PeterI have a feeling that after the invention of the printing press, some people felt the same way you do. More information would get out to more people, the world would be brought together, and war would end. You assume that all the world has free and open internet. When the monks protested in Myanmar, the first thing that was shut down was the internet. Last summer in Iran, again the internet was shut down. In China, no open internet. There are millions upon millions of people all over the world who don't have electricity, running water, or even a roof over their heads, much less internet. Nothing is going to change that any time soon. Anime and Star Trek ( I love Star Trek) are not reality. Nor should they be. Even in Star Trek, there were bad guys trying to take over the Universe. Every generation thinks it knows how to bring about world peace. Every greneration has failed. East and West will always be East and West. I do not dream of a Global Society. People like a really bad dude, and the leaders of Japan in the 1930s, did.Bob

Bob, I don't dream of a global society ether, but the fact is, the only way for us to save humanity at this point is to put aside the squabbling and fly in to the stars. That's something Stephen Hawking has said many times, and I agree with it. The only way for us to get to become a surviving species is to leave earth, because one planet is too prone to mishaps. As long as we keep blowing each other up about religion among other things, we will never get anything done.There will always be the pricks we have to deal with, but the goal is to reduce the number of pricks in the world... The best bet is always to try to enhance understanding, which will reduce wars and violence.As far as not all the world having internet, well China's great firewall isn't exactly invulnerable, that's been demonstrated time and time again. Videos of protests coming out of Iran shows that they can not lock it down completely. The reality is that there are groups out there that help these people access the free internet. I remember when the Iran protests were in full swing, TPB actually set up an assist site to help the protesters in Iran. It's not a situation where you can completely lock down the internet. East and West will always exist, however the idea is to minimize the conflict between the two.And anyone wondering, about my Ghost in the Shell reference earlier, I wasn't completely disagreeing with all of you about the Fall of the Roman empire when I was talking about that, here check this wiki entry out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Empi...t_in_the_Shell)You can see, I wasn't completely disagreeing with all of you...

Because I'm not after world government, not out to do away with the concept of national sovereignty.That said, the area of IP is the only area I can think of offhand where an act committed within the borders of country A can even remotely be reasonably considered to be an actionable civil violation of the laws of country B.So the question on the floor really is, Why go as far as IP disputes, leostr? The answer is, Because Mike's proposal would enhance international commerce by encouraging authors to create saleable IP for enjoyment by the rest of us. (That's the purpose of copyright, yes? To encourage the creation and publication of original works, yes? If publication runs counter to authors' interests then creation will be inhibited, yes? And then the rest of us must go without, yes?)

All that's needed to achieve that is for enough countries to agree to a treaty that:1) - harmonises their IP laws (the current case there was an infringement of copyright under US law but not under UK (EU?) law)2) - standardises the remedies (in the current case the sales in the US amounted to about US$14,500 yet the damages awarded were US$20M. Many other countries will not accept such levels of punitive damages because they are contrary to their public policy.)Once that's been achieved the rest would be easy!

Hello,

There are millions upon millions of people all over the world who don't have electricity, running water

That remind me a story on CNN years ago.A brave journalist was covering a event in a indian village.They just have the village conected to the electricity stream.The journo was interviewing a smilling village chief in his house (a hute) where was hanging a small bulb lamp over his head :)The journo tell him (interpreter in attendance) :Well it's a great day for you and your community .. and now all will change here .. and you will be no more isolated and you will at end have internet .. etc ...The village chief stop smilling and take a serious posture and asked .... what is internet ?Dunno exactly but must be milliards of people in the world who never touched a switch.Regards.Gus.

Hello,That remind me a story on CNN years ago.A brave journalist was covering a event in a indian village.They just have the village conected to the electricity stream.The journo was interviewing a smilling village chief in his house (a hute) where was hanging a small bulb lamp over his head :)The journo tell him (interpreter in attendance) :Well it's a great day for you and your community .. and now all will change here .. and you will be no more isolated and you will at end have internet .. etc ...The village chief stop smilling and take a serious posture and asked .... what is internet ?Dunno exactly but must be milliards of people in the world who never touched a switch.Regards.Gus.

Agreed, however the fact is that the OLPC program is changing that.

All that's needed to achieve that is for enough countries to agree to a treaty that:1) - harmonises their IP laws (the current case there was an infringement of copyright under US law but not under UK (EU?) law)2) - standardises the remedies (in the current case the sales in the US amounted to about US$14,500 yet the damages awarded were US$20M. Many other countries will not accept such levels of punitive damages because they are contrary to their public policy.)Once that's been achieved the rest would be easy!

I understand your point kinda sorta, but how many countries is "enough countries"? And what happens regarding those countries who don't sign on?xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNow let me ask you the following hypothetical question ...Let's say that I post an original work to the Avsim file library and, in my developer's license, ask that for the sake of the spirit of my dead mother, you not install my wonderful addon aircraft unless you have brown hair. You have black hair. Will you honor my wishes?If yes, why? (There's no treaty that covers this kind of thing. Why would you obey such a ridiculous restriction?)If no, why not? (Why won't you do what I want? Who gets to define "ridiculous" in this situation?)xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSeriously, I'm not changing the subject here. I'm leading up to a point that will make clear why my position is what it is.

The Hague Convention of 1 February 1971 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters came into into force on: 20 August 1979. It took from 1971 to 1979 for the first two countries needed to bring it in effect hav ratified it. So far only four countries have ratified it - Cyprus, the Netherlands, Portugal, and Kuwait That's about one every ten years! Obviously it doesn't affect those countries that haven't ratified it.I suggest your question is academic. AVSIM's Terms of Use state: User automatically grants, or warrants that the owner of such material has expressly granted AVSIM Online the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive right and license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate and distribute such material (in whole or in part) worldwide and/or to incorporate it in other works in any form, media or technology now known or hereafter developed for the full term of any copyright that may exist in such material except the direct commercial sale of such material as the part of a CD or other file transfer medium is not permitted without the written permission of the holder of the copyright for said material. User also permits any other User to access, view, store or reproduce the material for that User's personal use.

Furthermore, I feel it should be noted that that kind of "if you dont look like this you can't use it" clause could easily run in to other legal issues regarding discrimination.

The Hague Convention of 1 February 1971 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters came into into force on: 20 August 1979. It took from 1971 to 1979 for the first two countries needed to bring it in effect hav ratified it. So far only four countries have ratified it - Cyprus, the Netherlands, Portugal, and Kuwait That's about one every ten years! Obviously it doesn't affect those countries that haven't ratified it.I suggest your question is academic. AVSIM's Terms of Use state: User automatically grants, or warrants that the owner of such material has expressly granted AVSIM Online the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive right and license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate and distribute such material (in whole or in part) worldwide and/or to incorporate it in other works in any form, media or technology now known or hereafter developed for the full term of any copyright that may exist in such material except the direct commercial sale of such material as the part of a CD or other file transfer medium is not permitted without the written permission of the holder of the copyright for said material. User also permits any other User to access, view, store or reproduce the material for that User's personal use.

Wow, I hadn't known this. Obviously Avsim should not be used as the example. (And remind me never to submit anything.)

Furthermore, I feel it should be noted that that kind of "if you dont look like this you can't use it" clause could easily run in to other legal issues regarding discrimination.

All forms of judgment involve discrimination -- making choices based on information. The question is whether the discrimination at issue is prohibited by anybody's laws. When it comes to hair color, I very much doubt it.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxI'll rephrase the question. (Gosh, I hope that I manage to cross every t and dot every i. Otherwise we're going to be here for a while.) So ...Let's say that I own a website that hosts a flight simulation related file library open to access by members of the public whether or not they are registered members of my site. Let's further say that it's the publicly stated policy of my site that all submissions remain the intellectual property of the authors of the library files.Now ...You post an original work to my site's file library and, in your developer's license, you ask that for the sake of the spirit of your dead mother, downloaders of your file not install your wonderful addon aircraft unless they have brown hair. A downloader comes along who has black hair. Should the general public expect that your wishes will be honored by downloaders with black hair?If yes, why? (There's no treaty that covers this kind of thing. Why should people obey such a ridiculous restriction?)If no, why not? (Why shouldn't black haired people be required to do what you want with your IP rather than what they want? Who gets to define "ridiculous" in this situation? Who gets to define what "fair use" is?)xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxLet's see ... Counting the question marks I see that I've asked seven questions. Perhaps you'll be good enough to answer these seven questions. Feel free to ask and answer additional questions of your own. Feel free to ask additional questions of your own to be answered by third parties.Have I covered everything? (Oops, that's question number eight.)

Wow, I hadn't known this. Obviously Avsim should not be used as the example. (And remind me never to submit anything.)All forms of judgment involve discrimination -- making choices based on information. The question is whether the discrimination at issue is prohibited by anybody's laws. When it comes to hair color, I very much doubt it.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxI'll rephrase the question. (Gosh, I hope that I manage to cross every t and dot every i. Otherwise we're going to be here for a while.) So ...Let's say that I own a website that hosts a flight simulation related file library open to access by members of the public whether or not they are registered members of my site. Let's further say that it's the publicly stated policy of my site that all submissions remain the intellectual property of the authors of the library files.Now ...You post an original work to my site's file library and, in your developer's license, you ask that for the sake of the spirit of your dead mother, downloaders of your file not install your wonderful addon aircraft unless they have brown hair. A downloader comes along who has black hair. Should the general public expect that your wishes will be honored by downloaders with black hair?If yes, why? (There's no treaty that covers this kind of thing. Why should people obey such a ridiculous restriction?)If no, why not? (Why shouldn't black haired people be required to do what you want with your IP rather than what they want? Who gets to define "ridiculous" in this situation? Who gets to define what "fair use" is?)xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxLet's see ... Counting the question marks I see that I've asked seven questions. Perhaps you'll be good enough to answer these seven questions. Feel free to ask and answer additional questions of your own. Feel free to ask additional questions of your own to be answered by third parties.Have I covered everything? (Oops, that's question number eight.)

It seems to be the same over and over. The general public may not be what we are worried about. Everyone knows the rules should be followed. It's that slimmey little black haired guy with his sweaty finger over the download button that we worry about.PeterI fail to see how leaving this planet is going to save us. We can blow ourselves up anywhere. Some day we will leave earth, but that will not be our salvation. All the education in the world is not enough. I agree that we all need to try to understand each other better. That would be a great world. But as long as there is too much pride, greed and hatred, it isn't going to happen. Because I live in the U.S., there are people that want to kill me. I'm not OK with that.Bob

Everyone knows the rules should be followed.

But why should they be followed? In his various posts mgh points out that not even the Berne Convention requires this, and that not even the Avsim agreement requires this. In fact, as he points out, the Avsim agreement specifically forbids the rule I would impose in the hypothetical.So which rules are you talking about when you say that everyone knows the rules should be followed?(I'm trying to use the Socratic method here.)

But why should they be followed? In his various posts mgh points out that not even the Berne Convention requires this, and that not even the Avsim agreement requires this. In fact, as he points out, the Avsim agreement specifically forbids the rule I would impose in the hypothetical.So which rules are you talking about when you say that everyone knows the rules should be followed?(I'm trying to use the Socratic method here.)

Which brings us back to the court ruling, as you intended. My answer is to follow the rules of whoever's house you are in. I realize that an answer like that is far too simple. We live in a big world of greatly differing ideals. What is wrong in a small village in Africa is not wrong (maybe even correct) where I live. That reminds me...PeterI don't know as much about this as others on this site. I'm sure they will chime in to correct me. Good.As I understand it, The "Internet" is overseen by a U.S. organization. That there are groups around the world that want universial control of the internet. I'm not sure how I feel about this. My instinct is that I would not like it, but I haven't worried enough about to put my finger on why. Can I guess what side you are on?Bob

Which brings us back to the court ruling, as you intended. My answer is to follow the rules of whoever's house you are in. I realize that an answer like that is far too simple. We live in a big world of greatly differing ideals. What is wrong in a small village in Africa is not wrong (maybe even correct) where I live. That reminds me...PeterI don't know as much about this as others on this site. I'm sure they will chime in to correct me. Good.As I understand it, The "Internet" is overseen by a U.S. organization. That there are groups around the world that want universial control of the internet. I'm not sure how I feel about this. My instinct is that I would not like it, but I haven't worried enough about to put my finger on why. Can I guess what side you are on?Bob

Let's see what others have to say about the copyright issue. My real goal is to get mgh (and now you!) to change his position regarding the way the (international) law ought to be. I will, of course, not succeed but it's fun and educational to try.As for US control of the internet, I think it's only domain name registration that's based here, and only some of that. I could be wrong but I have the impression that China has its own domain name registration machinery for domains that are intended to be internal to China.

Which brings us back to the court ruling, as you intended. My answer is to follow the rules of whoever's house you are in. I realize that an answer like that is far too simple. We live in a big world of greatly differing ideals. What is wrong in a small village in Africa is not wrong (maybe even correct) where I live. That reminds me...PeterI don't know as much about this as others on this site. I'm sure they will chime in to correct me. Good.As I understand it, The "Internet" is overseen by a U.S. organization. That there are groups around the world that want universial control of the internet. I'm not sure how I feel about this. My instinct is that I would not like it, but I haven't worried enough about to put my finger on why. Can I guess what side you are on?Bob

Actually, the US already gave up control of the internet.http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/...nn-agreement-usAs for me, I personally don't trust any one organization to have control of the internet. As far as I'm concerned, the net should remain completely neutral, including who controls it.

Since the U.S. released control over internet domains... the rise of illegal web sites has risen significantly.If they were all registered via U.S. companies that do such things... like register.com and others... there would be legal steps one could take to eliminate illegal web sites. Since they no longer are... it might shock you how easy it is to set up a fake e-commerce web site and rake in the millions without being touched.I find it ironic that everyone distrusts the U.S. controlling this process... but up until we gave up control... there were no illegal e-commerce web sites. *shrug*

All that's needed to achieve that is for enough countries to agree to a treaty that:1) - harmonises their IP laws (the current case there was an infringement of copyright under US law but not under UK (EU?) law)2) - standardises the remedies (in the current case the sales in the US amounted to about US$14,500 yet the damages awarded were US$20M. Many other countries will not accept such levels of punitive damages because they are contrary to their public policy.)Once that's been achieved the rest would be easy!

First the history of man and his laws are replete with examples of "breaking covenent".No amount of global harmony will ever be be accomplished by legal ramblings or mounds of legal treatise.Consider the fact that there are hundreds of thousands of legal protections/remedies stacked one upon the other because the originators were/are not far sighted enough to cover all bases at the time of writing.Alas, the dream of global harmony will not become reality by law or its enforcment. :(

Actually, the US already gave up control of the internet.http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/...nn-agreement-usAs for me, I personally don't trust any one organization to have control of the internet. As far as I'm concerned, the net should remain completely neutral, including who controls it.

Peter, there exists no "neutrality" in those who now or will control the internet.Waaaaayyyy too much money involved for folks to be "neutral". :(