You are somewhat incorrect. DMCA type provisions on technological measures and rights management information stem from the WIPO Copyright Treaties (http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/wct/index.html ) for which there are a number of signatories. This does not _yet_ include India (although a draft has been completed: http://itmatters.com.ph/news/news_01172000a.html), but it does include other countries (not to mention the many that are still in draft stage...).
These are the equivalent to offshore tax havens, yet in the context of ipr. Expect to find that (as occurred with tax havens) pressure and other activities to reduce the usefulness of them (here you can see one of them by the BSA: http://www.financialexpress.com/print.php?content_ id=15659).
Note that a US based service providing links or references may actually be liable, I'm not sure how likely this is, but it bears mulling and thinking about.
There will be no escape from DMCA style provisions in the world. It's too late for this fight. The fight to have now is to preserve fair use, interoperability and other rights within the context of DMCA.
This has been a floating research topic in Cambridge for a long time.
The old Olivetti Research Labs (ORL) performed a lot of blue sky research activities, including production of omniORB (free CORBA ORB) and VNC (virtual network client) and so on. In fact, VNC was part of the focus on pervasive computing.
There was an umbilical cord between ORL and Cambridge Computer Laboratory with people like Andy Hopper and so on.
AT&T bought ORL in the late 1990's bringing it under its AT&T Labs arm: unfortunately it was too blue sky for AT&T is now days (e.g. AT&T Labs in Middletown NY is more commercially oriented - and as we've seen recently, they've lost a lot of fantastic talent by changing their focus) and closed in 2002.
Microsoft Research Institute in Cambridge has a lot of staff that fell out of these places, and the umbilical cords remain. It's an incestuous community (but a good one, it breeds a lot of new and interesting things).
The kinds of blue sky technologies that used to come out of these labs are now being produced by open source community.
It's nice of you to cite some patents in support of your arguement, but there's a difference between actual granted patents and whether those patents are enforceable due to novelty / inventiveness. As far as I can see there's a large body of open source software, and a large body of IETF/WWW protocols and so on, that are entirely patent free.
If that's the case how do you account for the large and vibrant patent-unencumbered open source community? Sounds like you're just throwing around a few unsubstantiated generalisations.
I made it clear in a couple of places how patents and copyright are different. I simply don't have the time to write numerous responses with detail about the differences, but it seems obvious to me (as I am trained in patents and copyright) that some of the posters here do not understand the nature of either protection (e.g. algorithms per see not protected, but algorithms implemented in software area; copyright protects copying of expression and not reverse engineering and reuse - patents exclusively prevent use whether by copying or reverse engineering).
You're citing 1991 and 1978 texts in support of your arguments? Please! Vicom and State Street Bank are mid to late 1990's decisions and supercede what goes before it. Things have moved on since '78 and '91. I'd like to refute some points in your arguments, but to try to and finese on the meaning of "as such" would take more effort than I care to outlay.
I doubt google would participate, as (a) they have a number of software related patents themselves (see below), (b) it's not in their business interest to get stuck in the middle of the debate.
"It's only codifying EPO practice and case law, which contradict both existing European and international law. Just read e.g. the WTO's explanation of TRIPs article 10 [wto.org] (which states that computer programs shall be protected as literary works): "
You also failed to understand the differences between copyright and patents - EPO practice still excludes computer programs "as such" from protection by patents.
"4) Patents are not needed if you want proprietary software. Copyright it, license it under a proprietary license, and you're protected. For someone to duplicate your work legally, they'd have to do all the code again, which is far from nontrivial."
Wrong. If you have invented an algorithm for use in software, then (a) if it is only protected by copyright, then a thirdparty can reverse engineer, extract the algorithm and reimplement in another item of software without infringing the copyright (this is "cleanrooming"). (b) if it is protected by a patent, then (a) will infringe the patent, but not the copyright.
You are another person who doesn't understand how patents and copyright works - and when I see this is the case, I can't understand how you think you can formulate good arguments on the topic.
"Imagine, on the other hand, if the inventors of HTTP, TCP/IP and other technologies had patented them and restricted their use. Imagine if every implementation of TCP/IP had to pay royalties. Imagine if every web site owner had to agree to a list of terms and conditions of use, and pay a cut of any profits to Berners Lee."
Exactly my point: the reason _why_ these technologies are not patented is because the stadnards bodies and guardians ensured that patentable technologies were not standardised. This has nothing to do with whether patents for software exist or not.
"The reason we can't think of lots of examples of harmful patents off the top of our heads, and why we rely on the good research of the FFII, and a lot of studies by economists, is that those patents have kept us in the dark."
"5. Not true. Software is already given greater protection through copyright. Copyright protection in the U.S. lasts the life of the author plus 70 years, while a patent lasts 20 years. You pose a false dilemma when you suggest that the only options are patent protection or donating your creations to the public domain. On the contrary, your software will be overly protected long after your death by an absurdly long copyright term."
If the program is only copyrighted, you can reverse engineer it, discover the algorithm, and reimplement it in a new software without infringing the original copyright. If the algorithm is patented for application in software, then you cannot do this, as the reimplementation will still infringe the patent.
You don't seem to understand the difference between how copyright or patents protect different aspects of software.
You don't seem to understand the differences between copyright and patents, nor do I have the time to educate you as there is a lot of material out there.
Copyright protection of a "compression algorithm implemented in software" would only prevent actual copying of the source code, it would not stop reverse engineering and rewriting. Patent protection would stop the latter.
"Except that software patents would bring down all three projects."
Just how do you justify this ? These are large and succesfull OSS products that are not encumbered by software patents, despite the fact that software patents already exist. I see that software patents have not stopped Linux, mysql, and various gnu and other products from success.
"2. the lawyer, i.e. case-law modified the law by decisions that perverted the meaning of the law." --- this is how the law works, it's a refining action between the legislature and the judiciary.
"This is not the way patent law works in reality, a patent cost 60 000 Eur minimum legal fees. You cannot patent algorithms, but a patent attorney can write it in order to circumvent the law." -- you misunderstood mean: you can patent an algorithm as embodied in a software program, but you cannot patent the algorithm itself - I certainly didn't mean the latter.
Your point is not well focused: it's not (a) about the nature of the fair use (which you talk about), but it's (b) about the ability to make the fair use. You can't even start talking about (a) without getting past (b). In this case, the DMCA and technological measures are blocking (b).
Your arguments about MP3 are messed up too, but I don't have time to correct you (but quickly: "technology to permit these personal uses is built in" -- this not fair use, this is just the technology giving you a licensing option).
Here are some points in favour of the EU legislation:
1- software patents already exist, have been granted and so on (e.g. GIF in the US, for example, but others in the EU) - in the EU, it was confirmed by the Vicom case; 2- the legislation is _merely_ codifying case law practice into statutory to law to reduce the level of confusion (so you don't have to refer to case law); 3- despite the presence of software patents (e.g. gif), the progress of linux and open source has _not_ been hampered - in fact, in most cases, the presence of patents causes people to make workarounds, some of which are _better_ that the original patents (e.g. GIF -> PNG/JPG; VRRP -> CARP/PFSYNC); 4- stopping this legislation will not stop software being patentable because it already is (see 1 above); 5- not allowing patents for software means that you remove individual rights to the protection of the fruits of their labour - you _enforce_ an "open" social model on their inventions;
The FFII information is pure FUD - "for the last few years the European Patent Office (EPO) has, contrary to the letter and spirit of the existing law, granted more than 30000 patents " because the terms of the EPC (european patent convention) have been clearly interpreted that it is only software _as such_ (e.g. a whole program) not (a) systems that incorporate software as an element, or (b) technical mechanisms within the software.
If I invent a new compression algorithm that is patentable, sure I want to _have the choice_ to either (a) patent it and make money from the patent, (b) dedicate it to the public domain for all to use. If FFII had their choice, then my freedom for (a) would be removed, for some "specious" allegation that software patents are hindering innovation, when, in fact, the swathe of open source software and internet protocols/technology are evidence that software patents have not done anything to hinder innovation.
I don't want rights to my inventive creations to be removed. I want the choice, and what I want the open source community is do is to educate me on how to use my choice, not to impose it upon me.
It's difficult to define and enforce this across the swathe of software products, but one way to start is to require it for government purchasing contracts: forcing major vendors (e.g. microsoft _and_ open source vendors!) to start the ball rolling. Once it gets ironed out after a couple of years, then roll it out further.
Copyright gives you fair use of _any_ expression: this includes the "mere wrapper" that goes around the audio, in the same way that there are separate copyrights in a physical envelope and the document inside it, and you get fair use of either.
You say "say what you will about the DMCA, it's the law, and breaking it is not guaranteed by copyright law": and this is actually my main point: the extend to which DMCA suppresses legitimate rights to fair use under copyright. It's something that there seems to be no clarity over, and where clarity is really needed.
Sorry - you fundamentally misunderstand the way the world works: contractual rights cannot in any way supress legislative rights; meaning that even if you _agree_ knowingly to a contract that has a clause saying "you can't fair use this work", then that clause is unenforceable by the other party even though you agreed to it.
It's not so black and white. On the one hand, you are licensed the music under an agreement, so they are free to use technological measures to effect that agreement. However, legally they can only do that to the extent allowed by copyright law: copyright law allows fair use, so you are allowed to make fair use. Such a program enables you to make fair use (as much as looping an analog cable from your speaker back into the mic does as well), but of course it also enables you to do other things that violate the license agreement -- and this fine line is the important one.
The same goes for dual VCR's which were opposed when initially marketed, but couldn't be suppressed because although they could be used to do wrong, they can also be used to do right: and the courts can't allow the device to be suppressed just for this reason, otherwise they'd be able to suppress knives and all sorts of things that have dangerous uses.
Something like PlayFair would make a fantastic test case to see how the courts draw the line between the users right to effect some means for fair use, because it's a large debate at the moment about how technological measures suppress legitimate fair use, and there's surely a fine line between the DMCA rights management provisions and the allowance for fair use that we need some enlightened opinion on - until we get that opinion we have so much FUD.
In some places, e.g. UK, the authors of a work can assert "moral rights" and object to derogatory treatment and so on - in France the ability to do this is stronger (interesting, the US consistently resisted implementing moral rights to satisfy Berne). It's impossible to transfer these moral rights: they _always_ remain with the original authors, even if the publishers own the economic rights in the copyright. I wonder if this kind of manipulation to the text could be objected to by the authors, on the grounds that it is subjecting their work to derogatory treatment. One of the problems with moral rights is that there is little case law: they've been _very_ hard to pursue, the court have been very relucant to give authors leverage over publishers and those who own the economic rights.
Popups clearly do not affect the work per se, they just add junk around the edges. Same goes for all other sorts of advertising. Also, some reasonable allowance is made for commercial purposes (e.g. splitting a work up into separate parts to make it easier for people to read it, or whatever). However, this new type of advertising is really quite insidious: it manipulates the text, and possibly it can be considered derogatory because the authors of the text may mean one thing, but the "subtext" of the advertising message may suggest something else: I mean, authors often leave words and phrases to the interpretation of the reader, but when you overload those words with advertising, the advertising may "suggest" something that the author did not intend. I think there's a lot of scope of problems here.
It depends on your usage doesn't it. Here's the cost comparison (it could be more comprehensive) between UK GPRS and this WIFI service, assuming a usage of 1MB of traffic (quite a reasonable figure if you're interactively web surfing). If you're smart about understanding your needs, it could be a good thing, otherwise possibly a waste of money (but hey, I'm assuming that more than half the people that read slashdot buy new technologies for the neat-o-factor rather than doing the economics, and therefore pay more than they really need to).
GPRS = _theoretical_ maximum of 0.17mbps, say from 7.30/MB (no monthly rental), down to 3.50p/MB (17.50 monthly rental). not to mention the slow access rate.
WIFI (probably 802.11b at least) = 11mbps [not including contention ratio in the link between the train and the access point], better access rate, and 4.95
It's not that expensive: you've obviously never left home and backpacked: I've been to cybercafe's all around Europe, and although the prices are better now, about 4-5 years ago, 5GBP per hour would have at the upper limit, but not considered expensive.
You should also read up on economics while you're at it: of course GPRS and related services are expensive: have you seen how much it costs to develop, rollout and manage the technology? It's a lot more than simply providing dialup 56K access. Companies have to return a profit so they can pay their workers and provide for their shareholders, and therefore keep all us in houses and with future pensions.
Same in this case: installing and managing the wifi service actually costs money, so it's generally a good business model that you try and reclaim some of that back: the train company isn't a charity for rolling out new technologies.
I appreciate your concerns, we all do: everyone wants to see future technologies come into use at good prices, but reality is a little different: it takes a while for it to all roll in and the prices to reduce.
I'm waiting for someone to introduce standard response templates to/.: we can all say time educating people like yourself and just throw you an intro to "economics and how the world goes around".
Idiot: he might end up with an expensive civil suit if he took your advice, the guy needs to speak to someone who has a clue about trademarks, and preferably someone with legal training. Honestly, these type of questions are similar to "I've noticed small lumps around my testicles, what do I do?" - the answer is that there's a lot of your time, effort and money riding on the answer: you go straight to professional advice. If you can't afford professional advice, well just ride the risk or don't play in the game.
Slashdot Mirror
You are somewhat incorrect. DMCA type provisions on technological measures and rights management information stem from the WIPO Copyright Treaties (http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/wct/index.html ) for which there are a number of signatories. This does not _yet_ include India (although a draft has been completed: http://itmatters.com.ph/news/news_01172000a.html), but it does include other countries (not to mention the many that are still in draft stage ...).
_ id=15659).
These are the equivalent to offshore tax havens, yet in the context of ipr. Expect to find that (as occurred with tax havens) pressure and other activities to reduce the usefulness of them (here you can see one of them by the BSA: http://www.financialexpress.com/print.php?content
Note that a US based service providing links or references may actually be liable, I'm not sure how likely this is, but it bears mulling and thinking about.
There will be no escape from DMCA style provisions in the world. It's too late for this fight. The fight to have now is to preserve fair use, interoperability and other rights within the context of DMCA.
This has been a floating research topic in Cambridge for a long time.
The old Olivetti Research Labs (ORL) performed a lot of blue sky research activities, including production of omniORB (free CORBA ORB) and VNC (virtual network client) and so on. In fact, VNC was part of the focus on pervasive computing.
There was an umbilical cord between ORL and Cambridge Computer Laboratory with people like Andy Hopper and so on.
AT&T bought ORL in the late 1990's bringing it under its AT&T Labs arm: unfortunately it was too blue sky for AT&T is now days (e.g. AT&T Labs in Middletown NY is more commercially oriented - and as we've seen recently, they've lost a lot of fantastic talent by changing their focus) and closed in 2002.
Microsoft Research Institute in Cambridge has a lot of staff that fell out of these places, and the umbilical cords remain. It's an incestuous community (but a good one, it breeds a lot of new and interesting things).
The kinds of blue sky technologies that used to come out of these labs are now being produced by open source community.
"How even though given the anti-intellectual culture"
-- the rover is more about science, engineering and pioneering than it is about anything intellectual.
It's nice of you to cite some patents in support of your arguement, but there's a difference between actual granted patents and whether those patents are enforceable due to novelty / inventiveness. As far as I can see there's a large body of open source software, and a large body of IETF/WWW protocols and so on, that are entirely patent free.
If that's the case how do you account for the large and vibrant patent-unencumbered open source community? Sounds like you're just throwing around a few unsubstantiated generalisations.
I made it clear in a couple of places how patents and copyright are different. I simply don't have the time to write numerous responses with detail about the differences, but it seems obvious to me (as I am trained in patents and copyright) that some of the posters here do not understand the nature of either protection (e.g. algorithms per see not protected, but algorithms implemented in software area; copyright protects copying of expression and not reverse engineering and reuse - patents exclusively prevent use whether by copying or reverse engineering).
You're citing 1991 and 1978 texts in support of your arguments? Please! Vicom and State Street Bank are mid to late 1990's decisions and supercede what goes before it. Things have moved on since '78 and '91. I'd like to refute some points in your arguments, but to try to and finese on the meaning of "as such" would take more effort than I care to outlay.
I doubt google would participate, as (a) they have a number of software related patents themselves (see below), (b) it's not in their business interest to get stuck in the middle of the debate.
6,678,681
6,658,423
6,615,209
6,529,903
6,5
"It's only codifying EPO practice and case law, which contradict both existing European and international law. Just read e.g. the WTO's explanation of TRIPs article 10 [wto.org] (which states that computer programs shall be protected as literary works): "
You also failed to understand the differences between copyright and patents - EPO practice still excludes computer programs "as such" from protection by patents.
"4) Patents are not needed if you want proprietary software. Copyright it, license it under a proprietary license, and you're protected. For someone to duplicate your work legally, they'd have to do all the code again, which is far from nontrivial."
Wrong. If you have invented an algorithm for use in software, then
(a) if it is only protected by copyright, then a thirdparty can reverse engineer, extract the algorithm and reimplement in another item of software without infringing the copyright (this is "cleanrooming").
(b) if it is protected by a patent, then (a) will infringe the patent, but not the copyright.
You are another person who doesn't understand how patents and copyright works - and when I see this is the case, I can't understand how you think you can formulate good arguments on the topic.
"Imagine, on the other hand, if the inventors of HTTP, TCP/IP and other technologies had patented them and restricted their use. Imagine if every implementation of TCP/IP had to pay royalties. Imagine if every web site owner had to agree to a list of terms and conditions of use, and pay a cut of any profits to Berners Lee."
Exactly my point: the reason _why_ these technologies are not patented is because the stadnards bodies and guardians ensured that patentable technologies were not standardised. This has nothing to do with whether patents for software exist or not.
"The reason we can't think of lots of examples of harmful patents off the top of our heads, and why we rely on the good research of the FFII, and a lot of studies by economists, is that those patents have kept us in the dark."
Ohh, now I realise how bad your argument is
"5. Not true. Software is already given greater protection through copyright. Copyright protection in the U.S. lasts the life of the author plus 70 years, while a patent lasts 20 years. You pose a false dilemma when you suggest that the only options are patent protection or donating your creations to the public domain. On the contrary, your software will be overly protected long after your death by an absurdly long copyright term."
If the program is only copyrighted, you can reverse engineer it, discover the algorithm, and reimplement it in a new software without infringing the original copyright. If the algorithm is patented for application in software, then you cannot do this, as the reimplementation will still infringe the patent.
You don't seem to understand the difference between how copyright or patents protect different aspects of software.
"Only parliament has legislative powers and can express the will of the people."
Very funny, and completely untrue.
"Read a few patents, dig further into the law and get yourself informed."
I'm sure I've read more patents than you have.
The rest of your argument adds nothing to the debate.
You don't seem to understand the differences between copyright and patents, nor do I have the time to educate you as there is a lot of material out there.
Copyright protection of a "compression algorithm implemented in software" would only prevent actual copying of the source code, it would not stop reverse engineering and rewriting. Patent protection would stop the latter.
"Except that software patents would bring down all three projects."
Just how do you justify this ? These are large and succesfull OSS products that are not encumbered by software patents, despite the fact that software patents already exist. I see that software patents have not stopped Linux, mysql, and various gnu and other products from success.
You have many mistakes:
"2. the lawyer, i.e. case-law modified the law by decisions that perverted the meaning of the law." --- this is how the law works, it's a refining action between the legislature and the judiciary.
"This is not the way patent law works in reality, a patent cost 60 000 Eur minimum legal fees. You cannot patent algorithms, but a patent attorney can write it in order to circumvent the law." -- you misunderstood mean: you can patent an algorithm as embodied in a software program, but you cannot patent the algorithm itself - I certainly didn't mean the latter.
etc.
Your point is not well focused: it's not (a) about the nature of the fair use (which you talk about), but it's (b) about the ability to make the fair use. You can't even start talking about (a) without getting past (b). In this case, the DMCA and technological measures are blocking (b).
Your arguments about MP3 are messed up too, but I don't have time to correct you (but quickly: "technology to permit these personal uses is built in" -- this not fair use, this is just the technology giving you a licensing option).
Here are some points in favour of the EU legislation:
1- software patents already exist, have been granted and so on (e.g. GIF in the US, for example, but others in the EU) - in the EU, it was confirmed by the Vicom case;
2- the legislation is _merely_ codifying case law practice into statutory to law to reduce the level of confusion (so you don't have to refer to case law);
3- despite the presence of software patents (e.g. gif), the progress of linux and open source has _not_ been hampered - in fact, in most cases, the presence of patents causes people to make workarounds, some of which are _better_ that the original patents (e.g. GIF -> PNG/JPG; VRRP -> CARP/PFSYNC);
4- stopping this legislation will not stop software being patentable because it already is (see 1 above);
5- not allowing patents for software means that you remove individual rights to the protection of the fruits of their labour - you _enforce_ an "open" social model on their inventions;
The FFII information is pure FUD - "for the last few years the European Patent Office (EPO) has, contrary to the letter and spirit of the existing law, granted more than 30000 patents " because the terms of the EPC (european patent convention) have been clearly interpreted that it is only software _as such_ (e.g. a whole program) not (a) systems that incorporate software as an element, or (b) technical mechanisms within the software.
If I invent a new compression algorithm that is patentable, sure I want to _have the choice_ to either (a) patent it and make money from the patent, (b) dedicate it to the public domain for all to use. If FFII had their choice, then my freedom for (a) would be removed, for some "specious" allegation that software patents are hindering innovation, when, in fact, the swathe of open source software and internet protocols/technology are evidence that software patents have not done anything to hinder innovation.
I don't want rights to my inventive creations to be removed. I want the choice, and what I want the open source community is do is to educate me on how to use my choice, not to impose it upon me.
It's difficult to define and enforce this across the swathe of software products, but one way to start is to require it for government purchasing contracts: forcing major vendors (e.g. microsoft _and_ open source vendors!) to start the ball rolling. Once it gets ironed out after a couple of years, then roll it out further.
Good idea though.
Copyright gives you fair use of _any_ expression: this includes the "mere wrapper" that goes around the audio, in the same way that there are separate copyrights in a physical envelope and the document inside it, and you get fair use of either.
You say "say what you will about the DMCA, it's the law, and breaking it is not guaranteed by copyright law": and this is actually my main point: the extend to which DMCA suppresses legitimate rights to fair use under copyright. It's something that there seems to be no clarity over, and where clarity is really needed.
Sorry - you fundamentally misunderstand the way the world works: contractual rights cannot in any way supress legislative rights; meaning that even if you _agree_ knowingly to a contract that has a clause saying "you can't fair use this work", then that clause is unenforceable by the other party even though you agreed to it.
You can in fact make fair use of GPL'd work, btw.
It's not so black and white. On the one hand, you are licensed the music under an agreement, so they are free to use technological measures to effect that agreement. However, legally they can only do that to the extent allowed by copyright law: copyright law allows fair use, so you are allowed to make fair use. Such a program enables you to make fair use (as much as looping an analog cable from your speaker back into the mic does as well), but of course it also enables you to do other things that violate the license agreement -- and this fine line is the important one.
The same goes for dual VCR's which were opposed when initially marketed, but couldn't be suppressed because although they could be used to do wrong, they can also be used to do right: and the courts can't allow the device to be suppressed just for this reason, otherwise they'd be able to suppress knives and all sorts of things that have dangerous uses.
Something like PlayFair would make a fantastic test case to see how the courts draw the line between the users right to effect some means for fair use, because it's a large debate at the moment about how technological measures suppress legitimate fair use, and there's surely a fine line between the DMCA rights management provisions and the allowance for fair use that we need some enlightened opinion on - until we get that opinion we have so much FUD.
In some places, e.g. UK, the authors of a work can assert "moral rights" and object to derogatory treatment and so on - in France the ability to do this is stronger (interesting, the US consistently resisted implementing moral rights to satisfy Berne). It's impossible to transfer these moral rights: they _always_ remain with the original authors, even if the publishers own the economic rights in the copyright. I wonder if this kind of manipulation to the text could be objected to by the authors, on the grounds that it is subjecting their work to derogatory treatment. One of the problems with moral rights is that there is little case law: they've been _very_ hard to pursue, the court have been very relucant to give authors leverage over publishers and those who own the economic rights.
Popups clearly do not affect the work per se, they just add junk around the edges. Same goes for all other sorts of advertising. Also, some reasonable allowance is made for commercial purposes (e.g. splitting a work up into separate parts to make it easier for people to read it, or whatever). However, this new type of advertising is really quite insidious: it manipulates the text, and possibly it can be considered derogatory because the authors of the text may mean one thing, but the "subtext" of the advertising message may suggest something else: I mean, authors often leave words and phrases to the interpretation of the reader, but when you overload those words with advertising, the advertising may "suggest" something that the author did not intend. I think there's a lot of scope of problems here.
It depends on your usage doesn't it. Here's the cost comparison (it could be more comprehensive) between UK GPRS and this WIFI service, assuming a usage of 1MB of traffic (quite a reasonable figure if you're interactively web surfing). If you're smart about understanding your needs, it could be a good thing, otherwise possibly a waste of money (but hey, I'm assuming that more than half the people that read slashdot buy new technologies for the neat-o-factor rather than doing the economics, and therefore pay more than they really need to).
GPRS = _theoretical_ maximum of 0.17mbps, say from 7.30/MB (no monthly rental), down to 3.50p/MB (17.50 monthly rental). not to mention the slow access rate.
WIFI (probably 802.11b at least) = 11mbps [not including contention ratio in the link between the train and the access point], better access rate, and 4.95
I think you need a lecture on economics 101.
It's not that expensive: you've obviously never left home and backpacked: I've been to cybercafe's all around Europe, and although the prices are better now, about 4-5 years ago, 5GBP per hour would have at the upper limit, but not considered expensive.
You should also read up on economics while you're at it: of course GPRS and related services are expensive: have you seen how much it costs to develop, rollout and manage the technology? It's a lot more than simply providing dialup 56K access. Companies have to return a profit so they can pay their workers and provide for their shareholders, and therefore keep all us in houses and with future pensions.
Same in this case: installing and managing the wifi service actually costs money, so it's generally a good business model that you try and reclaim some of that back: the train company isn't a charity for rolling out new technologies.
I appreciate your concerns, we all do: everyone wants to see future technologies come into use at good prices, but reality is a little different: it takes a while for it to all roll in and the prices to reduce.
I'm waiting for someone to introduce standard response templates to
Use your imagination.
Idiot: he might end up with an expensive civil suit if he took your advice, the guy needs to speak to someone who has a clue about trademarks, and preferably someone with legal training. Honestly, these type of questions are similar to "I've noticed small lumps around my testicles, what do I do?" - the answer is that there's a lot of your time, effort and money riding on the answer: you go straight to professional advice. If you can't afford professional advice, well just ride the risk or don't play in the game.