the only natural and just course of action is that any Swedish patent... is similarly completely up for grabs by anyone, in any part of the world.
It already is, in a way. Since patents are national, if the patent holder in one country hasn't applied for a patent in another, the invention is completely up for grabs by anyone there. You wouldn't be able to sell an infringing product in a country where the invention is patented though.
In order to keep creative people creative, they need to be able to... do whatever they want with their property.
"Intellectual property" is not real property. It is an intentional misnomer to blur the lines between real property on one side and patents, copyrights, and other temporary monopolies on the other. The intention is that given time, people would think more and more of "intellectual property" as real property, so that the rights holders can get support for their final move, which is to remove the distinction completely. This would make copyrights and patents eternal, and lock up the protected creations forever, which is a seriously bad idea.
Repeat after me: Copyright is not property. A patent is not property. A trademark is not property. So called "intellectual property" is nothing like real property, and claiming that it is is intellectually dishonest.
d) so-called "intellectual property" will be treated as real property
That is actually a terrible idea. So called "intellectual property" ain't property at all, and should not be viewed as such. They are simply temporary monopolies on duplication and/or use. Treating "intellectual property" as real property will quickly be met by demands to remove the time limit, which would be a seriously bad idea.
"Intellectual property" should not be treated as real property, because it simply is nothing like real property.
That is not entirely true, at least it does not cover the whole world. In Sweden, patent holders must pay an annual and increasing fee to retain the patent. The last few years are actually pretty expensive. And regarding copyrights, there is no fee at all. AFAIK, we cannot register copyrights to get additional damages in case of infringements, which if I understand correctly is possible e.g. in the US.
Actually, in Sweden, copyright infringement for non-commercial purposes has not been enforced by the police until fairly recently. The acceptance among the populace is very significant, and few people regard it as a major issue. That is probably a significant contributing factor here. The people regard it as a non-issue, and the police has limited resources better spent to combat important crimes, such as murder, robbery, rape, assault, etc. Only with the recent international pressure, mainly from the United States, the authorities have taken a tougher view on copyright infringement.
The second alternative is correct. In Sweden, just like in most western countries, sharing copyrighted works without authorization from the copyright holder is prohibited. Until the summer 2005, downloading without permission was actually legal, but in July 2005, Sweden adopted a new copyright law, based on a directive from the EU (The EU Copyright Directive), which in turn was partially based on the DMCA. This law prohibited downloading copyrighted material without permission, as well as imposed limited anti-circumvention provisions regarding "technical protection measures" (a.k.a. DRM).
You know as well as I do that this is just desperate sensationalism from 'Moderaterna' (the ruling conservative party) to atempt to regain some of the support it lost by eliminating vast amounts of wellfare.
If it was, don't you think more of their MPs would have signed?
You may not be against the abolition of copyright law but many comentators are.
I don't think that many people would like to abolish copyright laws. I do however think that many people agree that many of the copyright expansions of the last few decades should be flushed down the toilet. The rights holders talks about a balance between them and consumers, but in fact there is no balance as it is now, it is already extremely tilted in favor of the rights holders.
The claim is that many hookers are not selling sex out of their free will, and that given an alternative, they would stop selling sex. Thus, the legislators did not feel like coming down hard on a group that already has a difficult time.
Actually, the only thing I doubt is whether something like this could even be tested without effectively ending the Internet as we know it.
And that's the whole idea. The media companies drool over the possibility of transforming the internet from a generic data transfer network to an exclusive one-way distribution channel for their content. And it seems like certain ISP:s are very eager to help them achieve their goal.
The next step is to be spoon-fed with content even if you don't want it, while paying for the privilege.
After several years, you can apply for a pardon, but it will still reflect poorly upon you in international travel as the pardon may not be recognized overseas. Until you obtain the pardon, you will be barred from entry into many countries, including the U.S..
There is only one country that I have ever visited that asked me to certify that I didn't have a criminal record (I don't have one). Guess which one? Yes, the United States of America. I have visited most countries in western Europe, and none of them asked about it. So my question is: What countries apart from the US would bar you from entry if you have a criminal record. Granted, there are many countries that I have not visited, but I still find it improbable that many countries would do this when only one that I have visited does.
Or maybe you are an ignorant American that thinks that just because the US does this, everyone does. Well, that's not the case.
Well, such a stance probably won't be popular among business people. If the US wants to continue international trade, asserting the right to look through private/proprietary data might not be such a good idea. Who knows, information gathered from such inspections could just be forwarded to American corporations, something foreign businesses wouldn't be too fond of.
Not every country has the ridiculous fine/damage levels as the US. This means that in some countries, you could get caught without being indebted for the rest of your life.
One thing to remember about the SkyCat is that it is a heavier-than-air airship. It uses a lifting body design and weighs slightly more than air, making it sit firmly on the ground when landed, but also making it impossible to hover except in a headwind. It needs to move to stay aloft, though the speed required isn't exactly high.
Even though I really like the SkyCat design, I'd hold off on making such statements until they have at least a prototype of such a large ship flying. All I have seen about the SkyCat is design overviews, marketing material and the SkyKitten, which isn't exactly big.
You are probably referring to the SkyCat. I saw a documentary about it a few years ago on Discovery Channel, and it seems quite cool. Nothing seems to have happened since that though.
What's a high altitude? Above the treetops or at 30,000 feet? Just like any place with no object that resists the wind, it can be quite windy at any altitude. At 30,000 feet it can be extremely windy. Ever heard of jet streams?
McAfee doesn't make virus scanners for Linux, so this is a moot point.
They might want to create one though. Maybe their lawyers stopped them referring to this issue.
it's obvious what happened. They got caught using GPL code improperly
It isn't obvious at all. Nowhere have I seen any indications that they have been caught using GPL code, and I'd prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt. If someone can come up with some evidence that shows that they have used GPL code improperly, I'll be ready to come down hard on them. Until that, well, see above.
The legality of the nVidia proprietary driver has been questioned, but nobody has taken them to court over the issue. This question arises from the fact that the proprietary driver embeds itself in the kernel when loaded, making this a derived work of both Linux and the proprietary code. But since nobody distributes the Linux kernel with an embedded nVidia driver, this fact has largely been ignored. In addition, what would the gain be from such a lawsuit, compared to the possible risks?
Slashdot Mirror
But they seldom wield them. It's not like in American movies and TV shows, where the police draw their guns even for petty criminals.
It already is, in a way. Since patents are national, if the patent holder in one country hasn't applied for a patent in another, the invention is completely up for grabs by anyone there. You wouldn't be able to sell an infringing product in a country where the invention is patented though.
"Intellectual property" is not real property. It is an intentional misnomer to blur the lines between real property on one side and patents, copyrights, and other temporary monopolies on the other. The intention is that given time, people would think more and more of "intellectual property" as real property, so that the rights holders can get support for their final move, which is to remove the distinction completely. This would make copyrights and patents eternal, and lock up the protected creations forever, which is a seriously bad idea.
Repeat after me: Copyright is not property. A patent is not property. A trademark is not property. So called "intellectual property" is nothing like real property, and claiming that it is is intellectually dishonest.
That is actually a terrible idea. So called "intellectual property" ain't property at all, and should not be viewed as such. They are simply temporary monopolies on duplication and/or use. Treating "intellectual property" as real property will quickly be met by demands to remove the time limit, which would be a seriously bad idea.
"Intellectual property" should not be treated as real property, because it simply is nothing like real property.
That is not entirely true, at least it does not cover the whole world. In Sweden, patent holders must pay an annual and increasing fee to retain the patent. The last few years are actually pretty expensive. And regarding copyrights, there is no fee at all. AFAIK, we cannot register copyrights to get additional damages in case of infringements, which if I understand correctly is possible e.g. in the US.
Actually, in Sweden, copyright infringement for non-commercial purposes has not been enforced by the police until fairly recently. The acceptance among the populace is very significant, and few people regard it as a major issue. That is probably a significant contributing factor here. The people regard it as a non-issue, and the police has limited resources better spent to combat important crimes, such as murder, robbery, rape, assault, etc. Only with the recent international pressure, mainly from the United States, the authorities have taken a tougher view on copyright infringement.
The second alternative is correct. In Sweden, just like in most western countries, sharing copyrighted works without authorization from the copyright holder is prohibited. Until the summer 2005, downloading without permission was actually legal, but in July 2005, Sweden adopted a new copyright law, based on a directive from the EU (The EU Copyright Directive), which in turn was partially based on the DMCA. This law prohibited downloading copyrighted material without permission, as well as imposed limited anti-circumvention provisions regarding "technical protection measures" (a.k.a. DRM).
If it was, don't you think more of their MPs would have signed?
Yes, but not against selling sex.
The copyright cartel is doing just fine to polarize the issue on their own, by doing exactly what you said:
DRM, law suits against kids etc etc.I don't think that many people would like to abolish copyright laws. I do however think that many people agree that many of the copyright expansions of the last few decades should be flushed down the toilet. The rights holders talks about a balance between them and consumers, but in fact there is no balance as it is now, it is already extremely tilted in favor of the rights holders.
The claim is that many hookers are not selling sex out of their free will, and that given an alternative, they would stop selling sex. Thus, the legislators did not feel like coming down hard on a group that already has a difficult time.
I'm just glad that I live in a country that has secrecy of correspondence enshrined in the constitution.
And that's the whole idea. The media companies drool over the possibility of transforming the internet from a generic data transfer network to an exclusive one-way distribution channel for their content. And it seems like certain ISP:s are very eager to help them achieve their goal.
The next step is to be spoon-fed with content even if you don't want it, while paying for the privilege.
There is only one country that I have ever visited that asked me to certify that I didn't have a criminal record (I don't have one). Guess which one? Yes, the United States of America. I have visited most countries in western Europe, and none of them asked about it. So my question is: What countries apart from the US would bar you from entry if you have a criminal record. Granted, there are many countries that I have not visited, but I still find it improbable that many countries would do this when only one that I have visited does.
Or maybe you are an ignorant American that thinks that just because the US does this, everyone does. Well, that's not the case.
This is just a covered attempt to help US companies by gathering information from their foreign competitors while pretending to look for "terrorists".
Well, such a stance probably won't be popular among business people. If the US wants to continue international trade, asserting the right to look through private/proprietary data might not be such a good idea. Who knows, information gathered from such inspections could just be forwarded to American corporations, something foreign businesses wouldn't be too fond of.
Not every country has the ridiculous fine/damage levels as the US. This means that in some countries, you could get caught without being indebted for the rest of your life.
One thing to remember about the SkyCat is that it is a heavier-than-air airship. It uses a lifting body design and weighs slightly more than air, making it sit firmly on the ground when landed, but also making it impossible to hover except in a headwind. It needs to move to stay aloft, though the speed required isn't exactly high.
Even though I really like the SkyCat design, I'd hold off on making such statements until they have at least a prototype of such a large ship flying. All I have seen about the SkyCat is design overviews, marketing material and the SkyKitten, which isn't exactly big.
You are probably referring to the SkyCat. I saw a documentary about it a few years ago on Discovery Channel, and it seems quite cool. Nothing seems to have happened since that though.
Actually I have gotten the impression that most AAMs are designed in this way, and that few, if any, explode on impact.
What's a high altitude? Above the treetops or at 30,000 feet? Just like any place with no object that resists the wind, it can be quite windy at any altitude. At 30,000 feet it can be extremely windy. Ever heard of jet streams?
They might want to create one though. Maybe their lawyers stopped them referring to this issue.
it's obvious what happened. They got caught using GPL code improperlyIt isn't obvious at all. Nowhere have I seen any indications that they have been caught using GPL code, and I'd prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt. If someone can come up with some evidence that shows that they have used GPL code improperly, I'll be ready to come down hard on them. Until that, well, see above.
The legality of the nVidia proprietary driver has been questioned, but nobody has taken them to court over the issue. This question arises from the fact that the proprietary driver embeds itself in the kernel when loaded, making this a derived work of both Linux and the proprietary code. But since nobody distributes the Linux kernel with an embedded nVidia driver, this fact has largely been ignored. In addition, what would the gain be from such a lawsuit, compared to the possible risks?