Technically? Probably. But I really meant that I wouldn't deem certain people idiots merely because they made the wrong decision (one that they had no way of knowing would end up harming them).
then it was your fault because you were stupid enough to take a job working for a jerk
What if you didn't know he was a jerk beforehand? What if you knew he was a jerk, but didn't know how much of one that he was? You should have investigated the matter more carefully (and you needed the job)?
Regardless, it's the boss's fault that he is a jerk, not yours.
I guess they'll have to ban everything, then. There's simply no way that they can stop any of it that I see. Lawyers won't do much (as we're seeing now).
Not really. One places enough value in it to pay for it, and the other doesn't. They probably don't value the work enough (yet, anyway) to justify going out and buying it. Downloading may be much simpler to them.
If it wasn't worth the amount of money being asked for, then nobody would be in the former category.
The value of the work is subjective. As such, different people value the work differently. You seem to be lumping everyone together in a single category and pretending as if the value of the work is objective.
Because you hope you'll get something entertaining? Not to mention that downloading a file doesn't take that much effort (and you can do other things while you wait). Why not?
They won't know if they like it until after they try it.
as an excuse to download an infringing copy of it is still proclaiming that they actually *DO* place a high amount of value on the work
It could be that it doesn't have enough value to them to buy it (seriously, downloading something isn't that difficult, so just downloading it doesn't mean that they place a "high amount of value on the work") or it could be, as you said, that they're just cheap.
You're literally saying "There are no valid reasons to pay someone for their work."
You're not "saying" anything specific. For all you know, they could be saying, "There are no valid reasons to pay someone for their work provided the product of their labor can be copied infinitely and with no additional cost to them." Or perhaps they're not saying that at all. Perhaps they just cannot pay for the work (due to not having money, it not being available, etc).
We have Netflix, iTunes, Steam, and other digital distribution.
None of which are available everywhere and have everything.
No, you just want stuff for free and are rationalizing it.
Rationalizing things is obviously bad. As is trying to justify your position. Therefore, all of your arguments are completely incorrect (you're anti-piracy and tried to rationalize it).
artists are slaves
Only true if they were forced to create. They're not.
If someone wants to find a soulmate by filling out an online questionnaire and submitting a photo, they can generally expect results comparable to the effort they put into the process.
I don't really see why that would be. Either you find them or you don't. If you did find them, then I don't think it should matter what medium you used to find them (or if you climbed mountains to get to them).
But then again, it all seems like a complete waste of time to me.
but benefiting the company is kind of the point of running a business
Forget society. I can do whatever I please to make money.
The fact that people on Slashdot still rant about PS3 Linux as if any significant share
Of course. If something bad happens to a few people, it doesn't matter. It's only a few people, right? Something "bad" suddenly changes into something "neutral" or "good" because it only happened to a few people!
If she had said, when the court first ordered her to decrypt the laptop that she had forgotten the password
If her intentions were malicious, I really don't understand why she didn't (assuming she knew the password at the time).
she should have taken steps to ensure that she would be able to do so if she lost her appeals.
Forgetting isn't a crime (as far as I know). No matter what you think she "should" have done.
Perhaps she didn't think of it. Perhaps she overestimated her own ability to recall things from memory. Who knows? In the examples you mentioned, it isn't remembering something that is the problem.
but I, also, see how easy it would be to claim that she forgot the password as a last ditch effort to avoid revealing the contents of the laptop.
I don't care about that. I'd rather let many criminals free than convict (or, in this case, hold in contempt) an innocent person. We can only try to minimize the chances of the latter, though.
Irrelevant. I've forgotten passwords that I used the previous day.
She didn't say she couldn't.
That doesn't mean that she didn't forget.
2) This wasn't one file. It was the whole laptop that was password-protected. You'd have to believe that someone, after refusing to give a password, subsequently accidentally forgot a password that would make an entire laptop useless. You'd also have to believe that such a person wouldn't have taken reasonable precautions to remember that password.
It doesn't matter what you'd believe. Forgetting is not a crime. If they can't access the contents of the hard drive, then too bad for them. Their loss.
The human memory is incredibly fickle. It varies from person to person, but you can forget something (even something that some would deem important) in an instant. Especially over a long period of time or under situations of stress, I'd say. I've forgotten things that I would deem important for no reason at all.
I wouldn't say they've proven anything beyond (or even near) a reasonable doubt.
Fortunately, our justice system doesn't require absolute proof in cases like this.
But unfortunately, it allows judges to hold you in contempt of court on a whim indefinitely.
The bottom line is her story isn't even remotely plausible for anyone who considers it for more than two seconds
I've considered it for more than two seconds, and since I know that human memory is incredibly fickle, I believe it is more than plausible.
What does that have to do with forcing someone to give up a password that they claim that they can't remember? In one situation, it's clear that you've committed a crime, in the other, not so much.
assume the worst and penalize you accordingly
A great thing to do for any free country. Just assume they're guilty. Guilty of... using encrypt and then forgetting the password!
What I think is ridiculous is that such a thing is even allowed. They can't prove you haven't forgotten it (human memory is fickle), then when they're unable to collect evidence against you, they blame you for their own failure and proceed to lock you up forever.
I've forgotten passwords that I used the previous day. Yes, the previous day.
You might have a perfect memory, but that does not apply to everyone else. People can and do forget things under situations of stress, and sometimes, for apparently no reason at all.
she revealed that she, and only she, knew the password to the hard drive over the phone. so her claims she "forgot" are not very plausible.
I'm not seeing how the two are related. The fact that she was the only one who knew it (at some point) does not mean that she still remembers it.
Actually, I've even forgot passwords that I used the previous day. You might be surprised at how unreliable the human memory can be.
If everyone had perfect memories, this would be quite different. As it stands, though, you likely cannot be sure (or even close to sure) that she still remembers it.
And judges being given the power to hold people in contempt of court indefinitely without any sort of due process is, in my opinion, ridiculous.
The legal standard is reasonable doubt. The prosecutor doesn't have to prove that she doesn't remember. He/she just has to prove that it's unreasonable to believe she doesn't remember.
And just how could they prove that? I don't think you can prove any such thing when it comes to information in your mind. The human mind is very strange and erratic, so I do not believe that it is impossible (even in your example) or even highly unlikely that someone could forget a password (especially under any amount of stress, and especially if she was away from the computer for any amount of time).
This is a blatant attempt to thwart the legal system.
I'd say it's a blatant attempt to get lazy and just imprison everyone (innocents included) because you can't prove a thing.
And, in the case of being held in contempt of court, without any sort of due process, it seems. Good idea!
We should just stop using encryption entirely. Only criminals use it, after all, right?
Or, rather, if they can't decrypt it, and if they can't prove that you know the password, I think you should be set free. Too bad for them, but I'm not willing to greatly increase the chances of harming innocents just so we can catch a few criminals.
Slashdot Mirror
It's your fault that he's the boss.
Technically? Probably. But I really meant that I wouldn't deem certain people idiots merely because they made the wrong decision (one that they had no way of knowing would end up harming them).
then it was your fault because you were stupid enough to take a job working for a jerk
What if you didn't know he was a jerk beforehand? What if you knew he was a jerk, but didn't know how much of one that he was? You should have investigated the matter more carefully (and you needed the job)?
Regardless, it's the boss's fault that he is a jerk, not yours.
I guess they'll have to ban everything, then. There's simply no way that they can stop any of it that I see. Lawyers won't do much (as we're seeing now).
The same value, either way.
Not really. One places enough value in it to pay for it, and the other doesn't. They probably don't value the work enough (yet, anyway) to justify going out and buying it. Downloading may be much simpler to them.
If it wasn't worth the amount of money being asked for, then nobody would be in the former category.
The value of the work is subjective. As such, different people value the work differently. You seem to be lumping everyone together in a single category and pretending as if the value of the work is objective.
Because you hope you'll get something entertaining? Not to mention that downloading a file doesn't take that much effort (and you can do other things while you wait). Why not?
They won't know if they like it until after they try it.
as an excuse to download an infringing copy of it is still proclaiming that they actually *DO* place a high amount of value on the work
It could be that it doesn't have enough value to them to buy it (seriously, downloading something isn't that difficult, so just downloading it doesn't mean that they place a "high amount of value on the work") or it could be, as you said, that they're just cheap.
After all, people keep telling me on Slashdot that the pirates are not to be counted as lost sales since they would not buy it anyway.
The most I've seen is people saying that someone downloading copyrighted material doesn't necessarily result in a lost sale. Not always.
To see if you like it?
You're literally saying "There are no valid reasons to pay someone for their work."
You're not "saying" anything specific. For all you know, they could be saying, "There are no valid reasons to pay someone for their work provided the product of their labor can be copied infinitely and with no additional cost to them." Or perhaps they're not saying that at all. Perhaps they just cannot pay for the work (due to not having money, it not being available, etc).
We have Netflix, iTunes, Steam, and other digital distribution.
None of which are available everywhere and have everything.
No, you just want stuff for free and are rationalizing it.
Rationalizing things is obviously bad. As is trying to justify your position. Therefore, all of your arguments are completely incorrect (you're anti-piracy and tried to rationalize it).
artists are slaves
Only true if they were forced to create. They're not.
That's a selfish, juvenile view of the world.
Subjective.
So I can steal GPL code then?
You can certainly copy it. Go right ahead.
In both however, you're ending up with the item without paying the author.
Okay. You may have found a similarity there. Well done, but I don't think they're the same thing across the scale.
The fact of the matter is, every act of piracy strengthens their case.
Only if someone notices it, but I see your point.
If someone wants to find a soulmate by filling out an online questionnaire and submitting a photo, they can generally expect results comparable to the effort they put into the process.
I don't really see why that would be. Either you find them or you don't. If you did find them, then I don't think it should matter what medium you used to find them (or if you climbed mountains to get to them).
But then again, it all seems like a complete waste of time to me.
because you sound really petty and disillusioned about PS3 linux
Don't have a PS3, but they sound "petty" and "disillusioned" because they liked something that you didn't care about?
The people who gave a shit stopped upgrading their firmware.
I was under the impression that you could no longer play games if you didn't upgrade your firmware.
but benefiting the company is kind of the point of running a business
Forget society. I can do whatever I please to make money.
The fact that people on Slashdot still rant about PS3 Linux as if any significant share
Of course. If something bad happens to a few people, it doesn't matter. It's only a few people, right? Something "bad" suddenly changes into something "neutral" or "good" because it only happened to a few people!
If she had said, when the court first ordered her to decrypt the laptop that she had forgotten the password
If her intentions were malicious, I really don't understand why she didn't (assuming she knew the password at the time).
she should have taken steps to ensure that she would be able to do so if she lost her appeals.
Forgetting isn't a crime (as far as I know). No matter what you think she "should" have done.
Perhaps she didn't think of it. Perhaps she overestimated her own ability to recall things from memory. Who knows? In the examples you mentioned, it isn't remembering something that is the problem.
but I, also, see how easy it would be to claim that she forgot the password as a last ditch effort to avoid revealing the contents of the laptop.
I don't care about that. I'd rather let many criminals free than convict (or, in this case, hold in contempt) an innocent person. We can only try to minimize the chances of the latter, though.
(repeat: her laptop)
Irrelevant. I've forgotten passwords that I used the previous day.
She didn't say she couldn't.
That doesn't mean that she didn't forget.
2) This wasn't one file. It was the whole laptop that was password-protected. You'd have to believe that someone, after refusing to give a password, subsequently accidentally forgot a password that would make an entire laptop useless. You'd also have to believe that such a person wouldn't have taken reasonable precautions to remember that password.
It doesn't matter what you'd believe. Forgetting is not a crime. If they can't access the contents of the hard drive, then too bad for them. Their loss.
The human memory is incredibly fickle. It varies from person to person, but you can forget something (even something that some would deem important) in an instant. Especially over a long period of time or under situations of stress, I'd say. I've forgotten things that I would deem important for no reason at all.
I wouldn't say they've proven anything beyond (or even near) a reasonable doubt.
Fortunately, our justice system doesn't require absolute proof in cases like this.
But unfortunately, it allows judges to hold you in contempt of court on a whim indefinitely.
The bottom line is her story isn't even remotely plausible for anyone who considers it for more than two seconds
I've considered it for more than two seconds, and since I know that human memory is incredibly fickle, I believe it is more than plausible.
The circumstances of this case say otherwise.
I disagree.
What does that have to do with forcing someone to give up a password that they claim that they can't remember? In one situation, it's clear that you've committed a crime, in the other, not so much.
assume the worst and penalize you accordingly
A great thing to do for any free country. Just assume they're guilty. Guilty of... using encrypt and then forgetting the password!
Nothing to hide, nothing to fear, right?
This court finds you in contempt.
What I think is ridiculous is that such a thing is even allowed. They can't prove you haven't forgotten it (human memory is fickle), then when they're unable to collect evidence against you, they blame you for their own failure and proceed to lock you up forever.
I've forgotten passwords that I used the previous day. Yes, the previous day.
You might have a perfect memory, but that does not apply to everyone else. People can and do forget things under situations of stress, and sometimes, for apparently no reason at all.
she revealed that she, and only she, knew the password to the hard drive over the phone. so her claims she "forgot" are not very plausible.
I'm not seeing how the two are related. The fact that she was the only one who knew it (at some point) does not mean that she still remembers it.
Actually, I've even forgot passwords that I used the previous day. You might be surprised at how unreliable the human memory can be.
If everyone had perfect memories, this would be quite different. As it stands, though, you likely cannot be sure (or even close to sure) that she still remembers it.
And judges being given the power to hold people in contempt of court indefinitely without any sort of due process is, in my opinion, ridiculous.
What are you hiding, criminal? If you have nothing to hide, then what do you have to fear?
The legal standard is reasonable doubt. The prosecutor doesn't have to prove that she doesn't remember. He/she just has to prove that it's unreasonable to believe she doesn't remember.
And just how could they prove that? I don't think you can prove any such thing when it comes to information in your mind. The human mind is very strange and erratic, so I do not believe that it is impossible (even in your example) or even highly unlikely that someone could forget a password (especially under any amount of stress, and especially if she was away from the computer for any amount of time).
This is a blatant attempt to thwart the legal system.
I'd say it's a blatant attempt to get lazy and just imprison everyone (innocents included) because you can't prove a thing.
Except if not even you can access it any longer.
You are responsible for your actions.
And, in the case of being held in contempt of court, without any sort of due process, it seems. Good idea!
We should just stop using encryption entirely. Only criminals use it, after all, right?
Or, rather, if they can't decrypt it, and if they can't prove that you know the password, I think you should be set free. Too bad for them, but I'm not willing to greatly increase the chances of harming innocents just so we can catch a few criminals.
Forgetting the password seems unlikely.
You can't prove that she didn't. Therefore, in my opinion, the matter should be dropped entirely. Too bad for them.