This is basically true as a matter of judicial precedent.
It's worth noting, however, that the technical wording of the law in many states does not require proof of economic harm. Which is to say, the law is worded in such a way as to favor the defamed party on both terms and damages. I would take this to mean that it's rather risky to get on a blowhorn (or facebook) and call someone a pedophile. I'll go out on a limb and say that if the statement is "convicted pedophile," be ready to polish the house keys for handing over. Yes, the statement is exaggerated. But not really that exaggerated. To wit: would an attorney advise in no uncertain terms to avoid making public statements of that particular type? One certainly would.
As a final point, the case history isn't so clear as the issue is entirely settled. "Maybe" isn't something to hang your house on, is it?
Chemsior, the notion that "yes, we know" is not find something I find to be true. With over a decade on Slashdot, I cannot count the number of times I've heard opinions stated that a company could be forced to release their source under the GPL. This isn't so, which you and I apparently both know, but plenty of people do not.
One possible remedy is removing the bits that oughtn't have been in the code, and paying a fine if need be. The fine will be a lot larger if it wasn't merely a loan programmer slipping code in when he didn't understand IP law, though.
Well, reading a little, I'm favoring the notion that header files are copyrightable under certain circumstances (albeit I would discount pure interface descriptions). However, citing Linus for a legal opinion on the GPL isn't a good idea. I say this because the GPL community up to and including members of the FSF itself have a bit of a conflict of interest in their opinions. They have been clever and cagey about what constitutes a derivative work for example, for which they have no right to define (only congress can), and which I have seen them outreach their grasp. Which is to say, I have seen the FSF make assertions about which sorts of things are derivative works that I believe case history does not support. Since the GPL can only possibly bind a derivative work (as it is a license and not a contract), they have an incentive to be biased here.
Consider our ESX hosts. Unless a problem is recurring, I have no need or incentive to root cause it. I just put the host in maintenance mode, live migrate the vms off, and reboot. Voila. Even better, I can effectively do this with hardware. Hardware looking flakely? Live migrate stuff off, and...
And you're right about the load balanced, clustered stuff. We reboot domain controllers all the time. And so forth.
It is, but there's more to the question than that. For instance, in libel law, one is not eligible for more than token damages if nobody who read the statement took it seriously.
Except when the libel is libel per se.
Don't know about a kid. But if an adult put a facebook post up referring to another adult as a "pedophile," the poster could very well not have a house after.
There's just certain kinds of statements one ought not make.
Someone still has to maintain the machines that are actually running the VMs.
This is true. What's also true is that those admins can be fairly intensely busy running those machines. The summary mixes the concepts of the growing age of virtualization with "marginal admins." The summarizer doesn't really know what's going on, I think. In intensive virtualization operations, the talent pool is shrinking, but growing more concentrated. Cross training is now becoming more common, with the few critical people one has for the core operation being, trained in operating systems (both windows and linux), storage administration, and network administration.
These admins are often far too busy to spend a great deal of time on a specific VM. They're might be literally thousands of virtual machines in a large operation. For just one VM to draw their attention, it has to be something important and shared. Domain controllers, DNS systems, Radius servers, or other shared production systems will often get close attention, but if a quick reboot might resolve things and isn't any more disruptive than the current problem, of course you are going to do that.
What I think the summarizer isn't really grokking is that in this growing age of virtualization, the number of admins per server is going down a lot, and the focus of these admins has changed.
...if all of the above fail to produce the desired effect, then why not counterattack in such a way that none of the above can be applied against you? By your failure in using the above procedures, you've got clear evidence that it is possible to attack and get away with it...
Until you as a manager discover you have one or more subordinates who either 1) don't like you personally, or 2) don't like doing illegal things. Decision maker: meet the prison system.
There are 3 classes of people who "get away with it": 1) people of the type Anonymous, 2) criminals operating with careful malice aforethought, and 3) nation states.
One of the other posters responded that TFA was of course really not about revenge attacks, but more about tying up the attackers in mire. I really support that. For example, look up the La Brea honey pot. It's a digital tarpit for autonomous malware. It's pretty cool, and completely legal.
The concept of revenge cyber attacks is functionally insane.
At least at the corporate level. Consider. A competitor's network appears to be attacking yours, so you attack back and get into their networks. Only it turns out that someone hacked the competitor, and it was no fault of the competitor at all. The counter attacking corporation's employees are now guilty of a felony, and presumably were directed to do so by a senior manager. The following actions are available to your competitor:
1. Pressing the district attorney to prosecute the employees and management 2. Pressing the district attorney to prosecute the corporation (i.e. the corporate death penalty) 3. Suing all the criminal employees including all executives in the chain, either authorizing parties or cognizant parties 4. Suing the corporation
Given the criminal act with malice of forethought, the #4 option will be of practically unlimited liability. You can expect to be charged 100% of all attorney's fees, the actual cost of their security event including cleanup and all IT labor associated therewith, and an apportionment of their ongoing security operations fees. For #3, some jurisdictions do not permit bankruptcy out of civil liabilities originating from criminal acts. No employee will be protected just because their bosses told them to do the act, as the act was a crime and is indefensible.
So, to be blunt: "dream on".
No sane Corporate Counsel will permit any company to do this.
You should check the labor laws in that State. Most states don't allow this, and if they didn't then, you are still entitled to all the overtime as back pay. What's more, you won't require an attorney, as they state labor board will assist you.
Programmers are usually exempt because their duties are integrally bound to the success or failure of the company,...
That's not quite adequate justification, I think. Certainly not in California. Merely labeling an employee "exempt," does not make it so. Entry level programmers and other people with lower-level pay and not so many years of experience, if required to work overtime without any pay, will almost certainly have actionable claims against this company at a later date. Furthermore, they won't have to sue to get action. All they need to do is complain, and the labor board will audit. When it does, the labor board will apply the retroactive overtime to all affected employees, plus fines.
Now, if this company wants to do it to the senior programmers (and other people passing the exempt salary test; this number is something like $85K+ or some such, it moves around), then it will get away with it. Until they quit, of course.
Using the marker "m/m" on the internet is the same as saying gay porn, and has been for 20 years. No, I do not read every FA. But if the summarizer has it wrong, expect bad results.
Out of curiosity, does the definition matter? Suppose the article summary were correct. Are you "less free" if Amazon decides to not carry gay rape porn? The actual subject doesn't matter, as I don't think you are "less free" if Amazon decides to not carry ANY subject.
Disney has a content distribution network, the Disney Channel. They elect to not carry a wide variety of works on their channels. So goes with anyone making any decision to carry or not carry a product, consistent with their corporate branding.
In saying that Amazon "has a responsibility," you are foisting upon them an action. The action that you insist that they have (to carry inventory they don't want to carry, in order to give you the warm fuzzy feeling that if they did so your personal definition of "freedom" would increase) is a faulty sentiment.
Jump up and down, stomp your feet, pound your fists on the floor: this behavior will change nothing.
The summary refers to "m/m gay fiction" with "rape" in the title. It does not refer to pornography, that was your own assumption...
"m/m" is a special code word on the internet. If the summarizer lacked internet lingo skills, this is hardly my problem.
"Freedom" isn't subject to your redefinition. Buy a dictionary.
Perhaps you should try this yourself.
If you can't see the difference between deciding what type of artistic work to create and intentionally removing existing artistic works from a store...
I said "decided not to carry," not create. Amazon decided not to carry the product. Disney has also decided not to carry such products. Both decisions are the same.
Frankly, your lack of appreciation for individuals being able to choose for themselves is more than a little repugnant to me.
Your insistence that Amazon have obligations to carry something in order to cater to your notion of "freedom" is repugnant to ME. You are arguing, like a child, that Amazon should be LESS FREE in order to enhance your personal sense of entitlement, and having a temper tantrum about it.
Well first I'd like to clarify that the books dropped were not "rape porn" as you so badly mischaracterize them.
While I did not RTFA, I am quite confident in the summary. It referred to "m/m rape". Now, as someone with more than 20 years of experience with both porn and the internet, if the subject is not as I say, the error is certainly in the summary. Please do not blame me.
But they absolutely are taking away individual choice and acting against the principal of individual choice and freedom.
Your statement would hold equal merit if you accused Disney of the same thing by deciding not to carry films about the subject in its film inventory. Which is to say, no merit at all: laughably ridiculous.
How do you justify your anti-freedom stance?
It has to do with the number of thinking hours under my belt about what constitutes "freedom". To wit: you are perfectly free, and as are as free as you were before (withstanding arguments about antitrust, as you and I appear to both agree upon). You can still get the book you like, and Amazon can still not carry it. Both parties are "free". There is no "anti-freedom stance" here.
It is the dichotomy of both your reasonable response (taking your dollars elsewhere) and your unreasonable one (that Amazon is violating anyone's rights) that I am responding to.
Voting with one's dollars is a fine idea. However, Amazon is violating no one's rights. To say so is an invitation to action, because rights violations always are. Ethically and morally (and in a perfect world: legally), it is never okay to violate another's rights. To wit: if you really think they are violating another's RIGHTS, you are pretty passive about it by merely taking your dollars elsewhere.
Whatever else is true, I think you will fairly well stand alone if you attempt to find agreement that Amazon's decision to drop m/m gay rape porn from its inventory is violating anyone's rights (or "freedom") as you put it.
Another poster observes that Amazon exercises undue influence in the book market. This may be true, and is its own problem. I don't care to discuss monopoly power right now. What I will say is that if a private seller decides not to carry m/m gay rape porn, it is simply ABSURD to call this violating anyone's rights or "freedoms".
Then you should go back to school for some reading comprehension since I explicitly stated the exact opposite in the post you're responding to.
The sentiment is that somehow they are impinging your freedom. Such remarks are a preamble to action; which is to say, regardless of your overt remarks, your covert sentiment is clear.
However, they Amazon is not impinging your freedom at all. You are not even a party to their decision or any of its consequences.
You never answered my question. Why do you hate freedom?
I didn't answer this question because it's an implied statement drawn most obviously from your imagination, saying nothing about me at all, and only things about you.
Amazon needs to be concerned that material of the type they deleted will stain their corporate branding and eventually find them in news articles of the type they can ill afford. It is good corporate stewardship for them to stay away from edgy sorts of porn and other such. Mocking me will not make this any less true.
There are plenty of people who will sell literature fantasizing about the rape of other people if you wish to read it. For that matter, there is an endless supply of free material on that subject.
Amazon should be removing such material from their site because in the long it will be poor for their corporate branding. Removing it is merely good corporate stewardship. Getting all uppity about it is just silly.
Amazon is not impeding your freedom at all; however I am detecting the vague sentiment that you would like to impede THEIR freedom.
I work in the research arm of a Fortune 500 company. Before that, I worked on contracts for DARPA.
The DARPA contracts all had forward-thinking, long term research objectives.
At my current company, all--and I do mean ALL--of the research is targeted towards acquiring new business in under 24 months. At least 75% of our research efforts are so closely tied to new business capture objectives that they actually have marketing money that comes in tow with the research, and a business development supervisor. I'm actually pretty happy with our strategy, and look at it as a responsible use of our company's money.
But to say that I agree with you in that "private companies typically do not engage in long-term research". Well, the evidence could not be more obvious that what you are saying is true.
Slashdot Mirror
This is basically true as a matter of judicial precedent.
It's worth noting, however, that the technical wording of the law in many states does not require proof of economic harm. Which is to say, the law is worded in such a way as to favor the defamed party on both terms and damages. I would take this to mean that it's rather risky to get on a blowhorn (or facebook) and call someone a pedophile. I'll go out on a limb and say that if the statement is "convicted pedophile," be ready to polish the house keys for handing over. Yes, the statement is exaggerated. But not really that exaggerated. To wit: would an attorney advise in no uncertain terms to avoid making public statements of that particular type? One certainly would.
As a final point, the case history isn't so clear as the issue is entirely settled. "Maybe" isn't something to hang your house on, is it?
C//
Chemsior, the notion that "yes, we know" is not find something I find to be true. With over a decade on Slashdot, I cannot count the number of times I've heard opinions stated that a company could be forced to release their source under the GPL. This isn't so, which you and I apparently both know, but plenty of people do not.
One possible remedy is removing the bits that oughtn't have been in the code, and paying a fine if need be. The fine will be a lot larger if it wasn't merely a loan programmer slipping code in when he didn't understand IP law, though.
C//
Well, reading a little, I'm favoring the notion that header files are copyrightable under certain circumstances (albeit I would discount pure interface descriptions). However, citing Linus for a legal opinion on the GPL isn't a good idea. I say this because the GPL community up to and including members of the FSF itself have a bit of a conflict of interest in their opinions. They have been clever and cagey about what constitutes a derivative work for example, for which they have no right to define (only congress can), and which I have seen them outreach their grasp. Which is to say, I have seen the FSF make assertions about which sorts of things are derivative works that I believe case history does not support. Since the GPL can only possibly bind a derivative work (as it is a license and not a contract), they have an incentive to be biased here.
C//
What do you about nontrivial macros living in header files? These are surely code, and a creative work.
C//
I have no opinion on whether or not a header file is copyrightable or not. I've heard arguments against, and will leave it at that.
What I will say is that if those arguments are wrong, stripping copyright notices from a copyrighted work is a criminal offense.
C//
Yes.
Consider our ESX hosts. Unless a problem is recurring, I have no need or incentive to root cause it. I just put the host in maintenance mode, live migrate the vms off, and reboot. Voila. Even better, I can effectively do this with hardware. Hardware looking flakely? Live migrate stuff off, and...
And you're right about the load balanced, clustered stuff. We reboot domain controllers all the time. And so forth.
C//
It is, but there's more to the question than that. For instance, in libel law, one is not eligible for more than token damages if nobody who read the statement took it seriously.
Except when the libel is libel per se.
Don't know about a kid. But if an adult put a facebook post up referring to another adult as a "pedophile," the poster could very well not have a house after.
There's just certain kinds of statements one ought not make.
C//
Someone still has to maintain the machines that are actually running the VMs.
This is true. What's also true is that those admins can be fairly intensely busy running those machines. The summary mixes the concepts of the growing age of virtualization with "marginal admins." The summarizer doesn't really know what's going on, I think. In intensive virtualization operations, the talent pool is shrinking, but growing more concentrated. Cross training is now becoming more common, with the few critical people one has for the core operation being, trained in operating systems (both windows and linux), storage administration, and network administration.
These admins are often far too busy to spend a great deal of time on a specific VM. They're might be literally thousands of virtual machines in a large operation. For just one VM to draw their attention, it has to be something important and shared. Domain controllers, DNS systems, Radius servers, or other shared production systems will often get close attention, but if a quick reboot might resolve things and isn't any more disruptive than the current problem, of course you are going to do that.
What I think the summarizer isn't really grokking is that in this growing age of virtualization, the number of admins per server is going down a lot, and the focus of these admins has changed.
C//
Yes, I like it. But they need to tuck in the vertical margin by 40% or so, I think.
...if all of the above fail to produce the desired effect, then why not counterattack in such a way that none of the above can be applied against you? By your failure in using the above procedures, you've got clear evidence that it is possible to attack and get away with it...
Until you as a manager discover you have one or more subordinates who either 1) don't like you personally, or 2) don't like doing illegal things. Decision maker: meet the prison system.
There are 3 classes of people who "get away with it": 1) people of the type Anonymous, 2) criminals operating with careful malice aforethought, and 3) nation states.
Western world corporations have no role here.
You know this.
C//
One of the other posters responded that TFA was of course really not about revenge attacks, but more about tying up the attackers in mire. I really support that. For example, look up the La Brea honey pot. It's a digital tarpit for autonomous malware. It's pretty cool, and completely legal.
C//
The concept of revenge cyber attacks is functionally insane.
At least at the corporate level. Consider. A competitor's network appears to be attacking yours, so you attack back and get into their networks. Only it turns out that someone hacked the competitor, and it was no fault of the competitor at all. The counter attacking corporation's employees are now guilty of a felony, and presumably were directed to do so by a senior manager. The following actions are available to your competitor:
1. Pressing the district attorney to prosecute the employees and management
2. Pressing the district attorney to prosecute the corporation (i.e. the corporate death penalty)
3. Suing all the criminal employees including all executives in the chain, either authorizing parties or cognizant parties
4. Suing the corporation
Given the criminal act with malice of forethought, the #4 option will be of practically unlimited liability. You can expect to be charged 100% of all attorney's fees, the actual cost of their security event including cleanup and all IT labor associated therewith, and an apportionment of their ongoing security operations fees. For #3, some jurisdictions do not permit bankruptcy out of civil liabilities originating from criminal acts. No employee will be protected just because their bosses told them to do the act, as the act was a crime and is indefensible.
So, to be blunt: "dream on".
No sane Corporate Counsel will permit any company to do this.
C//
You should check the labor laws in that State. Most states don't allow this, and if they didn't then, you are still entitled to all the overtime as back pay. What's more, you won't require an attorney, as they state labor board will assist you.
C//
Programmers are usually exempt because their duties are integrally bound to the success or failure of the company, ...
That's not quite adequate justification, I think. Certainly not in California. Merely labeling an employee "exempt," does not make it so. Entry level programmers and other people with lower-level pay and not so many years of experience, if required to work overtime without any pay, will almost certainly have actionable claims against this company at a later date. Furthermore, they won't have to sue to get action. All they need to do is complain, and the labor board will audit. When it does, the labor board will apply the retroactive overtime to all affected employees, plus fines.
Now, if this company wants to do it to the senior programmers (and other people passing the exempt salary test; this number is something like $85K+ or some such, it moves around), then it will get away with it. Until they quit, of course.
C//
Using the marker "m/m" on the internet is the same as saying gay porn, and has been for 20 years. No, I do not read every FA. But if the summarizer has it wrong, expect bad results.
Out of curiosity, does the definition matter? Suppose the article summary were correct. Are you "less free" if Amazon decides to not carry gay rape porn? The actual subject doesn't matter, as I don't think you are "less free" if Amazon decides to not carry ANY subject.
Disney has a content distribution network, the Disney Channel. They elect to not carry a wide variety of works on their channels. So goes with anyone making any decision to carry or not carry a product, consistent with their corporate branding.
In saying that Amazon "has a responsibility," you are foisting upon them an action. The action that you insist that they have (to carry inventory they don't want to carry, in order to give you the warm fuzzy feeling that if they did so your personal definition of "freedom" would increase) is a faulty sentiment.
Jump up and down, stomp your feet, pound your fists on the floor: this behavior will change nothing.
C//
The summary refers to "m/m gay fiction" with "rape" in the title. It does not refer to pornography, that was your own assumption...
"m/m" is a special code word on the internet. If the summarizer lacked internet lingo skills, this is hardly my problem.
"Freedom" isn't subject to your redefinition. Buy a dictionary.
Perhaps you should try this yourself.
If you can't see the difference between deciding what type of artistic work to create and intentionally removing existing artistic works from a store...
I said "decided not to carry," not create. Amazon decided not to carry the product. Disney has also decided not to carry such products. Both decisions are the same.
Frankly, your lack of appreciation for individuals being able to choose for themselves is more than a little repugnant to me.
Your insistence that Amazon have obligations to carry something in order to cater to your notion of "freedom" is repugnant to ME. You are arguing, like a child, that Amazon should be LESS FREE in order to enhance your personal sense of entitlement, and having a temper tantrum about it.
C//
Well first I'd like to clarify that the books dropped were not "rape porn" as you so badly mischaracterize them.
While I did not RTFA, I am quite confident in the summary. It referred to "m/m rape". Now, as someone with more than 20 years of experience with both porn and the internet, if the subject is not as I say, the error is certainly in the summary. Please do not blame me.
But they absolutely are taking away individual choice and acting against the principal of individual choice and freedom.
Your statement would hold equal merit if you accused Disney of the same thing by deciding not to carry films about the subject in its film inventory. Which is to say, no merit at all: laughably ridiculous.
How do you justify your anti-freedom stance?
It has to do with the number of thinking hours under my belt about what constitutes "freedom". To wit: you are perfectly free, and as are as free as you were before (withstanding arguments about antitrust, as you and I appear to both agree upon). You can still get the book you like, and Amazon can still not carry it. Both parties are "free". There is no "anti-freedom stance" here.
C//
So When I explicitly write that I...
It is the dichotomy of both your reasonable response (taking your dollars elsewhere) and your unreasonable one (that Amazon is violating anyone's rights) that I am responding to.
Voting with one's dollars is a fine idea. However, Amazon is violating no one's rights. To say so is an invitation to action, because rights violations always are. Ethically and morally (and in a perfect world: legally), it is never okay to violate another's rights. To wit: if you really think they are violating another's RIGHTS, you are pretty passive about it by merely taking your dollars elsewhere.
Whatever else is true, I think you will fairly well stand alone if you attempt to find agreement that Amazon's decision to drop m/m gay rape porn from its inventory is violating anyone's rights (or "freedom") as you put it.
Another poster observes that Amazon exercises undue influence in the book market. This may be true, and is its own problem. I don't care to discuss monopoly power right now. What I will say is that if a private seller decides not to carry m/m gay rape porn, it is simply ABSURD to call this violating anyone's rights or "freedoms".
C//
Then you should go back to school for some reading comprehension since I explicitly stated the exact opposite in the post you're responding to.
The sentiment is that somehow they are impinging your freedom. Such remarks are a preamble to action; which is to say, regardless of your overt remarks, your covert sentiment is clear.
However, they Amazon is not impinging your freedom at all. You are not even a party to their decision or any of its consequences.
You never answered my question. Why do you hate freedom?
I didn't answer this question because it's an implied statement drawn most obviously from your imagination, saying nothing about me at all, and only things about you.
C//
Amazon needs to be concerned that material of the type they deleted will stain their corporate branding and eventually find them in news articles of the type they can ill afford. It is good corporate stewardship for them to stay away from edgy sorts of porn and other such. Mocking me will not make this any less true.
There are plenty of people who will sell literature fantasizing about the rape of other people if you wish to read it. For that matter, there is an endless supply of free material on that subject.
Amazon should be removing such material from their site because in the long it will be poor for their corporate branding. Removing it is merely good corporate stewardship. Getting all uppity about it is just silly.
Amazon is not impeding your freedom at all; however I am detecting the vague sentiment that you would like to impede THEIR freedom.
C//
Titles on the subject of gay rape disappear from Amazon and we're supposed to be concerned. WTF is wrong with you?
This is not censorship. It's a simple issue of a retailer not wanting its image stained by garbage.
It's both their right and responsibility to see to this kind of stuff.
And here I thought it was an organization for Nationally recognizing well-Endowed Artists.
A fine idea, but not necessary. The deficit only has to be consistently smaller than GDP growth.
I work in the research arm of a Fortune 500 company. Before that, I worked on contracts for DARPA.
The DARPA contracts all had forward-thinking, long term research objectives.
At my current company, all--and I do mean ALL--of the research is targeted towards acquiring new business in under 24 months. At least 75% of our research efforts are so closely tied to new business capture objectives that they actually have marketing money that comes in tow with the research, and a business development supervisor. I'm actually pretty happy with our strategy, and look at it as a responsible use of our company's money.
But to say that I agree with you in that "private companies typically do not engage in long-term research". Well, the evidence could not be more obvious that what you are saying is true.
C//