Ultimately, communism (and socialism) needs to force people to act against their human nature.
To invoke 'human nature' as an unproblematic axiom to argue against communism -which is based on a the idea that human nature is determined by the economic relations of any given society -really begs the question. Nor are communists alone in dismissing the idea of some imutable human nature. For a classic, and very pursuasive argument, made from a non-socialist position, see John Dewey's Does Human Nature Change.
It seems to me that any society that has yet existed has required some level of coercion. Our system, what it is once again becoming fashionable to refer to as 'capitalism,' clearly does. You might think it is 'human nature' to satisfy wants, but coercion stops you simply emptying a bank vault, or driving off with that Porsche. Maybe it is different where you live, but where I am we have all sorts of laws protecting property, and there are many people who have been locked away from society for property offences. Presumably it was in their nature simply to take what they wanted with undue disrespect for capitalist property relations.
It would thus be open to paraphrase you as: Ultimately, capitalism needs to force people to act against their human nature.
>AC: And what is wrong with state funded broadcasting ?
If I subscribe to a commercial channel, that is my decision. If a government decides to finance a channel, I pay for it merely by virtue of being a citizen of that country, whether or not I want to watch that channel. I consider that an affront to my liberty.
Based on the reasoning of an abstract 'liberty' this is a seductive line. When held up to inspection against substantive reality, however, it falls apart. In the free-to-air broadcasting world, the concept of individual choice makes little sense. The simple choice of whether to watch or not (since commercial TV is unwatchable that choice is in any case forced) amounts to a very impoverished notion of 'liberty.' For myself I prefer the liberty that comes with having access to a diverse range of information, such as commercial TV in Australia (and elsewhere one suspects) refuses to provide. Alone on the basis of this kind of market failure a public intervention would be justified.
However, as the High Court determined in
ACTV
Australian citizens enjoy a 'freedom of political communication' flowing from the nature of their representative democracy. Again this freedom, required by citizens in exercise of their political duties, would be merely a formal one (ie lacking substance) if they had access only to the unanimous view of the commercial media. On this (what might fashionably be called 'republican') ground too, a citizen might reasonably be called on to fund a public broadcaster.
The real problem with government funded broadcasting, is one of independence, (though this is, perhaps not so pressing in an environment in which the commercial alternative exists.) The 'Corporation' in ABC is here of the greatest import, the ABC is a statutory corporation formally independent of the the government of the day. The concern, in these days of funding cuts and political appointsments to the board, is that 'Auntie' maintain her critical independence from the administration. It is against this background that the extra-curricular 'propaganda' of ABC journalists must be understood.
The bottom line is that in many respects, it's really ONE WORLD now in the IP business.
Forget the rest of the crud you may have read on this story, the AC has got it right.
Sure there are still differences between industrialised (and non-industrialised) nations, but these are being progressively harmonised out if existence. Historically, of course, the US was always the IP skeptic, as pointed out about they signed the Berne Convention in 1989, over a century after the convention was originally drawn up in Berne (Sep 9, 1886, last revised 1971). Now, however the US seems to be leading the pack. A cynic might believe this is because the US administration has fallen captive to large corporate interests, but this could hardly be the case with a democratically elected government, surely?
In any case your question (how does US ip law compare) is most easily answered by comparing US legislation with the text of various international argeements. Undoubtedly the one with the most teeth is TRIPS (Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights), because it falls under the aegis of the WTO. In fact compliance to TRIP is a requirement of WTO membership. TRIPS is how we managed to stop those fiendish Brazilians from forcing defenceless drug companies from printing the name of the pharmaceutical in a larger font than the brand name on their products (which had the undesirable effect of causing people to buy lower cost generic brands of the same substances). TRIPS was how we forced the Indians to actually afford patent protection to pharmaceuticals (they had previously refused - something about making medicines affordable for poor people - like we're supposed to care that the profits of Swiss drug conglumerates are paid for in the lives of Indian children). TRIPS, it should be noted, also incorporates much of the previous international treatiage, such as parts of the Berne, Paris, etc. treaties.
While some differences do remain, TRIPS for instance specifically exempts members from enacting the kind of (continental) European 'moral rights' (Berne Conv Art 6bis) discussed above, it is becoming increasingly true that we are being made subject to a global IP regime.
>what actually happens when a copyright is held on one thing in two countries by two companies?
That shouldn't ever happen, because whoever created it first gains instant copyright protection in all countries that are signatory
to the treaty. So, whoever can prove that they created it first can sue the other for breach of copyright.
Think again! This is intellectual property (ie it's assignable). Therefor the copyright owners, even if they originally own the rights in all countries, can freely assign the rights for specific countries to others. This frequently happens in the music industry for instance, where some collecting societies in some countries work on the basis of the artist assigning copyright to the society, and others don't.
A bit of revision before you head into that IP exam I think...
Capablanca didn't study fancy
schmancy hyper-modern openings. He just say down and beat anyone he played, for 8 full years, he didn't lose a game! Until
some young mathematician whippersnapper named Reti came along and hosed him with that fancy schmancy hyper-modern
hogwash.
And then only because Capablanca cheekily opened with the 'Reti,' and a double fianchetto to boot. Of course, Reti matched this audacity in equal measure. I love that fancy schmancy hyper-modern hogwash though, IMHO that Capablanca/Reti game was perhaps the most beautiful game ever played, victory ensuing, if memory serves me correctly, from a subtle rook manoeuvre (must read it again some day). That being said a nice King's gambit can be quiet tasty.
Because the domain owner never responded, the panel had nothing to go on but what Guinness told them.
Nonetheless, the complaint still has to satisfy the requirement that the said domain name in dispute is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights, and this is what is unsatisfactory about the decision.
Look, Guinness could probably have succeeded under business defamation in any number of jurisdictions (including the one in which Guinness plc is registered), though perhaps not in the US. Arguably this is not a bad thing. Remember the name Guinness is valuable property, into which a lot has been invested, the creation of these domain names is equivalent to someone coming along and scratching EAT THE RICH along the side of your new BMW (though this arguably is not a bad thing either).
That the Panel should hold that a different standard applies to the deceptively similar test, merely because such a site might be discovered by a search engine is disturbing. It reflects a growing tendency for the Law (both at curial and legislative levels) to wet its pants whenever a matter in some way involves the internet. The argument is often put that the Law cannot keep pace with technological change, IMHO the opposite is the case. While some adjustment is doubtless necessary (such as recognising that domain names do have to be brought into step with trade mark law), the Law is particularly adapted to dealing with novel situations. Thus cybersquatting, which the US legislature felt it necessary to criminalise by statute, was simply dealt with under equity in Australia (in the Melbourne-IT case). If established legal principles were applied fairly, irrespective of whether the issue was one involving the net (ooh, it cyberspace... better be really draconian here!), I believe we would not be seeing findings as aburd as 'guinnessbeerreallysucks' being confusingly similar to 'guinness' (in a way which 'guiness' clearly is btw.)
The point of games like Quake, just like Laser Tag, LARP, etc, is catharsis.
IMHO, this entire debate is marred by the simplistic idea that violent games either do, or do not make their users violent.
Obviously such games could never be the sole cause of any given behaviour, how they effect any particular user will depend on who that user is. Is it not possible that a game will be cathartic for some individuals, while adversely (from the point of view of society) effecting the attitude towards violence in others?
This is the core issue about CrimeNet, and what is more this invasion of privacy is criminogenic itself... ie. if you can't get a job you are unlikely to get out of crime, in effect CrimeNet prevents the reformation of offenders.
The big problem with nuking CrimeNet is this: The information they collate is in the public domain, and necessarily so, given the imperative of maintaining public transparency of judicial process. While the expanding access to information is usually a big positive, examples like this suggest there might also be a downside.
In the end, we're just left to choose in the grounds of usefulness. And I happen to think that rational thought is damned useful.
To tell the truth I accept the validity of my reasoning (and thus engage in reasoned argument such as this) very much on this basis. I suspect, however, there is something circular (which normative reason of course forbids) in attempting to ground reason in this fashion.
Such an approach, however is not the only way to ground reason. Those who are fortunate enough to be able to convince themselves in the existence of a divine creator (this I have not been able to achieve) can argue that God imparted reason to us precisely to understand His/Her/Its creation, thus guaranteeing its epistemological efficacy.
A more approach sophisticated perhaps, would be to stress the unknowability of the word, execept through our perceptions and application of reason. In a sense the universe is reason. Or at least reason is the universe's self-consciousness, the only way the universe is known. Thus a "supporter of rational thought" might find the fact that such consciousness (and with it reason) arose, to be anything but "trivial."
Re:Uh, doesn't seem very "rational" at all
on
The Mind of God
·
· Score: 1
...coming from an alleged supporter of rational thought, this sounds very out of place
It does looked at from the application side of 'rational thought', ie considerations of burden of proof etc. However, it "can be no trivial detail" for a supporter of rational thought, because reason is itself predicated upon this detail.
One could not imagine, rationally or otherwise, what the cosmos would be like, had this unlikely event (that is to say the origin of the only known consciousness on a planet at the edge of some non-descript galaxy) not taken place, if it had not taken place.
What is the basis for your belief (assuming you have one) in the epistemological efficacy of reason anyway. Why should the universe be such, and why should our minds be such, that rational thought can tells us anything useful about the world at all?
To sue (and win) you have to not only prove that the statement is false, but also that it was known (to should have known) to be false.
Is that really the law in the US?! Where I live you have to prove is that you're reputation was injured and (unless it falls within one of the per se categories) that you have suffered some damage.
It is a complete defence, of course, to prove that the stament is true. Clearly this is a radically different thing from expecting a plaintiff to prove a statement false.
Wasn't the Supreme Court decision about a design being trademarked, rather than patented?
... moreover, wasn't it about an unregistered 'trade dress' trademark? I don't know the US law on this matter, but the court's emphasis on 'unregistered' would seem to imply that 'trade dress' is registrable and can function as a trademark.
1) Bob Dylan (to refer back to the original article) is not a corporation.
2) Corporations can own things. Look around you, they own nearly the whole freepin' world! That is not a mere legal fiction. (To be perfectly pedantic, neither is the legal personality of the corporation. The corporation is deemed to be a person, hence it acually is. A legal fiction is something like describing a trespass as a trespass vie et armis, even in the absence of violence, in order to bring it into the common law courts; the use of the dummy lessee 'John Doe' and the dummy lessor 'Richard Roe' in actions of trespass de ejectione firma; or criminal writs which asserted jurisdiction over crimes committed abroad by the device "... in the city of Paris, in the county of Sussex." OK, I'm being just too pedantic here, corporate personality could be described as a legal fiction. It's a bit steep to describe corporate ownership in that way though.)
4) The argument about the nature of corporate personality is largely impertinent anyway, because it is always natural persons who actually do the intellectual work. Corporations can buy (say by paying wages) or otherwise acquire intellectual property and hence own what is (if you swallow this line) a piece of natural property.
Look, I actually agree with you up to a point. Clearly corporations are creatures of the legislature, which as you point out are subsidised in the form of the extraodinary legal protection they enjoy. As I indicated, I don't buy the propertarian argument in favour of copyright. I just had to put it, because the discussion here is so one-sided. With even Reason abandoning them, I felf that property owners needed some representation.
Where I think we probably differ is that I don't believe in any natural proprietary rights whatsoever. I believe in power. If you have the power to assert your ownership, you are a property owner. There may have existed, (or still exist,) a `warlord society' where such power was spelt out in a brutishly simple manner. In democracies subject to the 'rule of law,' the power to assert ownership, might be mediated by law, but it is ultimately enforced by the coercive state apparatus. This is the source of intellectual property, it is the reason corporations can own things, and moreover it is the reason that natural persons can as well.
It is amusing to see Reason(tm) appropriating terminology from the Marxist lexicon, such as the 'culture industry' (a term orginially coined by Adorno and Horkheimer.) More surprising are the 'socialist' assumptions underlying the argument presented, which are made explicit in the statement: "[Copyrights] are, after all, government-granted monopolies."
We should be aware also of the libertarian line of argument which justifies IP on the basis that it is precisely what it says it is, namely property. Following Locke, (who saw property arising out of the mixing of 'nature' and labour,) it is often argued by copyright holders that the fruits of intellectual, as much as physical labour, give rise to property per se. The source of copyright therefore is not is some grant by the state. Quite the opposite, copyright legislation limits (and infringes upon) natural proprietary rights. Lengthening the period during which this property persists, merely plays around with the borders of what is ultimately an illegitimate appropriation.
I hasten to add that I do not subscribe to this latter view. It's just that hitherto I have not associated Reason(tm) with the a pro-state and public interest, and anti-individual (or company) and property position inherent in the 'copyright is a state granted monopoly for the public benefit' line of reasoning.
Recent US court cases have shown that the mere name isn't enough to cause a trademark infringement.
The relvant law is probably Swiss, not US law. Even under US law, however, I wonder is this is a legal absolute. Most jurisdictions around the world give special protection to very well known trade marks, as they are required to under TRIPS. (This is so even for unrelated goods.) I doubt if TNN or Clue qualify for such protection. Coke(tm), on the other hand, might may well.
My advice is don't ask Slashdot for legal advice, ask a lawyer who is familiar with the trade mark law in force in the relevant jurisdiction, or perhaps a specialist in having the forum shifted.
That being said, thanks for telling us all about this case. It just that the format of "any suggestions would be helpful and appreciated" seems less appropriate than hey look what happened to me, let's all have a bitch about it....:sings "...better get a lawyer son... better be a real good one..."
It is worth considering, however, that if they get spammed out by long-winded ill-informed rants, the result might be that independent submissions in general are discounted, in favour of those written on behalf of organisations with nifty initials such as MPAA.
To talk about the "enforcability" of a type of license, especially one as novel as the GPL, untested by a court, is like talking about the robustness of a program which has never been run.
This can be reduced to a proverb: The proof of the pudding is in the tasting
Sorry, but idea of people working together for the good of "community" failed. It doesn't work. People are at their best when working for themselves.
Linux was written by people working for the common good, MS-Windows by those working for themselves. It seems to me that people are at their best when working for the good of the community, but maybe that's because I'm wedded to the unix command line?
Ok, I'm not sure if this is still relevant to proving a computer record in court but...
Well you can be required under s3V of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) to give your name and address, but I don't know of these other powers of the NCA and the Feds. Could you point me in the direction of the source of this power. (ie the relevant provisions of the relevant act).
For example, if I am brought into court for my pornographic nihlistic blueprint for the destruction of the Australian Way Of Life can any of my computer records be relied on as evidence?
Assuming the records pertain to a federal offence (or to an offence in NSW), it ought to be possible to get it into evidence. Computer based records could be adduced under any of the various provisions of s48(1)(b), (c),(d) or (e) of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth & NSW). This is because 'document' is defined for the purposes of the Act as including anything, inter alia, "... from which sounds images or writing can be reproduced with or without the aid or anything else"
Depending on the circumstance, computer records might be excluded, prima facie, by the hearsay provision of the Act (s59). (It won't of course if the 'record' is the actual thing you are not allowed to have). However there are many exceptions which would allow the production of the evidence, for instance if it is a 'business record' (s69), if it is a record you yourself made (s66(2)(a)) &c.
Can anyone prove my files are really mine?
Well I guess, since these would be records which "purport to have been produced" (s48(1)(b)(ii)) by your machine, it is likely that the prosecution would put the question to you, whether these actually were your documents. Being under oath you would, of course, answer truthfully, would you not?:P
ASIO has next to no problem spying on aust. citizens electronically or otherwise, with or without legislation leting them do so - who's going to know...
It's this Australian fetish with having everything done according to the rule of law. Man, I mean imagine actually having to get a warrant to spy on someone's computers systems instead of just going out and doin' it. Another example of typical Australian bureaucratic inefficiency! I mean how is ASIO going to stay internationally competitive with the likes of the CIA if it is weighed down with laws like these?
Re:If you're going to be pedantic ...
on
Happy Odd Day!
·
· Score: 1
Depends on if you start the array at 0 or 1.. Wrong again... it depends on whether the designer of our calendar started with a 0 or a 1... It's pretty much agreed it was a 1, so the third millenium is indeed from 2001-3000.
Slashdot Mirror
To invoke 'human nature' as an unproblematic axiom to argue against communism -which is based on a the idea that human nature is determined by the economic relations of any given society -really begs the question. Nor are communists alone in dismissing the idea of some imutable human nature. For a classic, and very pursuasive argument, made from a non-socialist position, see John Dewey's Does Human Nature Change.
It seems to me that any society that has yet existed has required some level of coercion. Our system, what it is once again becoming fashionable to refer to as 'capitalism,' clearly does. You might think it is 'human nature' to satisfy wants, but coercion stops you simply emptying a bank vault, or driving off with that Porsche. Maybe it is different where you live, but where I am we have all sorts of laws protecting property, and there are many people who have been locked away from society for property offences. Presumably it was in their nature simply to take what they wanted with undue disrespect for capitalist property relations.
It would thus be open to paraphrase you as:
Ultimately, capitalism needs to force people to act against their human nature.
>AC: And what is wrong with state funded broadcasting ?
If I subscribe to a commercial channel, that is my decision. If a government decides to finance a channel, I pay for it merely by virtue of being a citizen of that country, whether or not I want to watch that channel. I consider that an affront to my liberty.
Based on the reasoning of an abstract 'liberty' this is a seductive line. When held up to inspection against substantive reality, however, it falls apart. In the free-to-air broadcasting world, the concept of individual choice makes little sense. The simple choice of whether to watch or not (since commercial TV is unwatchable that choice is in any case forced) amounts to a very impoverished notion of 'liberty.' For myself I prefer the liberty that comes with having access to a diverse range of information, such as commercial TV in Australia (and elsewhere one suspects) refuses to provide. Alone on the basis of this kind of market failure a public intervention would be justified.
However, as the High Court determined in ACTV Australian citizens enjoy a 'freedom of political communication' flowing from the nature of their representative democracy. Again this freedom, required by citizens in exercise of their political duties, would be merely a formal one (ie lacking substance) if they had access only to the unanimous view of the commercial media. On this (what might fashionably be called 'republican') ground too, a citizen might reasonably be called on to fund a public broadcaster.
The real problem with government funded broadcasting, is one of independence, (though this is, perhaps not so pressing in an environment in which the commercial alternative exists.) The 'Corporation' in ABC is here of the greatest import, the ABC is a statutory corporation formally independent of the the government of the day. The concern, in these days of funding cuts and political appointsments to the board, is that 'Auntie' maintain her critical independence from the administration. It is against this background that the extra-curricular 'propaganda' of ABC journalists must be understood.
The bottom line is that in many respects, it's really ONE WORLD now in the IP business.
Forget the rest of the crud you may have read on this story, the AC has got it right.
Sure there are still differences between industrialised (and non-industrialised) nations, but these are being progressively harmonised out if existence. Historically, of course, the US was always the IP skeptic, as pointed out about they signed the Berne Convention in 1989, over a century after the convention was originally drawn up in Berne (Sep 9, 1886, last revised 1971). Now, however the US seems to be leading the pack. A cynic might believe this is because the US administration has fallen captive to large corporate interests, but this could hardly be the case with a democratically elected government, surely?
In any case your question (how does US ip law compare) is most easily answered by comparing US legislation with the text of various international argeements. Undoubtedly the one with the most teeth is TRIPS (Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights), because it falls under the aegis of the WTO. In fact compliance to TRIP is a requirement of WTO membership. TRIPS is how we managed to stop those fiendish Brazilians from forcing defenceless drug companies from printing the name of the pharmaceutical in a larger font than the brand name on their products (which had the undesirable effect of causing people to buy lower cost generic brands of the same substances). TRIPS was how we forced the Indians to actually afford patent protection to pharmaceuticals (they had previously refused - something about making medicines affordable for poor people - like we're supposed to care that the profits of Swiss drug conglumerates are paid for in the lives of Indian children). TRIPS, it should be noted, also incorporates much of the previous international treatiage, such as parts of the Berne, Paris, etc. treaties.While some differences do remain, TRIPS for instance specifically exempts members from enacting the kind of (continental) European 'moral rights' (Berne Conv Art 6bis) discussed above, it is becoming increasingly true that we are being made subject to a global IP regime.
>what actually happens when a copyright is held on one thing in two countries by two companies?
That shouldn't ever happen, because whoever created it first gains instant copyright protection in all countries that are signatory to the treaty. So, whoever can prove that they created it first can sue the other for breach of copyright.
Think again! This is intellectual property (ie it's assignable). Therefor the copyright owners, even if they originally own the rights in all countries, can freely assign the rights for specific countries to others. This frequently happens in the music industry for instance, where some collecting societies in some countries work on the basis of the artist assigning copyright to the society, and others don't.
A bit of revision before you head into that IP exam I think ...
Capablanca didn't study fancy schmancy hyper-modern openings. He just say down and beat anyone he played, for 8 full years, he didn't lose a game! Until some young mathematician whippersnapper named Reti came along and hosed him with that fancy schmancy hyper-modern hogwash.
And then only because Capablanca cheekily opened with the 'Reti,' and a double fianchetto to boot. Of course, Reti matched this audacity in equal measure. I love that fancy schmancy hyper-modern hogwash though, IMHO that Capablanca/Reti game was perhaps the most beautiful game ever played, victory ensuing, if memory serves me correctly, from a subtle rook manoeuvre (must read it again some day). That being said a nice King's gambit can be quiet tasty.
Because the domain owner never responded, the panel had nothing to go on but what Guinness told them.
Nonetheless, the complaint still has to satisfy the requirement that the said domain name in dispute is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights, and this is what is unsatisfactory about the decision.
Look, Guinness could probably have succeeded under business defamation in any number of jurisdictions (including the one in which Guinness plc is registered), though perhaps not in the US. Arguably this is not a bad thing. Remember the name Guinness is valuable property, into which a lot has been invested, the creation of these domain names is equivalent to someone coming along and scratching EAT THE RICH along the side of your new BMW (though this arguably is not a bad thing either).
That the Panel should hold that a different standard applies to the deceptively similar test, merely because such a site might be discovered by a search engine is disturbing. It reflects a growing tendency for the Law (both at curial and legislative levels) to wet its pants whenever a matter in some way involves the internet. The argument is often put that the Law cannot keep pace with technological change, IMHO the opposite is the case. While some adjustment is doubtless necessary (such as recognising that domain names do have to be brought into step with trade mark law), the Law is particularly adapted to dealing with novel situations. Thus cybersquatting, which the US legislature felt it necessary to criminalise by statute, was simply dealt with under equity in Australia (in the Melbourne-IT case). If established legal principles were applied fairly, irrespective of whether the issue was one involving the net (ooh, it cyberspace ... better be really draconian here!), I believe we would not be seeing findings as aburd as 'guinnessbeerreallysucks' being confusingly similar to 'guinness' (in a way which 'guiness' clearly is btw.)
The point of games like Quake, just like Laser Tag, LARP, etc, is catharsis.
IMHO, this entire debate is marred by the simplistic idea that violent games either do, or do not make their users violent.
Obviously such games could never be the sole cause of any given behaviour, how they effect any particular user will depend on who that user is. Is it not possible that a game will be cathartic for some individuals, while adversely (from the point of view of society) effecting the attitude towards violence in others?
How does the decision of a court in Victoria amount to persecution by the government of Australia?!
This is the core issue about CrimeNet, and what is more this invasion of privacy is criminogenic itself ... ie. if you can't get a job you are unlikely to get out of crime, in effect CrimeNet prevents the reformation of offenders.
The big problem with nuking CrimeNet is this: The information they collate is in the public domain, and necessarily so, given the imperative of maintaining public transparency of judicial process. While the expanding access to information is usually a big positive, examples like this suggest there might also be a downside.
well the consensus is that within 50 years Tuvalu will have been completely engulfed by rising sea levels, so maybe not.
To tell the truth I accept the validity of my reasoning (and thus engage in reasoned argument such as this) very much on this basis. I suspect, however, there is something circular (which normative reason of course forbids) in attempting to ground reason in this fashion.
Such an approach, however is not the only way to ground reason. Those who are fortunate enough to be able to convince themselves in the existence of a divine creator (this I have not been able to achieve) can argue that God imparted reason to us precisely to understand His/Her/Its creation, thus guaranteeing its epistemological efficacy.
A more approach sophisticated perhaps, would be to stress the unknowability of the word, execept through our perceptions and application of reason. In a sense the universe is reason. Or at least reason is the universe's self-consciousness, the only way the universe is known. Thus a "supporter of rational thought" might find the fact that such consciousness (and with it reason) arose, to be anything but "trivial."
It does looked at from the application side of 'rational thought', ie considerations of burden of proof etc. However, it "can be no trivial detail" for a supporter of rational thought, because reason is itself predicated upon this detail.
One could not imagine, rationally or otherwise, what the cosmos would be like, had this unlikely event (that is to say the origin of the only known consciousness on a planet at the edge of some non-descript galaxy) not taken place, if it had not taken place.
What is the basis for your belief (assuming you have one) in the epistemological efficacy of reason anyway. Why should the universe be such, and why should our minds be such, that rational thought can tells us anything useful about the world at all?
Is that really the law in the US?! Where I live you have to prove is that you're reputation was injured and (unless it falls within one of the per se categories) that you have suffered some damage.
It is a complete defence, of course, to prove that the stament is true. Clearly this is a radically different thing from expecting a plaintiff to prove a statement false.
1) Bob Dylan (to refer back to the original article) is not a corporation.
2) Corporations can own things. Look around you, they own nearly the whole freepin' world! That is not a mere legal fiction. (To be perfectly pedantic, neither is the legal personality of the corporation. The corporation is deemed to be a person, hence it acually is. A legal fiction is something like describing a trespass as a trespass vie et armis, even in the absence of violence, in order to bring it into the common law courts; the use of the dummy lessee 'John Doe' and the dummy lessor 'Richard Roe' in actions of trespass de ejectione firma; or criminal writs which asserted jurisdiction over crimes committed abroad by the device "... in the city of Paris, in the county of Sussex." OK, I'm being just too pedantic here, corporate personality could be described as a legal fiction. It's a bit steep to describe corporate ownership in that way though.)
4) The argument about the nature of corporate personality is largely impertinent anyway, because it is always natural persons who actually do the intellectual work. Corporations can buy (say by paying wages) or otherwise acquire intellectual property and hence own what is (if you swallow this line) a piece of natural property.
Look, I actually agree with you up to a point. Clearly corporations are creatures of the legislature, which as you point out are subsidised in the form of the extraodinary legal protection they enjoy. As I indicated, I don't buy the propertarian argument in favour of copyright. I just had to put it, because the discussion here is so one-sided. With even Reason abandoning them, I felf that property owners needed some representation.
Where I think we probably differ is that I don't believe in any natural proprietary rights whatsoever. I believe in power. If you have the power to assert your ownership, you are a property owner. There may have existed, (or still exist,) a `warlord society' where such power was spelt out in a brutishly simple manner. In democracies subject to the 'rule of law,' the power to assert ownership, might be mediated by law, but it is ultimately enforced by the coercive state apparatus. This is the source of intellectual property, it is the reason corporations can own things, and moreover it is the reason that natural persons can as well.
We should be aware also of the libertarian line of argument which justifies IP on the basis that it is precisely what it says it is, namely property. Following Locke, (who saw property arising out of the mixing of 'nature' and labour,) it is often argued by copyright holders that the fruits of intellectual, as much as physical labour, give rise to property per se. The source of copyright therefore is not is some grant by the state. Quite the opposite, copyright legislation limits (and infringes upon) natural proprietary rights. Lengthening the period during which this property persists, merely plays around with the borders of what is ultimately an illegitimate appropriation.
I hasten to add that I do not subscribe to this latter view. It's just that hitherto I have not associated Reason(tm) with the a pro-state and public interest, and anti-individual (or company) and property position inherent in the 'copyright is a state granted monopoly for the public benefit' line of reasoning.
Recent US court cases have shown that the mere name isn't enough to cause a trademark infringement.
The relvant law is probably Swiss, not US law. Even under US law, however, I wonder is this is a legal absolute. Most jurisdictions around the world give special protection to very well known trade marks, as they are required to under TRIPS. (This is so even for unrelated goods.) I doubt if TNN or Clue qualify for such protection. Coke(tm), on the other hand, might may well.
My advice is don't ask Slashdot for legal advice, ask a lawyer who is familiar with the trade mark law in force in the relevant jurisdiction, or perhaps a specialist in having the forum shifted.
That being said, thanks for telling us all about this case. It just that the format of "any suggestions would be helpful and appreciated" seems less appropriate than hey look what happened to me, let's all have a bitch about it .... :sings " ...better get a lawyer son ... better be a real good one ..."
Please excuse that long-winded ranting sentence.
This can be reduced to a proverb: The proof of the pudding is in the tasting
Linux was written by people working for the common good, MS-Windows by those working for themselves. It seems to me that people are at their best when working for the good of the community, but maybe that's because I'm wedded to the unix command line?
Well you can be required under s3V of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) to give your name and address, but I don't know of these other powers of the NCA and the Feds. Could you point me in the direction of the source of this power. (ie the relevant provisions of the relevant act).
I'm sorry, we're talking criminal proceedings here, you would, of course, exercise your right to refuse to answer such a question, doh!
Assuming the records pertain to a federal offence (or to an offence in NSW), it ought to be possible to get it into evidence. Computer based records could be adduced under any of the various provisions of s48(1)(b), (c),(d) or (e) of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth & NSW). This is because 'document' is defined for the purposes of the Act as including anything, inter alia, " ... from which sounds images or writing can be reproduced with or without the aid or anything else"
Depending on the circumstance, computer records might be excluded, prima facie, by the hearsay provision of the Act (s59). (It won't of course if the 'record' is the actual thing you are not allowed to have). However there are many exceptions which would allow the production of the evidence, for instance if it is a 'business record' (s69), if it is a record you yourself made (s66(2)(a)) &c.
Can anyone prove my files are really mine?
Well I guess, since these would be records which "purport to have been produced" (s48(1)(b)(ii)) by your machine, it is likely that the prosecution would put the question to you, whether these actually were your documents. Being under oath you would, of course, answer truthfully, would you not? :P
It's this Australian fetish with having everything done according to the rule of law. Man, I mean imagine actually having to get a warrant to spy on someone's computers systems instead of just going out and doin' it.
Another example of typical Australian bureaucratic inefficiency! I mean how is ASIO going to stay internationally competitive with the likes of the CIA if it is weighed down with laws like these?
Depends on if you start the array at 0 or 1.. Wrong again ... it depends on whether the designer of our calendar started with a 0 or a 1 ... It's pretty much agreed it was a 1, so the third millenium is indeed from 2001-3000.