Posted on Techdirt - 11 October 2012 @ 5:08am
The UK Government has unveiled a new tax break scheme, Patent Box, for corporations that use patents -- either through owning the patent or being the exclusive licensee.
You can only benefit from the Patent Box if your company is liable to Corporation Tax and makes a profit from exploiting patented
inventions.
Your company must also own or exclusively license-in the patents and must have undertaken qualifying development on them. You can read more about exclusively licensing-in patents later in this guide.
If your company is a member of a group, it may qualify if another company in the group has undertaken the qualifying development.
The Register reports that there
has been some controversy over this with potential beneficiaries ecstatic over the prospect of a windfall from the tax man because Corporate Tax drops from 28% to 23% and revenue from patents will be taxed at only 10% starting in April 2013. Others are, quite reasonably, concerned that this could lead to a wave of trivial patents being filed, favor big businesses over small businesses, and distort research priorities.
Given the cost of filing a patent and the increasing frequency of litigation over patents, they've got a point.
The dangers are obvious: patents are being increasingly broadly written and the
consequences of trolling costs upwards of $29 billion a year in the USA. The epic fights over software between big-name companies like Apple, Google, Microsoft, and Oracle may be amusing to read about but people can and do get put out of business by bad patents. Britain is a member of the European Union, where there is a push to introduce the
Unitary Patent alongside a new patent court. This would possibly open the floodgates for the kind of patent insanity we've been seeing in America -- and perhaps make things even worse.
The idea behind Patent Box is that businesses will put the tax money they save into R&D, fueling further innovation and further patents, but we all know what actually happens in these cases: they end up litigating over patents and stifling actual innovation because the
patent itself is the product. And since there's very little economic evidence that patents lead to greater innovation, this is just creating massive incentives for patents, not for innovation. It's a stupid idea to create a tax dodge for big players without doing anything to actually encourage innovation.
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook or
Google+
25 Comments | Leave a Comment..
Posted on Techdirt - 10 August 2012 @ 12:10am
The European Union has been secretly negotiating a free trade agreement with India since 2007 that is worryingly similar to
ACTA. Intellectual property rights enforcement would include border detention and seizure measures of goods being imported by India, exported by India or in transit via India's ports or airports. This could affect the generic drugs that India produces for its people, as we noted last month. The European Union is eager to wrap the agreement up by the end of the year, according to Belgium's Deputy Prime Minister and Trade Minister Didier Reynders. He wants to gain access to public procurement, chemicals and pharmaceutical products, health care, technologies, life sciences, renewable energy, and urbanization. This sounds peachy till the matter of India's arbitration notices is considered. As public interest NGO Madhyam states,
All
Indian IIAs (International Investment Agreements) contain a broad
asset-based definition of investment stating that investment means
every kind of asset. This broad definition is then followed by an
inclusive or non-exhaustive list of assets, which includes direct
investment, portfolio investment, intellectual property rights, rights
to money or to any performance under contract having a financial value,
business concessions conferred under law or contract. Such a broad
definition of investment expands the jurisdiction of IIAs to virtually
cover almost all areas of investment.
Fair and equitable
treatment (FET) has emerged as one of the most litigated issues in
investment treaty arbitration. At the heart of this controversy is the
meaning of FET. Almost all Indian IIAs contain the FET principle
without providing much guidance regarding its meaning. Thus,
determining the content of FET is left to the discretion of investment
treaty arbitration tribunals.
This is the problem: foreign corporations go in with promises of investment opportunities and exploit the people till the government pushes back, then the foreign investor takes them to an international trade court.
The
stumbling block at the moment is that India wants the EU to ensure free mobility of professionals without restrictions such as experience whereas the EU wants greater commitment by India to allow foreign investment in services such as retail, legal and postal. Allegations of the existence of a 'Kashmir center' run by anti-India elements in Brussels aren't helping. Meanwhile, opposition to the treaty is mounting from
unions,
international NGOs, and
David Martin MEP, rapporteur for the European Union's International Trade Committee, whose
recommendations helped to pull ACTA down in July.
When will they learn to stop negotiating treaties that only benefit big business in secret? Opposition to this treaty will continue to grow as
more details emerge.
2 Comments | Leave a Comment..
Posted on Techdirt - 26 July 2012 @ 11:27pm
Though the specific process differs from country to country, international agreements are generally negotiated and signed at the highest levels of government, with input from everyone else filtering up (in theory) through the hierarchy—at least until you get something like ACTA, where the public rises up en masse and essentially overrides the whole system. One thing that you don't often see is municipal governments standing up to take a direct role in international negotiations—but that's exactly what's happening now in Canada, where cities are seeking to avoid an ACTA-like situation by asking to opt out of the Canada-EU Trade Agreement (CETA) at the municipal level.
The effort is being led by The Council of Canadians, a social justice group which is working to persuade cities, towns, and municipal authorities all over Canada to request exemption from CETA. Their core concern is about the agreement's procurement chapter, which sets down rules about how governments and other public bodies can spend money on goods and services, and which they fear will unduly restrict municipalities:
For example, new rules in CETA on how public bodies spend money would:
- Prohibit municipalities from putting buy local or buy Canadian preferences on contracts, or requiring that bidders use some portion of local or Canadian goods, services or labour. This would end the ability of municipalities to use procurement as a local economic or social development tool.
- Prohibit municipalities from using public spending to create or support a market for innovative goods and services, including green technologies, if the effect would favour Canadian producers or attract investment to Canada.
- Prohibit municipalities from spending public money in ways that support sustainability, for example through buy local food policies like the one Toronto passed to reduce emissions from food miles.
As long as municipal governments are part of the CETA deal, these prohibitions will apply to local purchases. We need to make sure cities, towns, school boards and hospitals are not bound by these unnecessary rules.
So far, over 30 local governments representing over 5.5 million people have joined the exemption campaign and another 30 to 40 municipal councils, school boards or associations have asked for more information and more input in the negotiations. Unfortunately, as is common with these situations, such concerns have been largely brushed off in a weak damage control effort by the federal government. Assurances from the Candian Foreign Affairs and International Trade Ministry on the Myths and Realities page are reminiscent of the EU's ACTA Facts, and the Council of Canadians have a page that debunks them. International trade strategist Peter Clark laughs off the fears Canadians have of corporate control of their water services.
CETA is not about diverting Canada’s lakes and rivers – which would not do Europeans much good in any event because we have no common borders... There is no requirement to privatize services which do not compete with private entities and do not operate on a commercial basis.
There are good reasons for the municipalities' concern about the investors' clauses, but Clark just tells them not to worry their pretty little heads about it and run along. Stonewalling and secrecy are not the way to build confidence in the benefits of CETA.
19 Comments | Leave a Comment..
Posted on Techdirt - 14 July 2012 @ 12:00pm
There's always something interesting to read here at Techdirt, so picking out favorite posts, even for one week, is a tough job. The stories I've been following have histories and watching them unfold has been fascinating and fun in equal measure.
On the political front we've had a roller-coaster year so far with the SOPA/PIPA and ACTA takedowns in which we proved that pressure works. Techdirt has been instrumental in explaining the ins and outs in an accessible way — and giving us the heads-up when we needed to know that SOPA sponsor and internet punchbag Lamar Smith was up to his old tricks again, sneaking SOPA into legislation in pieces. Should we call the IPAA SOPA-Stein? It's got the monster's feet sewn on in the form of IP attaches, who would move from USTPO to the Department of Commerce, create a new agency, and spend taxpayer money to expand IPR maximalism via the diplomatic corp.
Meanwhile, the EU Trade commission has been celebrating Greek culture by copying an idea from the ancient poet Homer's account of the Siege of Troy. Good job it's out of copyright! Yes indeed, it seems they've found the story of the Trojan Horse appealing enough to put into practice as CETA, the idea being to sneak thirty warriors the IP chapter of ACTA into the text, as described by Canadian internet law expert Dr. Michael Geist. Thankfully, we weren't caught napping and in the damage control efforts that followed the inevitable outcry, it emerged that although they haven't changed the text of the Canadian-European Trade Agreement, they have, or something. We don't know for certain because they won't let us see the text, but don't you worry your pretty little heads about it. Move along, there's nothing to see here. Apart from the most clueless column of the week, if you want a good laugh.
Undeterred by the demise of ACTA, the USTR has been working away on the Trans Pacific Partnership in the teeth of public opposition. Their softening stance on copyright to recognize the exceptions and limitations we need to get things done online may yet be a sign that they're starting to listen to us, but don't hold your breath; they still won't show it to Congress or the new partner nations Mexico and Canada.
The Oatmeal/Carreon punch-up has provided much amusement and we've got through a lot of beer and popcorn watching the saga unfold. Website owner Matthew Inman made good on his promise to photograph the money fans had donated to the Bearlove fundraiser on Indiegogo and send it (the photo, not the money) to Funnyjunk with a hilarious picture of Funnyjunk's mother seducing a bear.
Photo scenes included an image of Funnyjunk's mother literally made of money and the letters FU, which I'm certain mean something to Funnyjunk. To us it means, "Hilarity ensued." Funnyjunk's deluded lawyer Charles Carreon, whose antics have been alternately
angering and
cracking us up for the last few weeks, will doubtless not be amused, but will probably claim it as a trophy of his
Pyrrhic victory.
Kim Dotcom never seems to be out of the news. The colorful internet entrepreneur has been the subject of a botched extradition attempt by the American Department of Justice, who, at the
behest of the MPAA, shut down popular cyberlocker Megaupload and froze his assets. In a display of breathtaking arrogance, they've tried to conceal their lack of evidence by
refusing to let Dotcom or his lawyers see it — apart from one piece of paper, then using siege tactics to use up all his funds to force him to come to the US. The hearing has been
put back till March of next year. Dotcom has gambled on the likelihood of an acquittal or even the dismissal of the charges against him
in an American court on condition that his funds are unfrozen to pay for his defense.
This week's
feel-good story showed the value of social media for helping people out. Jack Russell owner Deirdre Anglin's pet slipped away on Tuesday evening and ended up on a train. Workers noticed that the owner wasn't aboard and took Patch to Pearse St. Station, then took a photo and
tweeted, "Lost dog! Boarded at Kilcock at 06.49 this morning, currently being looked after in Pearse Stn. Please ReTweet."
Twitter users kept retweeting the message until Deirdre discovered it and replied. Barely half an hour after the original tweet, Irish Rail announced that they were in the process of confirming the owner and thanked their followers for the retweets. Later on, they posted a reunion picture. This kindness and usage of social media is probably why they've won the
Social Media Awards for this year. They deserve to.
Patents and copyright continue to dominate the news. A curious case, in which
copyright and trademark infringement were bundled, arose in a New York court where Robert Carpenter from Poughkeepsie, New York, has been ordered to pay the publisher $7,000 in damages for sharing a copy of "WordPress All-in-One For Dummies" on BitTorrent. According to Judge William Pauley, the man is guilty of both copyright and trademark infringement. It's a default judgement since apparently Carpenter didn't show up at court, but as Glyn Moody pointed out, "That's troubling, because it would seem to open the door for anti-counterfeiting measures aimed at tackling serious trademark infringement to be applied routinely to P2P sharing of copyright files simply because they are exact copies of originals."
On Wednesday, Mike Masnick pointed out the egregious hypocrisy of Hollywood insisting that we not profit off the works of others without fairly compensating them, then apparently not lining up to pay Wikileaks founder Julian Assange for his account of the Wikileaks story. In fact, they're going to everyone except the man himself for
material for a proposed biopic.
Finally, the copyright landscape is experiencing seismic shifts as the push-back against rampant maximalism continues. In Canada, the copyright reform bill is
very close to becoming law, bringing with it some fantastic new fair dealing provisions (while retaining DRM). On Thursday, Leigh Beadon
gleefully reported that the Supreme court published five separate judgements in cases related to tariffs and royalties, and each of which contains significant victories for smarter copyright law.
Meanwhile, here in Europe, the European Commission has proposed bringing in
a new directive to reform music licensing. Copyright maximalist Marielle Gallo, who was instrumental in
gutting a proposal on orphan works put forward by the EU Commission earlier this year, is going to be the rapporteur for this, but if we put enough pressure on the JURI Committee members there's a good chance we can get some decent legislation through this time.
Well, that's it from me, enjoy the weekend — and the excellent posts here on my favorite tech blog.
Follow me on
Twitter and on
Google Plus
9 Comments | Leave a Comment..
Deferred Prosecution
Considering how doubtful it is that he even broke any laws, it's ridiculous that they didn't just drop the case. The whole thing has been a farce from start to finish.
What concerns me is that O'Dwyer has been invited to the States to sign an agreement. Can he not do this at the US Embassy? What if they invent a reason to detain him? After what I've seen them do so far, I wouldn't put it past them.
Corporate rights
This is actually not a bunch of corporate potheads writing a report while stoned. They're trying a neurolinguistic trick to do the same job as using "consume" to describe watching a movie, listening to music, or reading a book.
Most people don't do a double take when you describe the above activities as "consuming content."
This time they're trying to push corporate rights a tidge further and get us to accept that the poor widdle co'powate people is bein' discwiminated against.
Sorry, I lost IQ points typing that. It's such a stupid notion. But yeah, that's what it is: https://plus.google.com/115040231829422107651/posts/LwAujsgpFCj
Expect people frightened of teh leftists to push the idea that discrimination against corporations is mean, cruel, and makes them cry. And by "discrimination" I mean "preventing them from shafting us."
(untitled comment)
When do the politicians get to vote on this? Is there time to rouse some opposition?
Re: Re: Re: The Mighty Buzzard
To be perfectly honest, de Gucht's determination to get this treaty ratified after (a hopefully inevitable "no" vote) looks exactly like contempt for both the parliament and the people to me.
I know you will probably continue to disagree on this, but I think Glyn called it right on this occasion. De Gucht's tone smacks of arrogance in that statement and if I'd been the one to write it up, I doubt I'd have done any different.
There's no question that Glyn invented the notion of an arrogant commissioner whose paternalism overrides his common sense. De Gucht manages that all by himself in his upbraiding of the naughty children, I mean, MEPs in that statement.
Re: Re: The Mighty Buzzard
What are you confused about? I provided the quotes from de Gucht himself with some "interpretations" of my own in bold. I didn't "want to see them," I copied and pasted quotes from de Gucht's own statement, just as Glyn did. And by "statement," I mean this: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=SPEECH/12/477&format=HTML
What exactly are we arguing about here? Glyn quoted from this, then I quoted from this. Will you please quote from this if you're going to argue about it, please?
Re: Re: The Movie and Recording Industries Have Spoken!
Did you not read de Gucht's statement? Glyn correctly reported what he said. The EU Trade Commissioner is going to keep on bringing ACTA up until he gets what he wants. He said here:
We're taking it to ECJ anyway, so there!
here:
We'll work on a plan to resurrect ACTA
here:
We could set out interpretations to ACTA.(Please ignore the fact that it can't be actually changed.)
and here:
I'm not taking no for an answer. I'll be playing "Are we there yet?" until you give in and ratify ACTA.
That's the problem. He's using attrition to get around our objections, adding layer after layer of procedures and submissions till the MEPs give him what he wants in the hope that he will finally go away.
ROFL!
I usually read The Oatmeal when I want a laugh, but the comments thread here has trumped it!
Some of you ACs have the funniest quotes. I'd love to be able to attribute them properly. As it is, the fairest thing to do is link to this page and let people find them by themselves. They work better in context anyway.
Oh, and props to Ann, minerat, [citation needed or GTFO], Nate, mrdarkrai, and Lurker Keith for the epic digging up of pertinent information.
First prize, however, to the troll/Mrs.Carreon/whatever, for the funniest contributions to this "debate."
This is the most entertaining comments section I have ever read. :D
Congratulations, all, on a job well done. *Applauds*
Rebuttal
The administration said nothing either way till it was pretty much over. Since then, it has continued to ply its trade by means of #IPR (intellectual property rights) expansion and enforcement. Every one of the major departments, from law enforcement to the military to the USTR has been toeing the line on this. Your statements about protecting an open and innovative Internet are contradicted by your actions on the world stage. That's why the treaty negotiations are restricted to the corporate stakeholders, isn't it? Eh? We know what you're up to and we don't approve!
Please explain the use of unfamiliar, unrecognised terms like "fair process." "Sound enforcement practices?" What about "innocent until proven guilty?" What legal framework? ACTA subverts standard legal practice and is basically a licence to troll.
No, +The White House, that would be you, via #IPR trolling. Explain why "evergreening" is acceptable as a trade practice. You can't, can you?
Do I detect the stench of bovine waste? Trading standards and public health and safety laws are more applicable to this and you know it.
Case in point. FDA on your side of the pond, equivalent agencies on ours. One of these is the Health and Safety Executive. They're the ones who deal with this kind of thing.
ROFL! Please explain all the website and domain seizures, all of which have been done sans due process. Kim Dotcom. JotForm. Dajaz1. The list goes on. I expect to get a load of guff about how none of those were connected to ACTA. That's true, but given your current attitude to your trading partners, I have no faith at all in any of your assurances.
Then why not use internationally recognised terms? Why conflate trademarks with patents and copyright when all are treated differently under law, even in the United States? And how much freedom of expression when your websites is shut down and your domain seized, only to be returned sans explanation with a terse comment about collateral damage? You're like Godzilla, a dangerous monster that lumbers about smashing all in its path and oblivious to the damage you're doing until you stub your toes.
Which you're in the process of undermining "because people are making private information public anyway." Don't get me started on #CISPA , your #mass #surveillance bill. I'm glad that's languishing on a shelf somewhere. It should never have passed Congress in the first place.
Well they ain't gonna ratify it, we'll see to that. The four main committees have rejected it already so your last gasp is INTA. We've already got their email addresses and a protest is planned for June 19th. I'd like to have an explanation from yourselves about why our complaints have been characterised as "undemocratic" and "cyberbullying."
Actually, it's the means for exporting American jobs overseas to manufacturers who work under licence to the corporations that own the rights to the patent, copyright, and trademark monopolies for the goods they then import into the US. The only jobs to be had are in registrations, enforcement, and surveillance.
Complying with the Agreements means throwing privacy out of the window because there's no way of "preventing infringement" except by monitoring internet usage.
Surveillance has a chilling effect on freedom of speech and I resent the way we activists have been mischaracterised, ignored, and condescended to. In what way does referring to us as "cyberbullies" and "undemocratic" respect out freedom of expression?
As I pointed out, there is no way to protect these values if we comply with the Agreement, so the only option is to throw it out. Get a clue.
~ The internet.
Re:
Then vote for them if they have any candidates in your area. Failing that, the Greens tend to side with the Pirates so vote for them. The trouble with your electoral system is that it is similar to ours. This means the Pirates need more votes than they would under proportional representation.
However, people tend to vote for those candidates they believe will get in because they don't want to risk "wasting" their vote by voting for a minor party. Vote for them anyway. If enough people do, the majority parties will have to deal with them. Eventually, one of the majors will end up being sidelined. This is why the Liberal Party in the UK is no longer the Opposition. That's gone to Labour.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Party_%28UK%29
Re: Legitimate complaints?
Just out of interest, are you aware of the scandal of the Belgian IP collection agency, SABAM, trying to squeeze money out of library volunteers reading books to kids?
SABAM is spending time and resources to contact local libraries across the nation, warning them that they will start charging fees because the libraries engage volunteers to read books to kids.
Volunteers. Who – again – READ BOOKS TO KIDS.
http://thenextweb.com/media/2012/03/13/belgian-rightsholders-group-wants-to-charge-libraries-for -reading-books-to-kids
That's. The. Problem.
Oh, and don't forget the attempted shakedown of Google and Yahoo for publishing news snippets:
Last year, the Belgian courts decided that Google was infringing on newspapers' copyrights just by linking to stories. Google was ordered to remove those links, at which point the newspapers started whining about "harsh retaliation" -- even though it was the court's decision, not Google's, and it was the newspapers' legal action that brought this about.
Sadly, the German government doesn't seem to have been paying attention to that rather ridiculous saga -- or maybe simply doesn't care -- and has just announced that it will bring in a compulsory licensing scheme for the use of even "small parts" of journalistic articles on commercial sites (original German).
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120305/09161017982/german-government-wants-google-to-pay-to-s how-news-snippets.shtml
If that went through, you know your RSS feed? Assuming you have one on Netvibes or Google Reader, that is. Basically, you'd have to pay to use it. That's the problem.
The system was meant to help with education, now it's all about teaching us to accept being charged for the same thing over and over again. The only people who benefit from copyright are the people who own it, and that's not always the authors.
I'm sick of being lied to, sick of being lectured by people who think I'm a criminal idiot, and sick of being told I have to accept this. I don't want to.
No legislation without representation!
Re: Re: Re:
True, but you've forgotten the work for hire contracts that see artists cheated out of their dues. Meanwhile other artists are finding ways to prosper by using the pirates as advertising.
Furthermore, Loz Kaye of the UK Pirate Party is a musician and has to work at his regular job to make a living... in music.
The idea that artists will quit if they can't make money via copyright licensing is rendered null by the plethora of examples of full-time musicians who don't rely on the licensing collections agencies for an income and make money from live performances and merchandising.
The IP industry is treated differently from other industries for no good reason. Limiting creativity to those artists who are willing to sign up with the licensing collections agencies can't benefit the artists or society in any possible way.
Besides, that's not even the real problem: the IP maximalists are determined to limit the way we experience content so they can squeeze us for the maximum amount of money via licensing so that content is being paid for many times over.
Put it this way: if the RIAA and MPAA shut down tomorrow would culture die off? Erm, no.
Re: thinking caps plus data
Take a close look at the wording in all of them and you'll find references to "protecting the economy" and intellectual property.
The people behind it are the MPAA, RIAA, and other IP maximalists. Their other projects include ACTA and TPP. They won't stop until IP law is reformed or they succeed in getting us all under surveillance by our own ISPs.
Personally, I prefer IP reform. If there's less for them to gain by pushing such laws they'll stop pushing them.
Re: Re:
That would work if it didn't already have bipartisan support. Read through the list of co-sponsors.
We've got some similar laws to be announced at the Queen's speech later on this year. I've already come down on my MP like a ton of bricks over it but I can't be the only one or it'll pass.
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17580906
Monster Raving Loony Party: small parties can make a difference
As crazy as it sounds, small parties can make a difference even if they don't come to power. One example I love to use is the story of the Monster Raving Loony Party, which is as crazy as it sounds. The leader was called Screaming Lord Sutch, and he suffered from clinical depression. He committed suicide in 1999.
Despite its satirical nature, some of the things that have featured in Loony manifestos have become law, such as being able to vote at 18, "passports for pets", and all-day pub openings. Similarly, the outcry following Alan Hope's appearance on the BBC's Nationwide current affairs programme after he was elected – during which he mentioned that butter and milk surpluses were being dumped down abandoned mine shafts under European Community rules to maintain prices (something the media of the day had failed to expose) – resulted in the distribution of such surpluses to the needy or charities instead. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_Monster_Raving_Loony_Party#Policies_and_electoral_strategy
The point is, even a marginal party like the Loonys can make a difference so it's worth voting for them instead of gloomily choosing between two dominant parties in the hope that the least odious one wins.
Find out more about the Pirate Party here: http://www.pirateparty.org.uk/party/international/
/End plug.
(untitled comment)
Has anyone seen this? http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000787.html
Tech blogger Laurent Weinstein has put forward a solution and we need some debate on this. Can it work? Would it work? If so, when do we start?
Crime and Punishment
While punishing a person for the effects of their crimes is unreasonable, it is reasonable to take into account the pain created by a person's actions online.
Yes, some people do take abuse and invasion of privacy better than others do, but that shouldn't be the basis of letting people get away with being jerks online. They ought to be held accountable for their attitudes and actions without being able to hide behind free speech laws, otherwise only obnoxious people have the right to free speech while their victims get pushed offline, as Christos and Lesli Catsouras have been to get away from the horrific images of their dead daughter that were forever being sent to them by email. http://www.ocregister.com/articles/family-337967-catsouras-nikki.html
That said, I believe that their campaign to remove the offensive images of their daughter from the internet is ultimately self-defeating because it's gone viral and the more you try to ban something the more people want it.
The answer is a robust moderation policy on all websites in which the administrators are legally obliged to enforce a TOS that includes provisions that prohibit offensive or intimidating behaviour. As it is, not enough of them do, and freedom of speech is restricted to those who are either obnoxious or not in the trolls' crosshairs.
I would also add (for cases like Drew) that parents need to police their kids' use of the internet to the point of cutting it off if they insist on going to dodgy websites.
Would it be a bad idea to ask that students sign a legally binding code of online conduct in which they agree not to post intimidating or abusive comments online? Being made to think twice about his actions may have prevented Ravi from posting comments on Twitter inviting people to view that video. Internet safety advice is available here: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Parents/Yourchildshealthandsafety/Internetsafety/index.htm
http://www .bbc.co.uk/health/physical_health/child_development/safety_internet.shtml
http://www.wiredsafety. org
http://www.isafe.org
If more people took advantage of these resources, I believe the rates of self-harm and suicide over cyberbullying would go right down.
They're not giving up on it yet
The European Parliament may be about to side with the Commission in its strategy to stall the ACTA debate, and postpone by one year or two the vote that could kill it once and for all. It is urgent that citizens contact Members of the Parliament to urge them to continue working towards a clear and strong political position, leading to the unavoidable rejection of ACTA, rather than allow these technocratic manœuvres.
The new rapporteur of ACTA in the EU Parliament, British MEP David Martin, announced that he is working towards a EU Parliament referral of ACTA to the EU Court of Justice. By sending such a referral, the Parliament would tie its own hands and second the recent Commission strategy to stall the ACTA debate. Source: http://www.laquadrature.net/en/dont-let-the-european-parliament-freeze-acta
If they freeze it, they can thaw it out. We need to keep the pressure on.
Re: Perjury
Yep. Diebold Coughs Up Cash in Copyright Case: https://www.eff.org/press/archives/2004/10/15
Re: armovore
A perve-merchant's attack dog.