It is the bank's fault for having sent sensitive information over an insecure protocol, in the first place. Then, for having sent it to a third party, and lastly, for having addressed it wrongly.
Shortly, it's the bank duty to indemnify all of the affected customers of the incident. But whay should this innocent account holder be affected, when he hadn't done anything?
Could you please explain how is it that somebody gets hurt with piracy?
For me, the situation is quite different. I wouldn't say that piracy is what makes money to move, but technically speaking, I see nobody's assets being lost because of the simple fact that I have copied something he or she has ever created. What is more, this creator might never realize it.
I am truly conscious that there is a problem with digital media related with piracy, though. I don't have a solution that would fill the hole, but I don't see that DRM nor laws such as the DMCA are the way, honestly. In copyright-based income, it has to be taken into account that copying the work has a near-zero cost. That said, it's logical that people try to get it free. There's the problem. Now, would you say that when people do copy it, you actually lose something? I doubt you would. Probably the price of the license has to be so low that copying it illegally simply isn't worth. After all, if the application is good enough it has a big chance of having many sales. This is not the ideal solution but neither is DRM. With DRM, besides the fact that it's often an obstacle to legitimate users, after the way to circumvent it has been found piracy will arise shortly. Therefore, an incentive to copy the software.
I leave the problem open, as I said I had no solution to offer, but I don't agree with your arguments.
Stallman is supposed to endorse freedom, software freedom particularly. Under this criteria, isn't public domain the most freedom one could hope for?
Freedom goes in both ways. And it includes freedom to release free software or privative software. I don't believe the obbligation to release the code to be so, but only a consecuence of ethical beliefs (or some other reasons.)
I understand his point of view: every software must be free. But what freedom are we talking about? Why would I want to give everyone access to the source code that costed me millions to develop? What would I be forced to do so?
I consider that copyright should last ~20 years. That granted, freedom arrives alone. No one can restrict what I can do with that work. That is what I .
IMHO Software Developers should not be liable, at least in the first place, for their code. The main difference with a good is that it does actually belong to whom had bought it. So, the customer may sue the company for selling something which isn't in proper conditions. And the right to own it is legally guaranteed providing the other party accepts to sell it. The good is suposed to behave properly, unless the opposite has been explicitly agreed by both parties beforehand the interchange. In software, however, who posseses the copyright is granting to whom paid a right to use it, and this is totally different. Because normally that person wouldn't be able to use that piece of software anyway, and the right to do such is provided only if that same user accepts to be subject to that agreement. Of course the situation is entirely different when there is, for instance, an advertisement saying that that software is free of bugs, for example, and then it turns out not to be in that way, or if the EULA states that the software comes with a warranty.
Here in Argentina we pay taxes for Internet shopping. It works exactly as if I physically moved there and bought the product / service.
So, initially, we only pay 21 % of VAT to the Fed Gov which is then coparticipated with the province in which the company resides.
Then if you are another company may also require to pay some taxes (1,5 %) to your province, such as Tax to the Brute Incomes.
Slashdot Mirror
Why "it isn't the right answer"?
It is the bank's fault for having sent sensitive information over an insecure protocol, in the first place. Then, for having sent it to a third party, and lastly, for having addressed it wrongly.
Shortly, it's the bank duty to indemnify all of the affected customers of the incident. But whay should this innocent account holder be affected, when he hadn't done anything?
Could you please explain how is it that somebody gets hurt with piracy?
For me, the situation is quite different. I wouldn't say that piracy is what makes money to move, but technically speaking, I see nobody's assets being lost because of the simple fact that I have copied something he or she has ever created. What is more, this creator might never realize it.
I am truly conscious that there is a problem with digital media related with piracy, though. I don't have a solution that would fill the hole, but I don't see that DRM nor laws such as the DMCA are the way, honestly. In copyright-based income, it has to be taken into account that copying the work has a near-zero cost. That said, it's logical that people try to get it free. There's the problem. Now, would you say that when people do copy it, you actually lose something? I doubt you would. Probably the price of the license has to be so low that copying it illegally simply isn't worth. After all, if the application is good enough it has a big chance of having many sales. This is not the ideal solution but neither is DRM. With DRM, besides the fact that it's often an obstacle to legitimate users, after the way to circumvent it has been found piracy will arise shortly. Therefore, an incentive to copy the software.
I leave the problem open, as I said I had no solution to offer, but I don't agree with your arguments.
Stallman is supposed to endorse freedom, software freedom particularly. Under this criteria, isn't public domain the most freedom one could hope for?
Freedom goes in both ways. And it includes freedom to release free software or privative software. I don't believe the obbligation to release the code to be so, but only a consecuence of ethical beliefs (or some other reasons.)
I understand his point of view: every software must be free. But what freedom are we talking about? Why would I want to give everyone access to the source code that costed me millions to develop? What would I be forced to do so?
I consider that copyright should last ~20 years. That granted, freedom arrives alone. No one can restrict what I can do with that work. That is what I .
IMHO Software Developers should not be liable, at least in the first place, for their code.
The main difference with a good is that it does actually belong to whom had bought it. So, the customer may sue the company for selling something which isn't in proper conditions. And the right to own it is legally guaranteed providing the other party accepts to sell it. The good is suposed to behave properly, unless the opposite has been explicitly agreed by both parties beforehand the interchange.
In software, however, who posseses the copyright is granting to whom paid a right to use it, and this is totally different. Because normally that person wouldn't be able to use that piece of software anyway, and the right to do such is provided only if that same user accepts to be subject to that agreement.
Of course the situation is entirely different when there is, for instance, an advertisement saying that that software is free of bugs, for example, and then it turns out not to be in that way, or if the EULA states that the software comes with a warranty.
Here in Argentina we pay taxes for Internet shopping. It works exactly as if I physically moved there and bought the product / service. So, initially, we only pay 21 % of VAT to the Fed Gov which is then coparticipated with the province in which the company resides. Then if you are another company may also require to pay some taxes (1,5 %) to your province, such as Tax to the Brute Incomes.