That's not so much a "favorable law" as trying to fix a horribly broken and abused law. It is supposed to help the public, not tech companies. The tech companies just benefit because the public are their users.
Re: Nice - no one else can every be charged with copyright violations again...
Either guilty party members are charged and spend their time and fines, or they are let off with probation and community service. When a known and admitted guilty person gets the lighter penalty, that just made the highest penalty that lighter penalty - otherwise it's prejudicial and invalid.
Why, because the Swedish courts are going to suddenly be very concerned with applying the law consistently?
Another edge case that would be very unlikely in a low-speed collision. And dash cams would be a terrible source of meaningful evidence since the ones that are easiest to find are the ones with spectacular events. Those are generally the exception, not the rule. The thousands or millions of videos showing boring minor fender benders are never seen.
its supply is extremely stable (eliminating inflation and deflation; manipulation of the money supply)
On the contrary, the stability of the supply leads to deflation when the economy grows, which is most of the time. You have more value in the economy but the same amount of money to represent that value.
I think you're thinking of diamonds, the value of which deBeers has been fiddling with pretty much forever.
Also useful in industry (though not the one DeBeers sells).
Obviously it's possible for a fire to affect the bus, but I think that probably falls into the "almost certainly" category. Slowly back a car into a school bus 1000 times and how many times do you think the bus would catch fire?
Re: Re: Re: I think the rest of us will be more reasonable.
I think a reasonable expectation is that they would be 1-2% of what they are now.
It's interesting to consider the future historical perspective. Assuming we get near 100% driverless cars, which seems very likely over time, that could save somewhere in the neighborhood of 25,000 lives every year just in the US. How will we view people who feared or opposed this change? If progress is artificially slowed for some reason, how many more people will die because of it? This seems like the most obvious automotive safety improvement since the seat belt (and of course the auto makers opposed that because it would make cars more expensive).
What will it take for the automotive (and other companies) to learn that hiding their failures, which inevitably come out, is worse than coming clean in the first place.
If they haven't learned by now.... every time it comes up, the calculus is, do we go public and definitely take a hit, or try to keep it secret and maybe get away with it? THIS TIME guys, we will succeed in keeping it a secret.
By allowing every automobile owner to access and copy automotive software in the name of research, the proposed exemption undermines existing research efforts and, ultimately, wrests control of such research from those in the best position to actually improve the security and safety of our automobiles: the automobile manufacturers and their suppliers, who have the utmost responsibility to ensure that vehicles are safe and secure.
It's a really bizarre claim. Are they saying that manufacturers and suppliers can't do security research until they're sure nobody else is doing it? "Wrests control"? I guess in the sense that they wouldn't be the only ones doing the research, so they wouldn't have control over all research efforts. But then they don't go on to explain what the problem with that is. Not in any way that makes sense at least.