"I'm confused as to what "right" we are fighting for here. I figured we gave up the right to let someone use our property in a criminal manner without any sort of consequence (investigation or otherwise) since the inception of governments. What other personal property do we allow free and unfettered access to without expecting to at least be asked questions or possibly be a suspect if it's used to commit a crime? If I let someone borrow a hammer and then they find my hammer at a murder scene I'm not going to be super pissed that the cops want to talk to me."
Perhaps we should start by assuming that their are more than just those who wish to use your wireless for nefarious purposes. No one is suggesting you leave it open with the SSID "OPENFORPEDOS" but WHY should that preclude people from opening it up for use? Short answer - it shouldn't.
Your assuming that your team works in the same location as it is. That is not the case in most large corps - we have staff in all areas of the country and are only tied together by e-mail phone and OCS. Going into an office in that situation doesn't build any more team skills that staying at home.
You are really bordering on the defination of what is a right. Also, your defination is dependent on the actor, and is still rather week without enforcement.
Right to free speech?
Sure, you'll just get imprisoned or shot... not so much of a right without enforcement.
Right to religion?
Sure, as long as you don't pick the wrong one and get killed for it
Right to autonomy?
Sure thing as long as you are okay with dying if you don't like being someones slave.
I also hope you don't throw in things like property rights in your negitive mix like some Libertarians do - those are not negitive rights, as they still require enforcement.
I'm sorry, this is not a primitive society, we have more than just these basic interactions, one which require both positive and negitive right reinforcement.
Except non local transport is what their customers are paying for. It's plain and simple, AT&T has a competing service and wants to use its force to change the market dynamics. If they are short selling their bandwidth, then they need to charge more or stop selling off service they cannot provide. That simple
Except God really doesn't create or enforce rights - that would be left to society and governments. The concepts of negitive v positive rights is one which will keep people spilling ink for generations to come. Even negitive rights require someone or something to enforce the right, as keeping someone from infringing on your negitive rights can require intervention.
If your mother is so talented yet she feels that she is financially unappreciated, she has a choice of working in a private school, isn't that so?
In fact if her talents are in high DEMAND then she can tutor people for much MORE money than she'd be making in a school, and eventually with that money that she could save, she could open her own private school, why not?
Then explain firefighters, police, armed forces - even road crews are more for the benefit of the public at large - and not once person / company who is invested in the project. Even if his mother does have a choice to go to a private school, that DOESN'T solve the overall problem of providing education to the public (maybe that is what you are against)
The real problem is you don't seem to accept the difference between public and private work roles
Education, like the other roles mentioned above, benefit the whole, and making the best out of the public system should be the goal, unless your answer is that only the privileged have access to quality education (not a false dichotomy either)
There are already tons of posts saying either "document it" or "find another job". Here's what I recommend.
1. Take a software inventory. Figure out what is installed where, and which license codes/CD keys are being used.
2. Pull records. We get a lot of our PCs pre-loaded with MS apps and Acrobat. Those OEM installs stay with the machines, though many places try to move them forward from machine to machine (thus creating the impression that "we must have bought it sometime").
3. Check online sites, like Microsoft's eOpen site, or contact specific vendors (e.g., call Autodesk or your VAR) and ask them to send you a summary of your current licenses.
4. Document your level of usage against your level of compliance. Include all costs for becoming compliant. Be sure to include one time costs (e.g., buying additional seats) and any recurring costs (e.g., maintenance, back maintenance, reinstatement fees).
5. Educate management that software is licensed, not purchased.
6. Include information regarding the legal liability related to pirated software. Include references to any cases you can find, including actual fines, as well as potential fines (caps). Note the reputational risk to the company as well.
7. Prepare a plan for bringing the company into compliance. Include possible stop-gap measures and alternatives (e.g., limiting the number of users with a specific pieces of software, buying one additional license per year, using OpenOffice).
8. Compile everything into a well-documented report/memo (depending on your company's preferred style), and be sure to present it personally (don't just email it off). Offer to meet at another time, if necessary, but you must make it clear how important this is. Offer to meet with the entire management team. Communicate, communicate, communicate.
9. Let management know you don't plan on blowing the whistle (they'll surely say "nobody knows, so we're fine"), but make them aware that any disgruntled employee could make a call in to the piracy hotline. If you have the intestinal fortitude to do so, you could even make it clear (if it reflects your beliefs) that you value your integrity and that you cannot, in good conscience, help the company steal software/violate contract terms. Of course, that means you need to be ready to put up or shut up.
All that being well and good, you can take some practical steps to start getting things into compliance going forward:
Commit to buying licenses for all new software requests.
Keep good inventory records of hardware (and associated OEM software) and software.
Start buying machines with appropriate OEM software (if small enough where volume licensing doesn't make sense), and consider buying shrink-wrap software on the same order (this might let the financial eggheads depreciate the entire purchase - IANATA)
Adopt free software that is not limited to home/personal/educational use, like Comodo Internet Security and OpenOffice.
Pray you don't get audited.
Good points, making a comment so I have a reference to go back
Is there anyone who honestly thinks there's something immoral about people paying specifically for what resources they actually consume, whether it's electricity, medical services, or Internet bandwidth?
You can't consume bandwidth, its a fixed amount. That is what people are confusing here. If an ISP wants to charge based on usage, that is fine, but it seems very likely they will charge on speed and usage, which is not fine. The major telecoms have been given billions in tax benefits and grants to build communications infrastructure and now they want to double dip. That is what is immoral about these ideals, not the concept of metered usage itself.
If an ISP wants to sell data by the byte, they better well be providing a fixed bandwidth with an SLA, and not a burst able bandwidth model, or else they are once again double dipping.
Are you really denying that people are not able to submit their electronic bills as evidence in cases. You are sorely mistaken is your are claiming that. Electronic records are just as, if not more, vital than purely paper records. E-discovery laws have been added to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, I have shown you the sections of the FRE - but perhaps you would feel better if we all argued in incorrect 'truisms'.
One piece of evidence is not generally dispositive to an entire case. You build a case with lots of pieces of evidence. As for the GP, the SoF only comes into play when required to by law, generally on large purchases (house, car, etc) and not with standard bills and purchases.
As for the Parent, you are correct. In case anyone is wondering what the FRE says:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rules.htm#Rule1001
--
FRE 1001
(1) Writings and recordings. "Writings" and "recordings" consist of letters, words, or numbers, or their equivalent, set down by handwriting, typewriting, printing, photostating, photographing, magnetic impulse, mechanical or electronic recording, or other form of data compilation.
--
The FRE does say that electronic records are just as valid as there organic counterparts, so yes, the GP is wrong.
Yet that is not what he said - he said last time he looked it WAS protected speech - and obscene content is not - and trying to ignore that and live in a fantasy land gets you no points either. Like all portions of the Bill of Rights, the 1st amendment has its limits, and obscenity is one of them.
I have no doubt that the porn they were distributing could well have been "degrading" women by portraying them in a "vile and depraved manner", as for the "most imaginable" part, I'm sure my imagination is a little better than yours Mary Beth, being that many pornographic movies serve exactly that purpose.. but last I looked that was still protected speech.. thus my shock at the finding.
You must not have looked very recently - protected speech does not include anything that falls under a Chaplinksy test(Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568) and while erotic content does not nessessarly fall under that list, obscene material does - and that is what the federal law is dealing with "obscene erotic content"
The reason there are two different valuations for these items are because of the statutory damages portion of current copyright law. It is a backwards way of making compensatory damages effectively a punitive damage award. You can see the applicable law here:
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#504
The crux of the matter is they get to pick, and of course they will pick statatory damages, as they will read a MUCH higher result, as in this case.
It's part of the problem with modern day copyright law (U.S.)
The fine print is designed to protect Apple and the technicians indeed, but when something looks inherently unfair - it usually is. This gentleman signed the contract with the intent to receive a new drive and installation. If there was a sale or a release of the old hard drive, where was the consideration? I see none. What you call lazy is really a case of a large organization hiding behind a standard boilerplate.
Slashdot Mirror
"I'm confused as to what "right" we are fighting for here. I figured we gave up the right to let someone use our property in a criminal manner without any sort of consequence (investigation or otherwise) since the inception of governments. What other personal property do we allow free and unfettered access to without expecting to at least be asked questions or possibly be a suspect if it's used to commit a crime? If I let someone borrow a hammer and then they find my hammer at a murder scene I'm not going to be super pissed that the cops want to talk to me." Perhaps we should start by assuming that their are more than just those who wish to use your wireless for nefarious purposes. No one is suggesting you leave it open with the SSID "OPENFORPEDOS" but WHY should that preclude people from opening it up for use? Short answer - it shouldn't.
The less there is, the more potent it is - didn't you learn anything from homepathy
Your assuming that your team works in the same location as it is. That is not the case in most large corps - we have staff in all areas of the country and are only tied together by e-mail phone and OCS. Going into an office in that situation doesn't build any more team skills that staying at home.
If you are already employed in the US - it would be in your interests to keep H1B's lower
You are really bordering on the defination of what is a right. Also, your defination is dependent on the actor, and is still rather week without enforcement. Right to free speech? Sure, you'll just get imprisoned or shot... not so much of a right without enforcement. Right to religion? Sure, as long as you don't pick the wrong one and get killed for it Right to autonomy? Sure thing as long as you are okay with dying if you don't like being someones slave. I also hope you don't throw in things like property rights in your negitive mix like some Libertarians do - those are not negitive rights, as they still require enforcement. I'm sorry, this is not a primitive society, we have more than just these basic interactions, one which require both positive and negitive right reinforcement.
Except non local transport is what their customers are paying for. It's plain and simple, AT&T has a competing service and wants to use its force to change the market dynamics. If they are short selling their bandwidth, then they need to charge more or stop selling off service they cannot provide. That simple
Except God really doesn't create or enforce rights - that would be left to society and governments. The concepts of negitive v positive rights is one which will keep people spilling ink for generations to come. Even negitive rights require someone or something to enforce the right, as keeping someone from infringing on your negitive rights can require intervention.
The message they are sending is political, not that the direction is coming from the government.
People get paid because someone is making money.
If your mother is so talented yet she feels that she is financially unappreciated, she has a choice of working in a private school, isn't that so?
In fact if her talents are in high DEMAND then she can tutor people for much MORE money than she'd be making in a school, and eventually with that money that she could save, she could open her own private school, why not?
Then explain firefighters, police, armed forces - even road crews are more for the benefit of the public at large - and not once person / company who is invested in the project. Even if his mother does have a choice to go to a private school, that DOESN'T solve the overall problem of providing education to the public (maybe that is what you are against)
The real problem is you don't seem to accept the difference between public and private work roles
Education, like the other roles mentioned above, benefit the whole, and making the best out of the public system should be the goal, unless your answer is that only the privileged have access to quality education (not a false dichotomy either)
There are already tons of posts saying either "document it" or "find another job". Here's what I recommend. 1. Take a software inventory. Figure out what is installed where, and which license codes/CD keys are being used. 2. Pull records. We get a lot of our PCs pre-loaded with MS apps and Acrobat. Those OEM installs stay with the machines, though many places try to move them forward from machine to machine (thus creating the impression that "we must have bought it sometime"). 3. Check online sites, like Microsoft's eOpen site, or contact specific vendors (e.g., call Autodesk or your VAR) and ask them to send you a summary of your current licenses. 4. Document your level of usage against your level of compliance. Include all costs for becoming compliant. Be sure to include one time costs (e.g., buying additional seats) and any recurring costs (e.g., maintenance, back maintenance, reinstatement fees). 5. Educate management that software is licensed, not purchased. 6. Include information regarding the legal liability related to pirated software. Include references to any cases you can find, including actual fines, as well as potential fines (caps). Note the reputational risk to the company as well. 7. Prepare a plan for bringing the company into compliance. Include possible stop-gap measures and alternatives (e.g., limiting the number of users with a specific pieces of software, buying one additional license per year, using OpenOffice). 8. Compile everything into a well-documented report/memo (depending on your company's preferred style), and be sure to present it personally (don't just email it off). Offer to meet at another time, if necessary, but you must make it clear how important this is. Offer to meet with the entire management team. Communicate, communicate, communicate. 9. Let management know you don't plan on blowing the whistle (they'll surely say "nobody knows, so we're fine"), but make them aware that any disgruntled employee could make a call in to the piracy hotline. If you have the intestinal fortitude to do so, you could even make it clear (if it reflects your beliefs) that you value your integrity and that you cannot, in good conscience, help the company steal software/violate contract terms. Of course, that means you need to be ready to put up or shut up. All that being well and good, you can take some practical steps to start getting things into compliance going forward:
Good points, making a comment so I have a reference to go back
Is there anyone who honestly thinks there's something immoral about people paying specifically for what resources they actually consume, whether it's electricity, medical services, or Internet bandwidth?
You can't consume bandwidth, its a fixed amount. That is what people are confusing here. If an ISP wants to charge based on usage, that is fine, but it seems very likely they will charge on speed and usage, which is not fine. The major telecoms have been given billions in tax benefits and grants to build communications infrastructure and now they want to double dip. That is what is immoral about these ideals, not the concept of metered usage itself. If an ISP wants to sell data by the byte, they better well be providing a fixed bandwidth with an SLA, and not a burst able bandwidth model, or else they are once again double dipping.
Are you really denying that people are not able to submit their electronic bills as evidence in cases. You are sorely mistaken is your are claiming that. Electronic records are just as, if not more, vital than purely paper records. E-discovery laws have been added to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, I have shown you the sections of the FRE - but perhaps you would feel better if we all argued in incorrect 'truisms'.
One piece of evidence is not generally dispositive to an entire case. You build a case with lots of pieces of evidence. As for the GP, the SoF only comes into play when required to by law, generally on large purchases (house, car, etc) and not with standard bills and purchases. As for the Parent, you are correct. In case anyone is wondering what the FRE says: http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rules.htm#Rule1001 -- FRE 1001 (1) Writings and recordings. "Writings" and "recordings" consist of letters, words, or numbers, or their equivalent, set down by handwriting, typewriting, printing, photostating, photographing, magnetic impulse, mechanical or electronic recording, or other form of data compilation. -- The FRE does say that electronic records are just as valid as there organic counterparts, so yes, the GP is wrong.
'The digital revolution has opened many new and inexpensive methods of distribution, but it has not made content free.
No, but you do have a forrest of ads on the website - and much less distribution costs.
Accordingly we intend to charge for all our news websites,' Murdoch said."
I would hope any change in required subscriptions would eliminate any ads, but just like the promise of cable - I fear not.
Yet that is not what he said - he said last time he looked it WAS protected speech - and obscene content is not - and trying to ignore that and live in a fantasy land gets you no points either. Like all portions of the Bill of Rights, the 1st amendment has its limits, and obscenity is one of them.
I have no doubt that the porn they were distributing could well have been "degrading" women by portraying them in a "vile and depraved manner", as for the "most imaginable" part, I'm sure my imagination is a little better than yours Mary Beth, being that many pornographic movies serve exactly that purpose.. but last I looked that was still protected speech.. thus my shock at the finding.
You must not have looked very recently - protected speech does not include anything that falls under a Chaplinksy test(Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568) and while erotic content does not nessessarly fall under that list, obscene material does - and that is what the federal law is dealing with "obscene erotic content"
The reason there are two different valuations for these items are because of the statutory damages portion of current copyright law. It is a backwards way of making compensatory damages effectively a punitive damage award. You can see the applicable law here: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#504 The crux of the matter is they get to pick, and of course they will pick statatory damages, as they will read a MUCH higher result, as in this case. It's part of the problem with modern day copyright law (U.S.)
Except copyright is exclusively the domain of the federal government - copyright is an agreement between the work maker and the federal government.
The fine print is designed to protect Apple and the technicians indeed, but when something looks inherently unfair - it usually is. This gentleman signed the contract with the intent to receive a new drive and installation. If there was a sale or a release of the old hard drive, where was the consideration? I see none. What you call lazy is really a case of a large organization hiding behind a standard boilerplate.