OpenStreetMap Looks To Relocate To EU Due To Brexit Limitations (theguardian.com) 99
OpenStreetMap, the Wikipedia-for-maps organisation that seeks to create a free and open-source map of the globe, is considering relocating to the EU, almost 20 years after it was founded in the UK by the British entrepreneur Steve Coast. From a report: OpenStreetMap Foundation, which was formally registered in 2006, two years after the project began, is a limited company registered in England and Wales. Following Brexit, the organisation says the lack of agreement between the UK and EU could render its continued operation in Britain untenable. "There is not one reason for moving, but a multitude of paper cuts, most of which have been triggered or amplified by Brexit," Guillaume Rischard, the organisation's treasurer, told members of the foundation in an email sent earlier this month.
One "important reason," Rischard said, was the failure of the UK and EU to agree on mutual recognition of database rights. While both have an agreement to recognise copyright protections, that only covers work which is creative in nature. Maps, as a simple factual representation of the world, are not covered by copyright in the same way, but until Brexit were covered by an EU-wide agreement that protected databases where there had been "a substantial investment in obtaining, verifying or presenting the data." But since Brexit, any database made on or after 1 January 2021 in the UK will not be protected in the EU, and vice versa.
One "important reason," Rischard said, was the failure of the UK and EU to agree on mutual recognition of database rights. While both have an agreement to recognise copyright protections, that only covers work which is creative in nature. Maps, as a simple factual representation of the world, are not covered by copyright in the same way, but until Brexit were covered by an EU-wide agreement that protected databases where there had been "a substantial investment in obtaining, verifying or presenting the data." But since Brexit, any database made on or after 1 January 2021 in the UK will not be protected in the EU, and vice versa.
/smirk (Score:2, Funny)
In post-Brexit UK, maps navigate to EU!
Re: /smirk (Score:2)
Uh, Google Maps terms of service is non-workable for many developers. OSM is fantastic for that reason.
(I hope you're comment was thinking about the "app" instead of the API/data. Two totally separate things.)
Re: (Score:2)
And here, my American friends, is our equivalent of the "Trumpkin". He's never seen or understood OpenStreetmap. The concept of an "underlying technology" is beyond him, yet he rushes forward to offer his opinion: the "lowest traffic convenience store" leaving. We heard more or less the same thing as the European Banking Agency left. "who's ever heard of that" our friend no doubt said before blaming the loss of his job sweeping up in a car factory on the "immigrants".
Ignorance is bliss. Except if it's
A'yup (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't tell me I'll burn my crotch! Why are you talking me down? My crotch won't burn and anyway burns will be begging for my crotch and anyway it doesn't matter if it's burned because it's not about burns. I should have the freedom to burn my crotch if I want don't tell me I did that's a lie I'll prove it to you by burning my crotch but anyway like I said my crouch doesn't burn.
Hmm that's odd my crotch hurts and no one wants to come near it. Must be Europe's fault.
Re: (Score:2)
It's those foreigners. Them and Labour, of course.
Re: A'yup (Score:1)
To make matters worse, my children used to have 28 countries to potentially live, study, work (pay taxes), fall in love, settle down, have children, and retire in (without a metric a-tonne of paperwork and visas, that is)
Now they have one.
Well done Nigel and all you gammons that voted for a lie painted on a bus. Bell ends.
Re: A'yup (Score:2)
You have at least 4.
Re: (Score:2)
And increasingly likely to drop lower than that. 0.9 countries when Scotland leaves (and tries to re-enter the EU - not that we ever voted to leave the EU) and down by another 5% due to Ulster remaining in the Single Market and so economically divorced from the UK.
I told people in the run up to the referendum that they were insane, and we're being proved right.
Re: (Score:2)
economics experts said would happen, is happening
The UK public was sick of experts. Nigel Fuck-Face Farage said so. Honestly I would laugh at them if it weren't for the fact that they dragged half of the saner country down with them.
My sister got the fuck out.
Re: (Score:1)
To be fair -- Nigel Fuck-Face Farage was responsible for loads of bullshit, but that was Michael Fuck-Face Gove.
Re: (Score:2)
It was definitely a Farage interview I saw, but I have no doubt he's not the only flaming moron to have used that phrase.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Lying Trump wannabe.
Re: (Score:2)
Farage is almost certainly a traitor, whether intentionally or unintentionally. The dark money that flowed into Britain in the leadup to and during the referendum was funnelled through Farage's mates, and is very likely of Russian origin. In any other time, Farage and Johnson would be held in the Tower awaiting the ax.
Re: A'yup (Score:1)
Or, more likely, the axe.
Re: (Score:1)
What a coincidence, everyone who disagrees with me is an ignorant racist too.
The great thing about tolerance is that it really simplifies life for me by neatly categorizing me-people and other-people.
I hate other-people. They are ignorant racists.
I love me. I am good. So good. So very good.
If you read through my history you will find not one fault of mine that I have mentioned. Only those of others.
I hate other-people. Ignorant racists.
Re: (Score:2)
I know I'm talking to a wall, but what a sad world you live in that you see every opposing viewpoint as steeped in racism.
Geez - how does the rest of the world that's not in the EU function at all?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, when an awful lot of the folks who voted for Brexit talk about how terrible it is that these dirty, lazy, Eastern Europeans can come and work in the UK, we're supposed to think they are motivated by....what exactly?
Re: (Score:2)
Ahh - you have anecdotal evidence... got it.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you've got none, so....
Re: (Score:2)
Well, when an awful lot of the folks who voted to remain talk about how terrible it is that these dirty, lazy, Brits don't want to do the low paid jobs in the UK, we're supposed to think they are motivated by....what exactly?
Nobody called the Eastern Europeans dirty or lazy. Shit, the complaint was that trained competent people were coming over and taking all the trade jobs that were one of the few options available in this country for non-graduate men. Why train someone from scratch when an already trained
Re: (Score:2)
You obviously don;t drink in the same places I used to.
Or you've got a serious hearing impediment.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, one place I used to drink is known colloquially as 'The Ukrainian Club' but even the working men's clubs locally get upset only at the jobs / housing / services challenges, not the nationality or race of the people involved.
You know what I see? (Score:3, Insightful)
They dismissed it as "fake news" and voted for BREXIT anyway because that's what ignorant racists do. They vote for anything and anyone that tells them they can get foreigners out of their country.
You know what I see here?
You were unable to rationally convince others of your position, so you fall back to insults.
Everyone who doesn't agree with you is racist. We get it. You're a child. Go home.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:A'yup (Score:5, Insightful)
The Celts, Bretons, Romans, Jutes, Angles (Ãngli), Saxons, Frisians, Franks, Danes, Normans, Jews, Huguenots (N.B. all from Europe) all make up England's ancestry. Not to mention the French and Belgian groups arrving in WWI, the various Slavic groups who arrived in WWII, like the Poles and Czechs, then the African, Afro-Carribean, Indian and Asian groups who have arrived since then from the former Imperial colonies. (Maybe don't invade people and make them Imperial subjects...)
A crude tally of English words reveals about 40% are Germanic (Anglo-Saxon) and 60% are French (Norman) in origin. Indeed, at numerous points in history, huge swathes of Brition were parts of various European titles and Kingdoms.
At any level, "Foreign" is a silly concept in Britain and England in particular.
A great point about the work ethic of the first wave of the 2004 eastern-European accession migrants was made at the time, (by a Conservative politician - I'm sorry I forget the name) on the BBC's "Question Time". Within the first year, around 400,000 eastern Europeans had come to the U.K. and of that many, after the eligibility waiting period, about 400 had applied for unemployment, (mostly due to poor language skills, or considered too old to be offered employment) - a 0.1% ratio. As he put it, "That means they walked into jobs that at least 400,000 British citizens simply didn't want to do." (N.B. There were ~1.43 million British in unemployment at the time, at least 400,000 of them happily so.)
Post Brexit vote there were numerous "man in the street" interviews, one of which, when asked (by Sky News I recall) why he voted leave said, "To stop the blacks coming here.", when it was pointed out that the E.U. didn't control the U.K.'s immigration from its former African colonies, he simply walked away. A sterling example of the sheer ignorance most British citizens had (and have) of exactly how their own country functions, let alone within the E.U. Then you meet Brits who moved (usually from the north of England) to places like Australia, who say similar things like "We moved here to get away from all the blacks.". (Odd, considering the north of England is the whitest part of the country.)
A retired family friend is a former mayor of an English city and he told us that both city and Westminster governments loved how ignorant the people were of the E.U. as they (the English governments) could leverage that for revenue-raising. The English tabloids often loved to whine about how "The French/Germans/Italians/whoever, were ignoring E.U. directive XYZ, blah, blah, blah.", conveniently failing to mention E.U. directives were to be implemented in-line with each nation's own legal frameworks and constitutional settlements. Our friend said, "We English simply enacted the most draconian interpretations of theses directives so we could fine anyone for anything and use that to raise revenues without raising taxes. When people complained, UK governments could just shrug and say, "It's the E.U., not out fault.", they (the E.U.) were the perfect scapegoat.
Maybe not all down to racism, I'll grant you that, but a lot of bigotry, ignorance, xenophobia and outright stupidity? Definitely.
Re: (Score:2)
As someone whose maternal side of the family goes back to the Anglo-Saxon era .
Just as soon as I saw "As someone who...", I knew it was basically going to end with " Fuck my people. In fact, I don't have a people. No gods, no borders..." , etc etc.
At any level, "Foreign" is a silly concept in Britain and England in particular.
Oh, FFS. Every people had beginnings elsewhere with a great migration of some sort, but they gelled into their own people and culture. Not only are you trying to wipe that away, you're doing this Orwellian shit claiming that there were never really a British people in the first place, just a rootless hodge-podge who happened to end up on the
Re: (Score:2)
The fake "wiping away " of culture is down to the idiots who do not practice their own culture and are jealous of anyone else having one.
"The last thing she needs is another enlightened asshole that hates his own people." seems like criticism of the stupid colonial mindset of a large section of the Brit population is not allowed - what's there to be afraid of ? A lot of Brits still think they own the world and everyone should bo
Re: (Score:2)
It's a special form of ignorance fueled by weaponised misinformation. Everything that went well in the UK (or should I say the few things which went well) were due to great enactment of government policy, everything which went poorly was the EU's fault, down to not enough police officers in London even got blamed directly on the EU.
Better still every claim about EU policy regardless of how much sense it made suddenly got construed into some big anti EU lie (remember how the EU banned bendy bananas? Nope nei
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Everything they labelled Project Fear has come true already, and we aren't even out of the transition period.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, economists thus far have been overly pessimistic, which is remarkable given the pandemic. On the other hand none of the rosy economics and trade picture painted by Brexiteers has come true.
It seems to me that if you throw out the unrealistic promises that may have induced foolish soft Brexiteers to sign on, things so far have gone reasonably well from the hard Brexiteers' standpoint. They wanted to be able to curb immigration and hated having to negotiate regulations and standards with other EU na
Re: (Score:1)
Michael Caine: 'I voted Brexit. It was about freedom, not immigrants'. Truth is the people of the UK voted to be governed by our own elected representatives in London, not unelected bureaucrats in Brussels. The remainers don't like this because of their own vested interests - eg villa in Tuscany, ability to work in the EU etc.
Re: (Score:2)
And no-one is ruled by "unelected bureaucrats" - they are the civil service that carry out the rules created and voted on by the elected MEPs. Why are brexiters so thick they cannot understand the difference between an "unelected bureaucrat" and a MEP ? Try research before you crank out ignorant shit.
pssst.. Notice as well that we still have to live by EU rules in order to t
Re: (Score:2)
2015, early 2016 before the BREXIT vote everyone in the entire world told the citizens of the UK that it was going to destroy their ability to easily do business with the majority of their customers.
Ah, good old project fear. Maybe you missed the 70+ trade deals the UK has negotiated since leaving.
They dismissed it as "fake news" and voted for BREXIT anyway because that's what ignorant racists do
Ok, what about the other 17 million? You can discount entirely the ignorant racists and 'remain' would still have lost because a lot of normal friendly people chose not to stay in the EU.
You do realise the UK is frequently assessed as the most multicultural and least racist nation on the planet? A lot of people from Asia, Europe and Africa want to come and live here, and it's not because they're masochists.
They vote for anything and anyone that tells them they can get foreigners out of their country
Ah
Re: (Score:1)
I suppose you think it was far better for Brussels to be shoving leftist bullshit down their throats? Forcing them to take people who want to kill them. Now France, Germany and other countries are feeling the wrath of their stupid leftist decisions. If you're thinking Islam or muslims is a race, they're not. It's a religion. A religion that wants to kill you. Says so if you read the Koran. So they're not racists. You probably are because you're so focused on it.
Look at Morocco. Muslims took over that countr
Safety in law. (Score:1)
One "important reason," Rischard said, was the failure of the UK and EU to agree on mutual recognition of database rights. While both have an agreement to recognise copyright protections, that only covers work which is creative in nature. Maps, as a simple factual representation of the world, are not covered by copyright in the same way, but until Brexit were covered by an EU-wide agreement that protected databases where there had been "a substantial investment in obtaining, verifying or presenting the data." But since Brexit, any database made on or after 1 January 2021 in the UK will not be protected in the EU, and vice versa.
An interesting position for those in the audience who don't believe in copyright. Even free needs protection.
Re:Safety in law. (Score:5, Informative)
Very very few people here don't believe in copyright. Most of us here also don't believe in perpetual copyright. Weird that their can be a shade of grey between two extremes.
Re: (Score:2)
Very very few people here don't believe in copyright. Most of us here also don't believe in perpetual copyright.
Unfortunately, that "we don't believe in perpetual copyright" position tends to get expressed on /. as attacks on all copyrights.
Weird that their can be a shade of grey between two extremes.
Yet another case of the reasonable middle getting squeezed out by the extremes on both sides.
Re: (Score:2)
Very very few people here don't believe in copyright.
Maybe, but often the opinion expressed is "copying isn't stealing since no physical thing was taken..." to justify copying copyrighted works. The whole "stealing yes or no?" point aside, it shows a disregard for copyrights; until of course someone de=ares to try to violate the GPL. Then it's pitchforks and torches time. If you follow the /. logic there is no loss because everyone still has the original, just not a modified version.
Most of us here also don't believe in perpetual copyright. Weird that their can be a shade of grey between two extremes.
There I agree. The whole idea was to give creators a chance to profit
Re:Safety in law. (Score:5, Insightful)
You're not really following the logic though.
Copyright infringement isn't theft. It's a different crime. It's not murder or drunk driving either.that's boot a value judgement on it, but analogies only get you so far. Eventually they become absurd.
Secondly you are generalizing poorly.
Few people here are going to shed a tear for Disney when wide scale copyright infringement happens because they're a bunch of assholes who have paid off many legislators world wide to steal (and yes I mean steal, because we no longer have it) from the public domain and aggressively pursue infringement of copyright they have no moral right to. As opposed to the GPL which is for the greater good.
It's not like those things are remotely the same, almost everyone here understands that and there's no hypocrisy or double standards.
Re: (Score:2)
You're not really following the logic though.
Copyright infringement isn't theft. It's a different crime. It's not murder or drunk driving either.that's boot a value judgement on it, but analogies only get you so far. Eventually they become absurd.
Which was why I wanted to avoid the whole is it theft or not? Either way, it's still a civil or criminal matter.
Secondly you are generalizing poorly.
Few people here are going to shed a tear for Disney when wide scale copyright infringement happens because they're a bunch of assholes who have paid off many legislators world wide to steal (and yes I mean steal, because we no longer have it) from the public domain and aggressively pursue infringement of copyright they have no moral right to. As opposed to the GPL which is for the greater good.
The crux of your argument is copyrights are ok when it protects something I value but are bad when it protects something I don't. Yea, the laws need to be changed to stop the perpetual copyright and go back to a more reasonable period; but I still think it is hypocritical to say one work should be protected while think it is OK to violate another's.
It's not like those things are remotely the same, almost everyone here understands that and there's no hypocrisy or double standards.
I doubt many would agree that all GPL'd softwar
Re: (Score:2)
Which was why I wanted to avoid the whole is it theft or not?
So in order to avoid it, you brought it up. Good idea.
The crux of your argument is copyrights are ok when it protects something I value but are bad when it protects something I don't.
Well if you just want to invent shit, then why bother trying to debate?
The only way you could possibly read that into what I wrote is if you'd already convinced yourself that's what I mean and nothing will dissuade you.
but I still think it is hypocritical to say one
Re: (Score:2)
Let's start with my original thread:
but often the opinion expressed is "copying isn't stealing since no physical thing was taken..." to justify copying copyrighted works. The whole "stealing yes or no?" point aside, it shows a disregard for copyrights;
I never claimed it was stealing but that that is the argument often made on /.; and said The whole "stealing yes or no?" point aside because I did not want to get into that argument, because my point was all of a sudden, if someone violates the GPL, people se
Re: (Score:2)
I never claimed it was stealing but that that is the argument often made on /.; and said The whole "stealing yes or no?" point aside because I did not want to get into that argument
You brought it up. It was only you dude. This hasn't been a regular thing on slashdot for probably 15 years.
If you believe the latter, then, IMHO, it is hypocritical to think copyrights should not be honored in other cases.
That does not follow. Believing that the GPL should be honoured in the short term does not imply that any co
Re: (Score:2)
I never claimed it was stealing but that that is the argument often made on /.; and said The whole "stealing yes or no?" point aside because I did not want to get into that argument
You brought it up. It was only you dude. This hasn't been a regular thing on slashdot for probably 15 years.
As soon as I brought it up as an argument seen on /. you immediately said it's not stealing. Fine, That was not my point, rather one of the various stances /.'rs take around copyright depending on whose ox is gored.
If you believe the latter, then, IMHO, it is hypocritical to think copyrights should not be honored in other cases.
That does not follow. Believing that the GPL should be honoured in the short term does not imply that any copyright (GPL or otherwise) should be honoured in e.g. 100 years time.
Not my point. If you think it should be valid the future date it expires is immaterial. Either it is a valid construct or not.
as meaning you're OK that people violate Disney's but want them to honor the GPL.
I'm not going to shed a tear if the local Mafia boss gets whacked either. That doesn't make me pro murder. It means I don't get sad when bad things happen to bad people, and bonus points if it's karmic justice. Doubly so if I don't believe Disney have the moral right to any copyright on a quite large selection of their back catalogue because it's so old.
You keep bringing up murder as if there is some moral equivalence between it and a copyright violation. As for Disney, I agree. Copyrights should be limited to 28 year
Re: (Score:2)
As soon as I brought it up as an argument seen on /.
Yep, we agree. You brought it up.
Not my point. If you think it should be valid the future date it expires is immaterial. Either it is a valid construct or not.
That doesn't follow. Saying limited copyright term is valid doesn't imply that non computably large (but still finite) copyright terms are valid.
You keep bringing up murder as if there is some moral equivalence between it and a copyright violation.
You don't really understand the point of analogies
Re: (Score:2)
The whole idea was to give creators a chance to profit off their works while eventually providing the public with the right to modify it
No, the idea was to benefit the public. Providing authors with a chance to make a profit is just a means to an end.
often the opinion expressed is "copying isn't stealing since no physical thing was taken..." to justify copying copyrighted works
There's no necessary level of copyright. There is at best an ideal level of copyright, but it's measured by how beneficial it is for the public, all things considered. If, however, people generally felt that copying works freely was more important than achieving the maximum net public benefit, that would be fine; there's no harm done, it's just not ideal. Personally, I think copyright would
Re: (Score:2)
The whole idea was to give creators a chance to profit off their works while eventually providing the public with the right to modify it
No, the idea was to benefit the public. Providing authors with a chance to make a profit is just a means to an end.
IIRC, the idea of creating a monopoly over the rights to a work started with the printing press and the desire of the crown to be able to censor what was printed. By creating a printer monopoly that was accomplished, and changes lead to what we know as copyrights. But yea, a better statement, based on subsequent thought, was to promote creation by giving creators monopoly rights for a limited period with teh idea eventually rights would cede to teh public for their benefit.
often the opinion expressed is "copying isn't stealing since no physical thing was taken..." to justify copying copyrighted works
There's no necessary level of copyright. There is at best an ideal level of copyright, but it's measured by how beneficial it is for the public, all things considered. If, however, people generally felt that copying works freely was more important than achieving the maximum net public benefit, that would be fine; there's no harm done, it's just not ideal. Personally, I think copyright would be better if there were a broad exemption for natural persons when acting in a thoroughly non-commercial capacity. (e.g. human beings can copy, modify, distribute, display, and perform all they like, but cannot charge anything, use works as a draw for advertisements, or even trade) Let copyright be limited to businesses and commerce instead of making everyone else have to care about it.
While I get what you're saying
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, there was a thing also called copyright (now distinguished by calling it the Stationer's copyright) which was an exclusive right held by a publisher to publish a book. The author was unimportant, as was the public. It let a cartel -- technically the Worshipful Company of Stationers -- monopolize printing and work about amongst themselves who would print what for their mutual benefit. The state was okay with it because, among other reasons, it aided in censoring the press. It was not very popular.
Th
Re: (Score:2)
SNIP
How it would be accomplished in the face of determined lobbying by the opposition and the general ignorance that many legislators have about copyright is well beyond me. But if you mean what it would consist of, then the line would be drawn very sharply: no benefit other than of the work itself (lest the 'no benefit' policy swallow the rest). So:
Can't put things up on sites that even carry advertising or sell merch. Can't accept donations. Can't even trade one copy for another. Can't sell at cost of materials or labor. Simply put, no money whatsoever changing hands in any way associated with the work, nor other things of value. Individual human beings can pirate all they like, but at a loss to themselves and anyone else involved. Because if there's to be any money or value changing hands, then that really ought to go to the copyright holder. This also tends to avoid concentrations of piracy. Peer-to-peer sharing could work, but you wouldn't have something like YouTube.
The rationale is that people are going to pirate. We have long experience showing that no matter how much people respect copyright, they are going to make copies of works, share them, make derivatives, etc. The law should generally not ban widespread behavior unless there's a really good reason for it, because otherwise it won't work and it will just cause disrespect for many laws. And copyright infringement is endemic because most people don't think there's anything wrong with it at least on a low, inter-personal level. That's what I think we should expressly make legal. But most people also agree that it's inappropriate to charge money for pirated copies or performances; a movie theater ought to pay the studio,
Good points. I agree piracy is pretty much unstoppable and most people do it to some level or another. The challenge is, with allowing trading as long as no money is exchanged, is it legitimize trading over buying works you like.
People pirate for a lot of reasons. Back before eternal September I knew people who were what I called pirate collectors - they wanted every possible piece of software even if they never would use them. Others were opportunistic pirates, each would have something the other wanted
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I agree that a lot of money would stop being spent on buying copies or attending public performances or displays. But, this is not so bad. First, it's for a worthy cause, i.e. not making felons of virtually everyone. Second, if the public accepts more freedom with regard to works at the cost of perhaps fewer works being created and published, this is perfectly acceptable; at worst it's suboptimal, but it's not actually bad. Third, I don't think it will really have the terrible economic effects fea
Re: Safety in law. (Score:3)
Not really. Database rights were rejected in the US and for good reason. They protect mere labor without an atom of creativity. The result has been that the US has thrived; there are plenty of reasons for people to compile data regardless and it can be put to all manner of good uses without the costs and difficulty of arranging permission. The EU would do well to abandon it.
Re: (Score:2)
So what does that say about OpenStreetMap? Talk about damning with faint praise.
Re: Safety in law. (Score:2)
I think it says more that they're a bit paranoid about wanting protection that isn't necessary and that the impetus behind the project wasn't that they could make a lot of money by exploiting the database rights.
Re: (Score:2)
Call me cynical but a guy from Luxembourg telling us Brexit was a bad idea doesn't exactly convince me his motives are pure.
Re: (Score:2)
If it helps, I'm a guy from America telling you that Brexit was not just a bad idea, but was a colossally stupid bad idea.
Re: (Score:2)
Would you hand the running of your country to a coalition formed by Guatemala, Panama, Mexico and Nicaragua, allowing unfettered migration and pay them for the privilege?
Or is that a colossally stupid bad idea? You know, like the UK handing the running of its country to a coalition of continental neighbours, allowing unfettered migration and paying them for the privilege.
Re: (Score:2)
Would you hand the running of your country to a coalition formed by Guatemala, Panama, Mexico and Nicaragua, allowing unfettered migration and pay them for the privilege?
The original British colony turned independent state that I lived in for a long time handed the running of the country to a coalition formed by a number of other states that its people soundly despised. And on the whole the United States as a project has worked out pretty damn well. Even though those despised states still have way too much political power and are generally a drain on the economy of more productive states like the one I lived in. Also we have long had unfettered migration within the US.
Re: (Score:2)
The original British colony turned independent state
Ah, another classic colossally stupid bad idea.
You're excelling tonight, keep going.
on the whole the United States as a project has worked out pretty damn well
Well, except that bit in 1812 and then that bit between 1861 and 1865 and the utter shitfest that's been going on since January 20th.
Even though those despised states still have way too much political power and are generally a drain on the economy of more productive states like the one I lived in
Why would you despise them? They've been part of your country since generations before you were born. They don't have political power over you.
we have long had unfettered migration within the US. My ancestors used it to their benefit, and I myself have moved around to many different corners of the continent with nary a problem
You have a vast land mass that's sparsely populated. We have a lot of concrete.
Oh, and I've lived in three different countries on two continents, let al
Re: (Score:2)
Well, except that bit in 1812
What happened in 1812?
then that bit between 1861 and 1865
Yeah, the Army was really not very good for the first few years, but it started turning around in 1863 and then 1864-1865 went really well, actually. Frankly, it's a shame it stopped when it did. I would have taken you more seriously if you had said that things were bad in varying respects up until the Civil War. (And frankly, after, in other respects; even now, there's all kinds of problems)
Why would you despise them? They've been part of your country since generations before you were born.
What does being part of my country have to do with anything? Their politics and culture are
Re: (Score:2)
Oh dear. I see why you have such unrealistic views. It's because you reject facts that might damage your cosy little world view.
For instance, Sweden in 2010 had the second highest number of reported rapes per capita in the world. Almost triple the number they had in 2003.
The numbers have gone up since then.
Interestingly, and I'm sure you can explain this, 58% of rape and attempted rape convictions in Sweden are of foreign born men.
This mass migration is clearly working out fucking superbly for Swedish women
Re: (Score:2)
So what does that say about OpenStreetMap? Talk about damning with faint praise.
I think that's a typo. Did you mean, "Open?StreetMap"?
Re: (Score:2)
The same, identical line of reasoning can be applied to copyright. It takes work to write a book or to shoot a movie, it takes also a lot of work to compile a database. Only thing is, databases can be a lot more important than a work of art. Aside from maps, which themselves are not a small matter, databases of chemical and physical properties are extremely laborious to prepare, let alone quality-check. All of engineering relies on good, reliable, work-intensive databases.
The spirit of copyright law is to p
Re: (Score:2)
The same, identical line of reasoning can be applied to copyright.
Yes, it's called the 'sweat of the brow' rationale for copyright. It has been totally rejected in the US. Here's some choice quotes from the US Supreme Court in the Feist case:
The "sweat of the brow" doctrine had numerous flaws, the most glaring being that it extended copyright protection in a compilation beyond selection and arrangement -- the compiler's original contributions -- to the facts themselves. Under the doctrine, the only defense to infringement was independent creation. A subsequent compiler was "not entitled to take one word of information previously published," but rather had to "independently wor[k] out the matter for himself, so as to arrive at the same result from the same common sources of information." "Sweat of the brow" courts thereby eschewed the most fundamental axiom of copyright law -- that no one may copyright facts or ideas. ...
Without a doubt, the "sweat of the brow" doctrine flouted basic copyright principles. Throughout history, copyright law has "recognize[d] a greater need to disseminate factual works than works of fiction or fantasy." But "sweat of the brow" courts took a contrary view; they handed out proprietary interests in facts and declared that authors are absolutely precluded from saving time and effort by relying upon the facts contained in prior works. In truth, "[i]t is just such wasted effort that the proscription against the copyright of ideas and facts . . . [is] designed to prevent." ...
In summary, the 1976 revisions to the Copyright Act leave no doubt that originality, not "sweat of the brow," is the touchstone of copyright protection in directories and other fact-based works. Nor is there any doubt that the same was true under the 1909 Act. The 1976 revisions were a direct response to the Copyright Office's concern that many lower courts had misconstrued this basic principle, and Congress emphasized repeatedly that the purpose of the revisions was to clarify, not change, existing law. The revisions explain with painstaking clarity that copyright requires originality, s. 102(a); that facts are never original, s. 102(b); that the copyright in a compilation does not extend to the facts it contains, s. 103(b); and that a compilation is copyrightable only to the extent that it features an original selection, coordination, or arrangement, s. 101.
Thus it doesn't matter whether it takes a lot of work to write a book, or whether it can be dashed out in a few hours, what matters is whether the work is an original, creative work of authorship.
The spirit of copyright law is to protect the work of the author of something that can be easily replicated.
Not even a little bit. The spirit of copyright law is to promote the progress of science, which is done by 1) maximizing as much as possi
Re: (Score:2)
The result has been that the US has thrived
In what way?
It's always worth remembering there's a big difference between a group that compiles data as a side business, a group that compiles data as their primary business for private monetisation, and a group like Open Street Map, which compiles data as their primary business for public consumption.
That has not really thrived in the USA, hell most "data" is buried behind paywalls and bullshit. You have people suing each other over the use of bloody train timetables. That's not "thriving", that's the sam
Re: Safety in law. (Score:2)
There is also a strong EU-funded research ecosystem that increasingly mandates open access publication and open datasets, which has certainly helped. The US funded research model is closer to what the EU had a decade or more ago, subsidizing industrial innovation with the expectation that market benefits would eventually trickle down somehow.
US laws (Score:2)
Maps, as a simple factual representation of the world, are not covered by copyright in the same way, but until Brexit were covered by an EU-wide agreement that protected databases where there had been "a substantial investment in obtaining, verifying or presenting the data."
Interesting. Does anyone know if the US has any similar protections, either via laws or treaties with the EU? I know databases aren't covered by copyright here, like in the EU, and was under the impression that collections of facts didn't have any protections in the US, but might be mistaken.
Re: (Score:2)
(I got caught by that once: tried to stop for lunch once at a town that didn't exist.)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It is true that mere data is not copyrightable, but for map makers, representing that data is creative expression. Font choice/size, line types, size and map colors etc are all creative works that the map maker uses to make the data useful. Thus maps are copyrightable, but the underlying data is not.
Re: (Score:2)
I wish I could mod you informative - pretty interesting
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: US laws (Score:2)
No, we don't. That having been said, maps, to the extent that they are creative, have always been copyrightable. But the uncreative facts contained within never are. If you learn that the capital of Canada is Toronto [wikipedia.org] by looking at a copyrighted map, you're free to copy that information in making your own map, without having to do independent research.
The creativity can be found -- if it exists at all -- in the selection of which facts to include and how to present them. So a map of all the countries in the
Re: US laws (Score:2)
I thought that Winnipeg ("Winnie" for short) was the name of my Canadian girlfriend who is definitely real.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought that Winnipeg ("Winnie" for short) was the name of my Canadian girlfriend who is definitely real.
Hey, we're being cheated on. She's mine as well; I know because I just sent here $100 in App Store codes to help her get a visa.
Won't be the last one (Score:2)
Just sayin'.
British maps (Score:4, Funny)
I Appreciate OpenStreetMap (Score:3)
Why copyright ? (Score:1)
Why does an Open company worry about copyright ?
... huh (Score:1)
Re: ... huh (Score:3)
GPL and other open source licenses depend on copyright protections to have their provisions enforced.
Re: (Score:2)
IP protection (Score:2)
How will that help? (Score:1)
The disagreement between the EU and the UK will still exist. You just move the problem that's all.