You miss the point: allowing people to prove how they voted means that they can be COMPELLED to do so, usually by private entities. Government isn't the only thing that can limit freedom. Votes in elections are not "private". They are SECRET. SECRET means that proof of how any individual voted should NOT be available, ever, even if the individual wants it to be. Violating this principle does not violate any individual's rights so much as it violates the integrity of the voting process itself. When you vote, you are making a choice that everyone voting in the same election as you will live under, not just yourself. Voting is intrinsically a SOCIETAL act, not an individual act. It is not a consumer choice, where John who voted Labour lives under Labour rules, and Jane his next-door neighbour who voted Tory lives under Tory rules. When you vote, you vote for laws you want to apply to the entire community. This means that everyone has a direct interest in influencing how everyone else votes, and why improper influence of someone's vote needs to be stamped out. Thus it is illegal, and rightly so, to be a willing participant in a vote-buying scheme, even if it is your own vote that is being bought: by so doing, you are giving someone else improper influence over the election result. And sharing proof of how you voted with someone else is a method of giving other people such undue influence (by proving that you have delivered on a voting promise for which you were paid money, for instance). There are limits to free speech as you well know. Protecting democracy is one case where free speech may need to be limited.
Actually, the whole point of the secret ballot is that you *have* to keep secret how you voted. This does NOT mean you cannot claim to others how you voted. I can tell the world that I voted for XYZ, but I could be lying. This is NOT the same as providing proof that I voted for XYZ. Providing proof violates the secret ballot, and a photo of a completed ballot paper in a voting booth is exactly such proof. Telling people that you voted for XYZ is NOT a violation of the secret ballot, and anyone can do this and we don't know whether they are telling the truth.
No-one is suggesting that you're not allowed to tell people how you have voted. What is (rightly) forbidden is PROVING to other people how you have voted. A photo of a completed ballot paper in a voting booth is proof of being about to vote for a particular candidate/party. That is why it is (and should be) illegal. I can post on social media or tell my friends that I have voted for Jane Smith of the Purple Party, but this is not proof that I have actually done so. I could be lying. And that is how it should be. Anyone is, and should be, allowed to declare publicly that they voted for so-and-so. No-one should be allowed to provide evidence of having done so. The integrity of the secret ballot *must* trump freedom of speech in this case.
This is not a free speech issue. No-one is being prevented from telling the world that they are voted for a particular candidate (the voter could be lying). What this law does is prevent people from providing proof of how they voted. The integrity of the secret ballot trumps freedom of speech, as it should do.
It's a very sensible law. If you can prove how you vote to others, you can be FORCED to prove it. The fact that social media might allow such voter intimidation does not make it any more acceptable. this is not some quaint old-fashioned pre-social-media idea. The idea that it should not be possible to prove to anyone else how you voted is at the heart of the concept of the secret ballot. It is not possible to bribe/blackmail someone into voting in a particular way if there is no way of knowing whether they have delivered on the promise. In Italy voters are actually required to leave their mobile phones outside when going into the polling station to vote, as voter intimidation by Mafia by requiring voters to email completed ballot papers had become such a serious problem.
I don't think wife-beating was ever "accepted" in Western society, not for a long time anyway. In the 19th/early 20th centuries, "cruelty" was one of the few grounds on which a woman could divorce her husband in the UK. It perhaps wasn't considered as seriously evil then as it is now, and there was the ingrained idea that only ne'er-do-well lower-class thugs, and not, say, successful businessmen, ever beat their wives. But it was never considered acceptable.
Some information on EUCD implementations can be found at http://www.fipr.org/copyright/guide/index.htm
(not updated recently, may be out of date)
Finland's law specifically excludes DVD region locks from protection, as well as TPMs that can be trivially circumvented, e.g. using marker pens. It appears that CSS was initially deemed "ineffective" under their law, but this was overturned by a higher court. The law does not prohibit personal use of circumvention tools for private purposes. Norway (which had to implement EUCD under its "fax democracy" relationship with the EU) explicitly excludes such personal/private uses for the purpose of playback on "on relevant playing equipment".
Germany bans distribution but not possession of circumvention tools. In the Netherlands, circumvention *acts* are not illegal. Switzerland (also subject to fax democracy) also allows circumvention acts (and non-commercial distribution) for lawful purposes.
Actually the UK proposal is unnecessarily restrictive in terms of protection of TPMs. Other EU countries are much more flexible in their interpretation of this; for example, some allow (or, at least, do not explicitly prohibit) non-commercial distribution of circumvention software, and many exclude pure access controls (e.g. region codes) altogether from protection. The UK, perhaps oddly for a nation with such a strong Eurosceptic strand in its politics, has a tendency to gold-plate EU legislation: slavishly implementing every obligation, and often going well beyond them (i.e. if EU law says to implement restriction X in situations Y and Z, then UK will implement this to make X law in all cases). It also often does not implement permitted easements on EU law (even when the UK government itself argued for them).
This is not to say that the EU Copyright Directive is OK. It should be reformed, to explicitly permit circumvention for non-infringing access or 'fair use' copying. Arguably some other countries are stretching the permitted exceptions to TPM protection in their implementation, but so far they have not been challenged. But the UK could go a lot further in making meaningful exceptions to anti-circumvention law, even within the countours of existing EU legislation.
The people who made the video weren't just "being mean", they committed an assault. They committed a crime whether or not they placed a video of it on the Internet. They were punished for it. And that is where the matter should have been left.
One can no more expect Google to read all YouTube comments than newsagents and distributors of publications to read every line of text in the publications that they sell/distribute.
As far as I'm concerned, the immorality lies with the perpetrators of the bullying act and then uploaded the video. People who are keen to blame Google seem to forget the real villains in this saga (who, incidentally, all got off with non-custodial sentences).
Allowing your vote to be manipulated for personal gain is also illegal. Voting secrecy is not just a matter of private personal right: it is about maintaining the integrity of the ballot itself. Therefore, it is illegal to be a willing participant in any vote manipulation process, even if it is your own vote being manipulated.
There are no lawyers in the British Small Claims Court. The parties represent themselves, and the judge asks the questions. The only costs involved are those of transporting oneself to the court, and of time taken off work.
No it is not. It is based on a misunderstanding of the term "prior art", which is nothing to do with someone having invented it first, but instead is about the thing already been known about.
This is not true. Prior art is a completely separate issue from first-to-file vs first-to-invent, since it refers to what is public knowledge about a claimed invention. Prior art, whether patent or non-patent, always invalidates a patent regardless of the system.(Unfortunately, in some jurisdictions patent offices do not perform substantive prior art searches before granting patents, instead leaving it to the courts to decide whether a patent is valid... this is yet another issue.)
Actually first-to-file makes it *easier* to invalidate patents based on prior art, because the priority date of the patent is the filing date, which is later than the putative invention date.
On the post: Proud Voters Tweeting In The UK Could Receive Jail Time And A Fine
Voting is a societal act, not an individual one
Votes in elections are not "private". They are SECRET. SECRET means that proof of how any individual voted should NOT be available, ever, even if the individual wants it to be. Violating this principle does not violate any individual's rights so much as it violates the integrity of the voting process itself.
When you vote, you are making a choice that everyone voting in the same election as you will live under, not just yourself. Voting is intrinsically a SOCIETAL act, not an individual act. It is not a consumer choice, where John who voted Labour lives under Labour rules, and Jane his next-door neighbour who voted Tory lives under Tory rules. When you vote, you vote for laws you want to apply to the entire community. This means that everyone has a direct interest in influencing how everyone else votes, and why improper influence of someone's vote needs to be stamped out. Thus it is illegal, and rightly so, to be a willing participant in a vote-buying scheme, even if it is your own vote that is being bought: by so doing, you are giving someone else improper influence over the election result. And sharing proof of how you voted with someone else is a method of giving other people such undue influence (by proving that you have delivered on a voting promise for which you were paid money, for instance).
There are limits to free speech as you well know. Protecting democracy is one case where free speech may need to be limited.
On the post: Proud Voters Tweeting In The UK Could Receive Jail Time And A Fine
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Proud Voters Tweeting In The UK Could Receive Jail Time And A Fine
Re: Re: Re: Nope
Anyone is, and should be, allowed to declare publicly that they voted for so-and-so. No-one should be allowed to provide evidence of having done so. The integrity of the secret ballot *must* trump freedom of speech in this case.
On the post: Proud Voters Tweeting In The UK Could Receive Jail Time And A Fine
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nope
On the post: Proud Voters Tweeting In The UK Could Receive Jail Time And A Fine
In Italy voters are actually required to leave their mobile phones outside when going into the polling station to vote, as voter intimidation by Mafia by requiring voters to email completed ballot papers had become such a serious problem.
On the post: Disgrace: RadiumOne Allowing CEO To Remain After Beating His Girlfriend
Re: cultural insensitivity?
On the post: IP Lawyer: If You Are Against Software Patents, You Are Against Innovation
Soverain
http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2014/01/13/supreme-court-refuses-soverain-bank-v-newegg/id=47392/
H e actually believes that internet shopping wouldn't be where it is without that patent!
On the post: Canadian Airline Files $4 Million Libel Suit Against 22 Striking Fuel Workers Over Twitter Account With ~200 Followers
On the post: Canadian Airline Files $4 Million Libel Suit Against 22 Striking Fuel Workers Over Twitter Account With ~200 Followers
Re:
On the post: Proposed Changes To UK Copyright Law Sensible But Require Gov't Request If You Want To Circumvent DRM
Re: Re:
http://www.fipr.org/copyright/guide/index.htm
(not updated recently, may be out of date)
Finland's law specifically excludes DVD region locks from protection, as well as TPMs that can be trivially circumvented, e.g. using marker pens. It appears that CSS was initially deemed "ineffective" under their law, but this was overturned by a higher court. The law does not prohibit personal use of circumvention tools for private purposes. Norway (which had to implement EUCD under its "fax democracy" relationship with the EU) explicitly excludes such personal/private uses for the purpose of playback on "on relevant playing equipment".
Germany bans distribution but not possession of circumvention tools. In the Netherlands, circumvention *acts* are not illegal. Switzerland (also subject to fax democracy) also allows circumvention acts (and non-commercial distribution) for lawful purposes.
On the post: Proposed Changes To UK Copyright Law Sensible But Require Gov't Request If You Want To Circumvent DRM
This is not to say that the EU Copyright Directive is OK. It should be reformed, to explicitly permit circumvention for non-infringing access or 'fair use' copying. Arguably some other countries are stretching the permitted exceptions to TPM protection in their implementation, but so far they have not been challenged. But the UK could go a lot further in making meaningful exceptions to anti-circumvention law, even within the countours of existing EU legislation.
On the post: Italian Prosecutor Still Wants To Put Google Execs In Jail Because Of A Video Uploaded By Some Kids
Re: Re:
On the post: Italian Prosecutor Still Wants To Put Google Execs In Jail Because Of A Video Uploaded By Some Kids
Re:
On the post: Italian Prosecutor Still Wants To Put Google Execs In Jail Because Of A Video Uploaded By Some Kids
Re: Re: ALWAYS excusing Google.
On the post: Italian Prosecutor Still Wants To Put Google Execs In Jail Because Of A Video Uploaded By Some Kids
Re: Re: ALWAYS excusing Google.
On the post: Lord McAlpine, Wronged By BBC, Demands 10,000 People On Twitter Pay Up
Re: OH Lordy!
On the post: Wisconsin Warns: If You Tweet Photos Of Your Completed Ballot, You Can Go To Jail
Re: Election fraud?
On the post: UK Kicks Off Small Claims Court For 'Small Scale' Copyright Claims
No lawyers
On the post: Is A 'Patent First, Develop Second' Approach Promoting The Progress?
Re: Re:
On the post: Is A 'Patent First, Develop Second' Approach Promoting The Progress?
Re:
Actually first-to-file makes it *easier* to invalidate patents based on prior art, because the priority date of the patent is the filing date, which is later than the putative invention date.
Next >>