Right, exactly. The network, at least, and possibly the computer are/were the property of the University, so it has every right to inspect. This doesn't mean that the University was in its rights to turn over evidence to law enforcement, however; their rights end at the limits of their policy. That is, they could expel the student, even levy fines, penalties, whatever their policy provides for.
This is the same argument for not using resources at work for your own purposes. You can be fired, your employer can file civil suits, etc., because the computers, the network, the desk you sit at, etc., belong to the employer.
I think that the defense lawyer could have filed for suppression of the evidence obtained from the University, since it constitutes illegal search and seizure. Funny thing about these rights; they're subject to interpretation by judges, all the way to the Supreme Court. Even at that level, precedents can be set in their ultimate interpretation which are then used to apply to similar cases. Of course, these can be overturned in future by other judges, even by Constitutional amendment.
The long and the short of it seems to be that once the police have got you, there's very little you can do about it if you're denied bail--or worse yet, access to counsel and/or the evidence and the charges against you. The latter often require counsel, e.g., prosecutors can and do simply refuse to speak with non-attorneys.
There is the law, and then there is policy. The former is a set of ideals; the latter is a matter of practice.
Basically, get as much money from the customer while providing the minimum possible, often less than you lead the customer to expect. As long as you can hold it up in the court of law.
It seems to me that the consumer isn't the customer with most modern media:
Television: the customer is the advertiser
Film: the customer is the theater (although there is reselling)
Music Store: the customer is the store (isn't that how sales are calculated?)
By "customer" I refer not so much to the direct revenue source for the media creator/owner as the primary influence entity. If I like a song, film, TV show, etc., about all I can do is to buy one or more copies. Compare/contrast to YouTube and friends, where popularity is all about something akin to voting.
It's not simply a matter of middlemen, e.g., the actual consumers (you and I) are not involved in the creation and distribution of the product. It looks like the corporations are out of touch with What's Actually Going On.
What a shocker. Next thing you know, they'll be found to have been paying their executives Too Much Money. Now that would only exacerbate the problem by further isolating these important decision makers from reality.
"MP3 is the standard, no matter what the big corps want you to believe."
ClearChannel broadcasts MP3s, with titles encrypted in a vain attempt to prevent wholesale internal copying. Unfortunately, CC treats its IT employees so poorly that the few "old-timers" (4+ years) have banded together to defeat the encryption. They just want to browse the library and augment their own MP3 libraries. Disclosure: I just happen to have been a contractor with a firm that successfully raided CC's IT department to fill the department I was in, and while this information is based on gossip, the sources independently volunteered this information. Several of them also said that they maintained access to this treasure trove of corporate pop music.
Corruption, and the corrupt corrupters who perpetuate it. How long until a major corporation's internal corruption causes more damage than simply causing millions of people to lose their investments (hi, Enron)? Oh, well... that's entertainment.
Sorry, not so. You must request the records to be expunged, and even then, it's up to the city/county/state/federal clerk to actually do it. Thanks to the Patriot Act and other paranoid legislation, the records aren't really erased. They are merely blocked from view by most.
Occupations deemed sensitive, e.g., public school teacher, are required by law to be checked even for accusations of certain behaviors, e.g., theft, drug possession, and of course, hacking.
Perhaps "guilty until proven innocent" still holds in these United States WRT incarceration, but liberty is actively being deprived without due process. If an agent of the Government accuses you of something deemed to be potentially harmful, it stays around, and is regarded as fact. You don't get any say; you just hear that your the results of your background check are unacceptable.
The comparison of these government records to corporate records of personal credit is left as an exercise to the reader.
"Data is a lot like humans: It is born. Matures. Gets married to other data, divorced. Gets old. One thing that it doesn't do is die. It has to be killed." ~Arthur Miller
Obviously the USA isn't the best place to be if you don't want to suffer rampant overcharging.
Yes, exactly. We also feature no censorship, just post-broadcast overcharging of fines, rampant only when small groups wage organised complaint campaigns. OTOH, we really can get the overcharged fees back, but only with persistent niggling during regular office hours. See also REBATES, i.e., the monies promised are eventually delivered, but only after 90-120 days.
I have a hard time rationalizing Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton.
Things are not going well, and appear to be getting worse. I'm up for reform, on the order of Theodore Roosevelt. I would literally pay to see it happen, and by that I mean I would make personal sacrifices.
"When I received the Nobel Prize, the only big lump sum of money I have ever seen, I had to do something with it. The easiest way to drop this hot potato was to invest it, to buy shares. I knew that World War II was coming and I was afraid that if I had shares which rise in case of war, I would wish for war. So I asked my agent to buy shares which go down in the event of war. This he did. I lost my money and saved my soul." ~Albert Szent-Gyorgyi
"The U.S. does seem to be intent on spreading a lot of FUD lately, in so very many areas of its policies."
A lot? You mean, like, "nothing else but"? I haven't seen anything substantive in so long that I've given up looking for it.
It's getting more and more bizarre to live here; the facts seem to live exclusively in satire. Fortunately, we have several excellent court jesters to go with our King.
Now, now, VENONA. You're simply experiencing the #1 tradeoff in having above-average intelligence: More of your fellow human beings are simply going appear stupid to you.
And thank you for having expressed my point of view entirely. The first thing the snap-judgment part of my mind presented me when reading the AC post was, "Probably drives a Hummer, proudly."
"Shakespeare wrote for acclaim, but it was his live performances that produced his income."
See also every recording act in the US and beyond. The money's not in the copyright or even the sales of the recorded media. Tickets and T-shirts, y'all.
I, for one, would prefer that public servants are 100% spied upon. I'm for full disclosure of their every move, such that paparazzi and gossip are unnecessary.
So, you want to serve the public? We'll forgive any past mistakes, but you must agree to be a truly public figure.
The very idea that leaders should enjoy more privacy (or perquisites, privileges, worship, etc), is an annoying leftover from kings, and ultimately rooted in the remnants of our primate nature. I want hard working people running the show, not a gaggle of buffoons who look good on the telly.
I notice that the Holiday Season (read "4th quarter") practice of having the Wal-Mart Greeters search your bags/basket instead of greeting has reverted back to greeting and hustling shopping carts. *whew* I thought the change was permanent.
Q: "how are you 'giving' the culture to the company that created a movie/song/whatever?"
A: You've missed the point that spun [the parent's poster] makes by invoking The Tragedy Of The Commons. Culture is free to use in works of art, e.g., it's simply a product of observation and interpretation by talented artists. It's very subtle, I'll grant that, but consider the case of popular films. They're the ones that summarize, codify, represent cultural aspects in the context of entertainment--hence their popularity. Spun makes the point through sarcasm: It's as though we must "give" the culture to the corporations which control the popular media in order to see our culture reflected back to us. This is the method by which we remain in, and reinforce popular culture.
I'm not claiming that you do, antifoidulus, but people who are into popular culture need some connection to the culture in order to remain in it. For some people, this is equated to "getting a life," and other variations on that meme.
Spun is saying that the media corporations' insistence on DRM, for the sake of what they "own" and their right to profit from same, robs the people of their right to participate in popular culture. The sarcasm lies in the ironic assertion that this is our duty as members of the culture.
Notice how media corporations continue to rely--and to base lawsuits--upon the outdated concept that media distribution is so costly as to give them the right to claim most of the artist's profit as their own. This is the nexus of the debate: This audience realizes--no, *proves* that the distribution costs have become trivial. We know that the RIAA, the MPAA, and their ilk are full of it, that they rely now on lawyers to roll out ancient precedents from an era when distribution costs were significant enough to warrant legal protection.
The question at hand is when/whether the masses will realize this, e.g., for how long will they pay the escalating costs to stay plugged into pop culture? The value of entertainment itself doesn't seem to be nearly as high as the value of having something to talk about, e.g., the song you heard, the movie you saw, the TV show you have on your PVR. It's the latter that has the media conglomerates starting to panic: If I tell you about something I have a recording of--or just the URL for--then all you need is for me to burn you a copy or to give you the URL. Compare/contrast to the TV show you missed, that everyone else is buzzing about. Or the film that everyone else seems to like, that's only at the Bijou for three more days. Or the song on the radio, the one that's sold out at every record store all over town.
It's a different world, entirely. It is my opinion that some kind of poetic justice is playing itself out. These same conglomerates raked in record-breaking profits while we switched to Compact Disc, because it was far less expensive to manufacture. They're simply paying the price for their greed. For now, they're paying it to their lawyers. At some point, they'll pay to transform themselves, or they'll pay with their very existence.
I think it's more of an unreasonable search and seizure. Clearly, the verified private information of individuals is valuable--and *personal* property, and therefore protected by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of these United States.
IMHO, the act itself isn't nearly the invasion of privacy that the stubborn refusal to protect it and to be responsible for its unauthorized disclosure. I refer to entities which collect and store our private information, based on their stated business requirements.
Let's see, now... which meta-entities could force these other entities to be responsible? Oh, right, the same ones who are beholden to these same entities for campaign contributions. Because it costs so much to run for office now. Because the same irresponsible entities are already planning the next level of smear tactics, which are legal because the meta-entities made it so.
Although the proof that this is a closed loop is non-trivial, it's IOTTCO. Whose idea was it to grant citizens' rights to corporations, again? Oh, right, a corporate lobbyist.
"Giving corporations HUMAN rights is completely messed up."
Hear, hear. See also the corporations' claim to their right to lobby, since citizens have same. I'd like to see corporations assume the same--actually more--responsibilities as citizens.
In fact, isn't the concept of a corporation based on *avoiding* responsibility, e.g., individual members aren't liable for actions taken by the corporation?
> Running a company is a matter of managing liabilities.
That's funny--I think that running a company is a matter of supporting one's customers and employees. IMHO, this assertion sums up what is presently broken in these United States.
I'll buy that managing liabilities has *become* more important than managing the business for many companies, thereby interfering with these companies' core business.
I assert that "liabilities" are inherently a product of perception, i.e., they are not real, only predicted.
> If I can no longer count on you to do great work, why would I keep you around?
Great question--with an embedded assumption. On what is this predicated? Observation? The zodiac? I mean, it's one thing if an employee says outright, "You can no longer count on me for..." It's quite another to make an assumption, and then to treat it as factual.
Of course, it's *your* company, and I would hope that you get to run it the way you want to run it, independent of this discussion, regulations, etc. I'm suggesting that your perceptions do not necessarily represent what's real--or what's possible.
Consider that you are fostering a culture of fear--fear of your opinion, since it looks like you terminate those who don't meet your expectations, independent of inquiry. If that's working for you, great. My observation is that your argument is the basis for the oft-reported complaint: "I can't find qualified people."
There is a way to take someone from non-performance to one of motivated productivity. It is, unfortunately, unavailable if your focus is on liability and looking for what's wrong.
Haven't read TFA, but I must say that the very idea reminds me of some recently awakened representatives of the citizens of these United States. Do I detect a change in the motion of the pendulum?
Brilliant that you pointed out that this is in the UK only, for now. It's obviously ridiculous for *firms* to run their businesses on pirated software.
It is worth considering, though, that MS tolerated piracy for such a long time that this move seems "unfair" to some by comparison. I'm reminded of, oh, YouTube, who ignored copyright violations in favor of building a user base. I've no idea whether MS had this as a strategy, e.g., "Oh, let's ignore the piracy for now," like the fabled drug pusher who says, "The first one's free."
(after all, laws are intended to fix social problems)
You might want to think on that a little more. Start by looking into how well previous, current, and predictable attempts to legislate morality turn out.
Perhaps you refer to laws against obvious problems, like murder, theft, and the like. These laws are most certainly not meant to fix these problems. Their intent is to deter them, e.g., there's no fix, just some elaborate workarounds for known bugs. And we don't have the source code.
Compare/contrast to restrictions on source code to dangerous implements sold on the open market.
Slashdot Mirror
Right, exactly. The network, at least, and possibly the computer are/were the property of the University, so it has every right to inspect. This doesn't mean that the University was in its rights to turn over evidence to law enforcement, however; their rights end at the limits of their policy. That is, they could expel the student, even levy fines, penalties, whatever their policy provides for.
This is the same argument for not using resources at work for your own purposes. You can be fired, your employer can file civil suits, etc., because the computers, the network, the desk you sit at, etc., belong to the employer.
I think that the defense lawyer could have filed for suppression of the evidence obtained from the University, since it constitutes illegal search and seizure. Funny thing about these rights; they're subject to interpretation by judges, all the way to the Supreme Court. Even at that level, precedents can be set in their ultimate interpretation which are then used to apply to similar cases. Of course, these can be overturned in future by other judges, even by Constitutional amendment.
The long and the short of it seems to be that once the police have got you, there's very little you can do about it if you're denied bail--or worse yet, access to counsel and/or the evidence and the charges against you. The latter often require counsel, e.g., prosecutors can and do simply refuse to speak with non-attorneys.
There is the law, and then there is policy. The former is a set of ideals; the latter is a matter of practice.
By "customer" I refer not so much to the direct revenue source for the media creator/owner as the primary influence entity. If I like a song, film, TV show, etc., about all I can do is to buy one or more copies. Compare/contrast to YouTube and friends, where popularity is all about something akin to voting.
It's not simply a matter of middlemen, e.g., the actual consumers (you and I) are not involved in the creation and distribution of the product. It looks like the corporations are out of touch with What's Actually Going On.
What a shocker. Next thing you know, they'll be found to have been paying their executives Too Much Money. Now that would only exacerbate the problem by further isolating these important decision makers from reality.
"MP3 is the standard, no matter what the big corps want you to believe."
ClearChannel broadcasts MP3s, with titles encrypted in a vain attempt to prevent wholesale internal copying. Unfortunately, CC treats its IT employees so poorly that the few "old-timers" (4+ years) have banded together to defeat the encryption. They just want to browse the library and augment their own MP3 libraries. Disclosure: I just happen to have been a contractor with a firm that successfully raided CC's IT department to fill the department I was in, and while this information is based on gossip, the sources independently volunteered this information. Several of them also said that they maintained access to this treasure trove of corporate pop music.
Corruption, and the corrupt corrupters who perpetuate it. How long until a major corporation's internal corruption causes more damage than simply causing millions of people to lose their investments (hi, Enron)? Oh, well... that's entertainment.
The past tense of "lead" is "led". When "lead" is pronounced with a short 'e', it's an element.
Sorry, not so. You must request the records to be expunged, and even then, it's up to the city/county/state/federal clerk to actually do it. Thanks to the Patriot Act and other paranoid legislation, the records aren't really erased. They are merely blocked from view by most.
Occupations deemed sensitive, e.g., public school teacher, are required by law to be checked even for accusations of certain behaviors, e.g., theft, drug possession, and of course, hacking.
Perhaps "guilty until proven innocent" still holds in these United States WRT incarceration, but liberty is actively being deprived without due process. If an agent of the Government accuses you of something deemed to be potentially harmful, it stays around, and is regarded as fact. You don't get any say; you just hear that your the results of your background check are unacceptable.
The comparison of these government records to corporate records of personal credit is left as an exercise to the reader.
"Data is a lot like humans: It is born. Matures. Gets married to other data, divorced. Gets old. One thing that it doesn't do is die. It has to be killed." ~Arthur Miller
I have a hard time rationalizing Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton.
Things are not going well, and appear to be getting worse. I'm up for reform, on the order of Theodore Roosevelt. I would literally pay to see it happen, and by that I mean I would make personal sacrifices.
"When I received the Nobel Prize, the only big lump sum of money I have ever seen, I had to do something with it. The easiest way to drop this hot potato was to invest it, to buy shares. I knew that World War II was coming and I was afraid that if I had shares which rise in case of war, I would wish for war. So I asked my agent to buy shares which go down in the event of war. This he did. I lost my money and saved my soul." ~Albert Szent-Gyorgyi
"The U.S. does seem to be intent on spreading a lot of FUD lately, in so very many areas of its policies."
A lot? You mean, like, "nothing else but"? I haven't seen anything substantive in so long that I've given up looking for it.
It's getting more and more bizarre to live here; the facts seem to live exclusively in satire. Fortunately, we have several excellent court jesters to go with our King.
Now, now, VENONA. You're simply experiencing the #1 tradeoff in having above-average intelligence: More of your fellow human beings are simply going appear stupid to you.
And thank you for having expressed my point of view entirely. The first thing the snap-judgment part of my mind presented me when reading the AC post was, "Probably drives a Hummer, proudly."
No one else got the pun??? I mean, who's his aspiring TA, Justin Case?
That is so *cuuuuute*!!!
e dit.htm%25sdtaesf%25asd45fghaht%25arhar45gdfhst%25 jsyjshs537hgshtagfases457hadfvdavtahgds754ag8asgea 547gse452agseag534575eagase34534ghtsjyjkuhrad43345 gasathhathsj%25yugkgud%25shgshs%25hbbggfhajjtjytsw g%25fhgsjhgsjyssgfhghtafdgsgfhjsgadgragadgfdgfahgn bvnghdjyafagada%20fwf&url=http://www.anti-slash.or g
http://www.howstuffworks.com/framed.htm?parent=cr
The anti-Slashdot Jihad, I mean. What will you twinks think of next??
And I was expecting the goatse "hello" JPeG, or at least the Hands Of God lookalike.
"Shakespeare wrote for acclaim, but it was his live performances that produced his income."
See also every recording act in the US and beyond. The money's not in the copyright or even the sales of the recorded media. Tickets and T-shirts, y'all.
(can't believe I'm replying to AC)
Brilliant. Spot on. Genius move. Master stroke.
I, for one, would prefer that public servants are 100% spied upon. I'm for full disclosure of their every move, such that paparazzi and gossip are unnecessary.
So, you want to serve the public? We'll forgive any past mistakes, but you must agree to be a truly public figure.
The very idea that leaders should enjoy more privacy (or perquisites, privileges, worship, etc), is an annoying leftover from kings, and ultimately rooted in the remnants of our primate nature. I want hard working people running the show, not a gaggle of buffoons who look good on the telly.
I notice that the Holiday Season (read "4th quarter") practice of having the Wal-Mart Greeters search your bags/basket instead of greeting has reverted back to greeting and hustling shopping carts. *whew* I thought the change was permanent.
Q: "how are you 'giving' the culture to the company that created a movie/song/whatever?"
A: You've missed the point that spun [the parent's poster] makes by invoking The Tragedy Of The Commons. Culture is free to use in works of art, e.g., it's simply a product of observation and interpretation by talented artists. It's very subtle, I'll grant that, but consider the case of popular films. They're the ones that summarize, codify, represent cultural aspects in the context of entertainment--hence their popularity. Spun makes the point through sarcasm: It's as though we must "give" the culture to the corporations which control the popular media in order to see our culture reflected back to us. This is the method by which we remain in, and reinforce popular culture.
I'm not claiming that you do, antifoidulus, but people who are into popular culture need some connection to the culture in order to remain in it. For some people, this is equated to "getting a life," and other variations on that meme.
Spun is saying that the media corporations' insistence on DRM, for the sake of what they "own" and their right to profit from same, robs the people of their right to participate in popular culture. The sarcasm lies in the ironic assertion that this is our duty as members of the culture.
Notice how media corporations continue to rely--and to base lawsuits--upon the outdated concept that media distribution is so costly as to give them the right to claim most of the artist's profit as their own. This is the nexus of the debate: This audience realizes--no, *proves* that the distribution costs have become trivial. We know that the RIAA, the MPAA, and their ilk are full of it, that they rely now on lawyers to roll out ancient precedents from an era when distribution costs were significant enough to warrant legal protection.
The question at hand is when/whether the masses will realize this, e.g., for how long will they pay the escalating costs to stay plugged into pop culture? The value of entertainment itself doesn't seem to be nearly as high as the value of having something to talk about, e.g., the song you heard, the movie you saw, the TV show you have on your PVR. It's the latter that has the media conglomerates starting to panic: If I tell you about something I have a recording of--or just the URL for--then all you need is for me to burn you a copy or to give you the URL. Compare/contrast to the TV show you missed, that everyone else is buzzing about. Or the film that everyone else seems to like, that's only at the Bijou for three more days. Or the song on the radio, the one that's sold out at every record store all over town.
It's a different world, entirely. It is my opinion that some kind of poetic justice is playing itself out. These same conglomerates raked in record-breaking profits while we switched to Compact Disc, because it was far less expensive to manufacture. They're simply paying the price for their greed. For now, they're paying it to their lawyers. At some point, they'll pay to transform themselves, or they'll pay with their very existence.
I think it's more of an unreasonable search and seizure. Clearly, the verified private information of individuals is valuable--and *personal* property, and therefore protected by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of these United States.
IMHO, the act itself isn't nearly the invasion of privacy that the stubborn refusal to protect it and to be responsible for its unauthorized disclosure. I refer to entities which collect and store our private information, based on their stated business requirements.
Let's see, now... which meta-entities could force these other entities to be responsible? Oh, right, the same ones who are beholden to these same entities for campaign contributions. Because it costs so much to run for office now. Because the same irresponsible entities are already planning the next level of smear tactics, which are legal because the meta-entities made it so.
Although the proof that this is a closed loop is non-trivial, it's IOTTCO. Whose idea was it to grant citizens' rights to corporations, again? Oh, right, a corporate lobbyist.
"Giving corporations HUMAN rights is completely messed up."
Hear, hear. See also the corporations' claim to their right to lobby, since citizens have same. I'd like to see corporations assume the same--actually more--responsibilities as citizens.
In fact, isn't the concept of a corporation based on *avoiding* responsibility, e.g., individual members aren't liable for actions taken by the corporation?
> Running a company is a matter of managing liabilities.
That's funny--I think that running a company is a matter of supporting one's customers and employees. IMHO, this assertion sums up what is presently broken in these United States.
I'll buy that managing liabilities has *become* more important than managing the business for many companies, thereby interfering with these companies' core business.
I assert that "liabilities" are inherently a product of perception, i.e., they are not real, only predicted.
> If I can no longer count on you to do great work, why would I keep you around?
Great question--with an embedded assumption. On what is this predicated? Observation? The zodiac? I mean, it's one thing if an employee says outright, "You can no longer count on me for..." It's quite another to make an assumption, and then to treat it as factual.
Of course, it's *your* company, and I would hope that you get to run it the way you want to run it, independent of this discussion, regulations, etc. I'm suggesting that your perceptions do not necessarily represent what's real--or what's possible.
Consider that you are fostering a culture of fear--fear of your opinion, since it looks like you terminate those who don't meet your expectations, independent of inquiry. If that's working for you, great. My observation is that your argument is the basis for the oft-reported complaint: "I can't find qualified people."
There is a way to take someone from non-performance to one of motivated productivity. It is, unfortunately, unavailable if your focus is on liability and looking for what's wrong.
Haven't read TFA, but I must say that the very idea reminds me of some recently awakened representatives of the citizens of these United States. Do I detect a change in the motion of the pendulum?
Brilliant that you pointed out that this is in the UK only, for now. It's obviously ridiculous for *firms* to run their businesses on pirated software.
It is worth considering, though, that MS tolerated piracy for such a long time that this move seems "unfair" to some by comparison. I'm reminded of, oh, YouTube, who ignored copyright violations in favor of building a user base. I've no idea whether MS had this as a strategy, e.g., "Oh, let's ignore the piracy for now," like the fabled drug pusher who says, "The first one's free."
Not any more, but s/he was making the point that this same argument (s/books/CDs/ s/ebooks/MP3 players/) was being made a few years ago.
Think Iraq & Viet Nam, e.g., at least the rhetoric matches.
It holds for me, especially considering how bulky jewel cases seem now, and how much better (and fatter) MP3 players are now.
Perhaps you refer to laws against obvious problems, like murder, theft, and the like. These laws are most certainly not meant to fix these problems. Their intent is to deter them, e.g., there's no fix, just some elaborate workarounds for known bugs. And we don't have the source code.
Compare/contrast to restrictions on source code to dangerous implements sold on the open market.
IFF whatever you did with it post-realization is made public.