While agree initially with the assessment you are making... I would like to point out a few things:
Whenever you see MGM vs. Grokster, the MPAA vs. Lokitorrent, or another clear case of a rightsholder going after somebody who's in the business of providing access to pirated content, plenty of Slashdotters will slippery-slope this into a "rightsholders vs. P2P as a concept" issue.
Granted. Superficially this specific case has more to do with companies whose apparent business model encourages piracy and not P2P as a whole. Most/.'ers recognize the fact that judicial precidence is a major factor in the application of law in the US. While it might as first seem to be a 'slippery-slope' (someone has studied logical fallacies) argument to claim that this case is inherently about P2P it is not invalid or illogical to make the argument that this case could provide the cornerstone of precedence needed to eventually prosecute the legality of P2P in general.
Let's take the pro-life movement for example.
Disclaimer: I am pro-life
Look at the attempts made by the movement to gradually codify into law the recognition of an unborn child (fetus for those who prefer the term) as a human being so that the child can be guaranteed the rights and privileges that other humans enjoy. Some specific examples include (but are not limited to): partial birth abortion legislation and the Scott Peterson case (correct me if I am wrong but wasn't the prosecution seeking two counts of murder...one for the mother and one for the child). I am sure there are more examples but, the point is that those who are politically / legally involved in the pro-life movement know that precedence can be used to build the cornerstone for overturning Roe v. Wade.
I am sure there are examples of other groups that understand this fact about our (US) legal system as well. Another that comes to mind is the gay and lesbian community. I will let others provide examples if they wish...
All that to say that precedence has power in this country.
I am not sure who said it first but,
if you give them an inch...
Copyright is for speech, patents are for inventions. Software is not an invention!
Software is an expression of mathematical theory. Let's look at a concrete example.
Let's say that I am a contractor and my client wants me to build a bridge across a river. I say sure I know how to do that - no problem. I don't have to worry about patent infringement when building a bridge because the concept of creating a "material object to span open space or water" is not patentable (IANAL and there are some who would make an argument that the concept of a bridge IS patentable but I think that concept is ludicrous. Perhaps someone more familiar with Patent law could let us know whether or not the concept of a bridge is indeed patentable - excluding prior art).
Building software is like building a bridge (or a building for that matter).
Let's look at this from the speech perspective.
Imagine if you were writing a term paper for school or doing a research project. You need to be able to express the ideas found in your research material but wait....oh I can't say THAT since THOSE words express AN idea that has been patented. You wouldn't be able paraphrase anything. Paraphrasing in term papers or building upon prior research is exactly what we as software developers do every day. I need a way to ingest configuration information into my program so that I can dynamically effect the programs behavior at startup or runtime so I build software to do that so I build something that will do just that (or more likely I use commons-digester or some other OS library that has already solved this problem). So if someone had a patent for "a method for ingesting configuration information into a program that alters behavior dynamically at startup or runtime" then I would be unable to write MY software. It wouldn't matter that I outlined the problem, I examined the technology available, and I produced MY OWN solution to the problem since any solution would fall underneath this patent and thus be infringing. It is ridiculous. Copying someone else's solution verbatim would be wrong and violate copyright...protection exists (ie I can't solve the problem using the same words/code that you did, but I can use my own words).
Say it with me: software is speech , software is speech, SOFTWARE IS SPEECH
I'm sure that in the time it took to write this rant the argument has moved on but hey it's my first post, I'll savor it anyway.
Oh by the way you all owe me big money since I own the following patent:
Patent 1,678,976,543: "A method for conveying a grouping of words and/or characters in such a way that it forms a witticism, quip, jibe or other similarly or dissimilarly classed phrase at the end of an email, letter, newsgroup posting, or any other form of communication (physical or electronic)"
Slashdot Mirror
Your housing association's rules regarding antennas and dishes must be compliance with Section 207 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996:
R ef28770286
http://www.antennaweb.org/aw/info.aspx?page=FAQ#_
That only solves part of your problem, but every little bit helps right...
When will this be over?
I would like to get back to real news that us nerds can use.
While agree initially with the assessment you are making ... I would like to point out a few things:
/.'ers recognize the fact that judicial precidence is a major factor in the application of law in the US. While it might as first seem to be a 'slippery-slope' (someone has studied logical fallacies) argument to claim that this case is inherently about P2P it is not invalid or illogical to make the argument that this case could provide the cornerstone of precedence needed to eventually prosecute the legality of P2P in general.
...
Whenever you see MGM vs. Grokster, the MPAA vs. Lokitorrent, or another clear case of a rightsholder going after somebody who's in the business of providing access to pirated content, plenty of Slashdotters will slippery-slope this into a "rightsholders vs. P2P as a concept" issue.
Granted. Superficially this specific case has more to do with companies whose apparent business model encourages piracy and not P2P as a whole. Most
Let's take the pro-life movement for example.
Disclaimer: I am pro-life
Look at the attempts made by the movement to gradually codify into law the recognition of an unborn child (fetus for those who prefer the term) as a human being so that the child can be guaranteed the rights and privileges that other humans enjoy. Some specific examples include (but are not limited to): partial birth abortion legislation and the Scott Peterson case (correct me if I am wrong but wasn't the prosecution seeking two counts of murder...one for the mother and one for the child). I am sure there are more examples but, the point is that those who are politically / legally involved in the pro-life movement know that precedence can be used to build the cornerstone for overturning Roe v. Wade.
I am sure there are examples of other groups that understand this fact about our (US) legal system as well. Another that comes to mind is the gay and lesbian community. I will let others provide examples if they wish...
All that to say that precedence has power in this country.
I am not sure who said it first but,
if you give them an inch
/me pulls up to the drive through of a McDonalds late one night.
/me is greeted by a young child who kindly asks:
"Would you like a TROLL with that?"
Exactly!
Copyright is for speech, patents are for inventions. Software is not an invention! Software is an expression of mathematical theory. Let's look at a concrete example.
Let's say that I am a contractor and my client wants me to build a bridge across a river. I say sure I know how to do that - no problem. I don't have to worry about patent infringement when building a bridge because the concept of creating a "material object to span open space or water" is not patentable (IANAL and there are some who would make an argument that the concept of a bridge IS patentable but I think that concept is ludicrous. Perhaps someone more familiar with Patent law could let us know whether or not the concept of a bridge is indeed patentable - excluding prior art).
Building software is like building a bridge (or a building for that matter).
Let's look at this from the speech perspective. Imagine if you were writing a term paper for school or doing a research project. You need to be able to express the ideas found in your research material but wait....oh I can't say THAT since THOSE words express AN idea that has been patented. You wouldn't be able paraphrase anything. Paraphrasing in term papers or building upon prior research is exactly what we as software developers do every day. I need a way to ingest configuration information into my program so that I can dynamically effect the programs behavior at startup or runtime so I build software to do that so I build something that will do just that (or more likely I use commons-digester or some other OS library that has already solved this problem). So if someone had a patent for "a method for ingesting configuration information into a program that alters behavior dynamically at startup or runtime" then I would be unable to write MY software. It wouldn't matter that I outlined the problem, I examined the technology available, and I produced MY OWN solution to the problem since any solution would fall underneath this patent and thus be infringing. It is ridiculous. Copying someone else's solution verbatim would be wrong and violate copyright...protection exists (ie I can't solve the problem using the same words/code that you did, but I can use my own words).
Say it with me: software is speech , software is speech, SOFTWARE IS SPEECH
I'm sure that in the time it took to write this rant the argument has moved on but hey it's my first post, I'll savor it anyway.
Oh by the way you all owe me big money since I own the following patent:
Patent 1,678,976,543: "A method for conveying a grouping of words and/or characters in such a way that it forms a witticism, quip, jibe or other similarly or dissimilarly classed phrase at the end of an email, letter, newsgroup posting, or any other form of communication (physical or electronic)"