Communication Ethics book part for The Key to Robustness: Follow The Effects . (This is an automatically generated summary to avoid having huge posts on this page. Click through to read this post.)

Communication Ethics book part for Fundamental Property: Only Humans Communicate. (This is an automatically generated summary to avoid having huge posts on this page. Click through to read this post.)

Communication Ethics book part for A Natural Balance . (This is an automatically generated summary to avoid having huge posts on this page. Click through to read this post.)

I just posted chapter five of The Ethics of Modern Communication. Today's topic is software patents... which may not seem to relate but you'll see how it does by the end. Today's chapter attempts to be the Definitive Word on why software patents are not just wrong, but actively oxymoronic. As such it is subject to revision as I find new arguments, but I believe what is presented here is pretty conclusive; there are simply no grounds on which to justify the idea of a "

"The Electronic Frontier Foundation has filed a brief in federal court in support of companies that offer software to edit violence or sex from a user's DVD. The full story can be found in this article from the Salt Lake Tribune." I knew this would happen sooner or later; it's been obvious to me for a while that the EFF isn't really as certain as it thinks it is about what it stands for, rather then against.

Would anybody care to explain the "Not Your Business!" that's appearing on my referer page? Is that an anonymizing proxy, Opera, or something? I don't mind of course, but I would like to observe for the benefit of who ever is doing that that right now, my referers page is all the feedback I get about this site; I do not have access to the web logs or anything else like that, so if it doesn't show on the referer page, I don't know about it.

Communication Ethics book part for Fundamental Property: Symmetry. (This is an automatically generated summary to avoid having huge posts on this page. Click through to read this post.)

Communication Ethics book part for Intention vs. Literal Speech . (This is an automatically generated summary to avoid having huge posts on this page. Click through to read this post.)

There have been many good posts on Europe's Right of Reply policy, such as Declan McCullagh's column, this from Jeff Jarvis, and a whole Slashdot discussion. I wanted to clarify my own opinion: I'm willing to call the right of reply a cultural difference to the extent that the right of reply consists solely of adding a link to the reply. This should go for everybody nowadays, including even established media; it should be sufficient for a television program to say "

Communication Ethics book part for Time. (This is an automatically generated summary to avoid having huge posts on this page. Click through to read this post.)