This is the crux of the problem: any language is ultimately at risk of subversion if it is not sandboxed properly. For real security: virtual machines are the way to go: this is what granular processes offer, but something finer is required to make it work properly.
What's the problem? If you don't want to use the BBC content, don't run their P2P software. If you do, then realise that all the money and effort they've invested in the material is being given to you for the "small price" of having to reshare the content.
Even if you don't want to code in your career, you should do some of it in your CS degree: otherwise you won't have a rounded appreciation of what it takes to do the coding, especially when you're interfacing with coders (you seem to want to take on a less-than hard-core style of CS career).
Sure, I'm a BEng and I write high level code, not assembler or microcode: yet I had to do a number of assember and microcode classes at university even though I knew I would never want to use the skills: the point is that I'm a better high level designer and coder because I understand what's around me, not just superficially, but from the hard lessons of doing it.
Life is too full of people that "think" they know how to do something without ever having to do it. The benefit of a university education is that you're supposed to have depth in what you do, and what's _around_ what you do. That depth best comes from some actual experience, not just from a few paragraphs in a text book. The world will be a better place because we'll all understand more about the landscape rather than our narrow focus.
Recently I have had to use these job boards: I find that although the specific positions are not always of interest, I am able to spot a couple of agencies that advertise jobs of the "right style" or "right industry", etc. What I do then is contact the agency and try to form a better individual relationship: the more savvy consultants have their contacts, and if you're a good candidate, they may be able to forward off your CV to someone even though no actual job exists. Good companies are always willing to hire the right sort of talent speculatively (that's what makes them good companies...).
If that is what the FFII is arguing (and your points are very well informed and valid), then why doesn't FFII explain that in its press releases rather than going for the loaded jargon in a way that seems to argue for dismissal of the entire law. As far as I can see - your points are not FUD, but the press release certain smells of it.
The IP enforcement directive has nothing to do with DMCA, software patents etc: it's purely about effective copyright enforcement. This works for open source community as well: it can more effectively pursue actions against abusive uses of the GPL and related licenses.
The FFII is putting out a lot of FUD about this directive. It merely harmonises law across states: it does not increase it (except for those states that have poor IP law).
The alert is couched in the kind of rhetoric that does nothing to establish civilized debate (they used terms like "pull an SCO", "nuclear weapons" of IP law enforcement, etc) but you usually find with FUD.
The "anton piller" orders (i.e. search and seizure) they get so upset about are already available in many jurisdictions (e.g. the UK), all the directive is doing is making sure that the same procedures can be used across all EU member states, otherwise copyright infringers are able to locate their activities in a low-enforcement-quality state and make copyright law ineffective elsewhere in the EU.
It's total FUD by the FFII that "In Europe these kinds of investigatory procedures are more usually associated with criminal proceedings with a much higher standard of proof": anyone with legal training (i.e. someone like me) will tell you that these orders are routinely used in civil actions, they are not "more usually" associated with criminal proceedings. There is already a very high standard of proof required by judges for anyone trying to use these orders: in fact, the proof and consequences are such that most lawyers will tell you that wherever possible try to avoid them, only use them when they are really needed: the whole purpose of these orders is to prevent an infringer from dumping evidence (e.g. flushing it down the toilet).
So when FFII blocks this directive, and then we find a commercial company operating out of a new EU member state where enforcement is not harmonised that's abusing the GPL, and no one can take action to prevent that GPL abuse, then we'll find out how happy FFII about the state of IP enforcement. I would think that it's in the interest of the open source community to look for more effective IP enforcement measures, but to prevent any IP protection measures that stifle open source. These kind of enforcement harmonisation has no negative effect on open source: in fact, it goes some what to helping the situation.
Some of the rich people that decide to "dabble" in wine making actually do a fantastic job because (a) they're the type of people that put 150% into, and make a success of, most things they do by nature, (b) they're quite seriously funded and organise the right consultants and resources to get the job done properly.
Looks like I read it backwards. Still got modded up to 5 though:-). Says a lot for the quality of material and people on slashdot. It's 3am where I am, so at least I have an excuse, but you guys on the east coast in the late evening don't have much of an excuse:-).
A large proportion of the wine industry is built on "rich guys" who want a hobby vineyard to play with. Some of them actually make marketable wine: some make outstanding wine (because they can afford the consultants to organise the viticulture and the subsequent winemaking). The most famous example in napa valley (CA) is Francis Ford Coppola.
Why is this being reporting ? There's no way the Supreme Court will allow the officer to get away with this. It would create a horrible precedent: citizens would be obliged to take instruction from people they can't authenticate.
What more to say ? Any real engineer has a "toolkit" of languages they use to put things together: I find "shell" to be glue, and "perl" to be rapid production of do-anything using CPAN modules. That's perl's niche.
Copyright cannot lapse per se, the right is unconditionally granted and there is no concept of abandonment (which you can do with patents and trademarks): however, if a copyright owner didn't take any action against infringements - when it knew that they were happening - it could be a good arguement that the owner has "allowed" an implicit license to come into effect. This is just a common legal principle of estoppel: if you passively consent to something, it becomes difficult to later turn around and retract.
It's not a negative reflection on you: in fact, it's a reflection that you're willing to take on the employer's best interests: the fact that they dumped you after 5 weeks seems like poor planning on their behalf. Just describe it like it is.
> They already evalute each patent on a case-by-case basis, so I hardly think it would be unworkable.
They evaluate for one dimension of patentability (novelty, inventive step) without any assesment of qualititative value. Your proposing to burden the patent system with having to assess how "good" each invention is: I think that's just simply not practical.
I agree with you but Microsoft has a history of building into its operating system what was previously provided by third-party vendor. There's a long history of evidence that this has neutralised competition.
Unbundling is a good idea, but like all the discussion shows, it's hard to draw the line about what components are "inherent" to the OS, and what are "extras". Things like Media Player and Browser are difficult because they can infact be so tied into the fabric of the OS that is arguable that they are just a part of the OS that is now more advanced than a simple text window. Something like Outlook or Outlook Express is perhaps less like an inherent part of the OS.
But once this hard line is drawn, then the answer seems simple: vendors must make these features optional if it will lead to proper economics for the customer. Sure OpenBSD comes with everything: but it's free and no cost (and, in fact, you can choose to only install the base system...); but in the case of Windows, why should the consumer be forced to pay for the Windows Media technology if they don't want it ? It doesn't cost Microsoft nothing to build the Windows Media software - they must account for it in the total cost of Windows base system - they should be forced to make life better for consumers and unbundle it.
That's the crux of the issue: proper choice and cost for the consumer - proper transparency and not using the dominant position with the OS to continually "sneak in" new features with no opt-out to maintain the dominant position.
You rely on the fact that "ideas can be duplicated without effort": please remember that while duplication of ideas costs near zero, the development of those ideas can cost quite a lot. In fact, you are making the argument for the patent system: it recognises that ideas take time/effort/cost to produce, yet can be stolen in an instant: hence the 20 year protection.
case-by-case would be too unworkable: the system is not perfect because it tries to accomodate the entire swathe of inventions with a single brush, of course some are less deserving than others. If there are systemic problems (e.g. a whole field looks like it isn't working in the system properly) then perhaps some adjustments are necessary: this happens with pharamaceutical inventions that can obtain a few extra years.
next, you need to look at how the system works: there are other patent systems in other countries that have _no_ examination of the patent for substantive content, or the examination occurs many years later: it's not just about what patents are granted, it's about what ones stand up in the test of time.
You have a bit of a twisted perspective on the world. The so called "people" you refer to are just average people like you or I that happen to work for a company where resources are marshalled in a different way. If you don't think you fare a chance as an independent person, join a collective enterprise where you can marshall resources.
Your argument sounds good except that you say intellectual property isn't property because it is shareable. Just because it has different attributes like shareability doesn't make it less property. I mean, if we really want to go down this route, then I'll find you a tribal society that disagrees with the whole western notion of "property" as applied to even tangible goods, let alone intangibles. Also, scarcity doesn't diminish the fact that something is property. I don't know where you get your strange assumptions from.
Now, we're also not talking about government granted monopolies: if you look at your dear US constitution, you'll find that patents and copyrights are provided by the people for the people for the purposes of advancement of technology and science. Yes, there has to be a balance.
The patent system awards the first to invent (or, outside of the US, the first to file), and it's just tough luck if someone beats you to it. That's life in a competitive system. If you don't like it, change society or live in a commune where another resource allocation method is used.
Read the US constitution and find that the patent system is there for the people too - that includes you and I as creative individuals. The bargain is a _limited_ monopoly for 20 years. 20 years if not a bad payoff for the time and effort and risks involved in pursuing inventions.
Wrong: The WINE project could clean room it: get a bunch of people to work through the W2K source code and throw concepts, ideas and other things over the fence: this doesn't break copyright law, and if the concepts/ideas/etc are not covered by patents, then it doesn't break anything else. IBM pioneered clean rooming, and plenty of people do it.
It seems as though you introduced yourself into the career ladder game, which means you asked for this: it's standard procedure, you're being asked to "fix up" a dysfunctional team, and if you take on the role and do the work, then you'll be somewhat fast tracked as a "doer" and "fixer".
If you don't take on the role, you're not going to be given another like it soon, and you may get an opportunity to move up, but it's not going to happen fast. If you _really_ want to be a "doer" and "fixer", then you can't pick and choose: you take what's offered and make it happen - that's the essence of being marked as someone who can be relied upon.
Slashdot Mirror
This is the crux of the problem: any language is ultimately at risk of subversion if it is not sandboxed properly. For real security: virtual machines are the way to go: this is what granular processes offer, but something finer is required to make it work properly.
What's the problem? If you don't want to use the BBC content, don't run their P2P software. If you do, then realise that all the money and effort they've invested in the material is being given to you for the "small price" of having to reshare the content.
Even if you don't want to code in your career, you should do some of it in your CS degree: otherwise you won't have a rounded appreciation of what it takes to do the coding, especially when you're interfacing with coders (you seem to want to take on a less-than hard-core style of CS career).
Sure, I'm a BEng and I write high level code, not assembler or microcode: yet I had to do a number of assember and microcode classes at university even though I knew I would never want to use the skills: the point is that I'm a better high level designer and coder because I understand what's around me, not just superficially, but from the hard lessons of doing it.
Life is too full of people that "think" they know how to do something without ever having to do it. The benefit of a university education is that you're supposed to have depth in what you do, and what's _around_ what you do. That depth best comes from some actual experience, not just from a few paragraphs in a text book. The world will be a better place because we'll all understand more about the landscape rather than our narrow focus.
Just to make sure you've done the job properly, let me know your IP and whether the drive is shared via donkey, bt or gnutella
Recently I have had to use these job boards: I find that although the specific positions are not always of interest, I am able to spot a couple of agencies that advertise jobs of the "right style" or "right industry", etc. What I do then is contact the agency and try to form a better individual relationship: the more savvy consultants have their contacts, and if you're a good candidate, they may be able to forward off your CV to someone even though no actual job exists. Good companies are always willing to hire the right sort of talent speculatively (that's what makes them good companies
If that is what the FFII is arguing (and your points are very well informed and valid), then why doesn't FFII explain that in its press releases rather than going for the loaded jargon in a way that seems to argue for dismissal of the entire law. As far as I can see - your points are not FUD, but the press release certain smells of it.
The IP enforcement directive has nothing to do with DMCA, software patents etc: it's purely about effective copyright enforcement. This works for open source community as well: it can more effectively pursue actions against abusive uses of the GPL and related licenses.
I did raise what my issues were with the FFII's statement: didn't you read the rest of the post?
The FFII is putting out a lot of FUD about this directive. It merely harmonises law across states: it does not increase it (except for those states that have poor IP law).
The alert is couched in the kind of rhetoric that does nothing to establish civilized debate (they used terms like "pull an SCO", "nuclear weapons" of IP law enforcement, etc) but you usually find with FUD.
The "anton piller" orders (i.e. search and seizure) they get so upset about are already available in many jurisdictions (e.g. the UK), all the directive is doing is making sure that the same procedures can be used across all EU member states, otherwise copyright infringers are able to locate their activities in a low-enforcement-quality state and make copyright law ineffective elsewhere in the EU.
It's total FUD by the FFII that "In Europe these kinds of investigatory procedures are more usually associated with criminal proceedings with a much higher standard of proof": anyone with legal training (i.e. someone like me) will tell you that these orders are routinely used in civil actions, they are not "more usually" associated with criminal proceedings. There is already a very high standard of proof required by judges for anyone trying to use these orders: in fact, the proof and consequences are such that most lawyers will tell you that wherever possible try to avoid them, only use them when they are really needed: the whole purpose of these orders is to prevent an infringer from dumping evidence (e.g. flushing it down the toilet).
So when FFII blocks this directive, and then we find a commercial company operating out of a new EU member state where enforcement is not harmonised that's abusing the GPL, and no one can take action to prevent that GPL abuse, then we'll find out how happy FFII about the state of IP enforcement. I would think that it's in the interest of the open source community to look for more effective IP enforcement measures, but to prevent any IP protection measures that stifle open source. These kind of enforcement harmonisation has no negative effect on open source: in fact, it goes some what to helping the situation.
Some of the rich people that decide to "dabble" in wine making actually do a fantastic job because (a) they're the type of people that put 150% into, and make a success of, most things they do by nature, (b) they're quite seriously funded and organise the right consultants and resources to get the job done properly.
Look at Graham Beck in SA for example.
Coppola does get a lot of trade on his name.
Looks like I read it backwards. Still got modded up to 5 though
A large proportion of the wine industry is built on "rich guys" who want a hobby vineyard to play with. Some of them actually make marketable wine: some make outstanding wine (because they can afford the consultants to organise the viticulture and the subsequent winemaking). The most famous example in napa valley (CA) is Francis Ford Coppola.
Why is this being reporting ? There's no way the Supreme Court will allow the officer to get away with this. It would create a horrible precedent: citizens would be obliged to take instruction from people they can't authenticate.
What more to say ? Any real engineer has a "toolkit" of languages they use to put things together: I find "shell" to be glue, and "perl" to be rapid production of do-anything using CPAN modules. That's perl's niche.
Copyright cannot lapse per se, the right is unconditionally granted and there is no concept of abandonment (which you can do with patents and trademarks): however, if a copyright owner didn't take any action against infringements - when it knew that they were happening - it could be a good arguement that the owner has "allowed" an implicit license to come into effect. This is just a common legal principle of estoppel: if you passively consent to something, it becomes difficult to later turn around and retract.
It's not a negative reflection on you: in fact, it's a reflection that you're willing to take on the employer's best interests: the fact that they dumped you after 5 weeks seems like poor planning on their behalf. Just describe it like it is.
> They already evalute each patent on a case-by-case basis, so I hardly think it would be unworkable.
They evaluate for one dimension of patentability (novelty, inventive step) without any assesment of qualititative value. Your proposing to burden the patent system with having to assess how "good" each invention is: I think that's just simply not practical.
I agree with you but Microsoft has a history of building into its operating system what was previously provided by third-party vendor. There's a long history of evidence that this has neutralised competition.
Unbundling is a good idea, but like all the discussion shows, it's hard to draw the line about what components are "inherent" to the OS, and what are "extras". Things like Media Player and Browser are difficult because they can infact be so tied into the fabric of the OS that is arguable that they are just a part of the OS that is now more advanced than a simple text window. Something like Outlook or Outlook Express is perhaps less like an inherent part of the OS.
But once this hard line is drawn, then the answer seems simple: vendors must make these features optional if it will lead to proper economics for the customer. Sure OpenBSD comes with everything: but it's free and no cost (and, in fact, you can choose to only install the base system
That's the crux of the issue: proper choice and cost for the consumer - proper transparency and not using the dominant position with the OS to continually "sneak in" new features with no opt-out to maintain the dominant position.
You rely on the fact that "ideas can be duplicated without effort": please remember that while duplication of ideas costs near zero, the development of those ideas can cost quite a lot. In fact, you are making the argument for the patent system: it recognises that ideas take time/effort/cost to produce, yet can be stolen in an instant: hence the 20 year protection.
case-by-case would be too unworkable: the system is not perfect because it tries to accomodate the entire swathe of inventions with a single brush, of course some are less deserving than others. If there are systemic problems (e.g. a whole field looks like it isn't working in the system properly) then perhaps some adjustments are necessary: this happens with pharamaceutical inventions that can obtain a few extra years.
next, you need to look at how the system works: there are other patent systems in other countries that have _no_ examination of the patent for substantive content, or the examination occurs many years later: it's not just about what patents are granted, it's about what ones stand up in the test of time.
You have a bit of a twisted perspective on the world. The so called "people" you refer to are just average people like you or I that happen to work for a company where resources are marshalled in a different way. If you don't think you fare a chance as an independent person, join a collective enterprise where you can marshall resources.
Your argument sounds good except that you say intellectual property isn't property because it is shareable. Just because it has different attributes like shareability doesn't make it less property. I mean, if we really want to go down this route, then I'll find you a tribal society that disagrees with the whole western notion of "property" as applied to even tangible goods, let alone intangibles. Also, scarcity doesn't diminish the fact that something is property. I don't know where you get your strange assumptions from.
Now, we're also not talking about government granted monopolies: if you look at your dear US constitution, you'll find that patents and copyrights are provided by the people for the people for the purposes of advancement of technology and science. Yes, there has to be a balance.
The patent system awards the first to invent (or, outside of the US, the first to file), and it's just tough luck if someone beats you to it. That's life in a competitive system. If you don't like it, change society or live in a commune where another resource allocation method is used.
Read the US constitution and find that the patent system is there for the people too - that includes you and I as creative individuals. The bargain is a _limited_ monopoly for 20 years. 20 years if not a bad payoff for the time and effort and risks involved in pursuing inventions.
You sound like a communist: "property should be free", wake up and realise that in this capitalist system that property is not free.
Wrong: The WINE project could clean room it: get a bunch of people to work through the W2K source code and throw concepts, ideas and other things over the fence: this doesn't break copyright law, and if the concepts/ideas/etc are not covered by patents, then it doesn't break anything else. IBM pioneered clean rooming, and plenty of people do it.
It seems as though you introduced yourself into the career ladder game, which means you asked for this: it's standard procedure, you're being asked to "fix up" a dysfunctional team, and if you take on the role and do the work, then you'll be somewhat fast tracked as a "doer" and "fixer".
If you don't take on the role, you're not going to be given another like it soon, and you may get an opportunity to move up, but it's not going to happen fast. If you _really_ want to be a "doer" and "fixer", then you can't pick and choose: you take what's offered and make it happen - that's the essence of being marked as someone who can be relied upon.