In America, we understand the difference between "potential sentence" and "has not even had a trial yet, nevermind a conviction".
105 years would be the extreme maximum and has virtually no chance of happening. The truth is that there is no specific law for this exact crime, so they charge him with every crime that it could fit under. After that, a judge and jury (or plea bargain) is used to reduce it to a punishment that, ideally, fits the crime.
So get off your damned "America sucks because I prefer to cling to a fantasy of how I think they are rather than understanding how they are" horse. Because we laugh at you when you tout that.
From the few details I can gather, it's more "social engineering" than "hacking". And you're quite right about them posting the pictures online in the first place... otherwise what would he have gotten to blackmail them with? There's a lot of unanswered questions, but I think there's plenty of lessons for both sides here.
I really doubt he'll get what is effectively life in prison for this. I have a hard time believing they'll give him more than 20 years and even that might be a stretch. Although 20 years seems relatively mild, consider losing 20 years of your life. He'll be 47 by the time he gets out and be missing the stretch where most people get a family, build up wealth and the do the bulk of saving for retirement. Even if he doesn't care about that, it's still a very long time to be in prison.
1) By copyright. If each song is copyrighted individually, then each song counts as 1 infringement. If the album is copyrighted as a whole, then one infringement per album regardless of whether it's one song or the entire album.
2) How it's sold. If the song is normally sold individually, then each song is one infringement. If the song is normally only available as part of an album, then any and all songs from that album should be grouped together. If the song is available as both a single and an album, it gets a little trickier. I would say that if there's a significant portion of the album (say, 50% or more of the tracks), then treat it as one album infringement. If it's just a couple of songs from the same album that are available as singles, treat them as separate infringements.
Of course, there's plenty of gray areas and terms open to interpretation, but I'm offering up an idea not a completed law.
"Hell, she probably could have gone and punched the head of the RIANZ in the fucking face and got off with a smaller fine (though probably some community work as well)."
Wait, so she'd get community work for doing community work?
It depends on your perspective. From the seller's perspective, it's what you described. From the consumer's perspective, cost is the same as the price. It's pretty clear from the context they're referring to the cost to the consumer, which is the same as the price. You can argue that within a specific field, words have a very specific meaning, but the article is neither written by, nor targeted at, such a specific field.
That's the idea behind a deterrent. If the fine is so low that people are willing to pay it and go on their merry way if they get caught, there's no point in it. The deterrent needs to be high enough to make people think twice before doing it and $120 per infringement, plus covering reasonable overhead costs is right about what it should be, otherwise why bother having copyright law at all?
- $6.57 to cover the cost of the tracks - $50 to cover RIANZ's costs of sending the notices (and presumably other administrative costs) - $200 to cover the cost of bringing it before the copyright body - $360 ($120 per infringement) as a deterrant. The only actual punitive cost.
Seems to me to be a perfect balance between high enough to deter people and low enough not to bankrupt people over an activity in which no one could be injured, no property can be destroyed, no one is harassed and economic damage is negligible.
This is one of the main sources of Windows bloat and crash issues. It's also one of the main reasons Windows remains so dominant in spite of trip-ups like Me and Vista. I can still play games from the mid-90's on Windows 8 and XP Mode on 7 lets me play games from earlier still. It's a shame they got rid of XP Mode, although you can import it into VirtualBox or VMware (but, ironically, not Client Hyper-V last I knew) to keep using it on Windows 8.
I'm not sure why I was modded informative either. My first point was the AC I was replying to was too thick to read the summary and realize the 128GB iPad was in response to the 128GB Surface Pro, so Microsoft will not "have to come out with" a 128GB model. My second point was that in spite of already having a 128GB Surface Pro, it's limited to about 83GB after the OS and other stuff that comes on it, whereas the iPads typicially give you much closer to the amount of storage they're sold as having.
In my opinion, the iPad is overpriced for what it does anyway, and the only real advantage of the Surface Pro is to run x86 programs - but even that is a niche because it's competing against less expensive laptops/netbooks with the same level of portability and some even have touchscreens. I'll happily stick to my Nook Color with Cyanogenmod for my tablet needs.
In addition to their existing 128GB model that's referenced in the summary? Or do you mean a 128GB model that actually has 128GB, not 83GB plus a 45GB OS?
Websites are intended to face the general public, this is implicitly understood. A better analogy is there's an unmarked door on the side of the store and when you peak in, you see it's an office or some other place the public obviously doesn't belong even if it's still wide open.
Probably the same laws that say you can't use someone else's computer without their permission. Just because it's unsecured doesn't mean you're allowed to walk in.
But at least it keeps the major search engines from indexing your web-accessible device, which is where script kiddies and the malevolently ignorant will go to find strange machines to play with.
The way I understand it is that while RIM is struggling in North America, they're still pretty dominant in the rest of the world. And the rest of the world is still a pretty big market.
Gas is stored underground at gas stations. Store water underground and it's pretty easy to maintain it at a temperature above freezing... even in climates much colder than Minnesota.
It's also not too difficult to keep it as a liquid using other methods ranging from passive to active.
I'm hoping this doesn't turn into another "butbutbut but it still takes more energy to make than it gives back!" argument. The key here is making the stored energy portable. Gasoline takes a lot more energy to drill, transport and refine than it gives back, but the end product is very portable so the premium is worth it compared to stuff like coal or natural gas that (presumably, I don't really know) takes less effort to get to the end product. However, coal is pretty impractical for portable applications like cars, lawn mowers or snowmobiles.
Water, on the other hand, has every advantage of gas (liquid can be pumped, etc) with additional advantages such as being much more renewable, much greater availability, much easier to get to and not being explosive if you decide to smoke while filling up. The only problem is that we haven't found a way to convert water into hydrogen fuel (which cannot be as easily stored or transported as water) at the point of use - either the pump or, better yet, whatever needs the fuel. If silicon nanoparticles can do that and you only need to swap in a new silicon nanoparticle cartridge every few thousand miles then it's well worth the extra energy to create them in the first place.
Linksys hardware under Cisco was pretty good. The firmware is what really bombed. I'll still take a Linksys any day so long as I can put DD-WRT or similar on it.
That's my thoughts. It's like the schoolyard bully taunting the nerd just the nerd will take a swing at him. That way, he can pound the nerd into the ground and then claim "well, he started it!"
Slashdot Mirror
In America, we understand the difference between "potential sentence" and "has not even had a trial yet, nevermind a conviction".
105 years would be the extreme maximum and has virtually no chance of happening. The truth is that there is no specific law for this exact crime, so they charge him with every crime that it could fit under. After that, a judge and jury (or plea bargain) is used to reduce it to a punishment that, ideally, fits the crime.
So get off your damned "America sucks because I prefer to cling to a fantasy of how I think they are rather than understanding how they are" horse. Because we laugh at you when you tout that.
From the few details I can gather, it's more "social engineering" than "hacking". And you're quite right about them posting the pictures online in the first place... otherwise what would he have gotten to blackmail them with? There's a lot of unanswered questions, but I think there's plenty of lessons for both sides here.
I really doubt he'll get what is effectively life in prison for this. I have a hard time believing they'll give him more than 20 years and even that might be a stretch. Although 20 years seems relatively mild, consider losing 20 years of your life. He'll be 47 by the time he gets out and be missing the stretch where most people get a family, build up wealth and the do the bulk of saving for retirement. Even if he doesn't care about that, it's still a very long time to be in prison.
What if someone gets 10,000 speeding tickets? Should they get a bulk discount?
I see two ways to approach this.
1) By copyright. If each song is copyrighted individually, then each song counts as 1 infringement. If the album is copyrighted as a whole, then one infringement per album regardless of whether it's one song or the entire album.
2) How it's sold. If the song is normally sold individually, then each song is one infringement. If the song is normally only available as part of an album, then any and all songs from that album should be grouped together. If the song is available as both a single and an album, it gets a little trickier. I would say that if there's a significant portion of the album (say, 50% or more of the tracks), then treat it as one album infringement. If it's just a couple of songs from the same album that are available as singles, treat them as separate infringements.
Of course, there's plenty of gray areas and terms open to interpretation, but I'm offering up an idea not a completed law.
"Hell, she probably could have gone and punched the head of the RIANZ in the fucking face and got off with a smaller fine (though probably some community work as well)."
Wait, so she'd get community work for doing community work?
It depends on your perspective. From the seller's perspective, it's what you described. From the consumer's perspective, cost is the same as the price. It's pretty clear from the context they're referring to the cost to the consumer, which is the same as the price. You can argue that within a specific field, words have a very specific meaning, but the article is neither written by, nor targeted at, such a specific field.
That's the idea behind a deterrent. If the fine is so low that people are willing to pay it and go on their merry way if they get caught, there's no point in it. The deterrent needs to be high enough to make people think twice before doing it and $120 per infringement, plus covering reasonable overhead costs is right about what it should be, otherwise why bother having copyright law at all?
The whole thing is pretty reasonable.
- $6.57 to cover the cost of the tracks
- $50 to cover RIANZ's costs of sending the notices (and presumably other administrative costs)
- $200 to cover the cost of bringing it before the copyright body
- $360 ($120 per infringement) as a deterrant. The only actual punitive cost.
Seems to me to be a perfect balance between high enough to deter people and low enough not to bankrupt people over an activity in which no one could be injured, no property can be destroyed, no one is harassed and economic damage is negligible.
This is one of the main sources of Windows bloat and crash issues. It's also one of the main reasons Windows remains so dominant in spite of trip-ups like Me and Vista. I can still play games from the mid-90's on Windows 8 and XP Mode on 7 lets me play games from earlier still. It's a shame they got rid of XP Mode, although you can import it into VirtualBox or VMware (but, ironically, not Client Hyper-V last I knew) to keep using it on Windows 8.
I'm not sure why I was modded informative either. My first point was the AC I was replying to was too thick to read the summary and realize the 128GB iPad was in response to the 128GB Surface Pro, so Microsoft will not "have to come out with" a 128GB model. My second point was that in spite of already having a 128GB Surface Pro, it's limited to about 83GB after the OS and other stuff that comes on it, whereas the iPads typicially give you much closer to the amount of storage they're sold as having.
In my opinion, the iPad is overpriced for what it does anyway, and the only real advantage of the Surface Pro is to run x86 programs - but even that is a niche because it's competing against less expensive laptops/netbooks with the same level of portability and some even have touchscreens. I'll happily stick to my Nook Color with Cyanogenmod for my tablet needs.
In addition to their existing 128GB model that's referenced in the summary? Or do you mean a 128GB model that actually has 128GB, not 83GB plus a 45GB OS?
We haven't been at risk even though we were invaded in the 1940's?
Granted, it was a remote part of Alaska, but it's still enemy troops on our soil.
A Soviet invasion was also not that far out of the questions in the decades following WWII either.
Note that the summary even mentions the US, as part of the WTO, approved the ruling.
I already have all of your porn, but it's nice to know you're thinking of me.
Sincerely,
Disgruntled Employee
Websites are intended to face the general public, this is implicitly understood. A better analogy is there's an unmarked door on the side of the store and when you peak in, you see it's an office or some other place the public obviously doesn't belong even if it's still wide open.
Probably the same laws that say you can't use someone else's computer without their permission. Just because it's unsecured doesn't mean you're allowed to walk in.
But at least it keeps the major search engines from indexing your web-accessible device, which is where script kiddies and the malevolently ignorant will go to find strange machines to play with.
The way I understand it is that while RIM is struggling in North America, they're still pretty dominant in the rest of the world. And the rest of the world is still a pretty big market.
Gas is stored underground at gas stations. Store water underground and it's pretty easy to maintain it at a temperature above freezing... even in climates much colder than Minnesota.
It's also not too difficult to keep it as a liquid using other methods ranging from passive to active.
I'm hoping this doesn't turn into another "butbutbut but it still takes more energy to make than it gives back!" argument. The key here is making the stored energy portable. Gasoline takes a lot more energy to drill, transport and refine than it gives back, but the end product is very portable so the premium is worth it compared to stuff like coal or natural gas that (presumably, I don't really know) takes less effort to get to the end product. However, coal is pretty impractical for portable applications like cars, lawn mowers or snowmobiles.
Water, on the other hand, has every advantage of gas (liquid can be pumped, etc) with additional advantages such as being much more renewable, much greater availability, much easier to get to and not being explosive if you decide to smoke while filling up. The only problem is that we haven't found a way to convert water into hydrogen fuel (which cannot be as easily stored or transported as water) at the point of use - either the pump or, better yet, whatever needs the fuel. If silicon nanoparticles can do that and you only need to swap in a new silicon nanoparticle cartridge every few thousand miles then it's well worth the extra energy to create them in the first place.
Linksys hardware under Cisco was pretty good. The firmware is what really bombed. I'll still take a Linksys any day so long as I can put DD-WRT or similar on it.
Ok, how's this then. The nerd, in turn, picks on the kid with a lisp. Doesn't really make the bully any better.
That's my thoughts. It's like the schoolyard bully taunting the nerd just the nerd will take a swing at him. That way, he can pound the nerd into the ground and then claim "well, he started it!"
I should mention that this was still the case when I graduated from there in 2010