I think it's very important that government lets parents take responsibility for theirchildren. If the government thinks they have to take responsibility for the safety of children on the behalf of parents, it will only encourage parents to take less responsibility for their children: From their point of view they don't need to because the government is doing it for them. However, can we really trust the government to be able to effectively take responsibility for our children? No, because only parents can take responsible for their children. The government needs to be supporting parents in being responsible for their children, rather than taking it away from them, which is what this filtering will do. Essentially, it will do little to protect children, and in the long run will do more harm that good.

Of course, as has already been suggested, rather than a misguided attempt at 'helping the children', this is purely a façade to drip-feed in some form of government censorship, which makes the whole thing even more disgraceful.

In my opinion it does not matter whether or not content creators should have a right to control their work. Assuming that they should have the right to control their work, it is not possible to enforce this against individuals in a way that would not violate more fundamental rights such as Privacy, Freedom of Speech and Presumption of Innocence. It is my opinion that an individual's right to Privacy, Freedom of Speech and Presumption of Innocence are more important that copyright, therefore copyright should be changed to respect those rights. I'm not against copyright, as it stands at present, being enforced against commercial entities as I don't think the concepts of Privacy and Freedom of Speech should not apply to commercial entities (although Presumption of Innocence should).

How can there be an incentive to produce safe products if companies like Apple can just cover up such instances? I think they deserve damage to their reputation; hopefully it will teach to ensure that their products are safe.

Have a look at SugarCRM. May I also recommend this podcast: http://twit.tv/floss32

I completely agree. We continuously see the recording industry and politicians equating copyright infringement with physical theft. This is dangerous and misleading, let alone defiant of logic. It seems obvious when I say that when I take, for example, a bar of soap from you, you no longer have the bar of soap. When this is applied to intellectual property, I simply cannot take it from you as it is not tangible. This is significant, yet this seems to be forgotten or ignored my some.

I think once a GPLed application has become well development and stable, it's good that it lowers its restrictions. Perhaps free software developers should eventually feel free obliged to release the software under the LGPL or some other weaker copyleft license. In the early stages of a project, a need for contributions from the community and corporations is strong, but as the project develops that need diminishes. As this need diminishes, perhaps it is fair that in return the project reduces its restrictions.