Quadcopters that vast majority of people buy are not "drones", they are RC toys, similar to RC trucks, which are also not registered (surprise!).
I think that whatever is allowed to fly over people head - must be registered, regularly inspected, people flying it certified and so on. Or, using car analogy: you don't need driver license to use truck on your own yard, but you do on public road.
> The VW diesels were checked & certified No they were not. They were checked by certified equipment, which does produced correct result. Oh, you don't want to check equipment source code, you want one of VW? That's irrelevant. When you check suspension, you are not going to examine blueprints, right?
> But yeah, big difference. No, not really. "1 of 1000" is very high (or low, depends how you look) number. You don't convict people in murder on such basis. Other evidence must be presented.
As already pointed out here, DNA pattern match can be checked by pen and paper, there's no need for _ANY_ software. Since when forensic evidence require such a thing? Now what, for fingerprints to be valid, one must present blueprints of microscope? And how about photos/video? Will police have to present source code for camera? And in tax fraud cases lawyer will require to examine source code of Excel or calculator, because who knows what's in there?
Of cause all this is ridiculous. Tools and software should be checked and certified before use in judgement. But, after certification, tool results are assumed to be valid, unless counterexample is presented. I don't see counterexample here; and except for this DNA sample there must be _other_ supporting evidence.
> using his knowledge of what in today's world would be called HP's intellectual property No, your knowledge in today's world is not called "intellectual property". Now, 'knowledge" is stuff in your head. Whatever is in company-supplied notebook may be an "IP". Anyway, when you're only "working on something" is not a violation of any sort.
>> He had to take his invention into HP later and get permission So, where's contract violation? He GET a permission. See the difference?
>> Woz didn't ask for permission first Huh? What happened with "He had to ... get permission"?
Bad press? You must be joking. Not a week passes without Techdirt publishing something about how bad Apple is in some new in interesting way. Now it is someone break NDA they signed to get pre-release hardware. And they want to get away with it because Apple's roots are in "hacking"? Really? I for all my nativity thought that NDA is a contract you supposed to honor. It is not consumer EULA where everyone clicking "I agree" without reading. Apple people are not "pissed off". They are reacting to contract violation in a way that defined in very same contract. Surprise, ah?
Yea, just don't forget a backpack to carry this modularity with you. Modern phones have surface-mounted chips for a reason. That "new screen" of yours will need new screen controller; where do you put it? On breadboard? Yes, that will totally work. Such "modular" project are nice for classroom demonstration, nothing more.
Sorry, but I just can't see a problem here. My photo and name is not a secret. You don't even need "secured database" for this. Credit card info _is_ a secret, and breaking into _this_ database is a crime very similar to bank robbery. Now, let's say someone does break into and steal those "biometrics". You can't wear someone else face in "mission impossible" style, and "technology" for stealing money more directly already exists: it's called gun/knife.
> Because it was an act of creativity, and not money, it was removed. No. It was removed because it was made of something authors doesn't own. Want to shoot a movie - go ahead, cameras and computers are really cheap these days. Oh, you can think only about stuff coming Hollywood? No, that's won't fly. On related note: is that what's called "creativity" today?
Studious acting in very predictable manner. They think that movie gonna be success, and therefor want to monetize this success. And no, they don't want "free publicity" from torrents, they want people to pay for viewing. There's nothing unreasonable in this idea. And yes, prohibit cameras in movie theater is also sensible thing to do. Since when caprip became OK?
You sound American. Only there I find people that don't see that "just push legislation" mean "write laws". That's same people that want democracy, but think that "Who voted for the politicians is irrelevant". If this is irrelevant, than why to have democracy anyway? Monarchy already been tried, thank you very match.
>> I can't think of anything more relevant to the current discussion. OK, I see: "corporation leaders my bribe politicians, therefore let's not have corporations". Or is it "let's not have politicians"? Correct answer is "fight reasons for corruption by removing government interventions where unnecessary".
>> No, politicians can get thrown out. And they are replaced by other politicians who will behave the same way. Maybe in US, where people think that "who voted is irrelevant". In other countries, politicians are replaced by other politicians that behave somewhat differently.
>> Our votes are puny. Voting is essential, ... That doesn't compute in my head. Whatever is "puny" is anything but "essential".
Your hilarious ignorance shows. This point of view amazes me every time.
>> Corporations write your laws, No, they don't. Politicians that you vote for write them.
>> subvert your government Yes, corruption is the real problem, although irrelevant to current discussion.
>> and affect your life in powerful ways Or in other words "sell (or not) me some stuff". I agree, it may be important stuff (fuel, medication), but I'm free not to buy it, and - I can start my own corporation. It's still allowed in US, right?
>> Their power exceeds that of your puny vote My single vote may be puny, but you must know how this "democracy" thing works. Get many annoyed people, and government is thrown out.
> Ah the good old 'You're not allowed to offer criticism unless you're one of those involved'. You're "allowed" to offer you criticism all day long, but if you're not one of involved - it sounds too arrogant.
>> You don't have to be a to be able to say that ... That is very match depends on X and Y. Go to fashion store nearby and try to tell people that paying that match for whatever brand is wrong. Come back and share your experience. In this case government gives some rights to foreign corporation in exchange to whatever that treaty promises. Is it good/right thing to do? Since those rights exists in EU, and agriculture is good there, maybe it's OK then? Do you have counterexamples?
>> ... they have immense influence over you Local court have "immense influence" over me, since I will go to jail upon its decision. Corporation may refuse to sell me stuff, but it's me who vote. All these "corporate sovereignty" will evaporate overnight should local government decide so - that how international treaties works.
> Great, so what's Thailand getting out of the deal that's worth what they're giving up? The answer is very simple, and a name "trade agreement" is a hint. Thailand getting (some) trade terms with EU.
Does it worth "giving up"? I don't know, maybe you should ask Thailand's government.
>> Thailand should tell them ... Do you by any chance live in Thailand or represent Thailand somehow? Or you happen to have US/EU kind of attitude where you know what's the best for every one on a planet?
Well, if country X want to make a deal with country Y, it may mean that country X need to fix its laws. This is especially true if if country Y holds upper hand in negotiations. There's nothing shocking that EU politicians want to take care about EU companies, that what those politicians _FOR_. That's what (those) negotiations exists for - to establish rules of business.
Last time I checked, EU didn't invade Thailand and forced those "horrible amendments". In short - want to trade with EU - play by EU rules.
While I'm hardly DRM defender, your points are nothing but FUD. >> - Infinite duration copyrights, That's legal issue, not technical
>> - Allowing you to completely undermine the First Sale doctrine No it does not. Legal issue, too.
>> - Provides a single point of failure for your product You car have a lock. And your house. Is it "point of failure"?
>> - Makes piracy a much more attractive choice I guess store counter is also very inconvenient, since shoplifting is match simpler.
In short - you don't like DRM - don't buy a product. Playing videogames is not a must. Open source software is a thing. Hollywood movies are not a "must have" too.
> Patents were already a bad idea for mechanical inventions That's a whole point I was trying to make. Either it is good for both, or it is bad for both too.
Even if such industry (somehow) develops in future, it really means nothing what is patentable in NZ. What matters is what is patentable in target market (US/Europe/China).
Now, patent in software should be governed by same rules as patent on mechanical contraption. What difference does it make how idea is implemented: by chip, lever or software?
Depends what "drone" is
Quadcopters that vast majority of people buy are not "drones", they are RC toys, similar to RC trucks, which are also not registered (surprise!).
I think that whatever is allowed to fly over people head - must be registered, regularly inspected, people flying it certified and so on. Or, using car analogy: you don't need driver license to use truck on your own yard, but you do on public road.
Re: Re: Source code have nothing to do here
Re: Re: Re: Source code have nothing to do here
Source code have nothing to do here
As already pointed out here, DNA pattern match can be checked by pen and paper, there's no need for _ANY_ software.
Since when forensic evidence require such a thing? Now what, for fingerprints to be valid, one must present blueprints of microscope? And how about photos/video? Will police have to present source code for camera? And in tax fraud cases lawyer will require to examine source code of Excel or calculator, because who knows what's in there?
Of cause all this is ridiculous. Tools and software should be checked and certified before use in judgement. But, after certification, tool results are assumed to be valid, unless counterexample is presented. I don't see counterexample here; and except for this DNA sample there must be _other_ supporting evidence.
Re:
Especially if you not own the product, but get it for review.
Re: Re: When did Woz violate an NDA to make Apple I?
Re:
Bad press? You must be joking. Not a week passes without Techdirt publishing something about how bad Apple is in some new in interesting way.
Now it is someone break NDA they signed to get pre-release hardware. And they want to get away with it because Apple's roots are in "hacking"? Really? I for all my nativity thought that NDA is a contract you supposed to honor. It is not consumer EULA where everyone clicking "I agree" without reading.
Apple people are not "pissed off". They are reacting to contract violation in a way that defined in very same contract. Surprise, ah?
Re: Been sayin' this for years, 'bout time it got built.
Yea, just don't forget a backpack to carry this modularity with you.
Modern phones have surface-mounted chips for a reason. That "new screen" of yours will need new screen controller; where do you put it? On breadboard? Yes, that will totally work.
Such "modular" project are nice for classroom demonstration, nothing more.
... and what exactly is a problem?
Sorry, but I just can't see a problem here. My photo and name is not a secret. You don't even need "secured database" for this.
Credit card info _is_ a secret, and breaking into _this_ database is a crime very similar to bank robbery.
Now, let's say someone does break into and steal those "biometrics". You can't wear someone else face in "mission impossible" style, and "technology" for stealing money more directly already exists: it's called gun/knife.
Re: The only allowed creation is authorized creation
nothing of "wut" here
Studious acting in very predictable manner. They think that movie gonna be success, and therefor want to monetize this success.
And no, they don't want "free publicity" from torrents, they want people to pay for viewing. There's nothing unreasonable in this idea.
And yes, prohibit cameras in movie theater is also sensible thing to do. Since when caprip became OK?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Trade' implies that both sides are getting something
You sound American. Only there I find people that don't see that "just push legislation" mean "write laws". That's same people that want democracy, but think that "Who voted for the politicians is irrelevant".
If this is irrelevant, than why to have democracy anyway? Monarchy already been tried, thank you very match.
>> I can't think of anything more relevant to the current discussion.
OK, I see: "corporation leaders my bribe politicians, therefore let's not have corporations". Or is it "let's not have politicians"? Correct answer is "fight reasons for corruption by removing government interventions where unnecessary".
>> No, politicians can get thrown out. And they are replaced by other politicians who will behave the same way.
Maybe in US, where people think that "who voted is irrelevant". In other countries, politicians are replaced by other politicians that behave somewhat differently.
>> Our votes are puny. Voting is essential, ...
That doesn't compute in my head. Whatever is "puny" is anything but "essential".
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Trade' implies that both sides are getting something
Your hilarious ignorance shows. This point of view amazes me every time.
>> Corporations write your laws,
No, they don't. Politicians that you vote for write them.
>> subvert your government
Yes, corruption is the real problem, although irrelevant to current discussion.
>> and affect your life in powerful ways
Or in other words "sell (or not) me some stuff". I agree, it may be important stuff (fuel, medication), but I'm free not to buy it, and - I can start my own corporation. It's still allowed in US, right?
>> Their power exceeds that of your puny vote
My single vote may be puny, but you must know how this "democracy" thing works. Get many annoyed people, and government is thrown out.
Re: Re: Re: 'Trade' implies that both sides are getting something
Re: 'Trade' implies that both sides are getting something
Yea, that's how trade agreements works
Well, if country X want to make a deal with country Y, it may mean that country X need to fix its laws.
This is especially true if if country Y holds upper hand in negotiations.
There's nothing shocking that EU politicians want to take care about EU companies, that what those politicians _FOR_. That's what (those) negotiations exists for - to establish rules of business.
Last time I checked, EU didn't invade Thailand and forced those "horrible amendments". In short - want to trade with EU - play by EU rules.
Re: Define 'positive'
While I'm hardly DRM defender, your points are nothing but FUD.
>> - Infinite duration copyrights,
That's legal issue, not technical
>> - Allowing you to completely undermine the First Sale doctrine
No it does not. Legal issue, too.
>> - Provides a single point of failure for your product
You car have a lock. And your house. Is it "point of failure"?
>> - Makes piracy a much more attractive choice
I guess store counter is also very inconvenient, since shoplifting is match simpler.
In short - you don't like DRM - don't buy a product. Playing videogames is not a must. Open source software is a thing. Hollywood movies are not a "must have" too.
Re:
What Berne Convention have to do with DMCA, pray tell us.
Re: Re: NZ have no software industry anyway
NZ have no software industry anyway
First, NZ barely have any software industry.
Even if such industry (somehow) develops in future, it really means nothing what is patentable in NZ. What matters is what is patentable in target market (US/Europe/China).
Now, patent in software should be governed by same rules as patent on mechanical contraption. What difference does it make how idea is implemented: by chip, lever or software?