When you commit multiple crimes and are found guilty, you serve a combined time for the crimes. There are laws in place that state a fine for EACH infraction. So if you share 50 files or 500, your fine will be different.
It would be interesting to find out if you could be held liable for 50 illegal copies if you leave a CD and 50 blank CDR disks at a computer. In theory that isn't much different than putting a file up on a torrent. You didn't make the copies but you sure made it easy for someone else to. Hmm...
As with most things like this, it is not the chance of success that drives you, it's the irrepressible thoughts about what might happen if you are successful.
It's like any other extremist view. They're right, you're wrong. Any action you take other than being wrong and paying for it is a complete waste of time.
The self publishing thing would be my bet. A distributor like Amazon swoops in with easy to use tools and a massive online storefront, allowing you to publish directly to them and sell to the masses. Within a few short years the middle men of publishing will be gone.
And the size of media files is increasing FAR FAR faster than the speed of Internet connections. It's great to tell someone to go download a 5 GB game with a 10 Mbit connection, but try doing it on a 1 Mbit connection (still very common outside of major cities) and see how quickly people complain.
That would be a very tough sell considering the number of computers out there with HDMI support that are "programmable". Intel HAD to make this announcement to cover their own legal asses, but I think they understand full well that they've already lost this round of the war. They will still make their money, so they really have nothing to lose. It's on to the next DRM tech!
I like it, too, but I've found myself using their HTTPS connection more than anything as of late. I do, however, switch back to the standard Google (with instant search) when I need a specific kind of search like for images.
A) Has no relevance to the current topic, since it has nothing to do with privacy. Ultimately, a company has to take responsibility for the actions of its employees, as I'm sure Google will for this ex-employee of theirs. That does not mean Google could have done things any differently to prevent this from happening in the first place. A rogue employee will do what they do for as long as they can get away with it.
B) I'd say them catching this guy and firing him lives up to their stated policy. If their policy somehow condoned the actions of this individual then they, as a company, will certainly pay the consequences (I'm sure they will pay some sort of recompense to the people affected anyway).
Yeah, that would be a step in the right direction, but I'd have to test it out to know for sure. I just know that the screen on the Kindle is nearly perfect for long term reading (my longest stretch so far has been about 3 hours with zero eye strain, or at least no more than reading a newspaper or book).
Having read hundreds of pages so far on my Kindle (just got it recently), I have to say that trying to do that on any sort of normal LCD screen would suck horribly. Now if they can make a colored E Ink screen that is as comfortable to read as the gray-scale one, then I might consider it.
What happened around here? Slashdot used to be so pro-privacy as a matter of principle. We're supposed to ignore a huge breach of trust at Google because it happens elsewhere? Nobody else has the enormous amount of data that Google has on you. Think about it.
We're on different pages. This isn't a breach of privacy by Google the company, it is by this individual. Google has policies already in place against this behavior and does not condone or promote it. What else could you possibly expect them to do as a company?
Additionally, you (or whomever) gave your information to Google by using their services. People inside Google have access to that information you willingly gave them (duh). Someone within that inner circle violated Google's policies for people within that inner circle. That person was fired. There is no way for Google to completely prevent this sort of thing from happening, they can only monitor and react.
If you do not want this to happen to you then do not use Google's services. But don't go on the Internet and use publicly available (and free) services and then expect anything other than your "privacy" being violated.
Slashdot Mirror
It is on the books as a feature of the iPhone 6.
Reentrant?
Even theft laws have degrees. If you steal enough candy bars (over a certain dollar value) then it becomes a felony, with a lot tougher penalty.
Some info: http://www.criminal-law-lawyer-source.com/terms/grand_theft.html
When you commit multiple crimes and are found guilty, you serve a combined time for the crimes. There are laws in place that state a fine for EACH infraction. So if you share 50 files or 500, your fine will be different.
It would be interesting to find out if you could be held liable for 50 illegal copies if you leave a CD and 50 blank CDR disks at a computer. In theory that isn't much different than putting a file up on a torrent. You didn't make the copies but you sure made it easy for someone else to. Hmm...
As with most things like this, it is not the chance of success that drives you, it's the irrepressible thoughts about what might happen if you are successful.
Steal the toupee off the head of every RIAA lawyer?
So light black and dark black are the same color? What about fluorescent black? :p
It's like any other extremist view. They're right, you're wrong. Any action you take other than being wrong and paying for it is a complete waste of time.
The self publishing thing would be my bet. A distributor like Amazon swoops in with easy to use tools and a massive online storefront, allowing you to publish directly to them and sell to the masses. Within a few short years the middle men of publishing will be gone.
Or he doesn't care because people keep buying it anyway.
And the size of media files is increasing FAR FAR faster than the speed of Internet connections. It's great to tell someone to go download a 5 GB game with a 10 Mbit connection, but try doing it on a 1 Mbit connection (still very common outside of major cities) and see how quickly people complain.
The Wooky speaks truth.
If the content is going through the Internet then you could easily argue it is copied MANY times along the route from the source to you.
Just wait for lawyers to start patenting their particular model of "lawyering" and then the fun REALLY starts. :p
That would be a very tough sell considering the number of computers out there with HDMI support that are "programmable". Intel HAD to make this announcement to cover their own legal asses, but I think they understand full well that they've already lost this round of the war. They will still make their money, so they really have nothing to lose. It's on to the next DRM tech!
I like it, too, but I've found myself using their HTTPS connection more than anything as of late. I do, however, switch back to the standard Google (with instant search) when I need a specific kind of search like for images.
Seriously, when did "Oh no, we're being forced to compete! Let's sue everyone!" become an acceptable business plan?
SCO has a patent as well as a trademark on that. One more lawsuit coming soon...
There's a patch for that.
I thought it was Analglyph at first and figured "goatse" followed High Fructose Corn Syrup in the search for a new name.
I've been called worse by better people. :p
A) Has no relevance to the current topic, since it has nothing to do with privacy. Ultimately, a company has to take responsibility for the actions of its employees, as I'm sure Google will for this ex-employee of theirs. That does not mean Google could have done things any differently to prevent this from happening in the first place. A rogue employee will do what they do for as long as they can get away with it.
B) I'd say them catching this guy and firing him lives up to their stated policy. If their policy somehow condoned the actions of this individual then they, as a company, will certainly pay the consequences (I'm sure they will pay some sort of recompense to the people affected anyway).
Yeah, that would be a step in the right direction, but I'd have to test it out to know for sure. I just know that the screen on the Kindle is nearly perfect for long term reading (my longest stretch so far has been about 3 hours with zero eye strain, or at least no more than reading a newspaper or book).
Having read hundreds of pages so far on my Kindle (just got it recently), I have to say that trying to do that on any sort of normal LCD screen would suck horribly. Now if they can make a colored E Ink screen that is as comfortable to read as the gray-scale one, then I might consider it.
What happened around here? Slashdot used to be so pro-privacy as a matter of principle. We're supposed to ignore a huge breach of trust at Google because it happens elsewhere? Nobody else has the enormous amount of data that Google has on you. Think about it.
We're on different pages. This isn't a breach of privacy by Google the company, it is by this individual. Google has policies already in place against this behavior and does not condone or promote it. What else could you possibly expect them to do as a company?
Additionally, you (or whomever) gave your information to Google by using their services. People inside Google have access to that information you willingly gave them (duh). Someone within that inner circle violated Google's policies for people within that inner circle. That person was fired. There is no way for Google to completely prevent this sort of thing from happening, they can only monitor and react.
If you do not want this to happen to you then do not use Google's services. But don't go on the Internet and use publicly available (and free) services and then expect anything other than your "privacy" being violated.
My eBook reader does (Kindle). :p
But no Kindle version exists for this book as far as I can tell... :(