I would impose it via copyright law. Simply not allow enforcement of copyright unless the conditions are met.
The rule would not allow anyone to sell copyright software merely to adequately maintain software they already own. If companies wish to keep their sourcecode secret they merely have to keep maintaining it. Allowing copyright on secrets is crazy in any case, the point of copyright is to encourage the proliferation of knowledge.
For software a 14 year limit before you can fix a security threat renders the software useless. My proposal would not need any change to copyright terms and would not affect any non-functional copyright material. I do not see why anyone should be allowed to sell anything while refusing to allow its new owners to repair it if it breaks.
A very simple new law:
All software to be sold with either source code and rights to self maintain or a functioning security and service environment. As soon the company that provided the software ceases to provide adequate security and efficacy maintenance it becomes legal for anyone else who wishes to do so.
That should ensure that enforced obsolescence is fightable. As an extension the same idea could be applied to hardware ...
But then how can the local police finance their activities by selling the pictures to paedophiles?
Toronto now run a campaign saying
These companies were pleased to support our anti litter campaign
List in large letters of firms that did not object"
And these companies opposed it
"List of those that sent TM notices"
Send proofs to each company's PR dept saying ads start on Monday ...
It's torture if THEY do it, it's stressful when WE do
Integrity? Eschew it, we'll tell you what is true.
Report on all the issues, but always toe OUR line
The facts are merely tissues, the truth is, OUR side's fine.
You're rights protect the guilty so should be put aside
Though the water's thick and silty, sit back enjoy the ride.
We know who you should trust in, WE know who does no good
Leave liberty a rustin', do what we say you should!
What the judgement actually says, as I understand it, is that if I search for A.N. Other, and A.N. Other has successfully convinced a court or Google that the fact that he painted his willy bright green and waved it at a crowd when he was 17, 30 years ago, is not representative of him now the newspaper report of that event will not appear.
If however I search for green willy 30 years ago, Google is perfectly free to point at the new story.
I personally think the judgement is silly and in most cases it will be counter-productive but it is nothing like as silly as various people want to make it out to be.
Of course if I am wrong about the original ruling I deserve to be pointed out as a fool, and I shan't demand the right for my foolishness to be forgotten
The British police are not immune to the temptations to up the level of force, and we have had a few unjustified shootings. Minorities are over targeted and many of the other mentioned failings show their face here.
That said, a police officer who shoots anyone is automatically suspended while it is investigated and the senior members of forces do appear to be working hard to eliminate racism and sexism, both institutional and amongst individual coppers.
Since when has been a patriot mattered in such matters? Would a mass murderer be let off with a "don't do it again" if he carried a flag on veterans day? Can I rob a bank with impunity if I scream "gimme the money and God Bless America and gimme the cash!" (I'm not actually American but I hope no British head of state or government would try to excuse torture on these grounds, "hope" but not expect)
Torture is a vile crime. Those who tortured were and are vile criminals. Leaders who support vile criminals are in themselves almost as bad.
Torture is never effective and never justified. It makes victims say what they think the torturers want to hear and it makes the difference between us and them meaningless.
Oh and I totally agree about who are the real patriots!
Britannia rules the waves and those plates show waves, so not only are they infringing on the port authorities rights but should be paying large sums to the UK treasury!
Now who's gonna claim the rights to the sky ...
someone has to teach the authors to self publish is what he said. The "that aren't dumb" means there's no point trying to teach the dumb ones!
Do quantum ducks quark?
Nothing's Secret Anyway ...
I wonder if Dow Jones and WSJ managers or lawyers ever meet. WSJ complaining at a foreign court trying to restrict their free speech in one and DJ asking for the same thing in reverse in another ...
It's a funny old world.
To borrow from Martin Niem?ller, A German pastor speaking of his, and his church's guilt over Naziism
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.
As John Stuart Mill put it, much better than I ever could
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion. Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.
Won't somebody think of the children!
Sorry, no-one had said it already so I thought I ought to ...
When I find a book I often pick it up with the intention of reading for just 15 minutes but if it's well written with a good story I'm hooked for hours. My children are the same, it is high time the powers that be stepped in and banned these insidious devices!
That the organisation in question is controlled by members of the one group guaranteed to profit from an appeal
Lawyers!
Why is this restricted to artists? I want to see it in sport!
In 1968 Dick Fosbury set a new highjump world record using a revolutionary technique, surely no-one else should be allowed to copy him for free until he's been dead for 75 years!
Footballers (Soccer players to Americans) should not be allowed to "Bend it Like Beckham" unless they are playing for his team, if your pitcher comes up with a new pitch rival teams shouldn't benefit for free.
And not just sports! How about typing comments on websites, if someone has had this idea already surely I should have to pay them!
Re: Simple question for Stewart Baker and anyone arguing against encryption.
His family are all good guys, it's no problem if their phones are encrypted, it's only everyone else that needs to leave their front doors unlocked!