Even if the police did no wrong the couple have been subjected to a distressing experience and likely significant damage to their property. Morally the police should now offer some significant compensation "without admitting culpability".
Why am I not holding my breath for this to happen?
I disagree on that one. Trademarks are there to protect the consumer not the business. Provided the enforcement is _strictly_ for that purpose there is no problem with indefinte trademarks.
Yes - and wonderfully - the US rejected Berne for many years.
As for the life+50=life+70 transition the villain here is the UK. (and Jim Callaghan in particular).
It was all provoked by Peter Pan.
JM Barrie gave the copyright of Peter Pan to Great Ormiond St Children's hospital. In the 1980's this copyright was about to expire and so there was a huge sob story about how the hospital would lose out.
Of course what should have happened was that another children's author should have donated a newer copyright to fill the gap - but instead of putting in a new act of generosity the copyright community leveraged JM Barrie's generosity to support their own greed.
People often refer to copyright being the lifetime of Micky Mouse - but actually it is the lifetime of Peter Pan - who still hasn't properly reached his teenage years!
, I'll assume that they have not in fact had a miraculous change of heart.
Probably more a case of the businesses that totally relied on copyright having one under and the surviving ones having learned to make money by other means and so being less bothered.
It's like the triumph of scientific theories - the ones that supported the old theories simply died.
_That means that somebody writing close to their death bed will not be able to do anything for the sake of their children._
Whereas at present the wealth of ordinary people is subject to significant death duties the copyrights pass to the heirs tax free.
In fact it would be entirely fair for the state to raise an extra tax on all intellectual property revenue. After all the state puts considerable effort and resources into enforcing copyright/patent - so why not recover a bit more of that from the beneficiaries?
Not burning the files is all part of their evil plan. When the German economy is flattened by all the effort deciphering them they can foment a new revolution and usher back a glorious communist future...
Governments aren't really interested in avoiding hurting people's feelings. They are interested in getting re-elected (or maintaining power by more direct and forceful ways).
Generally this means maintaining a narrative in the public square. Usually this involves making the public believe a lie.
For example the North Korea is desperate to maintain the illusion that its people are actually better off than those in the South.
Something similar is true for all totalitarian governments but also for governments in democratic countries, although in the latter case the mechanism are usually more subtle.
For example Margaret Thatcher and John Major stayed in power for 18 years with the lie "there is no alternative" - propagated by the Murdoch press in the UK.
All governments are prepared to kill or allow people to be killed in order to maintain power. Do you really think this law is about not allowing people's feelings to be hurt?
No, all censorship is always about protecting a lie that the government needs to protect.
In this case the first half of the lie is that there are no negative consequences to Merkel's policy of allowing huge numbers of mostly muslim migrants to enter the country.
The second half is that anybody who questions the policy is automatically a neo-nazi extremist. The second half of the lie is most important since it almost guarantees that only genuine neo-nazi extremists will dare to speak out. They then become easy fodder for the law.
The fact that large numbers of Germans voted for AfD in spite of this has provoked this law - because Merkel is scared that the people have stopped believing her lies.
There needs to be the threat of violence or conduct that is likely to produce a violent response from a reasonable person - simple "vile abuse" doesn't quite cut it.
Also the main point of my comment is that a single offense of this type is very unlikely to be prosecuted in practice.
It's not about letting anyone go free, it's about letting them shout vile and hurtful things in the public square that drive other people out of said square.
No its not. That would not require this kind of law - and in any case governments have never been interested in that.
What this is about is (like all forms of censorship throughout the ages) to protect a lie that is useful to the government.
We saw exactly the same when some politicians, sympathetic to the cause of copyright maximalists, tried to say that the pirate party should not be allowed to hold its views.
I'll leave you to work out for yourself what the lie is this time around.
On the post: Jury Awards Couple No Damages For Bungled Marijuana Raid Predicated On Wet Tea Leaves
Compensation
Morally the police should now offer some significant compensation "without admitting culpability".
Why am I not holding my breath for this to happen?
American police? morality?
hmmm
On the post: Copyright Maximalists Throw In The Towel On Term Extension; Admit That Maybe Copyright Is Too Long
Re:
I disagree on that one. Trademarks are there to protect the consumer not the business. Provided the enforcement is _strictly_ for that purpose there is no problem with indefinte trademarks.
On the post: Copyright Maximalists Throw In The Towel On Term Extension; Admit That Maybe Copyright Is Too Long
Re:
Yes - and wonderfully - the US rejected Berne for many years.
As for the life+50=life+70 transition the villain here is the UK. (and Jim Callaghan in particular).
It was all provoked by Peter Pan.
JM Barrie gave the copyright of Peter Pan to Great Ormiond St Children's hospital. In the 1980's this copyright was about to expire and so there was a huge sob story about how the hospital would lose out.
Of course what should have happened was that another children's author should have donated a newer copyright to fill the gap - but instead of putting in a new act of generosity the copyright community leveraged JM Barrie's generosity to support their own greed.
People often refer to copyright being the lifetime of Micky Mouse - but actually it is the lifetime of Peter Pan - who still hasn't properly reached his teenage years!
On the post: Copyright Maximalists Throw In The Towel On Term Extension; Admit That Maybe Copyright Is Too Long
Re: Nothing but empty words
, I'll assume that they have not in fact had a miraculous change of heart.
Probably more a case of the businesses that totally relied on copyright having one under and the surviving ones having learned to make money by other means and so being less bothered.
It's like the triumph of scientific theories - the ones that supported the old theories simply died.
On the post: Copyright Maximalists Throw In The Towel On Term Extension; Admit That Maybe Copyright Is Too Long
Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow!
Whereas at present the wealth of ordinary people is subject to significant death duties the copyrights pass to the heirs tax free.
In fact it would be entirely fair for the state to raise an extra tax on all intellectual property revenue. After all the state puts considerable effort and resources into enforcing copyright/patent - so why not recover a bit more of that from the beneficiaries?
On the post: The Stasi's Tiny Torn-Up Analog Files Defeat Modern Digital Technology's Attempts To Re-Assemble East Germany's Surveillance Records
Re: Re: "unprecedented -- for the time, at least --" but nothing compared to Google and Facebook.
To compare Google to the Stasi is the stupidest thing I've ever read.
It is not true that comparing Google to the Stasi is stupid.
(even though his comparison was)
Both collect(ed) large amounts of personal information.
Google uses it for purposes that are not necessarily evil, and may sometimes be beneficial to the subject.
The risk with Google is a 3rd (stasi -like) party getting access to the information and using it in an evil way.
On the post: The Stasi's Tiny Torn-Up Analog Files Defeat Modern Digital Technology's Attempts To Re-Assemble East Germany's Surveillance Records
Re: Re: Book scanning writ large
On the post: The Stasi's Tiny Torn-Up Analog Files Defeat Modern Digital Technology's Attempts To Re-Assemble East Germany's Surveillance Records
Re: Re:
On the post: It Took Only Three Days For Germany's New Hate Speech Law To Cause Collateral Damage
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: It Took Only Three Days For Germany's New Hate Speech Law To Cause Collateral Damage
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Governments aren't really interested in avoiding hurting people's feelings. They are interested in getting re-elected (or maintaining power by more direct and forceful ways).
Generally this means maintaining a narrative in the public square. Usually this involves making the public believe a lie.
For example the North Korea is desperate to maintain the illusion that its people are actually better off than those in the South.
Something similar is true for all totalitarian governments but also for governments in democratic countries, although in the latter case the mechanism are usually more subtle.
For example Margaret Thatcher and John Major stayed in power for 18 years with the lie "there is no alternative" - propagated by the Murdoch press in the UK.
All governments are prepared to kill or allow people to be killed in order to maintain power. Do you really think this law is about not allowing people's feelings to be hurt?
No, all censorship is always about protecting a lie that the government needs to protect.
In this case the first half of the lie is that there are no negative consequences to Merkel's policy of allowing huge numbers of mostly muslim migrants to enter the country.
The second half is that anybody who questions the policy is automatically a neo-nazi extremist. The second half of the lie is most important since it almost guarantees that only genuine neo-nazi extremists will dare to speak out. They then become easy fodder for the law.
The fact that large numbers of Germans voted for AfD in spite of this has provoked this law - because Merkel is scared that the people have stopped believing her lies.
On the post: It Took Only Three Days For Germany's New Hate Speech Law To Cause Collateral Damage
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I have no idea what you are talking about.
Thar probably nmeans the lie is something that you believe.
On the post: It Took Only Three Days For Germany's New Hate Speech Law To Cause Collateral Damage
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: It Took Only Three Days For Germany's New Hate Speech Law To Cause Collateral Damage
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There needs to be the threat of violence or conduct that is likely to produce a violent response from a reasonable person - simple "vile abuse" doesn't quite cut it.
Also the main point of my comment is that a single offense of this type is very unlikely to be prosecuted in practice.
On the post: It Took Only Three Days For Germany's New Hate Speech Law To Cause Collateral Damage
Re: Re: Re:
Try screaming vile abuse at someone in a park, and see what happens.
Nothing - usually.
On the post: It Took Only Three Days For Germany's New Hate Speech Law To Cause Collateral Damage
Re: The law itself is hate speech.
Let us know when Germany nukes the law.
They won't - they don't have the ability to do it anymore! https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/history-behind-germanys-nuclear-phase-out
On the post: It Took Only Three Days For Germany's New Hate Speech Law To Cause Collateral Damage
Re: Re: Re:
It's not about letting anyone go free, it's about letting them shout vile and hurtful things in the public square that drive other people out of said square.
No its not. That would not require this kind of law - and in any case governments have never been interested in that.
What this is about is (like all forms of censorship throughout the ages) to protect a lie that is useful to the government.
We saw exactly the same when some politicians, sympathetic to the cause of copyright maximalists, tried to say that the pirate party should not be allowed to hold its views.
I'll leave you to work out for yourself what the lie is this time around.
On the post: It Took Only Three Days For Germany's New Hate Speech Law To Cause Collateral Damage
Re:
On the post: Really Bad Ideas: French President Macron Wants To Ban 'Fake News' During The Election
Re: It writes itself...
Macron is proposing a Ministry of Truth.
He's 34 years late...
On the post: Really Bad Ideas: French President Macron Wants To Ban 'Fake News' During The Election
Re: Re: Re: Define Fake News?
_Yet Trump never seems to have any criticisms for Fox News or Infowars.
Of course he doesn't they're on his side.
But then again - which politician criticises the media that support him?
On the post: Really Bad Ideas: French President Macron Wants To Ban 'Fake News' During The Election
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Macron is an inherited 1-percenter and a globalist. -- And none too popular in France now he's been found out.
Next >>