No doubt what you say is true, but nevertheless, IF such a law is passed (in those wordings), and IF the legislature/police would be consistent, then, under australian law, you would be punishable up to 10 years in prison for accessing CP.
Which proves my point that laws should be crafted carefully, based on logic and reason, not hysteria or emotional reactions.
"Somebody notifies you of one of your subscribers posting kiddie porn on a web page you host."
Law:
"It will also be a federal offence, carrying a penalty of 10 years' jail, for a person to use the internet to access, transmit or make available child pornography or child abuse material."
Logic dictates, that, at least in the normal case, a person has to have accessed CP material before he can notify someone there is CP on a site. Ergo, he faces 10 years' jail.
Your points 2, 3 and 4 don't even come into the picture.
Well, ok, apart from the last one.;-)
Seriously though; I sometimes wonder if ppl aren't right and the laws become too much based on hysteria and not on well-thought of reasonings. One prime example that comes to mind, is that 'child abuse' case (got mentionned on slashdot some time ago) where an underage teen got busted for showing erotic pictures of *herself*. She got sentenced for possessing and distributing CP, but the only CP she had was what she took of herself. Aparently she was the victim of a childmolester, even though she was the childmolester in question. This makes no sense.
Arresting young people as childabusers because they show sexual oriented pictures of themselves somehow seems rather the work of hysteria, not reason.
For sure, there is childabuse, but laws should be tailored to the effect they want to achieve in a strict sense, which, in this case, should be to protect a kid from abuse. The truth is, it is often more about imposing morals then about protecting kids, and while this is not always contradictory to eachother, in some cases, it gets obvious what prevails (at least in the USA).
"Hence it could be argued that the BSD license benfits freeloaders, while the GPL benefits the community as a whole, something that would not be possible without the protection of copyright."
Perhaps, but what the poster was aluding at (correctly, me thinks) is that, if no IP laws would exist, the GPL wouldn't need to be there in the first place.
It doesn't *need* protection by means of copyright, if copyright doesn't exist and can't be enforced; because the goal of free use would be served by the fact IP-laws don't exist. It is *because* copyright exists and can restrict the liberties of others, that the GPL has any use.
"I want a close and strong European Union -- I just don't want this European Union."
That is exactly my sentiment too.
I don't mind giving more power to the EU (with some cultural safeguards, ofcourse), but not to this kind of undemocratic crap. One should resist the powergrabbing of the EU with all means, as long as a bunch of unelected bureaucrats are calling the shots.
How many times does it has to be said? It makes NO economic sense for europe to allow swp - and that is regardless of the myriad of other reasons why not to allow them, mind you.
Patents are NOT applied to where the invention is made, but where the patent is filed.
Logic dictates, thus, that EU-corporations *CAN* file and 'protect' their IP on the worldmarket: the only thing for that to happen is that they file their patent abroad, in countries where they have been stupid enough to allow them, such as the USA and Japan. But EU companies *are* protected in the EU (when swp remain unvalid) against the typical smothering of big foreign companies with huge portofolios.
In all sense, and even only speaking economically, thus, the EU has a clear economic advantage. WE can sue others, but we can't be sued by others over swp. For the EU as whole, it becomes apparent that this is very beneficial, maybe to the point where other countries will be forced to abandon their swp-mentality too, because otherwise they will be in a inherent disadvantage.
Now, why don't people don't seem to get this? A lot of IP-proponents seem to go the way of 'our IP has to be protected' - ignoring all other valid considerations - but the irony is, even purely focussing on the economics, the EU is better off not having them withion the EU, but still being able to apply them abroad.
While I agree his first 3-4 answers were a bit weak, he does raise an interesting point in the 5th.
You claim journalists can't say anything, and while true, it must be said that in most of the instances you quote as examples, there have been legal precedents all up to the Supreme Court, for the obvious reason of free speech/press issues. I'm doubting that this has happend in regard with the specific NDA-breaking law that those states have.
Therefor, it could be argued that that law in itself is unconstitutional (Supreme Court will have to decide on that, ofcourse), and therefor, the argumentation that journalists must divulge their sources or they can be arrested because they break that law, becomes void too.
At least in my jurisdiction. I think there has been passed a similar law on EU level too, but it states that the doctor-patient/lawyer-client privilage can only be violated if their is an clear and imminent life-threatening danger to a third person.
It is NOT simply to 'hurt' someone, let alone a company. If that would become law, everyone could claim he (or his corporation) got hurt in some way or another, effectively eliminating any confidentiality of that order.
"The only problem is that someone breaking a trade secret and giving it to a journalists never has a right to anonymity in this case."
I disagree. Maybe in your country (probably the USA), but here, the sources of journalists HAVE a right of anonimity, whether the source itself has broken a law or agreement or not.
"Is it journalism and free speech when you violate laws to obtain information?"
Yes, it is.
If it weren't, and "if you can't see that it's wrong, legally and ethically, for these people to be leaking this information, then, well, we have nothing further to discuss." makes me doubt we have any further to discuss (dixit yourself).
While it may (or may not) be ethically wrong in this particular case, people leaking information, even when breaking NDA or laws, are not 'ethically wrong' per sé. In fact, some of those deserve our outmost respect and show an ethical behaviour that can only be applauded.
If journalists or other third parties can be sued because they are "exposing information knowingly obtained from sources bound by confidentiality agreements", then basically, you undermine their sources, and whistleblowers don't get a chance.
I mean, fuck, what is wrong with you USA dudes? Around here, we're actually making new laws to strengthen the confidentiality of journalists and their sources. The fact you seem to think it's something that is only normal and just these crappy laws exist and are a good thing, ethical or otherwise, shows how far it has come. If this really would become law in europe, then you can bet on it every company will use that 'non-disclosure' law to shut-up any potential whistleblowers. I doubt society is better served by that, which is, ultimately, a much better argument for not abiding (or even creating) those laws, then a company protecting its trademarks.
There is one thing I don't really understand. I mean, whatever encryption, whatever copy-safety, WHATEVER the RIAA/MPAA&co is going to come up with... ultimately, all those images and sound is going to get transformed from digital to analog, right?
I mean, however you want to put it, when it comes down to it, our eyes have to see it, and our ears have to hear it; hence, the output MUST be analog. At that moment, you can copy it, regardless of the measures taken. So why didn't anyone invent such a tool? Don't try to avoid or break the protection, just let it come through, as it would normally, then capture it the moment it gets analoge and - if you want - revert it to digital again.
Now, you will have some minimal loss by the transition, but really, with the right tool this should be hardly noticable. And I know you have some analog protection too ('false signals') but those only work because the signalcapture is not done passively enough. Make a vidcard that capture it in a passive way, like our eyes/ears do it, and *whatever* the RIAA/MPAA&co come up with, will be futile.
"They DID attack because they were Muslim extremists."
This is a false suposition. It can be argued that, if the USA hadn't meddled as much in the middle east as they have done, those Muslims would not have attacked. After all, one of the big gripes Osama has, is (what he sees as) the sacrilige of foreign military bases on holy ground.
Ofcourse, it can't be said with any certitude what caused it or what wouldn't have caused it, but saying they attacked 'just because' they are Mulsims (or Muslim extremists) is an unsubstantiated claim.
Besides, it still not validates the harrasement of arab-looking dudes, or even muslims, even when your reasoning would be followed. Because, then one could, indeed, arrest christians if some christian extremist would have attacked the US, or white men if white supremist had done it.
The parent-posters' analogies were not all that far-fetched, really.
"1) okay. Just force this through the patent lobby."
We're busy trying (at least in the EU;-)
2) "No effect. One guy to watch over the corporate database and re-submit all the patents when they are about to expire."
Yes, but it's only meant to weed out those patents and copyrights nobody really cares about anymore. Nowadays, you have lots of works on film, for instance, that deteriorates rapidly, but no1 knows for sure if it's still under copyright or by whome. a system where the author.patentholder would have to 'check in', would solve that.
You could be right that it must be a bit higher then 1 dollar; maybe it could be related to income as well?
3) Unenforceable, too many possible loopholes.
Loopholes are possible indeed, but at least it would provide better access to patents by normal joe doe inventors that haven't got loads of money like megacorps have.
"I think something else could be helpful: "protective fee". After pretty short period, say, 2 years, each patent is free to open to the public for anyone who is willing to pay you 500x what you pay for yearly patent protection. Is it it worth to you $1mln?"
Yes, an interesting idea, but it would still give an unfair advantage to big corps, in comparison with the poor hard working inventor (whome is always used as an example that patents are supposed to protect). It's far more easy for a megacorp to pay 500X whatever amount of money, then it is for an individual, poor inventor. Thus, for the same great invention, such a person couldn't afford more then a nominal period of protection, while a megacorp could get a protection on it for 1000 years. This seems hugely unfair.
The real problem is, that big companies are going to hugely exagerate their expenses. Or does anyone doubt that?
If they have worked for 3 years on something, and they know they'll get 20 times the reward of that, it's rather trivial to 'dynamically interpret' the figures so that they get a 200 year patent instead of a 60 one (and even that is far too much, I think).
And moreover, even downright lies about the amount of time and money they've put in would hardly be checked. I mean, what, is anyone proposing the patentoffice or some other agency is going to have to scrutinise all the thousands of pantentrequests they get every month? As we can already see, the system already is pretty borked; with such an additional requirement (before being able to tell how long your patent will last), it would become a complete and utter mess.
No, sorry, at face value, it looks like a good idea, but in practise, this is unfeasable. More realistic proposals that may help are:
1)clearly forbid patents on pure ideas, software, businessmethods, etc.
2)Make it obligatory for patentholders to renew their patents. For instance, instead of 20 years, give it for 5 years, and make it renewable for 3 more consecutive 5-year periods, for a nominal fee of 1 dollar, for instance. (The same could be done for copyright)
Advantage: many patents and copyrights turn out not to be the economic succes they were supposed to be, and a lot of works/inventions are rotting away while no-one can use it, or use it as a base for something of their own. If patents/copyright has no use anymore and is only dormant, and good to no1...why not make it available to the public? no use in wasting possibilities that apparently aren't worth taking an additional 5-year protection by the original inventors/authors.
3)Make the fee required for getting a patent in relation to the income of the person/company that requests it. That way, the 'lone developer working in his shed' will have a far better chance then nowadays. with the current fees, the 'poor inventor' has almost no chance of getting a pantent. Ofcourse, when selling or transmitting that fee to another company, that company has to pay according to *their* income.
Otherwise, you will have the same problem of companies evading the fee by creating a small company, getting a low fee, and then 'sell' it (back) to the (mother)company.
All those suggestion are feasable and would greatly improve the current patent system.
"The council should be replaced by a senate 1 or 2 senators per member state that are elected by general elections in each member state."
Exellent idea. I've long pondered about that problem. The counsel isn't elected and has too much power, but abolishing it and giving it to the parliament + president didn't seem plausable, since most (sovereign, after all) countries will want to keep a say in the process.
So, some kind of Senate might be a (far better) compromise.
"The rotating presidency must go as well, the EU should have a president supported by the parlament and council."
No, the councel should go, remember?;-) But I agree there has to be a directly elected EU president. I would be prepared to give away a bit more national sovereignity (providing cultural safegaurds, ofcourse) IF the EU were a true democracy. As it is now, I'm opposed to give the EU institutions any more power. The democratic deficit is already to high as it is, and I don't trust the lawmaking of bureaucrats which answer to no electorate whatsoever. If they want to pass laws that affect the EU citizens, they should be elected by those citizens, it is as simply as that!
I'm always surprised that many europeans feel just the same and as strong on this topic...but so how comes it doesn't happen? We've been talking about making the EU more democratic and chosing a president for years now, and nothing seems to move. I think it's time people rattle the EU a bit more.
The EU as well as the national governments have often have passed laws that were/are restricting our freedoms too. And, certainly with the EU commision, there clearly is a huge democratic deficit. Those guys decide on creating laws that potentially afflict millions of EU citizens...and they aren't even elected, nor do they have any political responsibilty towards those citizens!
So it still can and should be improved. And corruption isn't unheard of here neither, though the kind of open and 'legal' bribing by companies, like is rampant in the USA is a lot less, here.
And that maybe explains your post: when you compare it with the USA, I can understand the feeling...but believe me, it's not an utopia here neither. Only in comparison it is better.
"Owning the XOR patent, simply stimulated companies to develop other more advanced methods of editing (overlays, underlays, transparency color)."
Perhaps, but copyright already does that, adn patents have the disadvantage that they cover ideas on themselves. There are only a limited number of ways to get passed an idea, depending on how broad it was.
If Xerox patented the GUI, how would other companies have evaded that? By using commandlines?
At some point, it becomes clear patents are rather restricting then helping in the innovative process. swp are a prime example of that.
Since I'd like to be with the other 5 % (at least, for the moment), please give me a sign when you're ready to (nearly) exterminate the human race, so I can take shelter in time.
If you don't know how to proceed once you got the virus, please look for good advice to films like 'Outbreak' and '12 monkeys'.
But then again, could you hold off untill the EU decides about swp? I might change my mind, depending on that outcome.;-)
We might actually win without even have to go to the EU parliament again.
That's about the 4th or 5th country where the national parliament instructed their government not to vote for the directive.
But then again, some caution should remain: the dutch parliament has asked the minister before to change votes, but he merrily ignored that. It is surprising, often, how many time (and how much) so-called democratic governments completely disregard the democratic principle they have sworn to uphold.
If it DOES goe back for a second reading, our anti-swp movement will have to agree (and decide) what we are going to aim for, IMHO.
Do we want the EU parliament then to make a compromise (not a good idea, since the amended version was already the bear minimal, a 'compromise' would probably come out totally bork)? Do we want a complete rejection by the EU parliament? Do we want it back on the drawingboard and have a first reading again?
This might be important, since if it comes that far, we'll have to have 2/3 of a majority. I think option 2 or 3 have the most chance of getting that majority, since even pro-swp-MEPs (like McCarthy) have (in the JURI) voted to restart the process so that we can 'better research the impact of swp on SMEs'.
"What to do? Sounds a little like a catch-22, but there is an answer. Don't build the nukes."
No, I just explained why: even when they won't, there is a chance they'll get invaded. That's what happend with Iraq, after all. So, are they going for that option? That's wishful thinking, not the obvious step of countries capable of creating nukes and on bad terms with the USA. As I said, seen that they feel threatened by the USA, those will create nukes. Exactly what N.Korea and Iran is doing.
It only looks like a catch 22 on first sight; in reality, even the USA can't permit to invade one country after another. It would be political and military suicide. I think it's all too obvious the USA has more then it bargened for in Iraq, and I don't think anyone would seriously believe the USA would invade another country, before they settled with Iraq first. Even the roman empire tried to avoid battling on two fronts at the same time.
So, in effect, the invasion of Iraq created at the same time the obvious pressure/threat of the USA *and* provided a period where it will rather bark then bite to other countries.
So, what they *really* think is: let's build nukes as fast as we can, so we're safe by the time the USA would feel arrogant enough to pre-emptively attack again.
As an european, I can relativate that to the current USA government, but I doubt those countries can or will.
And it must be said, while under Clinton relations over the big dipper were pretty good, I think most USA-citizens fail to realise how much sympathy the US has lost even among europeans. 'Our' politicians, being diplomatic, only show the top of the iceberg, really. The opinion about the USA among the people is hugely negative these days, and that sentiment is reflected by all layers of the populace.
Indeed, we might be closer. It is reasonable to limit any threat to yourself or your country, provided the measures taken are reasonable on themselves. A pre-emptive strike is not. But I think we agree on this.
Ofcourse, this is true for other countries as well.
Unfortunatly, the recent history shows us that the USA is:
1)Able AND willing to invade another country (even when not directly a threat), in a 'pre-emptive' manner.
2)The USA does not do the same (even when the same arguments/reasons apply) when it could seriously get hurt in the process.
Following those observations, and seen the fact that a country actually having nukes poses too great a risk for the USA to invade, the only logical conclusion for those countries (especially those on bad terms with the US) is that they *have* to have nukes, to be sure they will not get invaded.
I understand the sentiment, and no one is claiming it isn't awful, but the poster was right in correcting the parent poster, because he was factual wrong.
Sentiments and emotions are no excuse to distort the truth or posting something as a fact when it isn't.
Is this supposed to be an argument to what the poster said? The USA does not have ICBMs? Borders can not be ignored by the USA?
"If some nutjob dictator is threatening you with them, then some reasonable ecautions/politics/defenses are in order."
Even nutjob dictators like to stay in power. Kim only threatens to use them when he's attacked; something the USA and many other nuke-containing countries have said in the past too.
This is the fallacy used by the Bushies: terrorists attack the USA, therefor dictators will attack the USA too, with nukes, if they have them.
It's crap, ofcourse. Sadam was no direct threat to the USA, and neither is Kim...unless, perhaps, when the USA invades. But then again, what country wouldn't react in the same manner? Let's not forget, after all, which is the only country to have actually used the A-bom on another country...
What disturbs me greatly, is the inherent hypocrisy of the USA. Nukes are forbidden, and sanctions are ordained (and even countries invaded) if OTHER countries develop nukes (or are claimed to do so).... but, as you said yourself, the USA has no moral right, not an inherent monopoly given by God on nukes and the development thereof. So why shouldn't other countries develop them?
And even IF the USA (and 4 or 5 other countries) had some god-given right to be the only one to develop them... why didn't they invade, nor sanctionned, Isreal when it created nukes? Because it is a democracy, and nukes are forbidden for dictators only?
Then why DID they sanction India for creating nukes, even though it is a democracy? And why did they dispelled and lifted the sanctions of india AND pakistan (governed by a dictator) which both have nukes?
The answer is: it's not about the nukes or the form of government you have, it's about playing ball with the USA. All the morality and 'reasons' given are bogus; they have no problem with setting aside their reasoning and ethics if it suits them. the truth is, they are deeply unethical, and while this is not the perogative of the USA alone, it makes it double hypocrite when they claim they do it out of high morality, and have their mouth full of freedom, making the world safer, getting rid of dictators (when in fact, they have helped some of the worst dicators in power), etc...when in fact, it's just selfinterest.
If it weren't for people like Michael Moore and (the late) Carl Sagan, I would develop a deep resentment and despise america as a whole. But at least they prove(d) there still is some sanity and critical thinking in the USA.
"Note that some European nations have been complicit, particulary France, in aiding these rogue nations developing these weapons."
Not like the USA, who merely sold tons of chemicals to Saddam, even well aware they were going to be used as chemical weapons against his people. Even after he massacred a whole village with those chemicals, the USA happily supplied him with more.
"Nice try blaming the U.S., but unless North Korea travelled in time, going to the future, to see the 2nd Iraq war, you can hardly say they accelerated their Nuke program because of it. Iran had a nuke program long before the U.S. invasion. Libya had a nuke program before the invasion."
Ofcourse, there was also the 1st Iraq war, and besides that, your argumentation lacks coherency. In what way does it exclude that the nations, even if they already had nuclear programs as you claim, accelaerated that program after the Iraq-wars? I fail to see any logic in this particular reasoning of you.
you're one of the hurd. (ask Stallman for more info)
1)WMDs *were* an excuse, I think by now everyone (not being a sheep) can agree on that.
2)The oil, aside from geopolitical reasons, has always been an important consideration; to claim differently is naive (at best). If the war in Iraq had gone the way the USA government had forseen it, oil would have spiced the USA economy already. And more then it ever could with the sanctions in place, as another poster already explained.
3)Yes, Saddam commited terrible crimes to his own people, however, this was never mentionned as the prime cause for going to war. In fact, international law does not allow to invade a sovereign country because it has a dictator commiting crimes. Besides, the USA has held (and helped) dictators in power that commited terrible acts against the populace, as long as the dictator was cooperative. The argument that they invaded Iraq for that reason (as only is argumented now, afterwards) would be more convincing if the USA didn't show they were perfectly prepared to help dicators, as long as it suited them.
3)There was a majority? Must have misread about pretty much all of the world-opinion, then. That US politicians were in support says more about the majority of them (linked with sheep) then anything else. But then, a pretty much biased media and the developed national-zealot-reflex of pretty much all americans goes a long way in explaining it.
4)"There is a difference between a threat to the country and a threat to human life. North Korea doesn't pose a direct threat to the US..." Indeed. Neither was Iraq a threat to the USA. And while you claim there is no mass-murder (how would you know that?) also in N.Korea people are being tortured and killed; so where does that leave you, with your justified reason to go to war? And btw, if anything, since N.Korea has nukes AND rockets, it poses a far greater threat to the USA then Iraq ever did. And they aren't predicatable at all, which has been proven by the numeous times they reacted on the 6-countries talk. Predicatble and knowing his intentions...geez. You are completely inventing this, aren't you?
Slashdot Mirror
No doubt what you say is true, but nevertheless, IF such a law is passed (in those wordings), and IF the legislature/police would be consistent, then, under australian law, you would be punishable up to 10 years in prison for accessing CP.
Which proves my point that laws should be crafted carefully, based on logic and reason, not hysteria or emotional reactions.
Step one:
;-)
"Somebody notifies you of one of your subscribers posting kiddie porn on a web page you host."
Law:
"It will also be a federal offence, carrying a penalty of 10 years' jail, for a person to use the internet to access, transmit or make available child pornography or child abuse material."
Logic dictates, that, at least in the normal case, a person has to have accessed CP material before he can notify someone there is CP on a site. Ergo, he faces 10 years' jail.
Your points 2, 3 and 4 don't even come into the picture.
Well, ok, apart from the last one.
Seriously though; I sometimes wonder if ppl aren't right and the laws become too much based on hysteria and not on well-thought of reasonings. One prime example that comes to mind, is that 'child abuse' case (got mentionned on slashdot some time ago) where an underage teen got busted for showing erotic pictures of *herself*. She got sentenced for possessing and distributing CP, but the only CP she had was what she took of herself. Aparently she was the victim of a childmolester, even though she was the childmolester in question. This makes no sense.
Arresting young people as childabusers because they show sexual oriented pictures of themselves somehow seems rather the work of hysteria, not reason.
For sure, there is childabuse, but laws should be tailored to the effect they want to achieve in a strict sense, which, in this case, should be to protect a kid from abuse. The truth is, it is often more about imposing morals then about protecting kids, and while this is not always contradictory to eachother, in some cases, it gets obvious what prevails (at least in the USA).
"Hence it could be argued that the BSD license benfits freeloaders, while the GPL benefits the community as a whole, something that would not be possible without the protection of copyright."
Perhaps, but what the poster was aluding at (correctly, me thinks) is that, if no IP laws would exist, the GPL wouldn't need to be there in the first place.
It doesn't *need* protection by means of copyright, if copyright doesn't exist and can't be enforced; because the goal of free use would be served by the fact IP-laws don't exist. It is *because* copyright exists and can restrict the liberties of others, that the GPL has any use.
"I want a close and strong European Union -- I just don't want this European Union."
That is exactly my sentiment too.
I don't mind giving more power to the EU (with some cultural safeguards, ofcourse), but not to this kind of undemocratic crap. One should resist the powergrabbing of the EU with all means, as long as a bunch of unelected bureaucrats are calling the shots.
How many times does it has to be said? It makes NO economic sense for europe to allow swp - and that is regardless of the myriad of other reasons why not to allow them, mind you.
Patents are NOT applied to where the invention is made, but where the patent is filed.
Logic dictates, thus, that EU-corporations *CAN* file and 'protect' their IP on the worldmarket: the only thing for that to happen is that they file their patent abroad, in countries where they have been stupid enough to allow them, such as the USA and Japan. But EU companies *are* protected in the EU (when swp remain unvalid) against the typical smothering of big foreign companies with huge portofolios.
In all sense, and even only speaking economically, thus, the EU has a clear economic advantage. WE can sue others, but we can't be sued by others over swp. For the EU as whole, it becomes apparent that this is very beneficial, maybe to the point where other countries will be forced to abandon their swp-mentality too, because otherwise they will be in a inherent disadvantage.
Now, why don't people don't seem to get this? A lot of IP-proponents seem to go the way of 'our IP has to be protected' - ignoring all other valid considerations - but the irony is, even purely focussing on the economics, the EU is better off not having them withion the EU, but still being able to apply them abroad.
While I agree his first 3-4 answers were a bit weak, he does raise an interesting point in the 5th.
You claim journalists can't say anything, and while true, it must be said that in most of the instances you quote as examples, there have been legal precedents all up to the Supreme Court, for the obvious reason of free speech/press issues. I'm doubting that this has happend in regard with the specific NDA-breaking law that those states have.
Therefor, it could be argued that that law in itself is unconstitutional (Supreme Court will have to decide on that, ofcourse), and therefor, the argumentation that journalists must divulge their sources or they can be arrested because they break that law, becomes void too.
At least in my jurisdiction. I think there has been passed a similar law on EU level too, but it states that the doctor-patient/lawyer-client privilage can only be violated if their is an clear and imminent life-threatening danger to a third person.
It is NOT simply to 'hurt' someone, let alone a company. If that would become law, everyone could claim he (or his corporation) got hurt in some way or another, effectively eliminating any confidentiality of that order.
"The only problem is that someone breaking a trade secret and giving it to a journalists never has a right to anonymity in this case."
I disagree. Maybe in your country (probably the USA), but here, the sources of journalists HAVE a right of anonimity, whether the source itself has broken a law or agreement or not.
"Is it journalism and free speech when you violate laws to obtain information?"
Yes, it is.
If it weren't, and "if you can't see that it's wrong, legally and ethically, for these people to be leaking this information, then, well, we have nothing further to discuss." makes me doubt we have any further to discuss (dixit yourself).
While it may (or may not) be ethically wrong in this particular case, people leaking information, even when breaking NDA or laws, are not 'ethically wrong' per sé. In fact, some of those deserve our outmost respect and show an ethical behaviour that can only be applauded.
If journalists or other third parties can be sued because they are "exposing information knowingly obtained from sources bound by confidentiality agreements", then basically, you undermine their sources, and whistleblowers don't get a chance.
I mean, fuck, what is wrong with you USA dudes? Around here, we're actually making new laws to strengthen the confidentiality of journalists and their sources. The fact you seem to think it's something that is only normal and just these crappy laws exist and are a good thing, ethical or otherwise, shows how far it has come. If this really would become law in europe, then you can bet on it every company will use that 'non-disclosure' law to shut-up any potential whistleblowers. I doubt society is better served by that, which is, ultimately, a much better argument for not abiding (or even creating) those laws, then a company protecting its trademarks.
There is one thing I don't really understand. I mean, whatever encryption, whatever copy-safety, WHATEVER the RIAA/MPAA&co is going to come up with... ultimately, all those images and sound is going to get transformed from digital to analog, right?
I mean, however you want to put it, when it comes down to it, our eyes have to see it, and our ears have to hear it; hence, the output MUST be analog. At that moment, you can copy it, regardless of the measures taken. So why didn't anyone invent such a tool? Don't try to avoid or break the protection, just let it come through, as it would normally, then capture it the moment it gets analoge and - if you want - revert it to digital again.
Now, you will have some minimal loss by the transition, but really, with the right tool this should be hardly noticable. And I know you have some analog protection too ('false signals') but those only work because the signalcapture is not done passively enough. Make a vidcard that capture it in a passive way, like our eyes/ears do it, and *whatever* the RIAA/MPAA&co come up with, will be futile.
"They DID attack because they were Muslim extremists."
This is a false suposition. It can be argued that, if the USA hadn't meddled as much in the middle east as they have done, those Muslims would not have attacked. After all, one of the big gripes Osama has, is (what he sees as) the sacrilige of foreign military bases on holy ground.
Ofcourse, it can't be said with any certitude what caused it or what wouldn't have caused it, but saying they attacked 'just because' they are Mulsims (or Muslim extremists) is an unsubstantiated claim.
Besides, it still not validates the harrasement of arab-looking dudes, or even muslims, even when your reasoning would be followed. Because, then one could, indeed, arrest christians if some christian extremist would have attacked the US, or white men if white supremist had done it.
The parent-posters' analogies were not all that far-fetched, really.
Would that be the same 'US intellegence' that said there were WMD in Iraq?
"1) okay. Just force this through the patent lobby."
;-)
We're busy trying (at least in the EU
2) "No effect. One guy to watch over the corporate database and re-submit all the patents when they are about to expire."
Yes, but it's only meant to weed out those patents and copyrights nobody really cares about anymore. Nowadays, you have lots of works on film, for instance, that deteriorates rapidly, but no1 knows for sure if it's still under copyright or by whome. a system where the author.patentholder would have to 'check in', would solve that.
You could be right that it must be a bit higher then 1 dollar; maybe it could be related to income as well?
3) Unenforceable, too many possible loopholes.
Loopholes are possible indeed, but at least it would provide better access to patents by normal joe doe inventors that haven't got loads of money like megacorps have.
"I think something else could be helpful: "protective fee". After pretty short period, say, 2 years, each patent is free to open to the public for anyone who is willing to pay you 500x what you pay for yearly patent protection. Is it it worth to you $1mln?"
Yes, an interesting idea, but it would still give an unfair advantage to big corps, in comparison with the poor hard working inventor (whome is always used as an example that patents are supposed to protect). It's far more easy for a megacorp to pay 500X whatever amount of money, then it is for an individual, poor inventor. Thus, for the same great invention, such a person couldn't afford more then a nominal period of protection, while a megacorp could get a protection on it for 1000 years. This seems hugely unfair.
The real problem is, that big companies are going to hugely exagerate their expenses. Or does anyone doubt that?
If they have worked for 3 years on something, and they know they'll get 20 times the reward of that, it's rather trivial to 'dynamically interpret' the figures so that they get a 200 year patent instead of a 60 one (and even that is far too much, I think).
And moreover, even downright lies about the amount of time and money they've put in would hardly be checked. I mean, what, is anyone proposing the patentoffice or some other agency is going to have to scrutinise all the thousands of pantentrequests they get every month? As we can already see, the system already is pretty borked; with such an additional requirement (before being able to tell how long your patent will last), it would become a complete and utter mess.
No, sorry, at face value, it looks like a good idea, but in practise, this is unfeasable. More realistic proposals that may help are:
1)clearly forbid patents on pure ideas, software, businessmethods, etc.
2)Make it obligatory for patentholders to renew their patents. For instance, instead of 20 years, give it for 5 years, and make it renewable for 3 more consecutive 5-year periods, for a nominal fee of 1 dollar, for instance. (The same could be done for copyright)
Advantage: many patents and copyrights turn out not to be the economic succes they were supposed to be, and a lot of works/inventions are rotting away while no-one can use it, or use it as a base for something of their own. If patents/copyright has no use anymore and is only dormant, and good to no1...why not make it available to the public? no use in wasting possibilities that apparently aren't worth taking an additional 5-year protection by the original inventors/authors.
3)Make the fee required for getting a patent in relation to the income of the person/company that requests it. That way, the 'lone developer working in his shed' will have a far better chance then nowadays. with the current fees, the 'poor inventor' has almost no chance of getting a pantent. Ofcourse, when selling or transmitting that fee to another company, that company has to pay according to *their* income.
Otherwise, you will have the same problem of companies evading the fee by creating a small company, getting a low fee, and then 'sell' it (back) to the (mother)company.
All those suggestion are feasable and would greatly improve the current patent system.
"The body that must go is the council"
;-) But I agree there has to be a directly elected EU president. I would be prepared to give away a bit more national sovereignity (providing cultural safegaurds, ofcourse) IF the EU were a true democracy. As it is now, I'm opposed to give the EU institutions any more power. The democratic deficit is already to high as it is, and I don't trust the lawmaking of bureaucrats which answer to no electorate whatsoever. If they want to pass laws that affect the EU citizens, they should be elected by those citizens, it is as simply as that!
ANd the commision as well, for the same reasons.
"The council should be replaced by a senate 1 or 2 senators per member state that are elected by general elections in each member state."
Exellent idea. I've long pondered about that problem. The counsel isn't elected and has too much power, but abolishing it and giving it to the parliament + president didn't seem plausable, since most (sovereign, after all) countries will want to keep a say in the process.
So, some kind of Senate might be a (far better) compromise.
"The rotating presidency must go as well, the EU should have a president supported by the parlament and council."
No, the councel should go, remember?
I'm always surprised that many europeans feel just the same and as strong on this topic...but so how comes it doesn't happen? We've been talking about making the EU more democratic and chosing a president for years now, and nothing seems to move. I think it's time people rattle the EU a bit more.
The EU as well as the national governments have often have passed laws that were/are restricting our freedoms too. And, certainly with the EU commision, there clearly is a huge democratic deficit. Those guys decide on creating laws that potentially afflict millions of EU citizens...and they aren't even elected, nor do they have any political responsibilty towards those citizens!
So it still can and should be improved. And corruption isn't unheard of here neither, though the kind of open and 'legal' bribing by companies, like is rampant in the USA is a lot less, here.
And that maybe explains your post: when you compare it with the USA, I can understand the feeling...but believe me, it's not an utopia here neither. Only in comparison it is better.
"Owning the XOR patent, simply stimulated companies to develop other more advanced methods of editing (overlays, underlays, transparency color)."
Perhaps, but copyright already does that, adn patents have the disadvantage that they cover ideas on themselves. There are only a limited number of ways to get passed an idea, depending on how broad it was.
If Xerox patented the GUI, how would other companies have evaded that? By using commandlines?
At some point, it becomes clear patents are rather restricting then helping in the innovative process. swp are a prime example of that.
Man, this is so funny!
;-)
;-)
The parent poster:
- typical republican response: "it is happening, but clinton did it first."
- you: "If you really think it's only "Republicans" bending science, it's probably because the bending done by "Democrats" is invisible to you."
Now, I'm just wondering: ARE you a republican? That would top it off.
Since I'd like to be with the other 5 % (at least, for the moment), please give me a sign when you're ready to (nearly) exterminate the human race, so I can take shelter in time.
;-)
If you don't know how to proceed once you got the virus, please look for good advice to films like 'Outbreak' and '12 monkeys'.
But then again, could you hold off untill the EU decides about swp? I might change my mind, depending on that outcome.
We might actually win without even have to go to the EU parliament again.
That's about the 4th or 5th country where the national parliament instructed their government not to vote for the directive.
But then again, some caution should remain: the dutch parliament has asked the minister before to change votes, but he merrily ignored that. It is surprising, often, how many time (and how much) so-called democratic governments completely disregard the democratic principle they have sworn to uphold.
If it DOES goe back for a second reading, our anti-swp movement will have to agree (and decide) what we are going to aim for, IMHO.
Do we want the EU parliament then to make a compromise (not a good idea, since the amended version was already the bear minimal, a 'compromise' would probably come out totally bork)? Do we want a complete rejection by the EU parliament? Do we want it back on the drawingboard and have a first reading again?
This might be important, since if it comes that far, we'll have to have 2/3 of a majority. I think option 2 or 3 have the most chance of getting that majority, since even pro-swp-MEPs (like McCarthy) have (in the JURI) voted to restart the process so that we can 'better research the impact of swp on SMEs'.
"What to do? Sounds a little like a catch-22, but there is an answer. Don't build the nukes."
No, I just explained why: even when they won't, there is a chance they'll get invaded. That's what happend with Iraq, after all. So, are they going for that option? That's wishful thinking, not the obvious step of countries capable of creating nukes and on bad terms with the USA. As I said, seen that they feel threatened by the USA, those will create nukes. Exactly what N.Korea and Iran is doing.
It only looks like a catch 22 on first sight; in reality, even the USA can't permit to invade one country after another. It would be political and military suicide. I think it's all too obvious the USA has more then it bargened for in Iraq, and I don't think anyone would seriously believe the USA would invade another country, before they settled with Iraq first. Even the roman empire tried to avoid battling on two fronts at the same time.
So, in effect, the invasion of Iraq created at the same time the obvious pressure/threat of the USA *and* provided a period where it will rather bark then bite to other countries.
So, what they *really* think is: let's build nukes as fast as we can, so we're safe by the time the USA would feel arrogant enough to pre-emptively attack again.
As an european, I can relativate that to the current USA government, but I doubt those countries can or will.
And it must be said, while under Clinton relations over the big dipper were pretty good, I think most USA-citizens fail to realise how much sympathy the US has lost even among europeans. 'Our' politicians, being diplomatic, only show the top of the iceberg, really. The opinion about the USA among the people is hugely negative these days, and that sentiment is reflected by all layers of the populace.
Indeed, we might be closer. It is reasonable to limit any threat to yourself or your country, provided the measures taken are reasonable on themselves. A pre-emptive strike is not. But I think we agree on this.
Ofcourse, this is true for other countries as well.
Unfortunatly, the recent history shows us that the USA is:
1)Able AND willing to invade another country (even when not directly a threat), in a 'pre-emptive' manner.
2)The USA does not do the same (even when the same arguments/reasons apply) when it could seriously get hurt in the process.
Following those observations, and seen the fact that a country actually having nukes poses too great a risk for the USA to invade, the only logical conclusion for those countries (especially those on bad terms with the US) is that they *have* to have nukes, to be sure they will not get invaded.
I understand the sentiment, and no one is claiming it isn't awful, but the poster was right in correcting the parent poster, because he was factual wrong.
Sentiments and emotions are no excuse to distort the truth or posting something as a fact when it isn't.
I agree with your first two statements. ;-)
"Because ICBMs tend to ignore borders."
Is this supposed to be an argument to what the poster said? The USA does not have ICBMs? Borders can not be ignored by the USA?
"If some nutjob dictator is threatening you with them, then some reasonable ecautions/politics/defenses are in order."
Even nutjob dictators like to stay in power. Kim only threatens to use them when he's attacked; something the USA and many other nuke-containing countries have said in the past too.
This is the fallacy used by the Bushies: terrorists attack the USA, therefor dictators will attack the USA too, with nukes, if they have them.
It's crap, ofcourse. Sadam was no direct threat to the USA, and neither is Kim...unless, perhaps, when the USA invades. But then again, what country wouldn't react in the same manner? Let's not forget, after all, which is the only country to have actually used the A-bom on another country...
What disturbs me greatly, is the inherent hypocrisy of the USA. Nukes are forbidden, and sanctions are ordained (and even countries invaded) if OTHER countries develop nukes (or are claimed to do so).... but, as you said yourself, the USA has no moral right, not an inherent monopoly given by God on nukes and the development thereof. So why shouldn't other countries develop them?
And even IF the USA (and 4 or 5 other countries) had some god-given right to be the only one to develop them... why didn't they invade, nor sanctionned, Isreal when it created nukes? Because it is a democracy, and nukes are forbidden for dictators only?
Then why DID they sanction India for creating nukes, even though it is a democracy? And why did they dispelled and lifted the sanctions of india AND pakistan (governed by a dictator) which both have nukes?
The answer is: it's not about the nukes or the form of government you have, it's about playing ball with the USA. All the morality and 'reasons' given are bogus; they have no problem with setting aside their reasoning and ethics if it suits them. the truth is, they are deeply unethical, and while this is not the perogative of the USA alone, it makes it double hypocrite when they claim they do it out of high morality, and have their mouth full of freedom, making the world safer, getting rid of dictators (when in fact, they have helped some of the worst dicators in power), etc...when in fact, it's just selfinterest.
If it weren't for people like Michael Moore and (the late) Carl Sagan, I would develop a deep resentment and despise america as a whole. But at least they prove(d) there still is some sanity and critical thinking in the USA.
"Note that some European nations have been complicit, particulary France, in aiding these rogue nations developing these weapons."
Not like the USA, who merely sold tons of chemicals to Saddam, even well aware they were going to be used as chemical weapons against his people. Even after he massacred a whole village with those chemicals, the USA happily supplied him with more.
"Nice try blaming the U.S., but unless North Korea travelled in time, going to the future, to see the 2nd Iraq war, you can hardly say they accelerated their Nuke program because of it. Iran had a nuke program long before the U.S. invasion. Libya had a nuke program before the invasion."
Ofcourse, there was also the 1st Iraq war, and besides that, your argumentation lacks coherency. In what way does it exclude that the nations, even if they already had nuclear programs as you claim, accelaerated that program after the Iraq-wars? I fail to see any logic in this particular reasoning of you.
you're one of the hurd. (ask Stallman for more info)
1)WMDs *were* an excuse, I think by now everyone (not being a sheep) can agree on that.
2)The oil, aside from geopolitical reasons, has always been an important consideration; to claim differently is naive (at best). If the war in Iraq had gone the way the USA government had forseen it, oil would have spiced the USA economy already. And more then it ever could with the sanctions in place, as another poster already explained.
3)Yes, Saddam commited terrible crimes to his own people, however, this was never mentionned as the prime cause for going to war. In fact, international law does not allow to invade a sovereign country because it has a dictator commiting crimes. Besides, the USA has held (and helped) dictators in power that commited terrible acts against the populace, as long as the dictator was cooperative. The argument that they invaded Iraq for that reason (as only is argumented now, afterwards) would be more convincing if the USA didn't show they were perfectly prepared to help dicators, as long as it suited them.
3)There was a majority? Must have misread about pretty much all of the world-opinion, then. That US politicians were in support says more about the majority of them (linked with sheep) then anything else. But then, a pretty much biased media and the developed national-zealot-reflex of pretty much all americans goes a long way in explaining it.
4)"There is a difference between a threat to the country and a threat to human life. North Korea doesn't pose a direct threat to the US..." Indeed. Neither was Iraq a threat to the USA. And while you claim there is no mass-murder (how would you know that?) also in N.Korea people are being tortured and killed; so where does that leave you, with your justified reason to go to war? And btw, if anything, since N.Korea has nukes AND rockets, it poses a far greater threat to the USA then Iraq ever did. And they aren't predicatable at all, which has been proven by the numeous times they reacted on the 6-countries talk. Predicatble and knowing his intentions...geez. You are completely inventing this, aren't you?