Hmmm, I think this topic may be outside of your knowledge sphere. There are 30+ people at the Dept. of Commerce who's only job is to help Boeing with exports.
Why? Because Boeing is the single largest exporter in the US.
And any US business that needs export assistance can contact the local embassy/consulate for help with introductions, business development and even sometimes marketing. The reverse is also true, if you want to buy US goods, embassies have specialist staff to help find the right company. It's very company to company specific work and it happens every day.
It's absolutely part of their job description. In fact, it's a core part of their job. My father was a career diplomat, I worked at FAS in Vienna, Austria (see post below) and my wife is a consular official - we all have been heavily involved in helping companies get more business.
Pushing and facilitating exports is a core diplomatic function, probably more than it's ever been. I've work on the contract negotiations (as a gov't. official) between private sector companies, facilitating the conversation and providing a back channel.
This sort of deep involvement is probably the most valuable thing embassies do these days.
Don't be surprised, it's part of their job description...
... all embassies, from all countries, help sell the products from their country. It pretty much doesn't matter what it is, that's a core part of all missions. And their are specialist for most industry verticals doing this.
Back in the late '80s, I helped sell US foodstuffs to the Soviet Union. I was working for the Foreign Agricultural Service, a part of the USDA which is present in a lot of embassies. It was my job to help market and sell US agricultural products to Austria, Hungary and Czechoslovakia - and, as it happens, the Soviet Union.
It makes no sense for an embassy to push anything open source or free as that brings zero economic benefit to the country. They might do so as part of a wider policy initiative, but most policies are not so prescriptive.
It's important to remember that diplomats don't exist for altruistic reasons. Their job is to gather information and knowledge about a country/region and to use that knowledge to push the interests of their country at every level, but particularly economically.
This is the same group that decided to standardize on Wang systems when everyone else was moving to DOS - I still remember working at a Wang desk (basically a computer that was the whole desk, like something out of 1960s futurist comedy...) in the late 1980's.
State Dept's forte is people and cultures, not technology.
If this is happening globally and the artist in question is based in the US, why not sue GEMA in a US court for loss of incoming + damages (or whatever is the appropriate thing for preventing you from exercising your rights)?
If you win, you could have any GEMA exec detained if they come to the US, might wake them up...
... some years ago I was hired to help the UK Cabinet Office understand how they could use open source both in their IT environments and as a way to avoid vendor lock-in.
While the politicians understood full well what open-source like licenses could do for them, the civil service was an entirely different matter. It was like an episode of Yes Minister, only it lasted months and the decor was mid-70's avantgarde (thing orange seating, green carpets and lots of white plastic), not classically English.
Anyway, the civil servants would not (and perhaps could not) see how open source licenses were better than Crown Copyright. After all, Crown Copyright gave them all the rights and everyone else nothing, what could be better?
I wish good luck to The Right Honorable gentlemen and ladies in Westminster, but unless they convince the Sir Humphreys' of the world that it's a good idea, it's a complete non-starter.
"Whereas a previous parliamentary commission told the entertainment industry that they should innovate before any such ban would be introduced, this government decision turns it around, saying they'll make it illegal first in order to stimulate motivation."
The source talks about blocking access to stimulation innovation - the title is "Copyright must be stimulant for creativity and innovation" (auteursrecht moet stimulans zijn voor creativiteit en innovatie)
... or perhaps even the largest - people also used FidoNet extensively. I was running an import/export company at the time and we specialized in sending consumer goods to the former Soviet Union. FidoNet was one of the only reliable ways to communicate as it could take days to get a phone line.
Quite frankly, I don't remember anyone using Usenet - all the communications I ever heard off and did were through FidoNet. Even CNN was using FidoNet to file reports...
I've done both (transmission and really small electronics). I have a bench full of electronics testing & manufacturing equipment (more than any Apple repair facility... I seriously doubt they have reflow ovens) and a shop full of CNC machines capable of making pretty much any part in any piece of machinery new or old.
Are you telling me that I can't fixing [insert widget here] I bought or at least break it trying?
Sorry, no. That's just a stupid attitude. Esp. since I have all the tools to _machine_ a bit for the 'security' screws...
/ˈtɛrəˌrɪzəm/ Show Spelled[ter-uh-riz-uhm]
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government. "
Mission accomplished, apparently. People are intimated, coerced and in a state of fear & submission.
Yes, and try getting support for either one of those.
Sorry, it's not worth crashing a $500k machine running and destroying a $17k tool just to prove a point.
In most businesses, the cost of licensing Windows is pretty insignificant. MasterCam costs upwards of $20k and SolidWorks is easily $5k.
Look, I spent 10 years getting all kinds of companies to use open source, from the US gov't to F100's to startups. Sometimes you have to recognize that open source is not the right solution and move on.
Configuring and compiling is NOT porting. Chances are most of the cross-platform heavy lifting has already been done for you as the app was obviously designed to be portable from the beginning.
Running DotNetNuke on Linux was never going to be easy and porting native desktop apps is hairy at best. Just look at the message about Ubuntu 10 on the Transmission download page. And I'll be you'd have trouble running Bean (a very good GPL word processor) on Windows or Paint.NET (open source) on Linux....
Never mind the fact that just cross-installing apps from one Linux distro to another can be a huge pain, never mind trying to port from one OS to another. The fact that you even have to re-compile apps is a sad statement as to the state of the Linux desktop.... It was one of the things we were trying to address when I was helping the Linux Foundation, but it's actually worse now than it was back then...