IANAL, but I don't believe that you can change the license of an existing version of your software. Every case I've ever seen a software license change has resulted in the developer releasing an updated version for the new license, even if there were no other changes in the code.
People may no longer wish to pay for that stuff, but that doesn't mean that the world has suddenly ceased to be inhabited by sheep who will still consume it.
I was just using an example. I could have easily said (and probably should have) online banking.
I don't know about you, but I expect my bank to take a bullet for my data, and I expect to be able to sue the hell out of them if they lose it due to on overlooking of security on their front. It's why we have these safety nets, because we expect both data security and redemption if something goes wrong.
Now, I'm not saying that MySpace is obligated to put the genie back in the bottle with this exploit. We all know that is just impossible now and any attempts will create a Streisand Effect. I'm not saying that MySpace should take responsibility for user error such as an insecure password, being duped by a phishing scam to give out said password, or someone deliberately posting information that he or she wants to remain private on a part of their profile that was make public. I'm not saying that it's the responsibility of MySpace to punish a trusted party (someone on the friends list) for publishing the private material elsewhere, or if leaks otherwise occur that are beyond MySpace's control. But is it really asking too much to ask MySpace to safeguard the privatized data of its users from third parties, except by consent of the user? Isn't that why people use the privacy functions? Is it so absurd to expect MySpace to automatically make the pictures private if the entire profile is also made private?
Yes, we know that it seems unreasonable to expect MySpace to guard our privatized data in the same way that a bank does because it is blatantly obvious that they don't. But that doesn't mean that they shouldn't. If I were a fraudster I would find it far more rewarding to hack into MySpace's database as opposed to an online bank's both because of MySpace's insecurity and its valuable user data. You really don't need to post much about yourself to become a victim of identity fraud these days, so just cutting back on personal details isn't exactly going to save you.
So you aren't going to care about whether your financial information is secured simply because you have a safety net? If this is the case then you should care more about when your private information is exposed and you don't have a safety net, such as if someone broke into your e-mail account because the e-mail server was insecure.
Which is why things like habeas corpus exist. I don't know how Switzerland handles criminal trials, but I would imagine that bringing someone up on charges that didn't exist in criminal law would be enough to warrant a dismissal.
Then clearly people need to stop giving out their bank information to sites like PayPal, since they have no one to blame but themselves when the site gets hacked.
Considering the inverse effect that anti-drug assemblies seem to have, I would conjecture that these "'Internet Safety' classes" are actually making the problem worse.
Remember parents/teachers/nanny states: the more that you lecture to rebellious adolescents about choice evils, the more likely it is that they will start to ignore it. Do it enough and they will start to do the exact opposite of your warnings out of spite.
I'm guessing that it was probably policy. IANAL, but I believe that the 4th amendment protects you from searches through stuff contained within your own property (cars, houses, etc.) but not from searches through things that are temporarily loaned to you by the government for personal use (such as the locker, assuming a public school). I remember when my school did drug searches (which were predictably two days before Spring Break - yet rumor was that there were still a handful of morons that got busted anyway for not planning ahead) they could have the dogs sniff your backpacks and/or cars, but could not open them if the dogs did not respond to your stuff, most likely because the backpack and car were your property.
So if I were to use Portable Firefox (which I do occasionally), then I should expect the cache, cookies, history, and other private data to be stored on my personal device instead of some temp folder on the system? It certainly doesn't seem that my external device is being read very much after Portable Firefox launches, so I would assume that the temporary files are on the system. Sure they're deleted after the program exits, but if that system were to be seized by law enforcement, it would most surely be sent to a forensics lab that could easily uncover this data.
So then what do you do about the logs on your machine that show you opening, editing, or otherwise using these private files? What if your data is stored on a disk cache or in a swap file at some point during its use?
I don't think that the majority of file sharers actually use the service with the intent of sharing their collection, but rather to get files. The fact that BitTorrent makes uploading mandatory and most P2P clients search your hard drive and turn on sharing by default is probably why the bulk of all shared media is even on the network in the first place. I'd say that most don't even know that they are uploading at all.
True, but labels are still needed for publicity. The parent companies that control the record labels control the movie, TV, newspaper, and other traditional industries that still do a better job at publicizing to a bigger potential fan base. The difference that the artist now has a choice, and that choice ultimately depends upon whether the artist values long-term loyalty or short-term publicity.
The Internet route will get an artist a small fan base, but that fan base will be composed of loyal listeners who are far more likely to be actively involved in their support over the course of time because they chose to seek out and listen to the artist to begin with. The fan base might even slowly grow as time progresses because of word-of-mouth by loyal fans.
The traditional route will still get you loads of initial publicity and fans but because the labels are essentially force-feeding the music to the public, the fan base tends to be very fickle and will mostly abandon the artist once the next "big thing" is shoved down their throats. Sure, you will still have loyal fans left over, but they are more likely to abandon you as time goes on and your popularity continues to slip because you are no longer "in the spotlight" anymore.
Except that this model involved payment before the music was made, not after. No amount of file sharing will stop artists from being able to get paid to create music.
By "artists," of course, I mean good artists. Pop stars will probably go broke with this model, but that doesn't bother me in the least.
I remember looking on LimeWire a few weeks after iTunes Plus launched for iTunes Plus files to see if they had indeed appeared (searched for 256 kbps *.m4a files). I didn't find any.
I found lots of AAC files ripped by iTunes users who didn't change the default ripping format (which uses 128 kbps), but none that would have come from the iTunes Store.
If this guy is smart enough and has enough potential to even get accepted by an institution as prestigious as MIT, then surely he would have known to cover his tracks if he was willfully infringing.
I would even go so far as to go back to those few OOXML files you have already created and create.odt,.odp, and.ods versions of them for future use, if you want to make sure you can read them and you don't want to commit yourself to Microsoft's products for the rest of their lives. Fixed.
The barrier to conversion to OOo was damned low. So, it was time to introduce another incompatible document format, which is what they have always done when the competition gets too hot. If it was low then, it's probably even lower now thanks to Ribbon. Given the choice between spending 5-15 minutes training employees to convert from Office 2003 to OpenOffice.org and spending 30+ minutes training employees to convert from Office 2003 to Office 2007, I know which suite I would deploy.
Slashdot Mirror
IANAL, but I don't believe that you can change the license of an existing version of your software. Every case I've ever seen a software license change has resulted in the developer releasing an updated version for the new license, even if there were no other changes in the code.
People may no longer wish to pay for that stuff, but that doesn't mean that the world has suddenly ceased to be inhabited by sheep who will still consume it.
I was just using an example. I could have easily said (and probably should have) online banking.
I don't know about you, but I expect my bank to take a bullet for my data, and I expect to be able to sue the hell out of them if they lose it due to on overlooking of security on their front. It's why we have these safety nets, because we expect both data security and redemption if something goes wrong.
Now, I'm not saying that MySpace is obligated to put the genie back in the bottle with this exploit. We all know that is just impossible now and any attempts will create a Streisand Effect. I'm not saying that MySpace should take responsibility for user error such as an insecure password, being duped by a phishing scam to give out said password, or someone deliberately posting information that he or she wants to remain private on a part of their profile that was make public. I'm not saying that it's the responsibility of MySpace to punish a trusted party (someone on the friends list) for publishing the private material elsewhere, or if leaks otherwise occur that are beyond MySpace's control. But is it really asking too much to ask MySpace to safeguard the privatized data of its users from third parties, except by consent of the user? Isn't that why people use the privacy functions? Is it so absurd to expect MySpace to automatically make the pictures private if the entire profile is also made private?
Yes, we know that it seems unreasonable to expect MySpace to guard our privatized data in the same way that a bank does because it is blatantly obvious that they don't. But that doesn't mean that they shouldn't. If I were a fraudster I would find it far more rewarding to hack into MySpace's database as opposed to an online bank's both because of MySpace's insecurity and its valuable user data. You really don't need to post much about yourself to become a victim of identity fraud these days, so just cutting back on personal details isn't exactly going to save you.
So you aren't going to care about whether your financial information is secured simply because you have a safety net? If this is the case then you should care more about when your private information is exposed and you don't have a safety net, such as if someone broke into your e-mail account because the e-mail server was insecure.
Which is why things like habeas corpus exist. I don't know how Switzerland handles criminal trials, but I would imagine that bringing someone up on charges that didn't exist in criminal law would be enough to warrant a dismissal.
Then clearly people need to stop giving out their bank information to sites like PayPal, since they have no one to blame but themselves when the site gets hacked.
One word: ChildTracker(TM)
Considering the inverse effect that anti-drug assemblies seem to have, I would conjecture that these "'Internet Safety' classes" are actually making the problem worse.
Remember parents/teachers/nanny states: the more that you lecture to rebellious adolescents about choice evils, the more likely it is that they will start to ignore it. Do it enough and they will start to do the exact opposite of your warnings out of spite.
Is what they are doing against criminal law? If not then there is nothing for prosecutors to charge them for.
I'm guessing that it was probably policy. IANAL, but I believe that the 4th amendment protects you from searches through stuff contained within your own property (cars, houses, etc.) but not from searches through things that are temporarily loaned to you by the government for personal use (such as the locker, assuming a public school). I remember when my school did drug searches (which were predictably two days before Spring Break - yet rumor was that there were still a handful of morons that got busted anyway for not planning ahead) they could have the dogs sniff your backpacks and/or cars, but could not open them if the dogs did not respond to your stuff, most likely because the backpack and car were your property.
So if I were to use Portable Firefox (which I do occasionally), then I should expect the cache, cookies, history, and other private data to be stored on my personal device instead of some temp folder on the system? It certainly doesn't seem that my external device is being read very much after Portable Firefox launches, so I would assume that the temporary files are on the system. Sure they're deleted after the program exits, but if that system were to be seized by law enforcement, it would most surely be sent to a forensics lab that could easily uncover this data.
"Xerox" is a generic verb, not a generic noun.
As in: "I Xeroxed those reports, sir."
School lockers are protected under the 4th Amendment? Apparently nobody told my high school.
So then what do you do about the logs on your machine that show you opening, editing, or otherwise using these private files? What if your data is stored on a disk cache or in a swap file at some point during its use?
As are the 1st, 4th, and 8th, apparently.
I don't think that the majority of file sharers actually use the service with the intent of sharing their collection, but rather to get files. The fact that BitTorrent makes uploading mandatory and most P2P clients search your hard drive and turn on sharing by default is probably why the bulk of all shared media is even on the network in the first place. I'd say that most don't even know that they are uploading at all.
It's not illegal now, but it probably was when he was doing it.
True, but labels are still needed for publicity. The parent companies that control the record labels control the movie, TV, newspaper, and other traditional industries that still do a better job at publicizing to a bigger potential fan base. The difference that the artist now has a choice, and that choice ultimately depends upon whether the artist values long-term loyalty or short-term publicity.
The Internet route will get an artist a small fan base, but that fan base will be composed of loyal listeners who are far more likely to be actively involved in their support over the course of time because they chose to seek out and listen to the artist to begin with. The fan base might even slowly grow as time progresses because of word-of-mouth by loyal fans.
The traditional route will still get you loads of initial publicity and fans but because the labels are essentially force-feeding the music to the public, the fan base tends to be very fickle and will mostly abandon the artist once the next "big thing" is shoved down their throats. Sure, you will still have loyal fans left over, but they are more likely to abandon you as time goes on and your popularity continues to slip because you are no longer "in the spotlight" anymore.
Except that this model involved payment before the music was made, not after. No amount of file sharing will stop artists from being able to get paid to create music.
By "artists," of course, I mean good artists. Pop stars will probably go broke with this model, but that doesn't bother me in the least.
I remember looking on LimeWire a few weeks after iTunes Plus launched for iTunes Plus files to see if they had indeed appeared (searched for 256 kbps *.m4a files). I didn't find any.
I found lots of AAC files ripped by iTunes users who didn't change the default ripping format (which uses 128 kbps), but none that would have come from the iTunes Store.
If this guy is smart enough and has enough potential to even get accepted by an institution as prestigious as MIT, then surely he would have known to cover his tracks if he was willfully infringing.