Right or wrong, from a legal standpoint the execs at @Stake are on very solid ground in firing Mr. Geer if they see his paper as damaging their (probably lucrative) relationship with M$.
I agree with this, but I think @Stake has to be careful that firing Geer doesn't damage their reputation with everyone else they deal with. Wether true or not, it gives the impression that they are really not an "independent" company and that they will data which might hurt their biggest client.
"The reason is very simple: a given company needs to keep a reputation, in the case of a security company they need to appear to be open and impartial when assesing different products."
True, but I view the end result differently. They fired an employee because he looked at the facts and formed an opinion that did not reflect well on one of their biggest customers. IF that's the case, how am I supposed to trust what they tell me isn't whitewashed to protect their bigger customers?
The question is, is listing the persons current position a simple statement of fact related to defining "expert status", or a does it mean the person is acting as a company representative?
Personally, I've always viewed such statements as a simple statement of fact, not an endorsment. I would say though that if this is the case they should have specifically stated somewhere that the report was the opinion of the people involved, and does not necessarily reflect the opinions of their employers. I took a quick look but found no such statement.
That first paragraph has some scary connotations. A security consulting company that's aware of MS's shortcomings, but doesn't want to say anything bad about one of their biggest customers. If they are willing to fire someone for saying something bad about MS, are they whitewashing results elsewhere so they don't make their biggest customer look bad?
They may not be doing anything like that, but it doesn't exactly smell good either.
IMO nobody at MS was involved in the firing. They didn't need to be. The simple fact that MS holds so much power over other companies lifelines is enough of an implied threat. Nobody wants to be on MS's bad side.
"Why would I buy Apple's music when I can buy a CD that I can use however I want?"
Because you can't buy a CD that you can use however you want, at least not legally.
As I asked above, what exactly are you wanting to do that you can't do with the music from Apple? I just can't think of anything that's legal, but then I'm not known for my imagination.
"I can wait a few months and get the CD for 5 or 6 bucks. "
So do that. Nobody is stopping you. Other people feel that paying even that much if all they want is one song is too much.
And could you enlighten me as to what exactly you wanted to do with your music from the iTunes Music Store that you couldn't do? AFAIK everything you mentioned can be done with them: burning to CD, transfering to more than one computer and player...
Is the profit margin on the iPod really any higher than any other mp3 player? Have you figured in the engineering and design costs?
Just because one company charges more for a "similar" product, it doesn't mean its overpriced. After all, isn't a $50,000 car "similar" to a $20,000 car? Does that mean the %50,000 car is overpriced, or just engineered and built with a different set of design goals and priorities?
As others have pointed out, it does say at the bottom that it was used with permission. Wether they had permission to alter it like that or not, I don't know.
Of course based on the punishment, these things are child's play compared to sharing a few songs on the internet -a felony conviction and $millions (if the RIAA gets its way).
As I've said in other posts, making some information publicly available does not automatically mean all personal information is forfeit. Having files publicly available should not be an open door for any third party to obtain information that is otherwise not public (name, address,...).
The caveat being if that public information indicates unlawful activity is taking place. But even that requires a judge signing a subpoena. Unless you're the RIAA, which is the real crime IMO.
You have no privacy on the internet. Any privacy you think you might have is simply you being too small and insignificant for anyone to bother to look. Consider your activities to be taking place on a sidewalk using postcards and loud voices--and act accordingly.
I guess it depends on how you define "privacy". There are many different levels of privacy. Even walking down a crowded street I have a certain degree of privacy. My actions in that public place are not private, however many aspects of my identity, including my name, are private unless I choose to make them public in that venue. Nobody has the right to my name, address, DOB or any other information just because I choose to walk down the street.
Your argument is like an analogy I remember a recording industry spokesperson using. Its like a person holding up a large sign on a streetcorner saying the RIAA isn't allowed to read whats on the sign.
The problem is, that's not what they're doing. The RIAA wants the right to walk up to that person, pull their wallet out of their pocket or purse, and abtain any personal information contained within.
IMO, just like holding up a sign doen't give you the right to search me for personal information, having files publicly visible/downloadable doesn't give the RIAA the right to search my ISP for personal information.
Knowing something between little and nothing on the topic, that doesn't make sense. My understanding was that "insiders" are required to have a plan, but that this alone does not provide a safe harbor when they are in position to manipulate the stock prices -or does this fall under a different regulation?
IOW there is no set of rules to follow which makes committing fraud legal.
Slashdot Mirror
Right or wrong, from a legal standpoint the execs at @Stake are on very solid ground in firing Mr. Geer if they see his paper as damaging their (probably lucrative) relationship with M$.
I agree with this, but I think @Stake has to be careful that firing Geer doesn't damage their reputation with everyone else they deal with. Wether true or not, it gives the impression that they are really not an "independent" company and that they will data which might hurt their biggest client.
"The reason is very simple: a given company needs to keep a reputation, in the case of a security company they need to appear to be open and impartial when assesing different products."
True, but I view the end result differently. They fired an employee because he looked at the facts and formed an opinion that did not reflect well on one of their biggest customers. IF that's the case, how am I supposed to trust what they tell me isn't whitewashed to protect their bigger customers?
The question is, is listing the persons current position a simple statement of fact related to defining "expert status", or a does it mean the person is acting as a company representative?
Personally, I've always viewed such statements as a simple statement of fact, not an endorsment. I would say though that if this is the case they should have specifically stated somewhere that the report was the opinion of the people involved, and does not necessarily reflect the opinions of their employers. I took a quick look but found no such statement.
Pardon my ignorance, but what is it exactly in Holland that prevents "the boss" from firing an employee they don't like?
I'd have to say the chance of it happening in the US is also "close to nil". Of course "close to nil" x millions can equal a significant number.
That first paragraph has some scary connotations. A security consulting company that's aware of MS's shortcomings, but doesn't want to say anything bad about one of their biggest customers. If they are willing to fire someone for saying something bad about MS, are they whitewashing results elsewhere so they don't make their biggest customer look bad?
They may not be doing anything like that, but it doesn't exactly smell good either.
IMO nobody at MS was involved in the firing. They didn't need to be. The simple fact that MS holds so much power over other companies lifelines is enough of an implied threat. Nobody wants to be on MS's bad side.
"Why would I buy Apple's music when I can buy a CD that I can use however I want?"
Because you can't buy a CD that you can use however you want, at least not legally.
As I asked above, what exactly are you wanting to do that you can't do with the music from Apple? I just can't think of anything that's legal, but then I'm not known for my imagination.
"I can wait a few months and get the CD for 5 or 6 bucks. "
So do that. Nobody is stopping you. Other people feel that paying even that much if all they want is one song is too much.
And could you enlighten me as to what exactly you wanted to do with your music from the iTunes Music Store that you couldn't do? AFAIK everything you mentioned can be done with them: burning to CD, transfering to more than one computer and player...
How do you define "grossly over priced"?
Is the profit margin on the iPod really any higher than any other mp3 player? Have you figured in the engineering and design costs?
Just because one company charges more for a "similar" product, it doesn't mean its overpriced. After all, isn't a $50,000 car "similar" to a $20,000 car? Does that mean the %50,000 car is overpriced, or just engineered and built with a different set of design goals and priorities?
As others have pointed out, it does say at the bottom that it was used with permission. Wether they had permission to alter it like that or not, I don't know.
Think that's cool? You should see what Daryl handed in for his family tree back in grade school.
I was talking about her challenging the release of her personal information by her ISP.
My bad, though. I was replying to previous articles, not the one linked.
Of course based on the punishment, these things are child's play compared to sharing a few songs on the internet -a felony conviction and $millions (if the RIAA gets its way).
IMO its easier just to go to the library and check out the CD.
Depends.
As I've said in other posts, making some information publicly available does not automatically mean all personal information is forfeit. Having files publicly available should not be an open door for any third party to obtain information that is otherwise not public (name, address,...).
The caveat being if that public information indicates unlawful activity is taking place. But even that requires a judge signing a subpoena. Unless you're the RIAA, which is the real crime IMO.
You have no privacy on the internet. Any privacy you think you might have is simply you being too small and insignificant for anyone to bother to look. Consider your activities to be taking place on a sidewalk using postcards and loud voices--and act accordingly.
I guess it depends on how you define "privacy". There are many different levels of privacy. Even walking down a crowded street I have a certain degree of privacy. My actions in that public place are not private, however many aspects of my identity, including my name, are private unless I choose to make them public in that venue. Nobody has the right to my name, address, DOB or any other information just because I choose to walk down the street.
Your argument is like an analogy I remember a recording industry spokesperson using. Its like a person holding up a large sign on a streetcorner saying the RIAA isn't allowed to read whats on the sign.
The problem is, that's not what they're doing. The RIAA wants the right to walk up to that person, pull their wallet out of their pocket or purse, and abtain any personal information contained within.
IMO, just like holding up a sign doen't give you the right to search me for personal information, having files publicly visible/downloadable doesn't give the RIAA the right to search my ISP for personal information.
OK, try this. Most public libraries also have CDs you can check out. Not much different than only allowing one download at a time.
You may very well have a perfectly legal reason to download that MP3--but you certainly don't have a justifiable reason to place it on a P2P network.
But I didn't do it! It was a computer virus that turned on sharing and put those songs there!
Knowing something between little and nothing on the topic, that doesn't make sense. My understanding was that "insiders" are required to have a plan, but that this alone does not provide a safe harbor when they are in position to manipulate the stock prices -or does this fall under a different regulation?
IOW there is no set of rules to follow which makes committing fraud legal.
In order for them to do that, someone has to initiate legal proceedings and ask for an injunction. Until that happens the courts can't do anything.
"stop saying this until the matter is settled"
But isn't that what the invoice says? Essentially, "You're using software that contains our IP, so you owe us $$."
Otherwise, what is the invoice for?
They believe they own the rights to said product.
Do they actually believe that?
Or do they simply believe nobody can prove otherwise?
$600,000 is peanuts
Anybody want to hire me? I'll work for peanuts!
Its called bulk pricing.