here I found an article that looks at the bill, it is indeed true that both plasterk minister of media, and the two leading parties CDA and PVDA have expressed there resent for the proposal. also it makes the analogie if the bicilce companies would have trouble would they bar the car industrie to bail the out? and lastly it suggests that there are simply to good nieuws sites in the netherlands that the traditional papaers have fallenbehind because these sites are both proffesional and free.
the most troubeling in the articcle is that the proposal was done by a goverment allexted commision that seems to believe we have to show peopple that news is not free. and that we must show people that making news costs money totally rejecting the idea that alot of sites are making money putting the news outfor free.
the problem I have with this argument is that if it's true then there should be no problem if it is really that expensive that you can't do it without getting paid then they just have to wait till all those companies that give it away for free go out of buisness because how will they survuve if there model is flawed?
and there you've got the point, if thieves had no chance of getting caught a lot more people would have become thieves, this doesn't make it right, nor does it make downloading songs right, But and here comes your misperception, because it happens you will have to deal with it, and I wonder if sueing every man woman and child for downloading a song is a good way of dealing with it. you would jail or povertize alot of would be costumers. and having your buisness model based on lawsuits is even more wrong then illigal downloading imho
"The latest failed attempt at a *Patent Reform Act* is nearly exactly what you describe, were *they* to have their way. The trick seems to be discovering just who *they* are. The US patent system has been extant for something like 216 years and has been working just fine, thank you, to spur innovation, and suddenly it seems as if all the techies want to change it to suit their whims? We most likely wouldn't be corresponding right now, unless a few young upstarts like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs were granted a few patents by the USPTO, which allowed them to build Microsoft and Apple.
I happen to be an independent inventor, so the radical reducton of the value of US patents is of great concern to me, or any patents for that matter."
Microsoft got big not by making patents, but by putting different idea's from other systems and using it in their own, the exact thing you are preaching against.
I havea good idea about what a good patent would be, if a small company would put a product on the market wich is inovative, and another company tries to copy it, it would only be reasonable that the copy cat has to pay parts of the profit to the creator of the idea,
what I think as a bad patent is where someone makes an idea. but instead of building a product or trying to develop the idea file a patent then keep quet till someone else has the same idea, and then profit off this persons efforts.
I agree with the above, delaying news is meaningless, when you buy a newspaper or watch a tv broadcast you don't mainly pay(or watch the commercials in terms of the telly) for the news itself but mainly for it's package, wich regardless of being broadcasted before, remains the same
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Mordred Kaides.