw the tools to copy since in most cases the it will not at all be a case of infringement.
>Did anyone else get the feeling that this guy is >saying that filesharing is illegal?
No, he is not, he is refering to filesharing illegally as oposed to filesharing legaly. If a specific filesharing is illegal or legal depends on many things, including the copyright status of what is shared, permision to do so or not or if the situation is an exception that is not an infringement and so on.
>sharing copyrighted content illegally
If I go by your initial interpretation, you seem to sugest that sharing copyrighted ccontent is illegal which is not really the case (at least not always) or you could simply drop the "illegally" and say "sharing copyrighted content. There are, depending on country of course, many cases were sharing copyrighted content is not at all illegal.
Sorry, in Sweden a parent will not be responsible for the children in such a case. The child will be the one sued and can in fact get to pay. The ammount is typically lowered with age (the youger the less) but can still be substantially. If one does not have money, it will stick arround until one DO get money, which can typically be well later in life when one grow up. But in no case will the parents have to pay anything (unless they want of course).
>AFAIK they go by a law allowing "citizens >arrest".
Not at all in this case, it was for copyright infringement.
>Anyways... This does NOT give the anti piracy >bureau any permission to enter your home or >search through your stuff.
and:
>AFAIK the raid on Bahnhof HQ was also made by >the police, on a tip from the Anti Piracy >Bureau, not by the APB itself. So... no need to >freak out in sweden.
What happens is that someone can go to court if they think they have good enough proof of copyright infringement. The court can then give permision for a sort of civil search. It is conducted by a govermental bramch though, the one normally dealing with unpaid bills and taxes and such. Such a civil searchorder can not be done versus individual people and their homes but only versus companies. Which was the cae here.
Appearantly for the search order, there need to be named specific cases of infringement, like naming specific files to search for. In this particular case, those filies (a few movie ones and a few music ones, I think 8 different in total) were NOT found. However, during the search other infromation was found which lead to Antipiratbyrån filing for the police to make a search since what they found was appearantly the file servers with quite a lot of stuff on (Bahnhof was acting as a server host so basically hosting the physical servers for others). There is some debate over if one can actually do such a thing, that is, during such a civil search for specific files, actually look for and use other information found, I guess that will be for the courts to sort out.
>The EULA says that MS is not liable for >anything, even if they know something's wrong >and even if you inform them of the problem. >Check it out. It's a hoot.
Fortunately enough, many countries doesn't allow such a behaviour and would not make it enforcable still making them liable.
>but if the law is passed, and the limit is set >at 60mph, everybody just have to slow down
Of course, but there will be no fining of all those that has been going faster in the past!
If there is any danger to existing programs it means that the new patent laws will allow for applications for things allready in use, basically allowing patents disregarding prior art. That would be a very bizare situation.
Citizens arrest, at least here in Sweden is only allowed if you actually catch someone in the process of doing the crime and in direct connection with that (when someone is running away for example). It is in addition only allowed for crimes were the penalty can include jail penalty. It does never allow anyone to search the one you catch though, you can't use more force than needed, and should then call police as soon as possible. I think that if someone is officially on "wanted" by the police, you can take them too.
For someone taking stuff from the shop, they basically need to actually have seen you take someone to be allowed to keep you (still not look in your bags though, that is for the police when they arrive).
No, not that I have ever seen, experienced or heared about. There are a few places that let you go through metal detectors (they added it after some shooting inside). They will ask you to look in bags, pockets and such if it beeps and I assume most allow. You really have the right to just say no. No idea what happens then, technically I don't think they can deny you entrance then. Reality is another thing though.
>It's up to them whether they decide that's >grounds to suspect you of shoplifting, detain >you and call the police.
What is the law in US regarding someone NOT a police (or other law enforcement) to actually detain or keep you? Just because they think so it is OK? Almost seems like a good way to kidnap people.
Same for searching someone, isn't it regulated by law? I know here in Sweden ONLY police are allowed to do so and only if you are suspected for some crime.
Slashdot Mirror
>Until you buy much less bread because it might
>not work in one of your toasters. Find the best
>bread, buy it and the toaster needed and let the
>other rot on the shelf.
Ahh, but then the breadmakers will be up in arms, claiming the fall in bread sales are due to all this piratebread (after all, they will be losing tons of money due to it) that can be toasted in any toaster and they call for laws requiring you to buy different type of bread and that the bread honour the toasters lock for type or.... wait, this sounds utterly silly, such a thing would never happen would it?
Yes, because none of them do that. And they all read every single ad in a newspaper before turning page, they stop in the subway to read each ad before jumping on the train (even if they miss 10 of them while reading the ads) and so on. Yup, seems likely...
Just wait until the toaster manufacturer finds out about this brilliant idea. They will make special toasters that only take one specific type of bread. Want to make toast of different kind of toasts? Well, get toasters that are locked to that specific kind of bread, problem solved!!!
Why should companies be able to "shop arround" then if people are not? One obvious way of course, is to start paying more for those working on int cheaper countries. Sure, cuts out some of the profit but still, helps out. I think it is quite obvious that when you start to globalize and move things around more freely, things will eventually even out unless one start to insert artifical barriers, be it for the companies or the consumers. There will always be differences of course, but I don't see any specific benefits to allowing companies but not general people to have free trade. Sure, a whole bunch of companies might be more rich than they would otherwise but that does not nessecarilly mean it is something good (except for those specific companies of course).
It was not meant to argue with you, I understood you did not take sides with what you said, my comment was more in general.
Of course costs, prices and what money people have varies. But just as companies take advantage of it, why should not the consumers? If they manage to manufacture cheap in a country were they pay les, why should I pay so much more just to have them make more money? Obvously they still make a profit by selling at those lower prices or they would not do it.
Just as companies are greedy and want to make as much money as possible, consumers are greedy in the way that they don't want to pay more than what they need. So if one go for globalisation, it works both way and I don't think it should be something just benefitting companies.
Well, since they collect all those things, the obvious thing to do if you don't like it is of course to not give your real info and just enter some bogus one. Problem in part solved.
Ahh, but you see, the world is changing, in a few years you will not at all own things you buy. In fact, you won't be buying things, you will only be licensing things. For each thing in your house, you will typically have a 10 page contract telling in detail how, when, why and under what other circumstances you are allowed to use it. Half your house will be stuffed with those contracts and you will spend 16 hours a day reading them. No, not the new ones, the same old ones, just to see if anything has changed since yesterday. Just get used to it....
So, why should Sonly be able to inport/export at will across the world but consumers should not? If they want regoin coding, why should it not also apply to their manufacturing and production for example?
Of COURSE they want to squeeze out the most money, heck, I would say they would be even more happy if no one else would be able to seel products that would compete with them, that way they can make even more money. Even better, make it mandatory for everyone to buy everything from them, instant profit as much as they want.
It is time to stop caring only about companies and start caring for the general consumers and the public as well.
>but if it is one you could get where you are,
>then it hurts them because you are bypassing
>their region strategic pricing...
And turning it into laws that you can't "hurt" companies that way is good how? This is typically the same companies that scream about free trade in the world is soooooo important. I guess it only applies for the companies, not for us nasty consumers who is only out for hurting those poor companies trying to make as much money as possible, how dare we interfer with that!
>1.) You look at the code, and gee, it looks the
>same.
Which of course is easy if you have access to the source code of course. What about otherwise? Even if one would in some way be able to compare compiled code, how to handle those that thik EULAs are enforcable which normally prevent any way to actually look at the code.
Even with no EULAs, many copyright laws only permit for example reverse engineering for specific purposes, not to see if the code is the same as another one.
Finally, countries with DMCA like laws that include access (and not just for copyright infringement cases) have further problems to get to the actual code.
So how do one get arround all that? Indeed, disregarding GPL, how will anyone (including big software companies) really be able to check to see if someone is using their code at all?
>Big companies should just register all big top
>level domains so you don't get this nonsense
>later.
Out of curiosity, what would you say is the point in having all the different top level domains if each one is still assigned to the very same company???? Sort of defeats the purpose and need of them, would you not say?
From the looks of it, in many cases you can take whatever trivial or simple process and just add "with a computer" and get your patent, which to me seems completely rediculous. Try going through most of those patents and simply remove the computer part and it often gets laughable.
On the other hand, in addition for no prior art, it can't be something that is trivial to someone in the field. I would cal it trivial for someone in the field come up with the idea "lets put it all in a single file".
>In the same way that if I make files available
>on my machine and you download them illegally, I
>am really being held liable for your illegal
>actions.
This is not really how it works. You don't get "responsible" for the copying. What happens is two different actions.
One is making a work available to the public. This is done by the one who shares. This is typically copyright infringement in most every country in most situations.
The other act is the copying, done by the downloader, this is infringement in some countries and not infringement in others. Usually the difference being if the country allows for copies made for private/personal use to not be considered infringement.
To me, the logical consequences is that a country that allows copying for private/personal use, can never outlaw the tools to copy since in most cases the it will not at all be a case of infringement.
>Did anyone else get the feeling that this guy is
>saying that filesharing is illegal?
No, he is not, he is refering to filesharing illegally as oposed to filesharing legaly. If a specific filesharing is illegal or legal depends on many things, including the copyright status of what is shared, permision to do so or not or if the situation is an exception that is not an infringement and so on.
>sharing copyrighted content illegally
If I go by your initial interpretation, you seem to sugest that sharing copyrighted ccontent is illegal which is not really the case (at least not always) or you could simply drop the "illegally" and say "sharing copyrighted content. There are, depending on country of course, many cases were sharing copyrighted content is not at all illegal.
Actually, in Sweden, this is not the case, parents are not responsible in that way you describe at all. See my post just a little bit above this one.
Sorry, in Sweden a parent will not be responsible for the children in such a case. The child will be the one sued and can in fact get to pay. The ammount is typically lowered with age (the youger the less) but can still be substantially. If one does not have money, it will stick arround until one DO get money, which can typically be well later in life when one grow up. But in no case will the parents have to pay anything (unless they want of course).
>AFAIK they go by a law allowing "citizens
>arrest".
Not at all in this case, it was for copyright infringement.
>Anyways... This does NOT give the anti piracy
>bureau any permission to enter your home or
>search through your stuff.
and:
>AFAIK the raid on Bahnhof HQ was also made by
>the police, on a tip from the Anti Piracy
>Bureau, not by the APB itself. So... no need to
>freak out in sweden.
What happens is that someone can go to court if they think they have good enough proof of copyright infringement. The court can then give permision for a sort of civil search. It is conducted by a govermental bramch though, the one normally dealing with unpaid bills and taxes and such. Such a civil searchorder can not be done versus individual people and their homes but only versus companies. Which was the cae here.
Appearantly for the search order, there need to be named specific cases of infringement, like naming specific files to search for. In this particular case, those filies (a few movie ones and a few music ones, I think 8 different in total) were NOT found. However, during the search other infromation was found which lead to Antipiratbyrån filing for the police to make a search since what they found was appearantly the file servers with quite a lot of stuff on (Bahnhof was acting as a server host so basically hosting the physical servers for others). There is some debate over if one can actually do such a thing, that is, during such a civil search for specific files, actually look for and use other information found, I guess that will be for the courts to sort out.
>The EULA says that MS is not liable for
>anything, even if they know something's wrong
>and even if you inform them of the problem.
>Check it out. It's a hoot.
Fortunately enough, many countries doesn't allow such a behaviour and would not make it enforcable still making them liable.
>but if the law is passed, and the limit is set
>at 60mph, everybody just have to slow down
Of course, but there will be no fining of all those that has been going faster in the past!
If there is any danger to existing programs it means that the new patent laws will allow for applications for things allready in use, basically allowing patents disregarding prior art. That would be a very bizare situation.
Citizens arrest, at least here in Sweden is only allowed if you actually catch someone in the process of doing the crime and in direct connection with that (when someone is running away for example). It is in addition only allowed for crimes were the penalty can include jail penalty. It does never allow anyone to search the one you catch though, you can't use more force than needed, and should then call police as soon as possible. I think that if someone is officially on "wanted" by the police, you can take them too.
For someone taking stuff from the shop, they basically need to actually have seen you take someone to be allowed to keep you (still not look in your bags though, that is for the police when they arrive).
No, not that I have ever seen, experienced or heared about. There are a few places that let you go through metal detectors (they added it after some shooting inside). They will ask you to look in bags, pockets and such if it beeps and I assume most allow. You really have the right to just say no. No idea what happens then, technically I don't think they can deny you entrance then. Reality is another thing though.
I see the directive suffer from the same "shift key stuck" bug that most EULA do as well. Strange how that bug just keeps spreading into new places...
>Just like the store is theirs, the reciept is
>mine.
Very often I don't even keep the reciept if I am just buying smaller things, food and stuff like that.
>It's up to them whether they decide that's
>grounds to suspect you of shoplifting, detain
>you and call the police.
What is the law in US regarding someone NOT a police (or other law enforcement) to actually detain or keep you? Just because they think so it is OK? Almost seems like a good way to kidnap people.
Same for searching someone, isn't it regulated by law? I know here in Sweden ONLY police are allowed to do so and only if you are suspected for some crime.