This patent was filed in 1996. This means it will expire in 2016. At that time, it will go into the public domain and be available for all to use as they see fit, free of charge. This is, in my opinion, superior to copyright. Copyright lasts forever (practically, if not literally). If Allen had copyright, rather than patent, the protection would last much longer. (An American law expert can confirm whether patent expiration timing starts from time of filing or time of grant)
Nonsense. You can have copyright protection on whatever you post here for eternity, I still have the freedom to post what _I_ write and you can do nothing about it. Copyright gives the copyright holder protection from theft, but it doesn't give them any power over anyone else's creation. Patents, on the other hand, stop others from doing the same thing independently.
That's why we complain about _stupid_ patents like these here, because they stop or try to stop people from doing things that are trivial. You will find very little complaints about patents for things that are actually new and innovative and that others wouldn't produce themselves easily.
...to loose the hounds upon the peasants?...Toulouse-Lautrec?
I suspect that your spelling is a touch loose [reference.com]. I think you meant "lose [reference.com]".
I think he _meant_ loose. From my dictionary:
"Loose" verb [ trans. ]
set free; release : the hounds have been loosed.
untie; unfasten : the ropes were loosed.
relax (one's grip) : he loosed his grip suddenly.
You are claiming that the car will instantly be up to operating speed the moment you take your foot off the brake and hit the accelerator? That would be pretty impressive, even if the starter spun the engine up at 1000rpm, it would still take a fraction of a second. Would also take a hefty splash of gas, too.
Who do you think would buy these cars in Europe if they were going slower than other cars? And it's not "foot off the brake and hit the accelerator". It is "press the kludge and put the car into gear". The engine starts when you press the kludge. The driver doesn't notice _any_ difference compared to a car with running engine.
Right now, you are lucky to get 4 to 6 cars through a light before it turns red again. The problem isn't necessarily because the lights are too short, but more often, the hesitation from one driver to the next in starting to move. What happens when those cars now take a fraction of a second longer just to start up again?
My car battery dies just about every winter because it's driven 1.5 miles to the transit station and 1.5 miles back. That type of driving takes a serious toll on a battery when the temps hover around a balmy -22F for several weeks a year. Will this restart the engine from the battery? If so, will Ford replace it under warranty for having a feature included for those of us who don't idle our cars ever because we take mass transit?
Posts like this one make me wonder who is reading slashdot. Everyone thinks they come up with a reason why this won't work. But everyone with a bit of engineering spirit inside their brain would instead come up with a list of problems, and a list of very simple engineering solutions. But please think about this yourself: What is the obvious engineering solution to handle the case of a person driving 1.5 miles in the winter, then parking their car for many hours, then driving another 1.5 miles, then parking again?
This is of course not "Joel" updating his list of requirements for good development, but some joker trying to take advantage of Joel's reputation.
Example: Allow users direct access to a bug database? It's hard enough to train testers to give you good bug reports. You won't get anything usable from an end user without some severe filtering.
The correct statement is: "There is nobody using Ogg who would be capable of paying large amounts of money to lawyers if there was a patent suit against them". If iPhone and Android used Ogg, then you could be assured that someone would come up with some patents that they claim are infringed by Ogg.
MAC filtering is a waste of time. MAC addresses can easily be changed to match one of your exciting addresses. And you're already broadcasting your existing devices. Guess what one of the first things attack tools do when they're having trouble getting a response from the AP?
Changing the MAC address of a device means you give up any excuse that you got onto someone's WiFi connection by accident. So when I call the cops, you are in serious trouble. The good thing about WiFi hacking is that you have to be nearby. Which means I'll find you. And I'm not mad enough to knock on your door myself.
You point out all the various different laws in different countries. Country A does not extradite someone to country B for a crime that isn't a crime in country A. Otherwise we're all pretty much criminals.
Actually, within the EU, exactly that will happen. As one american idiot found out who mailed Nazi propaganda from the USA to Germany, and then they got him when he travelled to Denmark.
Agreed - this guy may not have been as stupid as the average 419 victim, but he still made mistakes. I do, however, think the blame is, at the very least, to be shared with the bank in this case (and it's not often that I have any sympathy for some idiot who thought Prince Njembe considered him the best financial broker for the job); a reasonable person would believe that if a bank says a cheque is cleared, the money is now yours to use, despite what some arcane and little-known regulation might have to say on the matter.
There are three parties involved, the scammer, the victim, and the bank. The victim was _exactly_ as stupid as the average advance fraud victim - he believed an idiotic story that someone was willing to give him about $100,000 or so in cash for very little work. Believing this is idiotic. The bank didn't know about the circumstances. Doesn't matter what a reasonable person would believe; a reasonable person wouldn't believe the story in the first place. A reasonable person could have gone to their bank manager and found out more about the situation. And then they would have found out how this fraud works. It wasn't the bank which believed the scammer, it was the victim. He's only got himself to blame.
So my question is this -- HOW do you know that collection of the original deposit is final? (I've never even heard that phrase before.) Apparently being told "the check has cleared" doesn't do it?
What about this: You ask the bank "is this final or is there any way that you can ask for the money back?", and then you ask them to give this to you in writing. You might then check out the laws of your country to find how far a written statement of a bank employee is legally binding for the bank to be absolutely safe, but having it in writing that they cannot ask for the money back would go a long way to help you in a court case.
In the end, the person sending the cheque can probably for a very, very long time sue you in court for whatever reason to ask for the money back. For example, if someone stole a cheque from me, used it to put $500,000 into your account, and I noticed this only half a year later, don't you think I would take you to court? (Although I think there would be problems with this in the USA, because in US law it would only be accepted that you have _my_ money if you had real banknotes that were taken away from me. With cheques, the money going out of my account is not legally the same money that is going into your account).
I assume that is exactly what the poster is proposing, and it is a damn good idea. The bank does not have to FORCE everyone to wait, but they should not say "the cheque has cleared", and then later say "sorry, the cheque has un-cleared, we want that money back."
Case 1: I get a cheque for $500,000 from a company that is totally legal, solvent, and so on.
Case 2: I get a cheque for $500,000 from a scam artist.
The bank obviously cannot know initially which one it is. The time they need to absolutely irrecovably clear the cheque to the point where nobody in the world can get the money back from the bank will be the same, whether it is a legal company or a scam artist. However, the legal company probably didn't give me the cheque just for fun. For example, they might have given me the cheque so that I put new carpets into their huge new office building, and I need money to pay for the carpets, I need money to pay for the employees, so I need to be able to spend the $500,000 as early as possible. I can't start working until the bank gives me access to the $500,000.
So what do you think should happen with the first cheque? To be honest, if I received a cheque for $500,000 and was supposed to send $425,000 to someone else that I don't know, I would go to the bank and ask "Is the cheque cleared"? When the answer is "Yes", I would then ask "Is there any way whatsoever that you could ask me to return the money"? And if the answer is "No" I would then ask "Can you give that to me in writing"?
Now obviously I would _not_ get that statement in writing. And then I would draw the consequences.
How exactly is what you described any better? You are still basically saying that if I have in my possession an item that I purchased overseas, I am not legally allowed to sell it to anyone else, even though I would be legally allowed to sell it if I had purchased it in America.
Calm down. You are not importing it. "importing" is bringing into the country with the intent to sell it commercially. If you buy this watch, take it to the USA, and in five years you don't like it, you can sell it on eBay. You just cannot sell it in your own watch store.
Specifically due to the 'first sale' doctrine - the copyright holder controls distribution only through the first transaction, not through subsequent transactions. Since this ruling says that 'first sale' does not apply to goods procured outside the US, it means that the copyright holder does retain distribution control of the original copyrighted work.
It's an absolutely unforgivably terrible ruling, but that's what it says.
First Sales rights apply when you manage to bring the goods legally into the USA. And you can't do that against the will of the copyright holder. And you can't gain rights based on US law if you have to first break the law to get the goods into US territory. US first sale doctrine cannot possibly apply outside the USA. It doesn't apply until the point where the goods move to the USA with the permission of the copyright holder.
What I am a little confused by is how copyright law has anything to do with this. Nobody is copying the logo, so how could a copyright be violated? Does copyright apply to activities that do not involve the creation of copies?
Let's try to do this logically. The copyright makes sure that only the copyright holder can produce the watch. I think that is quite reasonable, you can produce any watches you want, but not copies of these. Next, the copyright holder has the right to sell his goods under whatever conditions they want with very few exceptions. One exception is that in the USA, the copyright holder cannot tell you that you cannot sell the goods on. That is not some god-given right, that is a US-specific law which puts restrictions the seller can put into their sales contract.
Now these watches start out somewhere in Europe. US law cannot help you allowing to import them into the USA. You have to be able to import the watches into the USA according to the law where the watches originate. You cannot import them against the sales agreement between you and the seller in Europe and then claim "First Sale" rights in the USA.
And note that "import" has some specific meaning. Things you buy for personal use are not "imported". Things that you buy for resale are "imported". You are free to buy this watch in Europe, bring it to the USA and wear it or put it into a drawer, whatever you prefer. You cannot bring it to the USA and sell it in your watch store. And if the import itself was legal, then you have first sale rights.
btw imagining ballmer leaving microsoft and opening his own patent trolling outfit, wouldn't that be like a christmas gift to the microsoft bashing community? hmm christmas, geeks, creativity... i see a market for ballmer action figures throwing chairs!
Not really a Christmas gift. Why would anybody be happy if an experienced CEO with a few billion dollars cash on his private hands went into the patent trolling business?
I would be intrigued to learn if any studies had been done about such cases that show whether juries who broke them rules in this fashion arrive at "better" or worse verdicts (where it is possible to determine what a "better" verdict is).
There was a case quite recently where a juror decided to investigate, so the court case was deemed to be a mistrial, and the juror was convicted to pay damages to the court, the lawyers, and the defendant. So I'd say it was a worse verdict.
They don't apply the same rules to everyone. They've approved Playboy and Sports Illustrated booby apps while removing others from the store.
I would just assume that there is always some judgement call, how much they are in line with the license terms they accepted, and how far out some contents is. Quite possible that some similar apps will be on one side, and some apps will be on the other side. That's like you are failing your driving test because you made mistakes, and I passed even though I made mistakes. There is a level that is allowed, and a level outside.
Or did you jump from 0 year old to 21 year old full aware of all law and implication ? Many 16 year old actually don't even KNOW that sharing is illegal. Heck long ago when I told somebody of my middle school that mass replicating K7 and giving them to friends is illegal, they panicked and destroyed the K7. No kidding. try to place yourself in otehr people shoe, and you will realize that SOME people can very well not know sharing is illegal, without having their head in sand.
I know people who believe quite strongly that you shouldn't steal anything, and if someone produces goods, they should be paid for it. But they don't see the music as the thing that is "produced", but the CD. So if someone burns a CD with some music, to them the person burning the CD is the one who "produced" it.
Turns out software piracy isn't theft after all! I mean, if the Vatican does it...
Wrong commandment: "You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's."
I like to think I'm a pretty good programmer, however I suck at coming up with ideas. Once one is in front of me I'm great at working out DB structures, relations, requirements and the nitty gritty of coding to implement it.
No, you just suck coming up with ideas that are good enough to pass your own built-in bullshit rejector. What you don't realise is that almost everybody in the world is not very good at coming up with _good_ ideas.
If someone says they have a great idea and all they need is a programmer, then they need a lot lot more than just a programmer. If all they needed was a programmer, then they would just hire one.
What these people need first is money. They usually don't have any. Then they need a clue how to run a business, or at least how to create a finished software product that can be sold, and how to sell it. Or how to hire people doing it. So these people with the ideas, how much time have they spent on developing the idea? Have they spent at least a week of concentrated work on it? I doubt it.
You know, programmers have lots of ideas, too. And they know at least one programmer who could be convinced to work very cheaply, if the idea is worth it (unlike the guy who "only needs a programmer"). But in addition, most of them have common sense. And some idea of the cost. And some idea of what is a good idea and what is a pipe dream. So all the really stupid ideas get filtered out by them.
Woah, I've been hearing good things about Germany lately, but according to your graph, the best they can do is around 7% unemployment, and for a like time it was more like 12%. Pass on that. In America, when times are good, we have 4%-6% unemployment. That's more like it.
I heard the frightening number that in the USA, about 7 percent of the adult male population is in prisons. That number includes both inmates, plus all the employees having to look after them. That makes 7 percent of the male adult population totally non-productive without counting as unemployed.
This is what I'm wondering too. I thought DCMA was about stopping people from breaking encryption so they couldn't then make digital copies!!! How did they manage to think you broke the encryption on their pac man game and digitally copy it so it worked on Android? Your a genius if you did that, the technology will be worth billions!!!!!
There are two completely different laws that both are under the title "DMCA". The one law gives a copyright holder additional legal protection if it is protected by effective measures that control access to the work. The other is the one we are talking about here: If a copyright holder finds copies of their work on some website, they can ask the website to remove the copies. The website either complies, or they will be part of any copyright infringement.
Slashdot Mirror
This patent was filed in 1996. This means it will expire in 2016. At that time, it will go into the public domain and be available for all to use as they see fit, free of charge. This is, in my opinion, superior to copyright. Copyright lasts forever (practically, if not literally). If Allen had copyright, rather than patent, the protection would last much longer. (An American law expert can confirm whether patent expiration timing starts from time of filing or time of grant)
Nonsense. You can have copyright protection on whatever you post here for eternity, I still have the freedom to post what _I_ write and you can do nothing about it. Copyright gives the copyright holder protection from theft, but it doesn't give them any power over anyone else's creation. Patents, on the other hand, stop others from doing the same thing independently.
That's why we complain about _stupid_ patents like these here, because they stop or try to stop people from doing things that are trivial. You will find very little complaints about patents for things that are actually new and innovative and that others wouldn't produce themselves easily.
...to loose the hounds upon the peasants? ...Toulouse-Lautrec?
I suspect that your spelling is a touch loose [reference.com]. I think you meant "lose [reference.com]".
I think he _meant_ loose. From my dictionary:
"Loose" verb [ trans. ]
set free; release : the hounds have been loosed.
untie; unfasten : the ropes were loosed.
relax (one's grip) : he loosed his grip suddenly.
Stop drinking that kool-aid, fan boy.
Seriously, a link to a Sophos website as evidence for MacOS X malware?
You are claiming that the car will instantly be up to operating speed the moment you take your foot off the brake and hit the accelerator? That would be pretty impressive, even if the starter spun the engine up at 1000rpm, it would still take a fraction of a second. Would also take a hefty splash of gas, too.
Who do you think would buy these cars in Europe if they were going slower than other cars? And it's not "foot off the brake and hit the accelerator". It is "press the kludge and put the car into gear". The engine starts when you press the kludge. The driver doesn't notice _any_ difference compared to a car with running engine.
Right now, you are lucky to get 4 to 6 cars through a light before it turns red again. The problem isn't necessarily because the lights are too short, but more often, the hesitation from one driver to the next in starting to move. What happens when those cars now take a fraction of a second longer just to start up again?
Simple answer: They don't.
My car battery dies just about every winter because it's driven 1.5 miles to the transit station and 1.5 miles back. That type of driving takes a serious toll on a battery when the temps hover around a balmy -22F for several weeks a year. Will this restart the engine from the battery? If so, will Ford replace it under warranty for having a feature included for those of us who don't idle our cars ever because we take mass transit?
Posts like this one make me wonder who is reading slashdot. Everyone thinks they come up with a reason why this won't work. But everyone with a bit of engineering spirit inside their brain would instead come up with a list of problems, and a list of very simple engineering solutions. But please think about this yourself: What is the obvious engineering solution to handle the case of a person driving 1.5 miles in the winter, then parking their car for many hours, then driving another 1.5 miles, then parking again?
This is of course not "Joel" updating his list of requirements for good development, but some joker trying to take advantage of Joel's reputation.
Example: Allow users direct access to a bug database? It's hard enough to train testers to give you good bug reports. You won't get anything usable from an end user without some severe filtering.
Ogg is unrestricted by software patents.
The correct statement is: "There is nobody using Ogg who would be capable of paying large amounts of money to lawyers if there was a patent suit against them". If iPhone and Android used Ogg, then you could be assured that someone would come up with some patents that they claim are infringed by Ogg.
MAC filtering is a waste of time. MAC addresses can easily be changed to match one of your exciting addresses. And you're already broadcasting your existing devices. Guess what one of the first things attack tools do when they're having trouble getting a response from the AP?
Changing the MAC address of a device means you give up any excuse that you got onto someone's WiFi connection by accident. So when I call the cops, you are in serious trouble. The good thing about WiFi hacking is that you have to be nearby. Which means I'll find you. And I'm not mad enough to knock on your door myself.
You point out all the various different laws in different countries. Country A does not extradite someone to country B for a crime that isn't a crime in country A. Otherwise we're all pretty much criminals.
Actually, within the EU, exactly that will happen. As one american idiot found out who mailed Nazi propaganda from the USA to Germany, and then they got him when he travelled to Denmark.
Agreed - this guy may not have been as stupid as the average 419 victim, but he still made mistakes. I do, however, think the blame is, at the very least, to be shared with the bank in this case (and it's not often that I have any sympathy for some idiot who thought Prince Njembe considered him the best financial broker for the job); a reasonable person would believe that if a bank says a cheque is cleared, the money is now yours to use, despite what some arcane and little-known regulation might have to say on the matter.
There are three parties involved, the scammer, the victim, and the bank. The victim was _exactly_ as stupid as the average advance fraud victim - he believed an idiotic story that someone was willing to give him about $100,000 or so in cash for very little work. Believing this is idiotic. The bank didn't know about the circumstances. Doesn't matter what a reasonable person would believe; a reasonable person wouldn't believe the story in the first place. A reasonable person could have gone to their bank manager and found out more about the situation. And then they would have found out how this fraud works. It wasn't the bank which believed the scammer, it was the victim. He's only got himself to blame.
So my question is this -- HOW do you know that collection of the original deposit is final? (I've never even heard that phrase before.) Apparently being told "the check has cleared" doesn't do it?
What about this: You ask the bank "is this final or is there any way that you can ask for the money back?", and then you ask them to give this to you in writing. You might then check out the laws of your country to find how far a written statement of a bank employee is legally binding for the bank to be absolutely safe, but having it in writing that they cannot ask for the money back would go a long way to help you in a court case.
In the end, the person sending the cheque can probably for a very, very long time sue you in court for whatever reason to ask for the money back. For example, if someone stole a cheque from me, used it to put $500,000 into your account, and I noticed this only half a year later, don't you think I would take you to court? (Although I think there would be problems with this in the USA, because in US law it would only be accepted that you have _my_ money if you had real banknotes that were taken away from me. With cheques, the money going out of my account is not legally the same money that is going into your account).
I assume that is exactly what the poster is proposing, and it is a damn good idea. The bank does not have to FORCE everyone to wait, but they should not say "the cheque has cleared", and then later say "sorry, the cheque has un-cleared, we want that money back."
Case 1: I get a cheque for $500,000 from a company that is totally legal, solvent, and so on.
Case 2: I get a cheque for $500,000 from a scam artist.
The bank obviously cannot know initially which one it is. The time they need to absolutely irrecovably clear the cheque to the point where nobody in the world can get the money back from the bank will be the same, whether it is a legal company or a scam artist. However, the legal company probably didn't give me the cheque just for fun. For example, they might have given me the cheque so that I put new carpets into their huge new office building, and I need money to pay for the carpets, I need money to pay for the employees, so I need to be able to spend the $500,000 as early as possible. I can't start working until the bank gives me access to the $500,000.
So what do you think should happen with the first cheque? To be honest, if I received a cheque for $500,000 and was supposed to send $425,000 to someone else that I don't know, I would go to the bank and ask "Is the cheque cleared"? When the answer is "Yes", I would then ask "Is there any way whatsoever that you could ask me to return the money"? And if the answer is "No" I would then ask "Can you give that to me in writing"?
Now obviously I would _not_ get that statement in writing. And then I would draw the consequences.
How exactly is what you described any better? You are still basically saying that if I have in my possession an item that I purchased overseas, I am not legally allowed to sell it to anyone else, even though I would be legally allowed to sell it if I had purchased it in America.
Calm down. You are not importing it. "importing" is bringing into the country with the intent to sell it commercially. If you buy this watch, take it to the USA, and in five years you don't like it, you can sell it on eBay. You just cannot sell it in your own watch store.
Specifically due to the 'first sale' doctrine - the copyright holder controls distribution only through the first transaction, not through subsequent transactions. Since this ruling says that 'first sale' does not apply to goods procured outside the US, it means that the copyright holder does retain distribution control of the original copyrighted work.
It's an absolutely unforgivably terrible ruling, but that's what it says.
First Sales rights apply when you manage to bring the goods legally into the USA. And you can't do that against the will of the copyright holder. And you can't gain rights based on US law if you have to first break the law to get the goods into US territory. US first sale doctrine cannot possibly apply outside the USA. It doesn't apply until the point where the goods move to the USA with the permission of the copyright holder.
What I am a little confused by is how copyright law has anything to do with this. Nobody is copying the logo, so how could a copyright be violated? Does copyright apply to activities that do not involve the creation of copies?
Let's try to do this logically. The copyright makes sure that only the copyright holder can produce the watch. I think that is quite reasonable, you can produce any watches you want, but not copies of these. Next, the copyright holder has the right to sell his goods under whatever conditions they want with very few exceptions. One exception is that in the USA, the copyright holder cannot tell you that you cannot sell the goods on. That is not some god-given right, that is a US-specific law which puts restrictions the seller can put into their sales contract.
Now these watches start out somewhere in Europe. US law cannot help you allowing to import them into the USA. You have to be able to import the watches into the USA according to the law where the watches originate. You cannot import them against the sales agreement between you and the seller in Europe and then claim "First Sale" rights in the USA.
And note that "import" has some specific meaning. Things you buy for personal use are not "imported". Things that you buy for resale are "imported". You are free to buy this watch in Europe, bring it to the USA and wear it or put it into a drawer, whatever you prefer. You cannot bring it to the USA and sell it in your watch store. And if the import itself was legal, then you have first sale rights.
btw imagining ballmer leaving microsoft and opening his own patent trolling outfit, wouldn't that be like a christmas gift to the microsoft bashing community? hmm christmas, geeks, creativity... i see a market for ballmer action figures throwing chairs!
Not really a Christmas gift. Why would anybody be happy if an experienced CEO with a few billion dollars cash on his private hands went into the patent trolling business?
I would be intrigued to learn if any studies had been done about such cases that show whether juries who broke them rules in this fashion arrive at "better" or worse verdicts (where it is possible to determine what a "better" verdict is).
There was a case quite recently where a juror decided to investigate, so the court case was deemed to be a mistrial, and the juror was convicted to pay damages to the court, the lawyers, and the defendant. So I'd say it was a worse verdict.
They don't apply the same rules to everyone. They've approved Playboy and Sports Illustrated booby apps while removing others from the store.
I would just assume that there is always some judgement call, how much they are in line with the license terms they accepted, and how far out some contents is. Quite possible that some similar apps will be on one side, and some apps will be on the other side. That's like you are failing your driving test because you made mistakes, and I passed even though I made mistakes. There is a level that is allowed, and a level outside.
Or did you jump from 0 year old to 21 year old full aware of all law and implication ? Many 16 year old actually don't even KNOW that sharing is illegal. Heck long ago when I told somebody of my middle school that mass replicating K7 and giving them to friends is illegal, they panicked and destroyed the K7. No kidding. try to place yourself in otehr people shoe, and you will realize that SOME people can very well not know sharing is illegal, without having their head in sand.
I know people who believe quite strongly that you shouldn't steal anything, and if someone produces goods, they should be paid for it. But they don't see the music as the thing that is "produced", but the CD. So if someone burns a CD with some music, to them the person burning the CD is the one who "produced" it.
Turns out software piracy isn't theft after all! I mean, if the Vatican does it...
Wrong commandment: "You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's."
I like to think I'm a pretty good programmer, however I suck at coming up with ideas. Once one is in front of me I'm great at working out DB structures, relations, requirements and the nitty gritty of coding to implement it.
No, you just suck coming up with ideas that are good enough to pass your own built-in bullshit rejector. What you don't realise is that almost everybody in the world is not very good at coming up with _good_ ideas.
If someone says they have a great idea and all they need is a programmer, then they need a lot lot more than just a programmer. If all they needed was a programmer, then they would just hire one.
What these people need first is money. They usually don't have any. Then they need a clue how to run a business, or at least how to create a finished software product that can be sold, and how to sell it. Or how to hire people doing it. So these people with the ideas, how much time have they spent on developing the idea? Have they spent at least a week of concentrated work on it? I doubt it.
You know, programmers have lots of ideas, too. And they know at least one programmer who could be convinced to work very cheaply, if the idea is worth it (unlike the guy who "only needs a programmer"). But in addition, most of them have common sense. And some idea of the cost. And some idea of what is a good idea and what is a pipe dream. So all the really stupid ideas get filtered out by them.
Woah, I've been hearing good things about Germany lately, but according to your graph, the best they can do is around 7% unemployment, and for a like time it was more like 12%. Pass on that. In America, when times are good, we have 4%-6% unemployment. That's more like it.
I heard the frightening number that in the USA, about 7 percent of the adult male population is in prisons. That number includes both inmates, plus all the employees having to look after them. That makes 7 percent of the male adult population totally non-productive without counting as unemployed.
This is what I'm wondering too. I thought DCMA was about stopping people from breaking encryption so they couldn't then make digital copies!!! How did they manage to think you broke the encryption on their pac man game and digitally copy it so it worked on Android? Your a genius if you did that, the technology will be worth billions!!!!!
There are two completely different laws that both are under the title "DMCA". The one law gives a copyright holder additional legal protection if it is protected by effective measures that control access to the work. The other is the one we are talking about here: If a copyright holder finds copies of their work on some website, they can ask the website to remove the copies. The website either complies, or they will be part of any copyright infringement.