Article 21 prevents the use of devices that enable goods to be passed off as authentic *to the consumer*. If you make Ford-compatible tyres that are clearly labelled as being made by you then you are not in breach of the Directive. Even if your tyres fool my car into thinking they are made by Ford (and so the car starts), they are not fooling the consumer and hence are not in breach.
The DMCA is quite different and much wider: it criminalises all copy-circumvention technology
I have to wonder if the people scaremongering have read the Directive.
The "technical device" rule in Article 21 is poorly drafted, but still fairly clear. It criminalises devices designed to circumvent devices which protect "elements which are manifestly identifiable by customers and consumers and which make it easier to recognise the goods as being authentic".
So a machine for manufacturing Microsoft CD holograms would be illegal under the Directive. A machine for making no-brand ink jet cartridges would not.
Those who are saying otherwise haven't read the directive or don't understand it.
"I rember when the CPTEA was upheld recently, it was upheald because the US Supreme Court found that it had been Congress's intention to harmonize US Copyright Law with that of Europe, not the intent to create a perpetual term of copyright.
As much as I am unhappy with the DMCA, I think that the criticism that the US is more unballanced in this regard than Europe is not accurate. Europe has been the leader in copyright terms."
This is dead wrong. Europe extended copyright by 20 years. The US did the same, but made it *retrospective* so that Disney got another 20 years on Mickey Mouse. The law in Europe didn't do this (and indeed couldn't have). It was a shameful piece of influence-peddling by the US media lobby.
there isn't really a contradiction - the EU's purpose and power is more limited than you think.
"Harmonising" isn't a goal in itself. The EU can only harmonise to prevent distortions of competition between member States, e.g. the UK having stronger IP enforcement laws than Spain and this mkaing it less attractive for companies to do business in Spain.
Small-scale personal breaches of IP aren't really going to cause these kind of distortions and so the EU has no legal competence to create law in this area.
intent is everything. If you create software which is intended to have the effect of a denial of service attack then you will likely suffer the legal consequences of that.
a deliberate denial of service attack is illegal whether the victim is an innocent website or an evil spammer. There is no internet equivalent of lawful self defence.
If a spammed website is brought down by a method such as this, it wouldn't altogether surprise me if they sued the maker of the software responsible. Matters would be complicated if, as they might, they deny responsibility for the original spam e-mail.
(This is the case in the UK, I'd guess the position will be similar in the US but IANAAL (I Am Not An American Lawyer))
On the other hand, the "scan the spamvertised website for its content" sounds a great technical approach.
http://www.jamesphogan.com/bb/archives/catastrop hi sm.shtml
it takes an impressive degree of scientific illiteracy to fall for this kind of shit. The earth is only a few thousands of years old? Biblical events were caused by a comet bursting from Jupiter, almost hitting the earth and then turning into Venus?
How can you believe anything someone this credulous says?
there's a serious point here, which is that it's daft for computer software to be covered by copyright for 70 years. That kind of time period makes some kind of sense for literary works (which is of course what copyright was originally intended to cover) but is stupidly long in comparison with the reasonable commercial life of computer software.
the police have always been able to get a search warrant obliging you to unlock your cupboards and safes: why should electronic storage be any different?
"This confuses me, because I read a news story in late 2001 which matter-of-factly explained that authorities would be contacting recipients of letters which went through a particular post office around the same time as an anthrax envelope. The implication, which I haven't seen any discussion of then or since, is that records are kept of every letter's travels through every post office. Anyone know anything about that?"
how would this be possible? I assumed they were expecting recipients to get in touch with them.
presumably if they remove the stepping of the scroll wheel they will also make it acceleration-sensing like the mouse itself, so a hard flick will send you zooming through the document.
it's not the jury's fault: the problem is with US patent law, which allows the patenting of business methods. This isn't an example of Congress being bought, it's an example of a legal system out of control.
Historically, patent systems in most countries haven't allowed business methods to be patented. This had always been the case in the US - the most well known precedent involved a guy named Hicks in the 1890s who tried to patent a bookkeeping method which he claimed reduced shoplifting; he successfully registered the patent but it was held by the court to be invalid.
However to just about everybody's surprise, the Federal Courts overturned all this in the State Street case in 1998, and the AT&T case a year later. The law is a mess, but it seems anything "useful" can be patented.
It's extraordinary that so radical a step (and one that's arguably a violation of the US constitution) can be taken by the US court system, and neither Congress nor the Supreme Court seems willing to do anything about it.
There wasn't anything "breakthrough" about making the largest piece of injection moulded plastic ever, it's just that nobody else had been cheap/stupid enough to do that previously.
it won't be British engineering, it will be Sinclair's engineering, which is always made of cheap standard parts rather than the expensive custom-designed bits and bobs that make up the Segway.
So it will be cheap, but made of plastic and probably won't work very well.
multi-million dollar financiers are always reluctant to invest money in countries with weak legal systems, or where the rulers can change laws on a whim. They're no more likely to invest in "Sealand" than they are in North Korea.
"I mean, really, where else is it written in law that there's fine of a loaf of bread if you throw your faeces out of your balcony window and hit a passer-by in the street."
certainly not in the UK. And if you disagree, cite the law.
the court decision was in 1968 (prior to the extension of the territorial waters) and at the lowest possible judicial level. It is therefore pretty meaningless.
Slashdot Mirror
Wrong. You need to read the Directive.
Article 21 prevents the use of devices that enable goods to be passed off as authentic *to the consumer*. If you make Ford-compatible tyres that are clearly labelled as being made by you then you are not in breach of the Directive. Even if your tyres fool my car into thinking they are made by Ford (and so the car starts), they are not fooling the consumer and hence are not in breach.
The DMCA is quite different and much wider: it criminalises all copy-circumvention technology
I have to wonder if the people scaremongering have read the Directive.
The "technical device" rule in Article 21 is poorly drafted, but still fairly clear. It criminalises devices designed to circumvent devices which protect "elements which are manifestly identifiable by customers and consumers and which make it easier to recognise the goods as being authentic".
So a machine for manufacturing Microsoft CD holograms would be illegal under the Directive. A machine for making no-brand ink jet cartridges would not.
Those who are saying otherwise haven't read the directive or don't understand it.
"I rember when the CPTEA was upheld recently, it was upheald because the US Supreme Court found that it had been Congress's intention to harmonize US Copyright Law with that of Europe, not the intent to create a perpetual term of copyright.
As much as I am unhappy with the DMCA, I think that the criticism that the US is more unballanced in this regard than Europe is not accurate. Europe has been the leader in copyright terms."
This is dead wrong. Europe extended copyright by 20 years. The US did the same, but made it *retrospective* so that Disney got another 20 years on Mickey Mouse. The law in Europe didn't do this (and indeed couldn't have). It was a shameful piece of influence-peddling by the US media lobby.
there isn't really a contradiction - the EU's purpose and power is more limited than you think.
"Harmonising" isn't a goal in itself. The EU can only harmonise to prevent distortions of competition between member States, e.g. the UK having stronger IP enforcement laws than Spain and this mkaing it less attractive for companies to do business in Spain.
Small-scale personal breaches of IP aren't really going to cause these kind of distortions and so the EU has no legal competence to create law in this area.
You need to have more sex
intent is everything. If you create software which is intended to have the effect of a denial of service attack then you will likely suffer the legal consequences of that.
a deliberate denial of service attack is illegal whether the victim is an innocent website or an evil spammer. There is no internet equivalent of lawful self defence.
If a spammed website is brought down by a method such as this, it wouldn't altogether surprise me if they sued the maker of the software responsible. Matters would be complicated if, as they might, they deny responsibility for the original spam e-mail.
(This is the case in the UK, I'd guess the position will be similar in the US but IANAAL (I Am Not An American Lawyer))
On the other hand, the "scan the spamvertised website for its content" sounds a great technical approach.
The guy is a crank: check out his page on
p hi sm.shtml
http://www.jamesphogan.com/bb/archives/catastro
it takes an impressive degree of scientific illiteracy to fall for this kind of shit. The earth is only a few thousands of years old? Biblical events were caused by a comet bursting from Jupiter, almost hitting the earth and then turning into Venus?
How can you believe anything someone this credulous says?
Your point is nonsense: before antibiotics tuberculosis was a killer, and it still is in much of the developing world
c ontentMDK:20101687~menuPK:34457~pagePK:34370~piPK: 34424~theSitePK:4607,00.html)
(see http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/NEWS/0,,
how did you think we controlled tuberculosis before the "marvels of modern science"? Praying? Hugs and bunnies?
there's a serious point here, which is that it's daft for computer software to be covered by copyright for 70 years. That kind of time period makes some kind of sense for literary works (which is of course what copyright was originally intended to cover) but is stupidly long in comparison with the reasonable commercial life of computer software.
what's wrong with this?
the police have always been able to get a search warrant obliging you to unlock your cupboards and safes: why should electronic storage be any different?
"This confuses me, because I read a news story in late 2001 which matter-of-factly explained that authorities would be contacting recipients of letters which went through a particular post office around the same time as an anthrax envelope. The implication, which I haven't seen any discussion of then or since, is that records are kept of every letter's travels through every post office. Anyone know anything about that?"
how would this be possible? I assumed they were expecting recipients to get in touch with them.
presumably if they remove the stepping of the scroll wheel they will also make it acceleration-sensing like the mouse itself, so a hard flick will send you zooming through the document.
in all seriousness, there's nothing in principle preventing the wanker who first came up with this concept of patenting it.
- 19 98-07-23-p1.html)
Anyone doubting this should read the State Street case
(http://www.gigalaw.com/library/statestreetbank
and then explain what they think the limits of business method patenting are. My answer: there are no limits.
it's not the jury's fault: the problem is with US patent law, which allows the patenting of business methods. This isn't an example of Congress being bought, it's an example of a legal system out of control.
Historically, patent systems in most countries haven't allowed business methods to be patented. This had always been the case in the US - the most well known precedent involved a guy named Hicks in the 1890s who tried to patent a bookkeeping method which he claimed reduced shoplifting; he successfully registered the patent but it was held by the court to be invalid.
However to just about everybody's surprise, the Federal Courts overturned all this in the State Street case in 1998, and the AT&T case a year later. The law is a mess, but it seems anything "useful" can be patented.
It's extraordinary that so radical a step (and one that's arguably a violation of the US constitution) can be taken by the US court system, and neither Congress nor the Supreme Court seems willing to do anything about it.
so don't blame the jury.
End of rant.
I see my factually accurate post pointing out the stupidity of large-scale injection moulding got modded down to flamebait.
When did Clive Sinclair become a slashdot member?
There wasn't anything "breakthrough" about making the largest piece of injection moulded plastic ever, it's just that nobody else had been cheap/stupid enough to do that previously.
it won't be British engineering, it will be Sinclair's engineering, which is always made of cheap standard parts rather than the expensive custom-designed bits and bobs that make up the Segway.
So it will be cheap, but made of plastic and probably won't work very well.
every line of your post is nuts
Great post.
The idea that anything that creates jobs or money is automatically a Good Thing is hilariously stupid.
(I'm an IP attorney, but the English kind and we're all cute and cuddly)
drug runners will start using little planes when it's cheaper and easier than using humans: i.e. never.
multi-million dollar financiers are always reluctant to invest money in countries with weak legal systems, or where the rulers can change laws on a whim. They're no more likely to invest in "Sealand" than they are in North Korea.
"I mean, really, where else is it written in law that there's fine of a loaf of bread if you throw your faeces out of your balcony window and hit a passer-by in the street."
certainly not in the UK. And if you disagree, cite the law.
"challenged MANY times and has won"?
There was one case thirty five years ago in the lowest-ranking type of criminal court. It means nothing.
the court decision was in 1968 (prior to the extension of the territorial waters) and at the lowest possible judicial level. It is therefore pretty meaningless.