Re:Jury in Oracle v. Google finds in Google's favour
by appleflaxen on Sunday May 29, 2016 @08:42AM
(#11796167)
Fair enough. My point is only that this is a consensual system at its root.
And when the public votes with there money (the Montgomery bus boycott) and back it up at the ballot box, you could actually effect change.
Re:Jury in Oracle v. Google finds in Google's favour
by quadrangle on Tuesday May 31, 2016 @11:05AM
(#11806919)
There's actually a super strong case that the system is not really rooted in consensus, that we have a supply-side system in which people do not have effective "vote" with their money (see this article this thread is on), that boycotts basically don't work (even the story of the Montgomery bus boycott generally overplays the effect of the boycott aspect, see http://freakonomics.com/podcast/do-boycotts-work-a-new-freak... ), and, in the end, I'm not asserting a conclusion here, but there's more evidence against "you could actually effect change" than for it (disregarding the affect/effect spelling issue).
It's not like copyright law is something Presidential candidates run on. I think the author is overstating his case with regards to public perceptions. The first problem with public perceptions is, when laws are forged in the court room (or codified in treaties), they're essentially happening removed from public scrutiny. Not everyone is reading EFF manifestos.
It's even worse because they're technical questions, requiring a certain expertise in IT as a specialized field, meaning a small percentage of people in the U.S. understand much less care about these laws.
Where I may agree about a shift in perceptions is for a different reason. As more people have entered the field, which now has television shows about it and some of the world's largest companies to boot, there are more people with an interest/curiosity or knowledge in IT. Better able to understand the ramifications of rulings about APIs.
But as someone said, we don't really leave in that much of a democracy as we think. Corporations have a louder voice. If they stand to benefit for a position they'll make more noise (in legal efforts or lobbying) in favor of it. And it's no surprise that we're seeing two behemoths battle it out.