歐盟要推可替換的手機電池

Hacker News Daily 上看到的,歐盟要推動可替換的手機電池:「European Union votes to bring back replaceable phone batteries」,對應的討論在「European Union votes to bring back replaceable phone batteries (techspot.com)」。

歐盟官方的文章在「Making batteries more sustainable, more durable and better-performing」這邊可以看。

這讓人有點懷念,當年的 dumb phone 都是可以換電池的,也的確有商務人士會自己帶幾個充好的電池跑,需要的時候可以換... 不過這也代表機構工程師要把長久以來是直接固定的電池換成可替代的形式。

但好像沒看到這個要求的 timetable...

法國法院判決 Steam 上的遊戲可以轉賣

Valve 不允許轉賣 Steam 上的遊戲,結果就被告上法院,並且判決違反歐盟法律:「French court rules Steam games must be able to be resold」。

French website Next Inpact reports the Paris Court of First Instance ruled on Tuesday that European Union law allows Steam users to resell their digital games, just like they can any physical product.

看起來 Steam 會上訴,再等幾個月看看...

歐盟對十四套 Open Source 軟體推出 Bug Bounty Program

歐盟對於 14 套 open source 軟體推出 bug bounty program,協助改善這些軟體的品質 (主要是資安這塊):「EU to fund bug bounty programs for 14 open source projects starting January 2019」、「In January, the EU starts running Bug Bounties on Free and Open Source Software」。

這十四套軟體的選擇應該可以參考「EU aims to increase the security of password manager and web server software: KeePass and Apache chosen for open source audits」這邊...

然後看到「Intigriti/Deloitte」這個才知道原來 Deloitte 也有做這個啊...

歐盟法院認為公開無線網路的營運者不需要對使用者的侵權行為負責

歐盟法院 (The Court of Justice of the European Union) 認為公開無線網路的營運者不需要對使用者的侵權行為負責:「EU Court: Open WiFi Operator Not Liable For Pirate Users」。

不過這是有一些前提的,法院認為應該要符合這幾個要件,營運方才不要負責。基本上完全沒有 filter 限制的無線網路會符合這些條件:

The Court further notes that in order for such ‘mere conduit’ services to be exempt from third party liability, three cumulative conditions must be met:

– The provider must not have initiated the transmission
– It must not have selected the recipient of the transmission
– It must neither have selected nor modified the information contained in the transmission.

帶這並不代表丟著不管,而是在發生後要求改善:

In an effort to strike a balance between protecting a service provider from third party liability and the rights of IP owners, the Court ruled that providers can be required to end infringement.

“[T]he directive does not preclude the copyright holder from seeking before a national authority or court to have such a service provider ordered to end, or prevent, any infringement of copyright committed by its customers,” the Court found.

One such measure could include the obtaining of an injunction which would force an operator to password-protect his open WiFi network in order to deter infringement.

但法院並不同意直接監控:

On a more positive note, the Court rejected the notion of monitoring networks for infringement or taking more aggressive actions where unnecessary.

“[T]he directive expressly rules out the adoption of a measure to monitor information transmitted via a given network. Similarly, a measure consisting in terminating the internet connection completely without considering the adoption of measures less restrictive of the connection provider’s freedom to conduct a business would not be capable of reconciling the abovementioned conflicting rights,” the Court concludes.

網路對現在的言論自由非常重要,所以只有在確認侵犯他人權益的情況下才採取必要措施,歐盟法院這樣判大概是覺得這樣吧...