I have to agree with you! The above quote comes from the GIFC (http://www.internetfreedom.org/) web page. How do they square that statement with the other Government policies that aim to restrict an individual's access?

OK, only uploading is illegal. But if no-one is uploading, there will not be much to download will there, even if you are not punished for it?

The law does not have to be broken to be challenged. As I said in my earlier post, most civilised countries have recognised procedures for challenging unjust laws without the need for resorting to anarchy. The procedures are different in each country but, afaik, nowhere in the EU is breaking the law seen as an acceptable method of challenging the validity of a law. It might be different in your country but we are discussing a European law and its implementation and enforcement in Germany. (A law, incidentally, that was introduced after much encouragement from the USA. And now some Americans are saying that we shouldn't obey it!?)

What law states that powerful businesses are protected? None here in the EU that I know of. The law being enforced here is the protection of copyright material. The material could easily have been a piece of software, a scientific thesis or something else equally useful and entirely worthy of such protection. It is only being challenged here because it is preventing some from copying and exchanging their copyrighted music, porn or films for free.

Rapidshare was complying with the law in the country in which it was operating. I would have thought that this was an entirely reasonable thing to do.

Of course, because they are prepared to comply with the law means that you cannot continue to download copyright material to which you have no implied right with impunity. Now you might have to face the consequences of your actions in much the same way as you would expect to be treated if you broke any other law.

You have no inherent right to the product of someone else's work simply because you believe that all music or films should be distributed free of charge to anyone who wants them. The laws regarding copyright might well be biased too far in favour of those who own the copyright, but the correct way to counter this is to get the law changed.

Please don't think that you represent me when you use the word 'We'. I do not like the laws regarding copyright, but breaking the law is not necessarily the best way to get the law changed. It might seem like one possible solution and it may indeed be tolerated in a small number of countries but most of the civilised world has an alternative process in place for such needs.

Posting AC also indicates quite a bit about your character. If you haven't the courage to stand up for your beliefs and be seen to be doing so then you are certainly not taking part in an act of civil disobedience, but simply hiding in the shadows in fear. In which case perhaps you have already destroyed your own argument.

No, it changes nothing. No-one is forcing you to buy Elvis' music, nor are you being prevented from listening to music that you have already bought. It will not change the cost of anything that you are thinking of buying. The cost of producing the music hasn't increased, simply the time for which the record company can claim sole control over who performs it. And, although I do not support this law, nothing is making me pay any more in the future than I do now. I don't have to listen to the music. Music and other art is not a daily essential for life. But those that want to make a profit from the use of the music score (i.e. musicians and others) or who want to earn money from public performances of the records (e.g. radio stations, DJs) have a right to complain. But I haven't heard them complaining with anything like the vigour that would be required to have prevented this law from being passed.

I think that this law sucks - but it will not have the slightest effect upon my life. If the radio stations go bust, or musicians stop performing music that they haven't written themselves, then it will be those that market the music who, ultimately, will lose out. Their royalty stream will dry up.

Those musicians that feel strongly that their music should be left for the common good can always release it under some other licence. There is no law saying that you have to enforce the copyright that you might have on your work. As long as you don't sign it away to the record company this will not enable them to earn any more money from it than they do today. If the big names simply give the right to public performances to the public then no law has been broken and everyone is happy. Those that believe that they have a right to an income in near perpetuity for their labour will have to get used to the fact that they are deluding themselves. I am not being forced to contribute to their pension scheme.

OK, but to me mules are not horses. Entirely separate beasts, but I'm not going to get hung up in which particular genus you were referring to.

Windows only!

Thanks, but no thanks....

Er.... how about the US Special Forces? - http://www.conunderground.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/specialforces-on-horse-300x230.jpg. Or do you not consider your own SF to be part of a modern military? A sensible force will use whatever is best for the task at hand - not ignore some option simply because it isn't high tech enough. Otherwise, knives and bayonets would have disappeared many years ago, but they haven't.

'politicians' 'criminals' - aren't they one and the same in America?

Assuming that you were being at least semi-serious....

Electronic devices are disposed off differently to, say, kitchen waste or paper, because the devices do contain heavy metals. However, in colloquial speech they are all 'binned'. The gnomes have been replaced by real people, i.e. ourselves. We call it assuming responsibility for your own waste. There are, of course, some who still object to having to do such an arduous and unpleasant task - I shudder to think how they cope with some of the other aspects of life such as going to the toilet etc.

And to get back to the topic, your point is totally irrelevant. iPhones also contain the same heavy metals as the remote, and probably in greater quantity too. So it doesn't significantly affect which we should actually use for controlling other devices around us, does it?

In which case, the 'Universal Remote's' days are far from numbered, unless you are already an iPhone user.

Seriously, my remote cost only a small fraction of any telephone device. I could probably use the argument that the days of the car are numbered now that space travel is here. It might be true, but I'm prepared to bet not in my lifetime or in the lifetime of my children. There is absolutely no justification on the grounds of cost and, as others have already pointed out, it is actually simpler to use the remote than a iPhone.

Although many people think that the mobile/cell phone is an essential item, I know that the majority of my friends and acquaintances do not agree. We do not own one - why on earth should we? There is the much cheaper landline telephone and internet communications including VoIP and email. I have never felt the need to be in contact with everyone else when I am traveling by public transport and my life is very pleasant having periods when I can enjoy the peace and quiet of being alone.

Now, get off my lawn....

Yep, that's another good excuse. But, haven't the telco's already been subsidised to provide the internet connection? I'm not an American, but other posts on /. seem to suggest that they were given the money over a decade ago but haven't yet produced the goods.

I'm still not convinced that the nation that put a man on the moon cannot even get broadband to everyone in the country.

Yes, the USA is much bigger. So why don't you divide it into smaller more-manageable pieces (you could call them states, or perhaps counties). Then when they are each smaller than European countries you can just emulate the rest of the world and get the broadband that you need. Or perhaps you will just have to think of another excuse as to why everyone can do it apart from the USA....

[quote]Besides, if they want to limit this to European brands, they should remove the Atari from the list as well.[/quote] [p]No, that is not what they want to do. They want to include those computers that were [b]popular[/p] in Europe, not limit the collection to those that might have been produced here. I wonder if they want to take ownership of my original Nascom 1 and Nascom 2, complete with 5.25" floppy drives and a whopping 5Mb (yes - Mb) hard drive?

Why is this always seen as a battle between linux and Microsoft? Who said that we 'have to beat Microsoft'? Linux has a perfectly good but small following. I see no reason why that wont continue regardless of whatever Microsoft decides to do or not do. I do not see this as a fight to remove Microsoft from the market place. If Microsoft feel threatened, then so be it, but I do not recall anyone ever claiming that the purpose of linux is to defeat Microsoft in the market-place. Those that want to continue with Microsoft software and all that it entails - lock-in, regular 'upgrades' that break compatibility with older formats, costs etc - are free to do as far as I am concerned. BUT, Microsoft has no reason to try to stop me from using whatever software I chose and, from where I sit at the moment, I do not see how they can stop me. They cannot 'uninvent' linux, they can only try to keep their own business share. However, nothing that they seem able to produce will entice me away from the OS that I want to use. Why can't they both exist in the market place?