3 ms·

In Germany we have implemented this directive Sounds like you are agreeing with Malamud. Regardless of whether or not various certification authorities trust

• rowyourboat 13y ago
  The entire point of this post is that there's a difference between the law and the standard. The law is publicly published, of course. What Malamud did was publish the standard. And, this distinction is important: You have to follow the law, but how you do so is up to you. Implementing the standard is just one way of doing that. So the standard is not, in fact, part of the law, just a shortcut to compliance in some cases.
  • Amadou 13y ago
    You have to follow the law, but how you do so is up to you. Implementing the standard is just one way of doing that. That sounds like doublespeak to me. What other way is there to follow the law besides implementing the standard referenced by the law?
    • rowyourboat 13y ago
      Example: The law says that the pacifier must be made in such a way that it cannot be swallowed. Your options are: 1. Develop your own way of ensuring that the pacifier cannot be swallowed and prove that it's effective 2. Buy the standard, follow it and prove that you are following it. Option (2) is generally cheaper. Hence the market for these standards.
    • Tomte 13y ago
      Ask those who work in fields that don't have a harmonized standard at their disposal.
• Tomte 13y ago
  Emphatically no. First, the Directive itself is not the issue here, the harmonized standards are. Please don't mix it up. Nobody would sue for copying the text of the Directive. And second, it's really, really important to understand that only the national law must be followed and that it is not identical to the Directive. I know it sounds like nitpicking, but this difference is important. Not in the day-to-day development work (because you use Directive and standards as references, but mostly your company-internal process). But as soon as you're dicussing legal matters, it's important. [edited: fixed typo]
  • nhaehnle 13y ago
    That's the kind of talk that will lead to lawyers being the first against the wall when the revolution comes, right after the Marketing Department of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation. The morality of the situation is very clear: Those standards are de facto law because they are treated by common practices as if they were the law. Hence they need to be in the public domain. This is not an arbitrary sentiment either. You can draw a parallel to how trademarks can lose their protection by becoming part of regular language.
    • rowyourboat 13y ago
      The morality of the situation is very clear: Those standards are de facto law because they are treated by common practices as if they were the law. Hence they need to be in the public domain. I agree that if those standards are indeed de facto law, they should be treated like law. But that is not the case the article makes. The articles makes a case around being surprised about getting sued for publishing copyrighted material without the owner's consent. Which is not suprising at all.
• hwh 13y ago
  No, and that is made clear in the comment. The directive is the supranational law that mandates nations of the EU to create national law, only this is binding and applicable to citizens.