Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Patry Copyright Blog Closed

kdawson posted more than 6 years ago | from the pecked-to-death-by-ducks dept.

The Courts 129

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "William Patry, noted copyright expert and Google's top copyright lawyer, has decided to close his personal blog. (For no reason that he has explained, the archives are gone too.) Ordinarily, that wouldn't be very newsworthy, but that little blog has made a lot of news, outing the ACTA treaty and discussing lots of other important pending legislation. Mr. Patry gives two reasons for the closure: his personal views were being attributed to Google, and the current trends in copyright law are too depressing. Though I am not the only one to have done so, as someone who has contributed to that misunderstanding by listing his credentials without a disclaimer, I would like to publicly apologize to him. Unfortunately, there's nothing I can do to reverse the depressing trends in copyright law that I'm not doing already."

cancel ×

129 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Self-censorship? (2, Insightful)

kaos07 (1113443) | more than 6 years ago | (#24492045)

Or a wannabe martyr?

Re:Self-censorship? (3, Insightful)

BPPG (1181851) | more than 6 years ago | (#24492115)

Postel's Law: be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from others. A good networking rule to follow whether or not you're a computer scientist.

Re:Self-censorship? (5, Funny)

kaos07 (1113443) | more than 6 years ago | (#24492133)

I'm Australian. Our conservative party is called "The Liberal Party". I have no idea what that quote means.

Re:Self-censorship? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24492179)

Try a dictionary. It dosn't mean political conservatism or political liberlism. ;-)

Or, whoosh on me?

Re:Self-censorship? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24494095)

Try a dictionary. It dosn't mean political conservatism or political liberlism. ;-)

Or, whoosh on me?

Yep, whoosh on you :)

Backwards and upside-down (5, Funny)

johndmartiniii (1213700) | more than 6 years ago | (#24492311)

It's sort of like the drains going the opposite way and Summer being cold, right?

Re:Backwards and upside-down (1, Informative)

kestasjk (933987) | more than 6 years ago | (#24492411)

The Liberal Party is conservative on economic issues but liberal on social issues. It doesn't really have the same connotations in Australia as the Republican Party has in America. It's more like the Tories in the UK

Re:Backwards and upside-down (2, Informative)

kaos07 (1113443) | more than 6 years ago | (#24492441)

This is so insanely off-topic, but it is hardly "liberal" on social issues. If by "liberal" you mean either the liberalist philosophy of personal freedom. Anti-terror laws? Mandatory detention? The official party stance on stem cells and abortion? Attitudes towards people of an NESB? Attitudes towards the arts?

Re:Backwards and upside-down (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24492455)

Yeah, the Australian Liberal Party is "liberal" on social issues: they like to lock people up for years without trial, they're against gays marrying, they don't mind a bit of racial brawling on Sydney beaches, and they think Aborigines can't raise their own kids.

Re:Backwards and upside-down (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24493201)

The Liberal party is liberal on social issues?

Are you high?

Re:Backwards and upside-down (3, Informative)

drsmithy (35869) | more than 6 years ago | (#24493377)

The Liberal Party is conservative on economic issues but liberal on social issues.

You have that back to front. The Libs are "Liberal" in their economic policies (ie: pro-free-market, free trade, anti-union, etc).

They _are_ conservative in their social policies, but I'm pretty sure that (originally, at least) has more to do with the type of people their primary beliefs attract, rather than any specific attempt at being so.

Re:Backwards and upside-down (3, Funny)

lilomar (1072448) | more than 6 years ago | (#24495159)

You have that back to front.

Duh. He said he was in Australia!
/ducks

Re:Backwards and upside-down (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24492657)

A bit like living in the UK then?

Re:Backwards and upside-down (2, Funny)

n3tcat (664243) | more than 6 years ago | (#24493301)

It's sort of like the drains going the opposite way and Summer being cold, right?

I just had a mental image of a bunch of republicans holding hands and dancing in circles.

Re:Backwards and upside-down (3, Funny)

h4rm0ny (722443) | more than 6 years ago | (#24493409)

I just had a mental image of a bunch of republicans holding hands and dancing in circles.

I always picture them doing that anyway. In the backrooms of the Whitehouse. At midnight. In Robes. Around a pentagram.

You mean they don't?

Re:Backwards and upside-down (1)

VGPowerlord (621254) | more than 6 years ago | (#24494513)

Really? I thought Summer was still hot in Australia.

Bearing in mind that Summer runs from December through March in Australia, rather than from June through September like it does in the Northern Hemisphere.

Re:Self-censorship? (1, Offtopic)

Xanni (29201) | more than 6 years ago | (#24492379)

I think you'll find our conservative parties are called "Liberal", "Labour" and "Family First". In the US, they are called "Republican" and "Democrat". There are progressive political parties, but they haven't been nearly as successful in appealing to voters and their fear and self-interest.

Re:Self-censorship? (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24492461)

I think you'll find our conservative parties are called "Liberal", "Labour" and "Family First".

I think you'll find it's "Labor". I'll never know why the party spells it's name wrong.

Re:Self-censorship? (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24492425)

I'm Australian. Our conservative party is called "The Liberal Party". I have no idea what that quote means.

That's normal in politics. In Soviet Russia (don't even think it) the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was popularly known as "Four words, four lies."

Re:Self-censorship? (3, Informative)

bolo1729 (759710) | more than 6 years ago | (#24492923)

Same with the states having "Democratic" in their names. I'd prefer to live in the Republic of Korea rather than in Democratic People's Republic of Korea, and in Federal Republic of Germany rather than in German Democratic Republic.

Re:Self-censorship? (4, Funny)

jamesswift (1184223) | more than 6 years ago | (#24492627)

As a European who has seen Fox News I think Liberal means believing Stalin was The MAN! and Conservative means being persecuted for driving.

*shrugs*

Re:Self-censorship? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24495417)

He is using liberal as a verb - not a noun. Look it up in a dictionary, mate...you do have those down under, right?

Re:Self-censorship? (2, Funny)

Ahnteis (746045) | more than 6 years ago | (#24501527)

I see adjective and noun... but no verb form.

"Why don't you just liberal yourself man!"

"I was walking down the hallway and all of a sudden I liberalled right in front of her. I've never been so embarrassed!"

"I liberal; therefore I am."

??

Re:Self-censorship? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24492225)

ok... ill be conservetive in my work... by taking shit from everybody

Re:Self-censorship? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24492309)

No wonder. Next time try to be conservative.

Re:Self-censorship? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24492475)

Asians look like buck-toothed rodentia.

Re:Self-censorship? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24493533)

USians look like pink elephants in multi-coloured spandex wrap.

Re:Self-censorship? (1)

Ahnteis (746045) | more than 6 years ago | (#24501541)

You've noticed the fashion trends too?

Not really. (4, Interesting)

yar (170650) | more than 6 years ago | (#24492387)

I do a number of things related to copyright law. IMHO, Patry's blog was one of the greatest free Web resources for anything interested in following copyright.

If you read the comments on Patry's closing blog entry, you'll find a number of names you'd recognize if you follow copyright law at all- almost a who's who of the copyright world. And most of them, while they wish he would continue, completely agree with his reasons for leaving, including his second premise. Copyright law has gotten depressing, and it does bring the crazies out. And he's not the first person who works in copyright law that I've heard say pretty much the same thing.

It's not like he's leaving the copyright world- he is still the author of the definitive legal treatise on copyright, and he's still a copyright attorney.

Seconded (4, Insightful)

Xenographic (557057) | more than 6 years ago | (#24492699)

I'm no lawyer, but I know a little about law anyhow. Mr. Patry is one of the heavyweight scholars of copyright law, not some random nobody on Slashdot like me.

His blog was very important. Like TFS says, it broke the news on the ACTA treaty, which would still be secret if not for him. Lawyers read his books to learn about copyright law. His blog was incredibly useful to find out all the latest happenings in copyright law, which is only getting crazier now that it's being rewritten to appease Disney and to try to deal with the internet, which most politicians don't understand on a deeper level than "it's not a big truck, it's a series of tubes."

So losing him is a big deal and it sucks. There simply aren't many people who could ever hope to replace him. Groklaw, Ars Technica and NYCL are all great, don't get me wrong.

But they simply lack the authority someone like Mr. Patry can bring to the table. He will be missed.

I believe him. (0, Troll)

jimmyhat3939 (931746) | more than 6 years ago | (#24492081)

There's no question that copyright issues are developing in a way that pushes more power to the top of the pyramid at the expense of the little guy.

And, like it or not Google is not that much smaller than the largest companies in the US. They need to protect their image as much as anyone. And, features such as the "Cached" link on their website (among many, many others) have copyright implications.

All this means there's really no reason for Google to take a risk with their reputation by having a "loose cannon" blogging about practices which could have direct implications for Google.

Re:I believe him. (4, Informative)

yar (170650) | more than 6 years ago | (#24492345)

Patry has made it clear that he did not receive pressure from Google to close his blog.

Re:I believe him. (1)

orasio (188021) | more than 6 years ago | (#24496259)

Who cares?
If I say you are being pressured to say something, the fact that you deny it is worth zero, for that specific matter.
You should deny it based , for instance, on his reputation and stuff, but not on his denying it.

new invisible category (0, Offtopic)

ocularDeathRay (760450) | more than 6 years ago | (#24492137)

avoiding advertisements is nice, but what would really get me to lay down some subscription money?... the ability to only read stories that don't mention the word "blog".

I can't be the only one who feels this way...

Re:new invisible category (1)

Buran (150348) | more than 6 years ago | (#24492181)

Then ... don't click! No one makes you do it.

Re:new invisible category (1)

VGPowerlord (621254) | more than 6 years ago | (#24494545)

+1, Insightful.

If I only had mod points...

Re:new invisible category (1)

lilomar (1072448) | more than 6 years ago | (#24495265)

Hm, what you really need is some device that would allow you to take all of the words in a summary, and compare them to a list of 'bad words' that you don't want to read about. Then you could avoid clicking through and being forced to comment on those articles.

Have you tried these [wikipedia.org] ?

Sure there is (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24492153)

Unfortunately, there's nothing I can do to reverse the depressing trends in copyright law that I'm not doing already.

Sure there is. You've just gotta do what those on the other side of the issue do. Put some money together and invest it in buying some congressmen.

Might Wanna Put Some Ice On That (3, Insightful)

strelitsa (724743) | more than 6 years ago | (#24492169)

Mr. Patry gives two reasons for the closure: his personal views were being attributed to Google, and the current trends in copyright law are too depressing .

The first reason is probably valid, and Patry is correct in wanting to clearly differentiate his views from Google's. (While most people would just slap "The views expressed here are my own and do not represent my employer's ..." boilerplate on their blog and call it a day, its a free Intertubes.)

The second reason reads more like pure frustration and petulance than anything else. His pulling the archived material is likely a part of this martyrdom.

I do wish that Mr. Patry would come on down off that cross - we need the wood.

Re:Might Wanna Put Some Ice On That (5, Informative)

Hal_Porter (817932) | more than 6 years ago | (#24492283)

He also said

On top of this there are the crazies, whom it is impossible to reason with, who do not have a life of their own and so insist on ruining the lives of others, and preferably as many as possible. I asked myself last week after having to deal with the craziest of the crazies yet, "why subject yourself to this?" I could come up with no reason why I should: My grandfather chose to be a psychiatrist, but I chose a different professional path, one that doesn't obligate me to put up with such nonsense.

Funny how slashdot misses that part out.

trolls (1)

twitter (104583) | more than 6 years ago | (#24495247)

Slashdot is used to ignoring trolls. Publishers hire PR people to harass others, it is annoying but not a good reason to quit. If you quit, all that's left to influence the public will be the crazies.

No twitter, you are the trolls (1)

Hal_Porter (817932) | more than 6 years ago | (#24496085)

Slashdot is used to ignoring trolls. Publishers hire PR people to harass others, it is annoying but not a good reason to quit. If you quit, all that's left to influence the public will be the crazies.

Twitter waited. The lights above him blinked and sparked out of the air. There were crazies on the internets. He didn't see them, but had expected them now for years. His warnings to Linus Torvalds were not listenend to and now it was too late. Far too late for now, anyway.
Twitter was a space cadet for fourteen years. When he was young he watched the flamewars on alt.fan.stallman and he said to dad "I want to be on the internets daddy."
Dad said "No! You will BE TROLL"
There was a time when he believed him. Then as he got oldered he stopped. But now in his parents basement he knew there were trolls.
"This is Torvalds" the radio crackered. "You must fight the trolls!"
So Twitter gotted his Iceweazel and posted "M$M$M$".
"HE GOING TO DISCREDIT US" said the paid shills.
"I will shoot at him" said Ballmer and he fired the cost of ownership surveys. Twitter flaemed at him and tried to blew him up. But then the downmods fell and they were hidden and not able to kill.
"No! I must kill the trolls" he shouted
The radio said "No, Twitter. You are the trolls"
And then Twitter was a troll.

Re:Might Wanna Put Some Ice On That (1)

CKW (409971) | more than 6 years ago | (#24498653)

Why does he "have" to deal with the crazies? Simply ignore them.

Re:Might Wanna Put Some Ice On That (3, Insightful)

yar (170650) | more than 6 years ago | (#24492397)

I'd hardly call it petulance, although working with copyright today is incredibly frustrating. I wouldn't call him a martyr. Read the comments on that entry.

Can't millions of us *BUY* some politicians? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24492201)

This whole copyright business is depressing alright, mainly because those who are allegedly "our" politicians are working against us as a result of corporate $$$-based lobbying, which would be known as bribery in more enlightened societies.

Well fine, if that's how the system works then why don't *WE* bribe our politicians too? Dozens of millions of citizens are affected by this media-led crap, hundreds of millions of people worldwide, so surely we can afford the bribes?

It shouldn't be necessary to bribe those who in theory should be representing us, but if that's the only way to make them work for the people, then we should do it. If we don't, then the next step will be to employ contract hit men to make the politicians "see sense", and that's not a step to be taken lightly. But bribery appears to be acceptable in current society. So how about it?

Call it campaign contributions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24492393)

Being honest and calling it a bribe won't work because politicians lack an honest bone in their bodies. There is no lower lifeform.

But calling it "campaign contributions" might work though, since that's a term with a very long pedigree and, for some very odd reason, has respectability.

Re:Can't millions of us *BUY* some politicians? (2, Interesting)

Glasyalabolis (1339483) | more than 6 years ago | (#24492415)

I don't understand why you've been moded Offtopic because you are clearly Ontopic. It's common knowledge that our politicians are bribed by all manner of corporations, and corporations certainly don't have our best interests at heart.

I would love to see communities, counties or even whole states banding together to raise money for bribery of "their" representatives in congress.

And it's probably way too soon to be talking about assassination.

Re:Can't millions of us *BUY* some politicians? (1)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | more than 6 years ago | (#24494787)

I don't understand why you've been moded Offtopic because you are clearly Ontopic.

Clearly.

Well, I guess there is room to interpret him as off-topic if you don't take the popular heresay about politicians as fact, but it's such a tiny loophole, and nobody really goes against the groupthink... right? Right?

Re:Can't millions of us *BUY* some politicians? (1)

lilomar (1072448) | more than 6 years ago | (#24495355)

Assasination only works if you can point the blame at one person, or small group of people.

You can't assasinate every politician in the US, and even if you did, the people who took over would be (or shortly become) just as bad.

It's a human-nature problem. The only solution is to kill all humans.

Re:Can't millions of us *BUY* some politicians? (4, Insightful)

jlarocco (851450) | more than 6 years ago | (#24492419)

Well fine, if that's how the system works then why don't *WE* bribe our politicians too?

We don't have to bribe our politicians because they are our employees. We pay their salary with our tax money. We, the citizens, are supposed to "bribe" them with their jobs. If they want to keep their job, they protect our rights and look out for our interests.

The sad fact of the matter is, if enough people actually cared enough to implement a plan like yours, we wouldn't need it anyway because scumbag politicians would rarely get elected in the first place. As the saying goes, we're getting the democracy we deserve.

Letter of the Law (2, Insightful)

Nymz (905908) | more than 6 years ago | (#24492601)

Patry's warnings and frustration with the current fusillade on fair-use protections appears to me as a piece of a larger picture. A theme not uncommon in contemporary sciencefiction stories is of a planet where lawyers rule and litigation is omnipresent. Anyone who has read the US Constitution can tell you how short and succinct it is, and while some of the contributors were lawyers they certainly weren't 'slip n fall' lawyers that spelled out every little eventuality. Perhaps they felt that if men would not honor the 'Spirit of the Law' then they wouldn't honor the 'Letter of the Law' either. Here are a few examples off the top of my head:
  • Richard Stallman's defense of the idea of 'free software' which stresses freedom of use, versus its 'redefining' as 'open source' which Microsoft appears to be all too comfortable with embracing to the 'Letter of the Law'.
  • The 2cd Amendment right to bear arms in the 'Spirt of the Law' defines your right to protect your self, your family, and your home. But is slowly being 'redefined' to include restrictions like it must be unloaded, and must be trigger locked, etc. which makes one virtually useless but is keeping with the 'Letter of the Law'.
  • In many places, judges are 'redefining' marriage from Husband & Wife, to Partner A & Partner B. If you just felt a knee-jerk reaction on this one, take a second to think about it. If you really cared about homosexual marriage, then you should go about it in the correct manner. The same is true of a law you don't like, where you work to eliminate that law from the books, with education, proposals, and finally a vote of the people. Too many people just want to get their 'gang' in power, and grab the reigns, and 'make' things happen in spite of the will of the people.

We shouldn't let 'fair use' be 'redefined' either, but you don't get to be a hypocrite. You have to consistently vote in officials that will respect laws, and not try to 'muscle' and 'redefine' them to your side's political position. That's not a government of the people, but a regime of a single party.

Re:Letter of the Law (2, Interesting)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 6 years ago | (#24493105)

In many places, judges are 'redefining' marriage from Husband & Wife, to Partner A & Partner B. If you just felt a knee-jerk reaction on this one, take a second to think about it. If you really cared about homosexual marriage, then you should go about it in the correct manner.

The thing is, most such laws originally on the books don't explicitly specify man and woman to begin with - note the bazillion local movements to pass new laws that do explicitly specify one man and one woman. Those new laws would not be necessary if the original laws had been explicit to begin with.

Re:Letter of the Law (-1, Troll)

Nymz (905908) | more than 6 years ago | (#24493293)

The thing is, most such laws originally on the books don't explicitly specify man and woman to begin with - note the bazillion local movements to pass new laws that do explicitly specify one man and one woman. Those new laws would not be necessary if the original laws had been explicit to begin with.

Are you a lawyer?
I suppose a lawyer might argue that it's ok to censor a blog because it's on the internet, and your right to free speech (written in the 18th century) doesn't 'explicitly' say internet. But the 'spirit of the law' is that the government may not abridge your free speech whether it be on a soap box, newspaper, radio, tv, internet blog, or any future method. It is not possible to be infinitely 'explicit'.

Are you a troll?
Let's be reasonable, civilizations worldwide haven't had a problem with the definition for thousands of years, but you do? Just how 'explicit' would you require it to be? Full color pictures of a penis entering a vagina with an internal camera to explicitly show conception? Please read my parent post again on the 'proper' way to change laws and the world.

Re:Letter of the Law (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 6 years ago | (#24494367)

Are you a lawyer?
I suppose a lawyer might argue that it's ok to censor a blog because it's on the internet, and your right to free speech (written in the 18th century) doesn't 'explicitly' say internet. But the 'spirit of the law' is that the government may not abridge your free speech whether it be on a soap box, newspaper, radio, tv, internet blog, or any future method. It is not possible to be infinitely 'explicit'.

Dude, you are insane. seriously. First you argue that we shouldn't change laws that don't exist. Then you claim we shouldn't change the spirit of the law. Except your analogy is seriously flawed because ALL of the court rulings for gay marriage have been based on actual laws that say no discrimination based on gender. Its only now that people have started to realize the full scope of those laws.

Let's be reasonable, civilizations worldwide haven't had a problem with the definition for thousands of years, but you do? Just how 'explicit' would you require it to be? Full color pictures of a penis entering a vagina with an internal camera to explicitly show conception?

Woah!! Did you just try to pull out the marriage is for procreation argument? Puhlease. History is against you on that one.

Re:Letter of the Law (1)

Nymz (905908) | more than 6 years ago | (#24494557)

Woah!! Did you just try to pull out the marriage is for procreation argument? Puhlease. History is against you on that one.

I guess it's just a coincidence (or crazy random happenstance - DrHorrible) that both marriage and procreation require a man and woman. What are the chances of that?

And I guess every young man wants nothing more than to make a commitment, for life, to one woman. It's just a natural feeling all young men have, and absolutely nothing to do with societal pressures to provide a stable home for children.

Dude, you are insane. seriously.

I'm certain one of is. :)

Re:Letter of the Law (1)

TeacherOfHeroes (892498) | more than 6 years ago | (#24495551)

I guess it's just a coincidence (or crazy random happenstance - DrHorrible) that both marriage and procreation require a man and woman. What are the chances of that?

Mixed doubles require a man and a woman, too. Maybe that's where babies come from.

Yes, marriage and family are related, but why does it have to be a strictly traditional family. Maybe its two men who want to adopt a child, or use a surrogate, or two women and a sperm donor.

If marriage is just about procreation, then we'd best keep all the sterile people from getting married. Not to mention those sixty-something people remarrying after losing their partner. Once women have gone through "the change", they shouldn't be allowed to get married anymore.

Marriage is related to procreation in the same way that sexual desire or love is. Sure, procreation was probably its original motivator, but its not a direct correlation, and it's not limited to its original scope, If it were, homosexuals wouldn't want to get married. It's like being attracted to someone sterile. Sexual attraction is about procreation, so should you stop loving them because you can never have a child? That homosexuals do fall in love, experience sexual attraction, and want to marry is perhaps a sign that they are all now something more than just a way to tether a father-provider to a mother-nurturer.

Re:Letter of the Law (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24497821)

Snip: [a big rant nitpicking about what marriage is]

And that is where you demonstrate that the original poster was right.

Marriage is a set of rules that society established to encourage procreation -- more specifically raising new members (if you don't beleive that, then, well, you can stop reading and instead explain to us why marriage exists). So, that was the spirit of it, as much as the second amendment was about protecting your home and family.

By extending the marriage concept to any kind of personA and personB, you are diluting the definition of it, at at the end, removing the very purpose of it. There will no longer be a set of rules established by the society to encourage procreation.

One can argue if a modern society ought to have rules like that, but instead of arguing that point, you are following exactly the process described by the original poster. You are diluting the rule until it doesn't mean anything.

Re:Letter of the Law (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24499349)

Marriage is a set of rules that society established to encourage procreation -- more specifically raising new members (if you don't beleive that, then, well, you can stop reading and instead explain to us why marriage exists). So, that was the spirit of it, as much as the second amendment was about protecting your home and family.

I agree with you that ultimately, marriage law is about helping to build families.

So why would you discriminate against a certain group of people with adopted children?

Gay people have been raising children for years now without the benefit of marriage laws. The spirit of the law makes me think that they ought to receive the same benefits as straight parents that adopt children.

Re:Letter of the Law (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 6 years ago | (#24501709)

I guess it's just a coincidence (or crazy random happenstance - DrHorrible) that both marriage and procreation require a man and woman. What are the chances of that?

Bzzzzzt! Marriage was about assets and alliances long before it was about anything else, children were just a side-effect. Hell, even today half the world still works on the arranged marriage model. Procreation sure as FUCK doesn't require marriage.

But what's really funny about your response is how you ignored the fact that anti-discrimination laws have been on the books for decades now. The laws were passed by the elected representatives, just as you stated they ought to be. The deal was done many years ago.

Re:Letter of the Law (1)

drsmithy (35869) | more than 6 years ago | (#24493541)

Richard Stallman's defense of the idea of 'free software' which stresses freedom of use, versus its 'redefining' as 'open source' which Microsoft appears to be all too comfortable with embracing to the 'Letter of the Law'.

Had Stallman not tried to redefine "free" in the first place, there wouldn't have been a problem. "Open Source" is not only a _vastly_ more accurate and relevant terminology, but also avoids the politics that Stallman tried to inject.

The 2cd Amendment right to bear arms in the 'Spirt of the Law' defines your right to protect your self, your family, and your home. But is slowly being 'redefined' to include restrictions like it must be unloaded, and must be trigger locked, etc. which makes one virtually useless but is keeping with the 'Letter of the Law'.

I'm not American, but I'm pretty sure that self-defence was not the primary objective of the Second Amendment.

In many places, judges are 'redefining' marriage from Husband & Wife, to Partner A & Partner B.

Not in anywhere near as many places as they are redefining it specifically as Husband and Wife (or one Man and one Woman, or one Male and one Female) so as to enshrine that discrimination in law and remove ambiguity allowing things like "civil partnerships".

If you just felt a knee-jerk reaction on this one, take a second to think about it. If you really cared about homosexual marriage, then you should go about it in the correct manner.

If you really care that much about homosexual marriage, then accept that what the law should consider marriage and what particular religions should consider marriage are two separate things. The US has (ostensibly, at least) a secular Government. Because of that, there is zero justification whatsoever for the Government to introduce blatantly discriminating laws about what is - as far as it's concerned - a financial and legal arrangement between two people.

There are only three types of people who are bothered by homosexual marriage:

1. People that are just set in their ways. They grumble and mutter under their breath, but at the end of the day, are prepared to live and let live.
2. Bigots who want to see their particular set of morals enshrined in law.
3. Bigots who want to see their particular set of morals enshrined in law, but try to disguise it using a smokescreen of either other broken laws (welfare seems to be a favourite) or slippery slope fallacies ("legal bestiality" seems to be a favourite) as justification.

Re:Letter of the Law (0, Troll)

Nymz (905908) | more than 6 years ago | (#24493793)

Had Stallman not tried to redefine "free" in the first place, there wouldn't have been a problem. "Open Source" is not only a _vastly_ more accurate and relevant terminology, but also avoids the politics that Stallman tried to inject.

We can agree to disagree on which is 'vastly' better, but claiming Stallman's purpose and motivation has changed really doesn't hold up against the plethora of his writings dating back quite a few years.

I'm not American, but I'm pretty sure that self-defence was not the primary objective of the Second Amendment.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

There are only three types of people who are bothered by homosexual marriage:
1. People that are just set in their ways. They grumble and mutter under their breath, but at the end of the day, are prepared to live and let live.
2. Bigots who want to see their particular set of morals enshrined in law.
3. Bigots who want to see their particular set of morals enshrined in law, but try to disguise it using a smokescreen of either other broken laws (welfare seems to be a favourite) or slippery slope fallacies ("legal bestiality" seems to be a favourite) as justification.

You have convinced me to abandon my methods, as your method (calling people Bigots) sounds like a sure-fire way to convince people to change their minds and hearts. I now understand why reasoned debate like mine gets ignored, because reporters would rather quote someone like you, and then like at a playground fight chant fight fight fight. /sigh

Re:Letter of the Law (1)

a_real_bast... (1305351) | more than 6 years ago | (#24494061)

1) He never claimed Stallman changed position. He's claiming Stallman's starting point was a redefinition of 'free'.
2) That doesn't say self defence anywhere. In fact, it explicitly says "security of a free State," which is rather different. Not getting into rights or wrongs of gun control (I really couldn't give a toss), just sayin' you quoted something that doesn't actually back up your position.
3) So you're completely unbiased. We'll take that as truth; do you object to gay marriage, and if so why?

Re:Letter of the Law (1)

Nymz (905908) | more than 6 years ago | (#24494329)

1) He never claimed Stallman changed position. He's claiming Stallman's starting point was a redefinition of 'free'.

So, he was "claiming Stallman's starting point" was 'free as in beer' before he later "redefined it" to 'free as in freedom'?

2) That doesn't say self defence anywhere. In fact, it explicitly says "security of a free State," which is rather different. Not getting into rights or wrongs of gun control (I really couldn't give a toss), just sayin' you quoted something that doesn't actually back up your position.

Heh, I quoted the 2cd Amendment. But to give you the benefit of the doubt which of these best defines your position:
1) The security of a free State is ensured by hunting deer with guns.
2) The security of a free State is ensured by owning a large gun collection.
3) The security of a free State is ensured by defending oneself (with a gun) against those threatening you.
4) Ok, I can't think of a 4th thing to do with a gun. :)

3) So you're completely unbiased. We'll take that as truth; do you object to gay marriage, and if so why?

As I said before, I encourage people to change laws the 'proper' way (education, proposal, vote) and 'object' to discarding democracy in order to implement one's own agenda. Oh, and calling people names like Homophobe, Faggot, or Bigot (like the parent poster did) isn't a reasoned debate strategy for winning, but for losing.

Re:Letter of the Law (1)

a_real_bast... (1305351) | more than 6 years ago | (#24494539)

I know; I recognised it. How about:
4) Form the militia the law mentions?
Shame on you! Some of your countrymen have used a shotgun as a tool while changing a tyre, and you can only come up with hunting, self defence, and support of the gun-polish industry? (",)
And I agree with the last point - though sometimes a good ad hominem is allowed, or at least funny.

Re:Letter of the Law (1)

statusbar (314703) | more than 6 years ago | (#24494217)

absolutely true...

--Jeffk++

Re:Letter of the Law (1)

drsmithy (35869) | more than 6 years ago | (#24501183)

We can agree to disagree on which is 'vastly' better, [...]

One is only accurate when taken within a very small, unintuitive and non-standard definition of "non-free". The other is an accurate description of the situation - "open source".

[...] but claiming Stallman's purpose and motivation has changed really doesn't hold up against the plethora of his writings dating back quite a few years.

I didn't say anything about his purpose changing, I said his terminology required a redefinition of "free" to be meaningful.

Stallman clearly chose the term "free" for political reasons - that is, so he could leverage emotive statements like "free as in freedom" (we shall ignore the innacuracy of that phrase for the moment). Because of this, he has no-one to blame but himself when people don't understand what he's trying to say.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Yes. You'll notice they're talking about the freedom of the State, not self defence for the individual.

You have convinced me to abandon my methods, as your method (calling people Bigots) sounds like a sure-fire way to convince people to change their minds and hearts. I now understand why reasoned debate like mine gets ignored, because reporters would rather quote someone like you, and then like at a playground fight chant fight fight fight. /sighsounds like a sure-fire way to convince people to change their minds and hearts. I now understand why reasoned debate like mine gets ignored, because reporters would rather quote someone like you, and then like at a playground fight chant fight fight fight. /sigh

If you can come up with a "reasoned debate" why a secular state would have any concern about the gender of two people entering a legal agreement whose primary benefit is financial, I'm prepared to listen.

Re:Letter of the Law (1)

skeeto (1138903) | more than 6 years ago | (#24496197)

Had Stallman not tried to redefine "free" in the first place, there wouldn't have been a problem.

He didn't try to redefine "free": the definition was always there (i.e. "land of the free"). It is just the unfortunate situation that English, the world's working technical language [catb.org] , has two very different definitions mapped to the same word. Other languages make the distinction with the different words "gratis" and "libre".

Re:Letter of the Law (1)

drsmithy (35869) | more than 6 years ago | (#24501383)

He didn't try to redefine "free": [...]

Yes, he did. "GNU/free" is not "free".

It is just the unfortunate situation that English, the world's working technical language [catb.org], has two very different definitions mapped to the same word. Other languages make the distinction with the different words "gratis" and "libre".

Free as in "no cost" and free as in "freedom", in English, are rarely difficult to discern using context.

Stallman's problem is twofold - first, the context of his usage of "free" points to the "no cost" definition. Second, his actual intended meaning - as in "freedom" - does not actually match what most people would consider "freedom" as it has potentially significant restrictions and obligations attached.

The "confusion" around "Free Software" is wholely and solely the fault of its advocates. By deliberately choosing terminology with well-understood meanings, just so appeals to emotion ("free as in freedom") could be used, Stallman was acting in the same way - and for the reasons - as politicians who come up with names for bills which are different to their actual content.

Re:Letter of the Law (1)

jvkjvk (102057) | more than 6 years ago | (#24497223)

Perhaps they felt that if men would not honor the 'Spirit of the Law' then they wouldn't honor the 'Letter of the Law' either.

Let's try and guess what the "Spirit of Law" behind Civil Marriage is, and why, really, according to the "Spirit of Law" that it might not matter if Person A and Person B are of the same sex.

Hmmm, I know! - There are both legal benefits and obligations to civil unions beyond those granted by any religious body. These accrue in civil society and are real, tangible benefits. Why should the squeamish morality of people who are uncomfortable with their own sexuality continue to be a Legal barrier to such unions and the benefits that are derived from them?

You began this with:

In many places, judges are 'redefining' marriage from Husband & Wife, to Partner A & Partner B. If you just felt a knee-jerk reaction on this one, take a second to think about it. If you really cared about homosexual marriage, then you should go about it in the correct manner. The same is true of a law you don't like, where you work to eliminate that law from the books, with education, proposals, and finally a vote of the people. Too many people just want to get their 'gang' in power, and grab the reigns, and 'make' things happen in spite of the will of the people.

Another person responded:

The thing is, most such laws originally on the books don't explicitly specify man and woman to begin with - note the bazillion local movements to pass new laws that do explicitly specify one man and one woman. Those new laws would not be necessary if the original laws had been explicit to begin with.

Your response:

Are you a troll?

Let's be reasonable, civilizations worldwide haven't had a problem with the definition for thousands of years, but you do? Just how 'explicit' would you require it to be? Full color pictures of a penis entering a vagina with an internal camera to explicitly show conception? Please read my parent post again on the 'proper' way to change laws and the world.

Oh hush, you're the one being trollish here. Someone shoots down your primary argument about marriage law changes - by pointing out that most places are going in the opposite direction of your assumption. You then retreat to what appears to be your comfort zone, in a gesture of "reasonability" by asserting that your way of looking at things is correct since that's the way it's always been done. Very reasonable of you.

You want to be reasonable? How's this:

It appears reasonable that anyone who wants to enter a civil union with another consenting adult and have the legal benefits and responsibilities should be allowed to do so. Similar to how we allow a man and woman do so. What's unreasonable about this?

I reread your original post, in fact reattached this there instead. What do you feel is the 'proper' way to change laws and the world again? If you want to adhere to the "Spirit of Law" what's the course to have civil unions recognized?

I thought that perhaps the easiest way would be to slightly modify the codebase if required to say something like - "two consenting adults". But even that appears not necessary in most cases (since we have so many places trying to redefine it as specifically a man and woman).

You see, sometimes what you call "redefining" is coming into greater coherence with the Spirit of Law. I believe this is one case where redefining it to be something like "two consenting adults" would be a step in the right direction.

So, I guess in the end I *do* agree with you! All those states that are attempting to limit civil unions to be between a man and woman are muscling in and redefine what civil unions should actually be according to the Spirit of the Law. And they should stop doing so.

One final point. You talk about the "will of the people". The "will of the people" is not law, and not all things that are the "will of the people" are lawful to enact. We have a lot of different types of minority classifications (less than x% of the population belong to that particular class) and the majority may not abridge their rights any more than any particular minority gets to abridge the rights of the population as a whole.

Re:Letter of the Law (1)

Nymz (905908) | more than 6 years ago | (#24501645)

I simply don't have the time to attempt to write all that would be needed to address your questions, but I will take the time to show I'm sincere and hopefully point you in the direction that you can take on your own.

Most of your concern on the topic of 'spirit of the law' versus 'letter of the law' appears to linked to homosexuality, so I will use their symbol as a metaphor. Imagine I described the their symbol (a rainbow) by saying it was composed of many colors. You interpret my colors as not being black, so you assume I must be saying rainbows are white. Please, if you cannot understand how a rainbow could be anything more than black or white, much like how a gun could be anything more than good or evil, then please just leave your mind open in the future. Perhaps after you have a little more experience, the world will make more sense.

Re:Can't millions of us *BUY* some politicians? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24492635)

We don't have to bribe our politicians because they are our employees. We pay their salary with our tax money. We, the citizens, are supposed to "bribe" them with their jobs. If they want to keep their job, they protect our rights and look out for our interests.

Pray tell, how is it that they can extract their wages by threat of force? It's sad people keep repeating that naÃve view. The best explanation I have is that they dont't want to face that they are partial slaves to their masters. Voting and elections are not contractual. Our rulers are not bound by anything if not the threat of outright violent rebellion, which is very unlikely.

Re:Can't millions of us *BUY* some politicians? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24492693)

Pray tell, how is it that they can extract their wages by threat of force? It's sad people keep repeating that naÃve view. The best explanation I have is that they dont't want to face that they are partial slaves to their masters. Voting and elections are not contractual. Our rulers are not bound by anything if not the threat of outright violent rebellion, which is very unlikely.

It was for that very reason that the founding fathers considered the right to bear arms so important. The government should be scared of the people, not the other way around.

Re:Can't millions of us *BUY* some politicians? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24493033)

that depends. what are you going to ask for? abolition of copyright? (a popular theme here). And then when all of you are unemployed because the companies you work for no longer produce anything of value (increasingly US companies produce IP or goods that can be encoded digitally), are you then going to whine to the same politicians about why you are unemployed?

Re:Can't millions of us *BUY* some politicians? (1)

lilomar (1072448) | more than 6 years ago | (#24495733)

Actually, very few people on /. (and in the anti-copyright movement in general) are for the abolition of copyright.

I'm just guesstimating these numbers, but I would say that the position of /.'ers is approximated by the following:
  5% - Want abolition of copyright.
  5% - Rabidly pro-copyright.
10% - Think that copyright should be subverted from within the system, a-la CC, GPL, etc. (note that these are not the only ones who are pro-CC/GPL, these are the ones who think that they are the way to fix the system.
20% - pro-copyright, but think the anti-copyrighters have a valid viewpoint.
60% - Think that copyright is a good idea, but has been corrupted by Disney and the RIAA. Copyright terms need to be shortened, DMCA needs to be repealed, etc.

Notice that those who just don't care one way or another have been excluded, because they don't generally post about copyright issues and their percentage is hard to judge.

Also, certain groups are more vocal than others, I have tried to take that into account, but may have messed up the numbers more in doing so.

IANAStatistician, these numbers are not scientific, Caveat Emptor, etc.

Real reason: conflict with Google (3, Insightful)

Steve1952 (651150) | more than 6 years ago | (#24492229)

Although I'm sure that Patry had an excellent Blog, the cynic in me thinks that there is only one real reason why the archives are now off line. This is probably fear that some of his earlier statements are now inconsistent with his high level legal position at Google. That is, he is concerned that an opponent might try to twist his words in the Blog against him.

Re:Real reason: conflict with Google (1)

sleeponthemic (1253494) | more than 6 years ago | (#24492327)

I consider myself a cynic but I've gone a different path. I believe him, in the sense that there would be a serious difficulty for journalists to resist the temptation to not attribute anything he says to google.

Whilst I'm sure that as he points out that he is under no duress to close, I'll bet this blog and the constant misquoting the google position is enough to make things uncomfortable in his day job often enough.

I don't think so. (2, Insightful)

yar (170650) | more than 6 years ago | (#24492335)

He's made it clear that Google, the company, is not directly involved with the closing of his blog. I've read and respect Patry enough to believe that if something along those cynical lines was the case, he'd pretty much say so.

That's it - I've had enough! (2, Funny)

TheModelEskimo (968202) | more than 6 years ago | (#24492261)

I'm shutting down my blog about the finer points of the GNU GPL in protest of Mr. Patry's shutting down of his blog about copyright.

I'm sorry it had to come to this. And to all my readers: I WONT be back.

Re:That's it - I've had enough! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24492401)

I'm shutting down my blog about the finer points of the GNU GPL in protest of Mr. Patry's shutting down of his blog about copyright.

I'm sorry it had to come to this. And to all my readers: I WONT be back.


Oh noes! Somebody I dont give a shit about is going to do something I don't give a fuck about. Noooooooo..... Quick, somebody call Jesse Jackson!!

Re:That's it - I've had enough! (1)

urcreepyneighbor (1171755) | more than 6 years ago | (#24492417)

Whoosh. :)

mod 30wn (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24492285)

won't be standing to the crowd in fanatic known 7o you by Penisbird own lube, beverage, the developer Survive at all

Not to worry (4, Informative)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 6 years ago | (#24492301)

Just read it here [archive.org] . Thanks, Wayback Machine!

Re:Not to worry (1)

quintesse (654840) | more than 6 years ago | (#24492527)

Hmmm strange, I had read he had it removed from the Internet Archive as well??

( http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080803135012312 [groklaw.net] but it only refers to "archives", probably I wrongly made the association with archive.org)

(Although here he says he will think about reinstating the archives again: https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=15479871&postID=4348431689288397027&pli=1 [blogger.com] )

Re:Not to worry (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24492603)

Well, the text on Wayback is all white, so you have to highlight it to see it. I guess that's why Groklaw thought it was all gone.

One can only assume (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24492369)

... that your appology is not accepted.

Will you rethink your ideals or will you keep working to understand the reality?

This sucks. (2, Informative)

Larryish (1215510) | more than 6 years ago | (#24492821)

I am really sorry to see the archives go. If he doesn't want to continue writing, the man has his reasons. But the archives were full of good material.

Fortunately the Wayback Machine is on the case :)

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://williampatry.blogspot.com [archive.org]

Sounds like... (3, Funny)

rasteri (634956) | more than 6 years ago | (#24493287)

... The patry's over. (I'm sorry)

Why are IP laws getting stricter? (3, Interesting)

Raisey-raison (850922) | more than 6 years ago | (#24493683)

I wish someone could explain how it is that countries everywhere are moving towards stricter and stricter IP laws when at this level there is plenty of evidence that they are having a deleterious economic impact. Even in countries in Europe where campaign contributions are not influential as in the USA. It seems that left wing politicians who supposedly abhor big business are just as pro IP as everyone else.

It also seems that whatever level of IP protection exists its never enough. Recently the EU considered extending copyright term lengths from 50 to 95 years. http://www.dmwmedia.com/news/2008/07/17/eu-proposes-extending-copyright-term-length-95-years [dmwmedia.com]
If anyone has some insight I would appreciate it.

Re:Why are IP laws getting stricter? (3, Insightful)

earthforce_1 (454968) | more than 6 years ago | (#24494043)

This is going to end up, (already ending up really) like prohibition in the 1930, where certain narrow interests managed to get laws in place that the silent majority refused to follow.

Re:Why are IP laws getting stricter? (1)

east coast (590680) | more than 6 years ago | (#24494841)

I'm going to ask a question and you may call me a troll for doing it but I really want a honest answer from you: Do you honestly think "the silent majority" gives a damn about copyright?

I just find it odd how many Slashdotters put high values on things that the real majority of people either don't care about or don't know about. What the odd part of it is isn't really the value they attribute to it but rather the idea that they think that our little community's interests somehow spread out far beyond these forums.

Re:Why are IP laws getting stricter? (1)

lilomar (1072448) | more than 6 years ago | (#24495867)

The "silent majority" refuses to follow copyright, whether or not they "give a damn" about it.

Or do you really think that /.ers are the majority of TPB/Limewire/etc's users?

Re:Why are IP laws getting stricter? (1)

east coast (590680) | more than 6 years ago | (#24497515)

Good Lord, talk about a distortion of what I said...

If I read you right I would agree that the majority of p2p users do not follow copyright as a whole. But they still do not make up a majority. Not even a majority of Americans are on the internet let alone using p2p. And even if they did there is no way that what the bulk of these people are doing is going to be legalized anytime soon. These people know this. Revision of copyright on the level that would need to be made to make most p2p downloads legal would never happen.

Re:Why are IP laws getting stricter? (1)

AnyoneEB (574727) | more than 6 years ago | (#24498041)

While it is true that Limewire, etc. are popularized, there are two major points to consider here:

  1. A lot of people I know will refuse to use p2p or accept pirated copies of movies, etc. on moral grounds. This may be a fluke, but it does seem rather common to have a sizable DVD collection.
  2. Most people I have encountered do not have a firm grasp on what copyright law covers. I think part of it is that the web has a ton of free-as-in-beer media and only some of it is legal. I know people that will buy DVDs of movies but will watch TV shows for free on some random website (which is probably spyware infested being a warez-type website) instead of paying for them.

I guess my point is that although most people do not care about the issue, they are not necessarily copying everything in sight. There is a sense of moral obligation to pay for products one uses or at least have a "legit" copy. If you presented the facts and asked you would probably find most people against copyright terms as long as they are, but I do not think you would get a resounding "no" on copyright even from people whose works are not affected by copyright.

Re:Why are IP laws getting stricter? (2, Insightful)

lilomar (1072448) | more than 6 years ago | (#24495841)

It seems that left wing politicians who supposedly abhor big business are just as pro IP as everyone else.

Ding-ding-ding! We have a winner!

Are you going to vote for a Republican, or a Democrat? Also, would you prefer to be raped anally, or in the butt?

Re:Why are IP laws getting stricter? (1)

magus_melchior (262681) | more than 6 years ago | (#24499053)

1. The content distributors want to ensure a consistent and stable flow of revenue by ensuring their works have an indefinite period of copyright protection. Critics argue that just because they want to make a profit for the rest of the universe's lifetime, doesn't mean that they should keep renting content perpetually, nor should they attempt to recoup any perceived loss from digital copies by depriving the public domain of valuable content. This is a commonly held view among people online, but IMO money alone can't explain the whisper campaign against fair use or the RIAA driftnet, the latter most likely costing them much more than the sum of the settlements and judgments (?) won by them-- in fact, the more people know about the lawsuits brought against downloaders, the worse they seem to their customers. What's more, the revenue stream doesn't necessarily stop when a work goes public domain-- look at all the bargain classics Barnes & Noble or Borders sell near the cash registers.
2. The distributors don't want anyone, other than producers under their umbrellas, to create derivative works of their content. This is probably a stronger case against them, albeit much harder to prove (it would probably require a whistle-blower who's privy to board meetings). By criminalizing all copyright infringement, they hope to remain in firm control of all production and distribution of any content related to their own. After all, if you own all the printing presses, you can demand tribute for their use. I'd guess that any of the major labels who are participating in the RIAA driftnet also demand that their artists relinquish their rights to produce, promote, and distribute their music to them. Who can blame the artists for wanting to devote more time to creating music, rather than the drudgery of promotion and distribution? The best part is, this tight grip on creative control is shattered when a work goes into the public domain-- assuming the copyright holder respects the rule of law, of course.
The problem with the insistence of total creative control is that the Internet is, in many ways, Pandora's Box for them. First is the ease and low cost of creating digital copies with very high fidelity to the original (for most ears, anyway). Second is the rapid development of technologies for transmitting, compressing, encrypting, etc. this digital data, often avoiding or circumventing attempts by the distributors to thwart them. The recording and movie industries are in the unenviable position of trying to keep this locked-down control over their content while at the same time, trying to distribute this content online with minimal inconvenience to their customers. Meanwhile, artists are beginning to realize the opportunity this huge network of computers gives them, and are finding new and innovative ways to bring music to their audience while circumventing potentially repressive contracts of big labels.

Re:Why are IP laws getting stricter? (2, Insightful)

Dhalka226 (559740) | more than 6 years ago | (#24500155)

I wish someone could explain how it is that countries everywhere are moving towards stricter and stricter IP laws

Well, let's clarify: It's Western nations that are moving toward stricter and stricter IP laws.

Why? Because we can't compete with cheap labor from other countries, at least not while maintaining anything near the standard of living we're accustomed to. For better or worse, we didn't really try to (though likely couldn't even if we did); we were content to let those "old economy" jobs go away in favor of "new economy" jobs, like computer programming and our content creators.

Many of these things don't work at all without IP laws, but even those that do work much better--from a western perspective--the stronger the laws are and the more rigorously they are enforced.

In short, countries keep pushing for stricter and stricter laws, and try to force similar laws on other countries via trade agreements and such, because they're the underpinnings of our economy these days. It's one of the few things we export.

ACTA can be killed (1)

Elektroschock (659467) | more than 6 years ago | (#24493919)

ACTA can be killed in no time.

Internet Archive... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24495521)

The internet archive has his older blog posts archived here:

http://web.archive.org/web/*hh_/williampatry.blogspot.com/ [archive.org]

Missed the Attribution.... (0)

maz2331 (1104901) | more than 6 years ago | (#24497065)

...to PJ at Groklaw. The summary is a straight copy-and-paste of her coverage of this issue that was posted days ago.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>