Two women wearing the same dress is sometimes a criminal matter.

Two blondes, one dress – a recipe for a catfight

Drinks were thrown and blood was spilt when two blondes clashed in a bar about who looked best in a silver dress, a jury has been told.

Victoria Clapham, 22, wore the dress on a night out in central Wellington late last year. It was given to her by her friend Matthew Vibert and his mother – but she says she did not know he had previously given it to another woman.

Its first owner, Bridget Masters, 20, was Mr Vibert’s former girlfriend, and sparks flew when the two blondes crossed paths in the toilets at the former Temperance Bar on November 28.

In Wellington District Court yesterday Ms Clapham denied telling Masters that the dress looked better on her. The dress is not an exhibit in court and was not photographed for the jury to see.

I Googled “two women wearing the same dress”.

I found this

and this

and this

but I couldn’t find a picture of two women wearing the same dress. The very same dress.

Your search – “two women wearing the very same dress” – did not match any image results.

In philosophy, we call the distinction between the same dress and the very same dress the type–token distinction.

the type–token distinction is a distinction that separates a concept from the objects which are particular instances of the concept. For example, the particular bicycle in your garage is a token of the type of thing known as “The bicycle.” Whereas, the bicycle in your garage is in a particular place at a particular time, that is not true of “the bicycle” as used in the sentence: “The bicycle has become more popular recently.”

You can own a bicycle (token). But you can’t own the bicycle (type). You can own an instance of a concept. But you can’t own a concept.

Advocates of so-called “intellectual property” would claim otherwise. They believe in patents. ‘Patent’ is basically a euphemism for a government granted and enforced monopoly. Were the government to grant you a patent on the bicycle, it would place a restriction on the freedom of everyone else to do what he wishes with his own property. (E.g., if you patent a bike, then that means I can’t use my steel and rubber to make my own bike!)

Concepts are mental entities. The ‘bicycle’ concept exists in the mind/brain of everyone who knows what a bicycle is. The ‘bicycle’ concept is part of me, and I claim ownership, because I claim self-ownership. You have a patent on the bicycle? Sorry, mate. Your freedom ends where my nose begins. On yer bike!

[Hat tip: David Peterson]

The new cloud computing

“The Pirate Bay suggests it may look into serving their website from mid-air over international waters to avoid legal repurcussions. You can’t make this stuff up. The only thing more absurd will be whatever the MPAA/RIAA do to try and combat it.”

This is, however, simplistic, and I think the best way to explain this is with the analogy of self-defence, which is a perfect parallel.

Before I go any further, I’ll include a caveat. I acknowledge that the GPL does impose a condition in requiring disclosure of source. While it is entirely proper to impose conditions on the grant of (exclusive) monopoly rights, and I’m in favour of source disclosure being required for the publication of commercially copyrighted works (as method disclosure is required for patent grants), the GPL requires source disclosure not for the grant of monopoly rights, but for an act of copying. Even the CC BY-SA imposes a (minor) condition in requiring the retention of attribution. Where I refer to ‘copyleft’ below, I mean pure copyleft: the condition that restrictions not be imposed on copying–essentially the CC BY-SA with the attribution requirement (the ‘BY’ part) waived.

So here goes; self-defence first, then copyleft. Spot the difference:

Self-defence involves the application of force, but only against those who seek to use force against others. In a world without force, self-defence would be unnecessary. However unless we rid the world of the application of force, we should not aim to reduce the use of self-defence. While the application of force in general may threaten our freedom, self-defence does not. On the contrary, so long as there is the application of force in the world, self-defence plays a beneficial role in countering it, and should be supported.

Copyleft involves the application of copyright, but only against those who seek to use copyright against others. In a world without copyright, copyleft would be unnecessary. However unless we rid the world of copyright, we should not aim to reduce the use of copyleft. While copyright in general may threaten our freedom, copyleft does not. On the contrary, so long as there is copyright in the world, copyleft plays a beneficial role in countering it, and should be supported.

This is an appeal to Pirate Party members and supporters everywhere:

You have not just a legal right, but a moral right to self-defence. You have not just a legal right, but a moral right to use copyleft. Rather than releasing your writing as ‘public domain’, please release it under the CC BY-SA. If the attribution requirement bothers you, by all means waive it. But, please, do not forgo your right to self-defence.

(C) 2012 James C
Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC BY-SA 3.0).
Further, the attribution requirement is waived.

Since 2004 we have crowdsourced^* the generation of the “Canadian Postal Code Geocoded Database.” When you make a query to geocoder containing for example this information “1435 Prince of Wales, Ottawa, ON K2C 1N5″, we then extract the postal code “K2C 1N5″ and insert it into the database that you may download for free on this website.

This allows you to look up a postal code (eg K2C 1N5) on www.geocoder.ca, or www.openstreetmap.org or a number of other sites that use geocoder.ca data and technology.

Since we do not have a postal code dataset from the authority on postal code assignments, namely “Canada Post”, we derive and guess this information sometimes with pretty good accuracy results.

Now “Canada Post” has sued “Geocoder.ca” in Federal Court, asking “Geocoder.ca” to take this database down from this website, and also to “pay Canada Post” damages on lost business the later has suffered by not selling enough copies of their own postal code file (last time I checked at $5,000CAD a piece).

This brings us here. Having to face a crown corporation with deep pockets in Federal Court, over something we have created but which they believe otherwise.

Fighting for principle is expensive, and we will do it. Even against the odds, namely the foremost law firm in the country for IP litigation, hired by Canada Post to bring us down.

This is incredible, their own government taking them to court!

So many problems here:
a) I personally don’t think anybody should own data such as this
b) even if do think there could be “ownership”, it shouldn’t be by the government! When it is funded by the public’s taxes then it should be available to the public.
c) Canadian Postal is charging $5,000CAD for each copy of its postal code file!
d) geocoder.ca is being innovative in getting around stifling government control, yet instead of supporting this initiative the government fights against it!

The world is full of violence. The internet gives people a way to settle their differences without throwing rocks. Without throwing nuclear bombs.

Outlawing ‘offensive’ language online is not the way to a safer, calmer world. We need the internet to argue and settle differences peacefully.

Being ‘offended’ never hurt anyone and never will. Not liking what you see or hear is the price you pay to be able to speak freely yourself. Do not let governments outlaw offensive language online. People have been fighting since the dawn of humanity. The internet is the only safe environment that lets the entire world fight it out safely.

The internet is a collection of private computer networks joined together to make a giant one. Is not owned by governments. Do not let them take it from us.

The light at the end of the tunnel is a burning flamewar.

If we received this share of votes nationwide in the party vote, and there was no threshold for representation, the Pirate Party would have won 1 seat.

Another important event at the conference will be board elections. This will be the first time that elections are being held for the whole board, as previously elections were held for each position separately as required. Nominations are open until Aug 8, advance voting will be open from Aug 10 until the conference.

In other news, voting is now open on the first issue to be determined by the Policy Council – the term of copyright. This issue is the guinea-pig for the official Party Policy Development system in general, so if this first vote goes well, many more will follow in the coming weeks. Voting is open to all Pirate Party members, as is the discussion for formulating the various proposals. Two more copyright related issues are already in the discussion stage, with the other core policy areas due to follow later.

Last month, we finally applied formally to have our logo registered by the electoral commission. The logo has been open to comment for the last 2 weeks, with the deadline for comments at 5pm tonight. Tomorrow, the electoral commission will be “considering the application” and we anticipate that it will soon be registered.

About the Conference:

When: Sunday August 14, from 2pm.
Where: online in the IRC channel. Mumble will also be used for speech. Contact your local Chapter to see if they will be arranging a local venue.
Who: anyone is welcome to attend, but only members may vote on certain things.
What: The agenda will be available here soon, until then, see here.

About the Board Elections:

When: Members may vote at the conference on Aug 14, or by advance vote from August 10.

How: Instructions for voting will be available here once voting opens.

Who: When nominations close, a list of candidates for all 5 positions will be published here. Until then, instructions for nominations are available at
Howto: Nominate for Executive Council positions. Nominations close at midnight on Monday.

What: The positions on the Executive Council (aka board) are:

• President
• Vice-President
• Secretary
• Treasurer
• Media Spokesperson

About the Party Policy Development Process:

When: This will be an on-going process, but the first steps were made in mid july.

Where: Member-driven discussions about issues take place on the forum to formulate policy proposals. Voting is by email, with instructions and updates also available on the forum (Party Policy Development » Policy Committee Activities)

Who: The policy development process is carried out by the Policy Committee (mainly by james g atm).

What: The first issue to go through this process is how long the Term of Copyright as per PPNZ policy should be. This issue is currently open for voting, which closes at 11pm on Sunday. Two other issues are currently in the discussion stage – Digital Rights Management and Reach of Copyright. Other issues for can be proposed for consideration here.

New Zealand Pirate Party co-leader Bruce Kingsbury today condemned the suggestion that software patents may be required in New Zealand law.

The bill was reported back by the Select Committee on 30 March 2010, and the committee accepted the view of submitters that software development was an organic process, where new software invariably builds on prior software.

“There is no ‘inventive step’ in software development, as would be required for patenting,” said Mr Kingsbury.

The situation is slightly more complex for physical inventions that include a software component known as ‘embedded software’. For example, a modern washing machine is potentially a patentable mechanical invention, but is also controlled by software running on an inbuilt computer. That software would not itself be patentable, and the select committee has recommended that the Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand develop guidelines to explain the distinction.

“Microsoft’s attempt to spin this as a change of position or some insurmountable problem with the select committee’s decision is little more than a last-minute attempt by them to subvert the democratic process to their own advantage,” said Mr Kingsbury

“We congratulate Commerce Minster Simon Power and the Government for continuing to support the select committee’s recommendation and doing what is best for New Zealand software developers and the wider IT community. We hope the Government will continue to resist this unwelcome pressure from foreign interests’ lobby groups.”

About The Pirate Party of New Zealand

The Pirate Party of New Zealand is a political party which seeks to reduce the unfair monopolies perpetrated by the oppressive copyright and patent system in New Zealand. It is our aim to improve individual privacy and civil rights as they apply in the modern digital age. You can find out more about The Pirate Party of New Zealand at http://pirateparty.org.nz.

The Pirate Party of New Zealand is disappointed that the Government used urgency to pass the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill after the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill.

“Not only is the urgency process being abused,” party secretary Noel Zeng stated, “but our government is also exploiting the people of Christchurch by using their unfortunate situation to pass underhanded legislation.”

Under this “three strikes bill,” if anyone in a household is accused of three acts of illegal filesharing, they could be fined $15000 or, if fines are found to be ineffective, the entire household could lose their internet connection for 6 months.  This bypasses due process, violates privacy, and provides the “Copyright Tribunal” with more discretionary powers. The initial draft of the bill widely criticised when it was debated in November and changes since then have failed to adequately address the concerns raised.  The Pirate Party of New Zealand believes that internet access is a basic human right. The bill is unjust in violating the general principle of, “innocent until proven guilty.”

The Pirate Party is not the only group that opposes this bill, Tech Liberty, InternetNZ and the New Zealand Open Source Society are just some of the prominent organisations that have strongly criticised it. Major ISPs and Internet users have also voiced concerns.

The Pirate Party is pleased to note that the Green MP Gareth Hughes was vocal in his opposition to the bill during debate and should be commended.

About The Pirate Party of New Zealand

The Pirate Party of New Zealand is a political party which seeks to reduce the unfair monopolies perpetrated by the oppressive copyright and patent system in New Zealand. It is our aim to improve individual privacy and civil rights as they apply in the modern digital age. You can find out more about The Pirate Party of New Zealand at http://pirateparty.org.nz.

The Pirate Party Candidate, Hussain Al-saady, received 32 votes, representing 0.21% of all votes. This includes 0.17% of the ordinary votes, 0.27% of advance votes, and 0.79% of special votes. This result put him in 9th place, up one place from the preliminary count.

The turnout for the by-election was only 15421 out of 42815 enrolled, or 36.0%, less than half of the turnout in this electorate in the 2008 general election.

Of course, the achievement for us is not so much how many votes we got, but that, unlike several registered parties and even parties with MPs, we were in the by-election at all. Thanks and congratulations to everyone involved.