And that's exactly where the current form of copyright not only fails to address its original purpose but actually works against its purpose.

The purpose was to give people an incentive to create works of art by giving them an monetary incentive to do so. If you can monopolize something great for a time (instead of fearing that whatever you create immediately being copied by anyone, rendering your work worthless), you have an incentive to create something great and reap the rewards of your work. That's fine.

Now, last thing I heard about "happy birthday" was that it makes 5 grand a DAY for Warner. Now, imagine you made "happy birthday". And got 5 grand a day from it. Where the fuck is your incentive to EVER create anything again? 5 grand a day? Fuck, I couldn't be assed to do anything but sit there and rake in the money for the rest of my life. Why bother work ever again if you already get more money than you can sensibly spend without doing anything?

Because then you know it doesn't work. Would you put some faith in the healing effect of something labeled "sugar pills"?

Where the hell do you get your history "knowledge" from?

Where does that "US invests in Germany" story come from? The US propped its economy up for another ten years with the money flowing in from Europe and the shit hit the fan a decade belatedly, but investment certainly was not the name of the game of the time. The money was mostly used to fund the bubble that popped in 1929 because there was simply nobody abroad that could actually serve as a demand for all the junk the US pumped out (in case this sounds familiar, well, history repeats itself).

But that was not even the main reason for the rise of the national socialists. The economy crisis itself (that started pretty much right after the war in Germany and most of the rest of Europe to a lesser degree) was even a minor reason. The main reason was the feeling of unfair treatment and the thirst for revenge.

George Clemeceau was the driving force behind the "crippling" of Germany. His idea was that a Germany that cannot wage war will secure France's eastern border. So his goal for the peace between Germany and France after WW1 was to ruin Germany. On the outside, that plan is solid: A country with no money, no political power and no military power is no threat.

What he didn't take into account was that a country that you abuse to the point of breaking will resist this treatment. Especially when the general feeling is that this treatment is not deserved.

The first reason for this was the front line at the end of WW1. When you look at the front line between Germany and France, you will notice that by the time the armistice was called, the front line was actually well within the territory of France. From the point of view of a German soldier, there was no obvious reason that they lost. Hell, we won territory! We ain't the losers here! And certainly not losers that deserve to be crippled in such a way!

Well, you also should take into account that a century ago, waging war was not an "evil" thing. War was, quite literally, just politics with other means. And it was seen as such. Wars also never had that kind of dimension before. War was something where two countries fight, after a while they settle, some territory changes hands and everyone moves on. That's what wars were like 'til then. The idea that wars end governments was pretty new then. But this just as a side note.

The army still standing rather deep in enemy territory when the armistice was signed and the "unfair" treatment by the French quickly led to the Dolchstosslegende, the myth that the German army was not really beaten but that it was assassinated by a stab in the back by ... well, insert you favorite internal enemy here. Jews, socialists, old government, pick your favorite scapegoat.

Combine this now with a peace that doesn't aim at peace but at crippling the country losing the battle and you probably find out why this is a breeding ground for radical ideologies. And we learned our lesson here. Any country you try to neutralize by ruining it will do anything to shake off those shackles. No matter the cost.

There is still such a thing? I thought they have become a piece of our mythical history. Like work ethics, or customer service.

Ain't they on vacation now? Weld the doors shut and hope for the best.

Of course you have a right to be forgotten. We'll start with your politicians.

entering "Francois Hollande" into google...

searching ...

no results for your request. Did you mean "french hollandaise"?

Actually, peoples being punished for the stupidity of their leaders (leaders that never had to face an election, no less) was the reason why WW2 happened...

In most cases this will have an impact on you inside your country. There, it is filtered.

If you have to deal with foreign parties for some reason, this usually also means that you're dealing with people who know better than to trust some sources just 'cause it's on the net.

Ain't necessary. In France, Google does actually filter the results.

Implementing such a thing would not accomplish anything.

France wishes to enforce its laws outside of France. And that's something they lack the aircraft carriers for.

That's not what the shareholders want. They are in on the pump and dump scheme, the last thing they'd want is to end it.

That's only true because you can't get ANYTHING done anymore. Of course that also excludes the creation of any shitty code. If you can't get ANY coding done, it can't be bad...

Lobbying is, essentially, a necessity. Nobody, and certainly not politician, is an expert in everything. He needs someone to inform him.

The big problem with lobbying in its current form is that this information is, to put it mildly, a wee bit lopsided. At best politicians only get a skewed and one sided point of view on a topic from a lobbyist. At worst they also get bribes in different forms.

What we'd need is a system of experts that act as advisers. That's not really easier to realize either. Because every human being has an opinion. And few have the incredible integrity to argue against their own case just to present the facts of the other side.

Lobbies targeting voters can far easier be countered, especially with something like the internet at our disposal. Since it's unlikely that money could do the talking in such a case (and if, at least for a change everyone would get something out of it), what's left is propaganda.

And that will at the very least ensure that things will be talked about instead of hushed up, which allows us to at least weed out the most heinous crimes like TTIP.

Only if you also exclude "structural". Because our politicians actually have structural integrity.

Unfortunately. If they didn't, fewer would exist.

What's your position on this fad of appliances needing networking and whatnot other connections? Especially in the light of other devices (like routers) usually running something that used to be free software 'til the appliance maker got their hands onto it. It is likely that some if not many or even the majority of IoT appliances will run (allegedly) free software in one way or another, and most likely without any regard of the underlying licensing model.

Would you rather see it as a vehicle for OSS to move into everyone's home and literally become a household thing, or is it just yet another abuse of free software by makers of appliances who just like to cut corners?