I don't buy books. Yes, I'm that bastard that gets his books from the public library.. Where I live (Chester County, PA), we have an excellent library system, with the ability to request books (even from outside of the Chester County system, via an Inter-Library loan system in PA)and do renewals and other such things via the web.
They do have a service where I can download (a very few) DRM'd ebooks for a defined period of time (usually 2 weeks), at which point the "books" check themselves back in.. BUT, the vast majority of the books in the system are not digital, and probably never will be.
Before I'd consider spending $300+ on a Kindle, Amazon and the book publishers (and not incidentally, the library itself) will have to come up w/ a system where I can check out a copy of a book on the Kindle with the same ease and selection as I have with physical books. The "download the NYT every morning" thing DOES have it points, but that just isn't worth $300 to me.
True enough, but I'd have to imagine that most things that could be classified as "Culture War Hot Buttons" have their origins in either very "Red" or very "Blue" states (Think Utah or Vermont). My point in the OP was to say that the population of UT is relatively small and not really all that representative of the rest of the nation's politics.
If it wasn't videogames that were "making" kids do bad things (and training them for a future in the Army, as far as JT believes), it would be TV or movies or music or whatever else the people that worry about this sort of thing would blame. "Violent Games" are just the latest (and easiest) scapegoat.
Also, Lieberman is not (in any meaningful way) a Democrat any longer. Bernie Sanders, (the other "Independent") is "Independent" in the sense that he isn't formally a member of the Democratic party.. Joe, OTOH, is more of a Republican every day.
No offense to the nice nice people in Utah, but one state law, in a very small (population-wise) state, and will have little or no impact on the VG industry. Even IF this bill passes, there is certain to be an immediate EFF or ACLU lawsuit to overturn it.
Utah is the reddest of the "Red States", and I have to imagine that most good Mormon kids aren't playing GTA4 anyway.
Now for Geek Squad services... I could see those prices going even higher, unfortunately...
Higher than the already ludicrous prices they charge?
Seriously, $40 to install a bit of RAM or $80 to "Add a compatible electronic device to your wired or wireless network with this electronic device setup service for Mac or PC." is outlandishly expensive for something that should take all of (or less than, frankly) 5 minutes.
That's a great story, and while I'm sure that everyone applauds your efforts to support a local business with your commerce, the only thing that jumps out at me from it was the fact that the local "mom-n-pop" store probably made little to no profit off of the sale (unless you also splurged on some cables or something high-margin like that).
Small stores like what you're describing don't have nearly the level of "clout" to negotiate w/ electronics manufacturers (and their distributors, natch..) as a BB or CC, so maybe they earned your loyalty and your custom the next time you go to buy a piece of electronics, but if the price-shopping behavior of all of us (myself absolutely included, hypocrisy aside) becomes the filter that all purchases go through, then ALL but the biggest brick-n-mortar stores will eventually just be forced to fold.
Personally, I avoid retail locations as much as humanly possible, with the exception of a (totally unhelpful to the B&M store) tendency to go looking at the stuff I'll eventually buy from Amazon or Newegg. So, I'm just as big a culprit as anyone else.
So, after writing all of that, I realize what a total muddle it must sound like.. I guess what I'm saying is that in a dream world, a local store would be able to compete on a price basis with their biggest competitors, without sacrificing the "local touch" that they rightfully are offering. I just don't see how anything like that is possible. The reality I see as most likely is a dwindling number of physical stores catering to the least savvy (and oldest) among us, until the generation of people that decidedly DON'T shop online simply die off. Sad, but (I think) inevitable.
The first thing I do when I get home from work is check my personal email (I work for a company that doesn't allow personal email at work for SEC reasons).
That's why they invented the Crackberry.. I work for the "Big Evil Bank of Doom (tm)", and they took away our outside email and chat (for much the same reason as yours did, I assume..) a few years ago.. My reaction was to get a BB.
But the, I guess I'm missing the point, which WAS the subject of the GP.
This can go back and forth forever, since we're all at some level making assertions about what "people" will pay for headphones.
"People" includes a pretty wide range of people... I personally use a pair of Shure SE420 headphones, which cost me roughly the $300 figure you mention. While I do enjoy their sound quite a bit, I know in my heart (and head) that the sound coming from them is NOT twice as "good" as what would come out of a pair of $150 (Say some Shure SE210's) headphones.
The same argument seems like it would work for codecs. I'd imagine that "people" that consider themselves "audiophiles" would almost certainly sniff at using something as "lo-fi" as an Ipod in their setups.. More likely, they are one of the approximately 9 people that bought dedicated SACD players, which they hooked up to their $10K tube amp and their $300K speakers. And "they" would NEVER hook up an ipod, even with tracks that are left in PCM format, to this.
Unless my assertions about "people" are just as unfounded as the rest of what I'm reading here.
In relevant part, "Tortious interference of business.- When false claims and accusations are made against a business or an individual's reputation in order to drive business away."
Nothing in that definition about "libel, slander or defamation", and given the scenario you presented above (in which it is made clear that the INTENT was to "cause him harm by driving away potential patients. There is intent to harm the doctor on the part of the poster."), it sounds like that particular set of actions WOULD be actionable under (some) states civil codes.
Exactly what "constitutional rights" did Airtran violate? Pretty sure that the protections embedded in the Federal Constitution only applies to actions by Congress and (via the 14th amendment) the states. You could argue that the FBI (thus involving the Federal government) violated their rights, but it seems pretty clear from the record that the FBI were the first people to tell Airtran that they had no case.
None of this is to say that Airtran didn't violate some sort of statutory law (which they almost certainly did) if it can be proven that they acted as they did BECAUSE of the race or religion of the 9 people impacted, but statutory law and constitutional law are not at all the same thing.
They owed them passage to where they (Airtran) had contractually obligated themselves to take them. And, to bend over, not just backwards, but 720 degrees into a corporate pretzel, to apologize for allowing 2 teenage twits to publicly cause a demeaning spectacle that impacted 9 TOTALLY INNOCENT people.
Shit, I could dumb down the issues presented here into words of no more than 3 syllables, and my Rep (Joe Pitts, PA-16, a man who is (Not that it really matters..) significantly to the right of, say, Genghis Khan) who might actually agree to actually listen to me for 5 minutes or so if I asked him REAL nicely, and my 2 senators (Specter and Casey (who almost certainly would not) would not understand more than 20% of it.
Noted.. But my point (and the overall point of the article, as I read it) was that it appears that only conspiracy theorists believe that the NSA (or whoever) had backdoor hooks into M$-published DLLs.
Section (A) requires that one of the underlying (#1 or #2a~2d) be true.. None of them were.
Also, Section (C) speficially says that the person has only to answer one or more of the following:
Name Address date of birth.
Nothing at all in there about showing ID.
2921.29 Failure to disclose personal information.
(A) No person who is in a public place shall refuse to disclose the person's name, address, or date of birth, when requested by a law enforcement officer who reasonably suspects either of the following:
(1) The person is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a criminal offense.
(2) The person witnessed any of the following:
(a) An offense of violence that would constitute a felony under the laws of this state;
(b) A felony offense that causes or results in, or creates a substantial risk of, serious physical harm to another person or to property;
(c) Any attempt or conspiracy to commit, or complicity in committing, any offense identified in division (A)(2)(a) or (b) of this section;
(d) Any conduct reasonably indicating that any offense identified in division (A)(2)(a) or (b) of this section or any attempt, conspiracy, or complicity described in division (A)(2)(c) of this section has been, is being, or is about to be committed.
(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of failure to disclose one's personal information, a misdemeanor of the fourth degree.
(C) Nothing in this section requires a person to answer any questions beyond that person's name, address, or date of birth. Nothing in this section authorizes a law enforcement officer to arrest a person for not providing any information beyond that person's name, address, or date of birth or for refusing to describe the offense observed.
(D) It is not a violation of this section to refuse to answer a question that would reveal a person's age or date of birth if age is an element of the crime that the person is suspected of committing.
The guy was arrested when he refused to show ID to the cop.. Nothing to do w/ the contents of his CC bag.
And, if you follow the adventures of this guy, you'll see that the case was dropped in return for Mr. Righi not suing the pants off of that police dept.
Just a small clarification.. Unless I'm reading all of this wrong, no law was passed to *ALLOW* Customs to do this.. They always WERE able to do this, and the attached (http://tinyurl.com/3nsffc) 9th Circuit decision (Which is NOT new law) merely affirms that the Customs person was correct (legally, I'm not commenting on the morality or effectiveness of this) in doing what they did.
Reading from that decision, they quote a US Supreme Court opinion from 1982, that says (in part):
"[t]he luggage carried by a traveler entering the country may be searched at random by a customs officer . . . no matter how great the traveler's desire to conceal the contents may be." United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 823 (1982).
Note that "Search" is not defined in any way here, which is what gives ICE the ability to detain the laptop for further examination.
Personally, I'm curious to know what would happen if someone refused to turn over the password for a laptop (like mine) that has its entire contents encrypted. I work for a large bank, and our corporate security policy requires full-disk encryption.. I'm not actually sure what the corporate policy is regarding revelation of that password to law enforcement without some sort of court order, so I'd probably err on the side of caution and NOT give it to them..
Note the case of Sebastien Boucher (http://tinyurl.com/2fnsb4), who refused (in his case, because his laptop was apparently chock-full of pr0n, natch) where an actual judge (albeit a very low-level magistrate one) said that the Gov't CAN'T require him to give them the password, as doing so would violate his 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination. Would ICE then be able to say that they're keeping the laptop until they can crack the encryption, which might take, oh, 45 million years or so?
This all does seem (to me) to be very heavy-handed, but not at all outside of the "new norm".
It does not shock me, which is why I was referring to the trend for states to move to the "Castle system", which pretty much implies that I am aware that some states are not there yet.
We were talking about "Duty to retreat" and Castle laws, all of which primarily refer to ones home or place of business, which is why I used the examples I did.
Why should I need to PROVE to anyone that I'm not a thief?
If someone walked up to you on the street and asked to see the receipt for your cell phone, would you show it to them if you had it on you? The moment I purchase something, it is MINE to do with what I please, so long as that use is not in itself illegal (think CDs with sharpened edges being used a la "Odd Job" or something). If buy 10 copies of Spore and use the CDs as coasters, that's for ME to decide.
I realize that this is probably overly simplistic and all, but in the end, isn't the DRM we're talking about here really EA accusing EVERYONE that uses this game of being a thief, and asking us to prove we're not?
Why would I (or anyone else) agree to that?
Sure, people will say something in reply about the license agreement and all, but that's a load of crap. I didn't agree to a license agreement limiting what I do with MY property when I bought it, so they're all facially invalid.. As far as I am aware (IANAL, or even a 2L), a shrinkwrap license has NEVER been held as valid (see http://tinyurl.com/6p59z2 if you're interested).
Um, what state do YOU live in? That certainly isn't the case here in KY.
Not every state has a "Retreat and defend" law.. In fact, the trend has been for states to move to a "Castle law" system, in which it is acceptable to use force (deadly or otherwise) to defend your person or property.
As far as it being illegal to "carry a deadly weapon", please name for me one place in which it is illegal to use a baseball bat or a machete (not to mention a shotgun or other firearm, which are all legal to keep and potentially use in ones home or business in most states in the US) to defend ones person.
Seriously, until someone comes up w/ a foolproof way to search hundreds or thousands of pdf files (at a time) for a particular phrase, all you've done is move the whole "print it out and save it that way" thing to a digital storage medium.. All of the inherent issues with the latter approach are still there.
I work for "The Big Evil Bank of Doom", and we have a 90 day email retention policy.. Thing is, anyone that has any need at all for "institutional memory" is just saving everything off (against policy) to a pst file.. I can't even tell you how many times someone has come back 18 months later and asked me things like "Who asked you to set x up?" or "When did person y do thing z?". Without some sort of email chain, these questions are very difficult to answer..
Moving the request or whatever to some other file does nothing to help the company avoid litigation, since any attorney worth a damn will not limit their discovery request to just emails, but to something like "produce any communication or record thereof related to the instant issue".
Slashdot Mirror
You know, that's exactly the thing.
I don't buy books. Yes, I'm that bastard that gets his books from the public library.. Where I live (Chester County, PA), we have an excellent library system, with the ability to request books (even from outside of the Chester County system, via an Inter-Library loan system in PA)and do renewals and other such things via the web.
They do have a service where I can download (a very few) DRM'd ebooks for a defined period of time (usually 2 weeks), at which point the "books" check themselves back in.. BUT, the vast majority of the books in the system are not digital, and probably never will be.
Before I'd consider spending $300+ on a Kindle, Amazon and the book publishers (and not incidentally, the library itself) will have to come up w/ a system where I can check out a copy of a book on the Kindle with the same ease and selection as I have with physical books. The "download the NYT every morning" thing DOES have it points, but that just isn't worth $300 to me.
Real guns, yes.
Virtual guns, no.
True enough, but I'd have to imagine that most things that could be classified as "Culture War Hot Buttons" have their origins in either very "Red" or very "Blue" states (Think Utah or Vermont). My point in the OP was to say that the population of UT is relatively small and not really all that representative of the rest of the nation's politics.
If it wasn't videogames that were "making" kids do bad things (and training them for a future in the Army, as far as JT believes), it would be TV or movies or music or whatever else the people that worry about this sort of thing would blame. "Violent Games" are just the latest (and easiest) scapegoat.
Also, Lieberman is not (in any meaningful way) a Democrat any longer. Bernie Sanders, (the other "Independent") is "Independent" in the sense that he isn't formally a member of the Democratic party.. Joe, OTOH, is more of a Republican every day.
But most ARE.
Who cares?
No offense to the nice nice people in Utah, but one state law, in a very small (population-wise) state, and will have little or no impact on the VG industry. Even IF this bill passes, there is certain to be an immediate EFF or ACLU lawsuit to overturn it.
Utah is the reddest of the "Red States", and I have to imagine that most good Mormon kids aren't playing GTA4 anyway.
Says the guy w/ the 600K+ ID.. :)
I love these tangents where people start comparing their Userids..
The last one I participated in got out some really low ones.. got down to people in the low 3-digit range..
http://entertainment.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=560628&threshold=1&commentsort=0&mode=nested&startat=100&pid=0
Spot on.
Higher than the already ludicrous prices they charge? Seriously, $40 to install a bit of RAM or $80 to "Add a compatible electronic device to your wired or wireless network with this electronic device setup service for Mac or PC." is outlandishly expensive for something that should take all of (or less than, frankly) 5 minutes.
That's a great story, and while I'm sure that everyone applauds your efforts to support a local business with your commerce, the only thing that jumps out at me from it was the fact that the local "mom-n-pop" store probably made little to no profit off of the sale (unless you also splurged on some cables or something high-margin like that).
Small stores like what you're describing don't have nearly the level of "clout" to negotiate w/ electronics manufacturers (and their distributors, natch..) as a BB or CC, so maybe they earned your loyalty and your custom the next time you go to buy a piece of electronics, but if the price-shopping behavior of all of us (myself absolutely included, hypocrisy aside) becomes the filter that all purchases go through, then ALL but the biggest brick-n-mortar stores will eventually just be forced to fold.
Personally, I avoid retail locations as much as humanly possible, with the exception of a (totally unhelpful to the B&M store) tendency to go looking at the stuff I'll eventually buy from Amazon or Newegg. So, I'm just as big a culprit as anyone else.
So, after writing all of that, I realize what a total muddle it must sound like.. I guess what I'm saying is that in a dream world, a local store would be able to compete on a price basis with their biggest competitors, without sacrificing the "local touch" that they rightfully are offering. I just don't see how anything like that is possible. The reality I see as most likely is a dwindling number of physical stores catering to the least savvy (and oldest) among us, until the generation of people that decidedly DON'T shop online simply die off. Sad, but (I think) inevitable.
The first thing I do when I get home from work is check my personal email (I work for a company that doesn't allow personal email at work for SEC reasons).
That's why they invented the Crackberry.. I work for the "Big Evil Bank of Doom (tm)", and they took away our outside email and chat (for much the same reason as yours did, I assume..) a few years ago.. My reaction was to get a BB.
But the, I guess I'm missing the point, which WAS the subject of the GP.
"People" includes a pretty wide range of people... I personally use a pair of Shure SE420 headphones, which cost me roughly the $300 figure you mention. While I do enjoy their sound quite a bit, I know in my heart (and head) that the sound coming from them is NOT twice as "good" as what would come out of a pair of $150 (Say some Shure SE210's) headphones.
The same argument seems like it would work for codecs. I'd imagine that "people" that consider themselves "audiophiles" would almost certainly sniff at using something as "lo-fi" as an Ipod in their setups.. More likely, they are one of the approximately 9 people that bought dedicated SACD players, which they hooked up to their $10K tube amp and their $300K speakers. And "they" would NEVER hook up an ipod, even with tracks that are left in PCM format, to this.
Unless my assertions about "people" are just as unfounded as the rest of what I'm reading here.
IANAL, but....
Tortious interference with business?
http://is.gd/fmmX
In relevant part, "Tortious interference of business.- When false claims and accusations are made against a business or an individual's reputation in order to drive business away."
Nothing in that definition about "libel, slander or defamation", and given the scenario you presented above (in which it is made clear that the INTENT was to "cause him harm by driving away potential patients. There is intent to harm the doctor on the part of the poster."), it sounds like that particular set of actions WOULD be actionable under (some) states civil codes.
Just curious..
Exactly what "constitutional rights" did Airtran violate? Pretty sure that the protections embedded in the Federal Constitution only applies to actions by Congress and (via the 14th amendment) the states. You could argue that the FBI (thus involving the Federal government) violated their rights, but it seems pretty clear from the record that the FBI were the first people to tell Airtran that they had no case.
None of this is to say that Airtran didn't violate some sort of statutory law (which they almost certainly did) if it can be proven that they acted as they did BECAUSE of the race or religion of the 9 people impacted, but statutory law and constitutional law are not at all the same thing.
They owed them passage to where they (Airtran) had contractually obligated themselves to take them. And, to bend over, not just backwards, but 720 degrees into a corporate pretzel, to apologize for allowing 2 teenage twits to publicly cause a demeaning spectacle that impacted 9 TOTALLY INNOCENT people.
That's what.
Chinese Fire Drill
Shit, I could dumb down the issues presented here into words of no more than 3 syllables, and my Rep (Joe Pitts, PA-16, a man who is (Not that it really matters..) significantly to the right of, say, Genghis Khan) who might actually agree to actually listen to me for 5 minutes or so if I asked him REAL nicely, and my 2 senators (Specter and Casey (who almost certainly would not) would not understand more than 20% of it.
I'd be better off talking to a wall.
Noted.. But my point (and the overall point of the article, as I read it) was that it appears that only conspiracy theorists believe that the NSA (or whoever) had backdoor hooks into M$-published DLLs.
To be honest, I seriously doubt they'd bother, as there are always people looking in the code for exactly that sort of thing. In contrast (and this is my own tin foil hat moment), I have little (really none) doubt that the NSA can find out literally anything about anyone if they choose to.. If they really wanted to know what was on your computer or your network connection, they'd simply tap your connection and do a black-bag op to clone your hard drive for examination (at their leisure) by their acres (see "The NSA doesn't measure computers in computing power; it measures them in acres. That's how they talk about their computers: how many acres of computers they have. ... We're talking about millions of processors that can work on a single problem simultaneously. The amount of computing power is phenomenal. It's just staggering." of computers.
Tin foil hat much?
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/03/04/0652226
Except he was not obstructing...
Section (A) requires that one of the underlying (#1 or #2a~2d) be true.. None of them were.
Also, Section (C) speficially says that the person has only to answer one or more of the following:
Name
Address
date of birth.
Nothing at all in there about showing ID.
2921.29 Failure to disclose personal information.
(A) No person who is in a public place shall refuse to disclose the person's name, address, or date of birth, when requested by a law enforcement officer who reasonably suspects either of the following:
(1) The person is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a criminal offense.
(2) The person witnessed any of the following:
(a) An offense of violence that would constitute a felony under the laws of this state;
(b) A felony offense that causes or results in, or creates a substantial risk of, serious physical harm to another person or to property;
(c) Any attempt or conspiracy to commit, or complicity in committing, any offense identified in division (A)(2)(a) or (b) of this section;
(d) Any conduct reasonably indicating that any offense identified in division (A)(2)(a) or (b) of this section or any attempt, conspiracy, or complicity described in division (A)(2)(c) of this section has been, is being, or is about to be committed.
(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of failure to disclose one's personal information, a misdemeanor of the fourth degree.
(C) Nothing in this section requires a person to answer any questions beyond that person's name, address, or date of birth. Nothing in this section authorizes a law enforcement officer to arrest a person for not providing any information beyond that person's name, address, or date of birth or for refusing to describe the offense observed.
(D) It is not a violation of this section to refuse to answer a question that would reveal a person's age or date of birth if age is an element of the crime that the person is suspected of committing.
Well, sort of.
The guy was arrested when he refused to show ID to the cop.. Nothing to do w/ the contents of his CC bag.
And, if you follow the adventures of this guy, you'll see that the case was dropped in return for Mr. Righi not suing the pants off of that police dept.
Just a small clarification.. Unless I'm reading all of this wrong, no law was passed to *ALLOW* Customs to do this.. They always WERE able to do this, and the attached (http://tinyurl.com/3nsffc) 9th Circuit decision (Which is NOT new law) merely affirms that the Customs person was correct (legally, I'm not commenting on the morality or effectiveness of this) in doing what they did.
Reading from that decision, they quote a US Supreme Court opinion from 1982, that says (in part):
"[t]he luggage carried by a traveler entering the country may
be searched at random by a customs officer . . . no matter how
great the traveler's desire to conceal the contents may be."
United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 823 (1982).
Note that "Search" is not defined in any way here, which is what gives ICE the ability to detain the laptop for further examination.
Personally, I'm curious to know what would happen if someone refused to turn over the password for a laptop (like mine) that has its entire contents encrypted. I work for a large bank, and our corporate security policy requires full-disk encryption.. I'm not actually sure what the corporate policy is regarding revelation of that password to law enforcement without some sort of court order, so I'd probably err on the side of caution and NOT give it to them..
Note the case of Sebastien Boucher (http://tinyurl.com/2fnsb4), who refused (in his case, because his laptop was apparently chock-full of pr0n, natch) where an actual judge (albeit a very low-level magistrate one) said that the Gov't CAN'T require him to give them the password, as doing so would violate his 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination. Would ICE then be able to say that they're keeping the laptop until they can crack the encryption, which might take, oh, 45 million years or so?
This all does seem (to me) to be very heavy-handed, but not at all outside of the "new norm".
It does not shock me, which is why I was referring to the trend for states to move to the "Castle system", which pretty much implies that I am aware that some states are not there yet.
We were talking about "Duty to retreat" and Castle laws, all of which primarily refer to ones home or place of business, which is why I used the examples I did.
Simple question.
Why should I need to PROVE to anyone that I'm not a thief?
If someone walked up to you on the street and asked to see the receipt for your cell phone, would you show it to them if you had it on you? The moment I purchase something, it is MINE to do with what I please, so long as that use is not in itself illegal (think CDs with sharpened edges being used a la "Odd Job" or something). If buy 10 copies of Spore and use the CDs as coasters, that's for ME to decide.
I realize that this is probably overly simplistic and all, but in the end, isn't the DRM we're talking about here really EA accusing EVERYONE that uses this game of being a thief, and asking us to prove we're not?
Why would I (or anyone else) agree to that?
Sure, people will say something in reply about the license agreement and all, but that's a load of crap. I didn't agree to a license agreement limiting what I do with MY property when I bought it, so they're all facially invalid.. As far as I am aware (IANAL, or even a 2L), a shrinkwrap license has NEVER been held as valid (see http://tinyurl.com/6p59z2 if you're interested).
Um, what state do YOU live in? That certainly isn't the case here in KY.
Not every state has a "Retreat and defend" law.. In fact, the trend has been for states to move to a "Castle law" system, in which it is acceptable to use force (deadly or otherwise) to defend your person or property.
As far as it being illegal to "carry a deadly weapon", please name for me one place in which it is illegal to use a baseball bat or a machete (not to mention a shotgun or other firearm, which are all legal to keep and potentially use in ones home or business in most states in the US) to defend ones person.
You forgot step 3:
Step 3: Profit!
Seriously, until someone comes up w/ a foolproof way to search hundreds or thousands of pdf files (at a time) for a particular phrase, all you've done is move the whole "print it out and save it that way" thing to a digital storage medium.. All of the inherent issues with the latter approach are still there.
I work for "The Big Evil Bank of Doom", and we have a 90 day email retention policy.. Thing is, anyone that has any need at all for "institutional memory" is just saving everything off (against policy) to a pst file.. I can't even tell you how many times someone has come back 18 months later and asked me things like "Who asked you to set x up?" or "When did person y do thing z?". Without some sort of email chain, these questions are very difficult to answer..
Moving the request or whatever to some other file does nothing to help the company avoid litigation, since any attorney worth a damn will not limit their discovery request to just emails, but to something like "produce any communication or record thereof related to the instant issue".