On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 1:28 AM, Ralph Corderoy <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Bradley, > >> the list-regulars have derailed this thread into pontificating about >> unrelated stuff. > > Sorry. It's because I feel the current methods of compliance > enforcement are failing: they don't cope with the volume of violations; In what what, exactly? IE is your complaint that there is a huge number of major violations that aren't getting dealt with? Or do you mean "they don't handle them the way i would like them handled"?
> no enforcement ever seems to act as an incentive for others to comply, > instead it's better for a bottom line if they don't bother to comply and > just hope the SFC, etc., don't come calling. You must realize at some level this is probably an unsolvable problem with current laws. Enforcing compliance with laws is expensive in every case. IMHO, even if bradley had an entire 300 person law firm dealing with violations, you wouldn't see much difference in behavior :) > > For a copyright holder to enforce takes a lot of time and maybe money. Which is both good and bad. It means open source projects get the benefit of people not trying to sue them over what are likely trivial copyright violations from copy/paste all the time, for example. However, it also makes it expensive for them to assert their rights. I'm not sure the right balance exists now, but it's not that simple. > Life's short. It's the purchaser of the hardware that wants the source > and is prepared to put some effort to get it. Means of enabling them to > do something seem worth considering. Manufacturers care about mass > sales and can ignore an annoying individual that buzzes around them like > a gnat. They would take notice of large retailers.
