What just happened in this discussion: the meaning of "owner" changed.
For example, if I buy a car, I'd say I'm the owner of the car, and all that comes with it, including the owner's manual.
If I buy software, and I say I'm the owner of the software, I mean exactly the same thing, cuz I'm using the word 'owner' in the same context. In neither case is ownership of the copy equal to ownership of the copyrights.
But in your reply to me, when you say "No, the owner of the software ISN'T you", you mean "the owner of the software copyrights isn't you". This is correct, but it is different from what I meant.
Without realizing it, because of the change in context, you have changed the meaning of the expression "owner of". This is an automatic thing, I think brought about by all the noise and fury made by the RIAA, et al, over "piracy". They have worked long and hard to muddy the waters of the discussion in order to divide and conquer.
So assume my meaning of "owner of the software" means "owner of the software, not the copyrights", and reapply this concept:
The "owner" of the copy of the software you purchased is you, just as the owner of the car you purchased is you. Does ownership of a copy of the software give you the right to use that copy of the software any way you see fit? Yes, it does, for your personal use. If I make a copy and offer it to others without permission and without including or destroying every personally owned copy I have, then I am infringing copyrights.
But I can not infringe copyrights by only using the software personally. Depending on the end user contract, I can breach the contract by doing so, but that's contract law, not copyright law.
The Wiki is wrong. Period. From the wiki: Use of software without a license could constitute infringement of the owner's exclusive rights under copyright
This is incorrect. The "owner" of the software you purchased is you, just as the owner of the car you purchased is you. Does owning a car give you the right to use the manufacturer's patents in making your own products for sale? No. Does it give you right to commericially republish copyrighted material (such as the owner's manual) that came with the car? No. Does it give you the right to use what you purchased how you want to? Yes. You can use the patented and copyrighted items you purchased, for your personal use, exactly how you see fit.
The software vendor's copyrights can not limit product usage. Copyrights are called "Copy" rights because they're not "usage rights". Lawyers have tried to split hairs and say that copying a work from CD to HD or from HD to memory is "copying" under copyright law. Usually (but not always) they fail.
More from the wiki: A software vendor may offer a software license... such as in a shrink wrap contract
Again, this fails to correctly distinguish between contracts and licenses. This article looks like it was written by Secured Dimensions, a subsidiary of Microsoft: (avi shillo, is that you?)
Secured Dimensions, a subsidiary of Microsoft has introduced a new concept called scalable licensing. With the SecureLM product, software vendors can ship
Yup, straight from the marketing department..
PS: yes, in the US you can copy an entire legally owned copyrighted work for personal use, which is one of the clauses of the copyright "fair use" provision.
Yes, it is. There'd be no point in buying the software if you couldn't copy it to your computer. Even if it weren't literally fair use, judges are allowed to avoid literal interpretation of the law in order to avoid a ridiculus or contradictary result.
Note that fair use you quoted was when you copy part of something for distribution to others. If you own a photocopier, you can legally copy an entire book you legally own (say, "Harry Potter And The Twenty Dollar Doorstop"), as long as it's for your personal use. If you need a new doorstop in your house, this is one legal way to get it. Just don't distribute your photocopies to others.
For software, this also includes making as many backup copies as you'd like.
Here's another example of legal fair use: Recording TV shows, even off of cable or satellite. You paid for it, you can play it as much as you want to. However, courts have ruled against sports bars for using big screen TVs and charging cover to watch the superbowl.
Sony vs movie industry set the precedent on personal recordings (copies).
The EULA is a *LICENCE* which grants you extra rights (such as being able to use the software) which aren't otherwise allowed.
If you buy something, even software, you have the right to use it. With software, what you don't have are copyrights - that is the right to copy and distribute beyond your own personal fair use. Copying the software to your PC - even more than one, if they're all yours - is fair use. It's the software companies that want you to think that you can't legally make more than one copy. You're limited to one copy by the EULA, not by the law.
What software companies call a "License Agreement" is a contradiction in terms - a license does NOT require agreement. A true license is (as you said) a granting of rights that are otherwise illegal, but you omitted that the grant is unilateral - only the owner of the rights has to agree. Here's an example: I own a barbecue pit. I hereby grant you the right to use it on the next February 29, provided you can find it. (If you do, tell me...my garage is, well,...) See? You didn't have to agree - it's my BBQ, I'll let you use it if I want. Whether or not you use it (or even find it) is up to you and the lords of chaos that rule my garage.
A software "EULA" is actually a contract. Contracts require "agreement", so a "End User License Agreement" is a contract. They grant you nothing you wouldn't already have the rights to (via purchasing the software), and in exchange, you give up all those pesky rights that the vendors don't like. "License" doesn't actually enter into most EULAs - really. Pick one, read it and see if it lets you do *ANYTHING* that you wouldn't have the right to do just by purchasing the product. Even software doesn't need a EULA.
I can't imagine how society can possibly benefit from a law mandating homelessness and employment for any group or individual. Sure, it'll start by checking ONLY immigration status - but how long will that limit last? It used be said that the way to make a terrorist is to kill a terrorist. Someone (or more than one) in the corpse's family will step up and take his place. This is a just a more humane way to make terrorists. If your children are hungry and people around you are fat, and it's illegal for you to get a job, what would you do? I can see absolutely no possible benefit to this. It's cruel and unusual punishment before the crime is even committed - and it will create the crime of employment - that is, if you don't have a job, it's a crime to give you one.
Who owns the Linux trademark? You can also read the full list of all 204 Linux trademarks
At least 204 people and/or companies, I'd guess.
That's what a trademark is - something registered with the gov't so everyone knows who owns it. The trademark registry includes full description of the mark and the scope of the services,products or markets where the trade mark is used. "Who owns" regarding trademarks is very much like "who owns" regarding motor vehicles. Just read the title to the property.
In the letter from the Committe on Homeland security to Nookoolur Regulatory Commission about it, In accord with current regulations, NRC staff decided against investigating the failure as a "cybersecurity incident" because 1) the failing system was a "non-safety" system rather than a "safety" system,
If failure of the component is dangerous enough to force a system shutdown due to lack of cooling, that IS a safety system. It's like saying there's no need for bracing the BOTTOM of the ladder, cuz it's such a short fall.
It wasn't the power plant that made this determination. It was the NRC.
Any money paid to the company hosting the game is entertainment dollars spent, no matter what service or product it buys. If you spend $1000 US for $10 million Linden or 10 million acres of virtual real estate, in the US gov't eyes you're buying software or a software service. That's all.
Linden dollars, virtual land, soooper weapons and hot elvish sexbots - why would the gov't even care what the software 'service' is in your imagination?
Eventually, it'll get to where it's as complex and may be considered a foreign economy. Transactions that take place using in another country using that country's currency are not taxable by the US. The US can (IIRC, does) tax you for no other reason than you're a US citizen, but that's probly reduced by taxes paid in the other country and exchange rates. I seriously doubt anyone wants to attempt to set that up with MMOs. I expect that the taxation would be on sales in US dollars between humans in exchange for a parallel but opposite in-game transaction involving in-game objects. The gov't won't care about the bits in the box, but the bucks changing hands on Ebay. I suspect the tax rate would be like any other online sale.
Suppose you use the tool (like in Second Life) to create an alife - an artificial lifeform with AI. Suppose the you-plus-computer-generated character can interact with other human players. Suppose it makes money for its own use. Suppose it has kids, and they make money. Who pays the taxes? If the alife does, how you gonna arrest tax cheats? De-res them ala Tron? That won't work so long as there's backups. Once alifes begin their own game-based economy, and start trading with humans, might humans start getting money that "comes from nowhere" when they convert it by sales to other geeks on Ebay? I do not envy the folks who are hired to write and/or enforce these laws - programmers can write source code a lot faster than lawyers can write legal code.
I was sure I'd get a lotta the details wrong. I didn't take time to look it up - I figgered wikipedia, etc is too easy, so the parent poster could look it up him/herself if interested. But thanx for the correction! I was just showing how nitpicking the numbers can sometimes lead to new discoveries as well as confirming old theories.
Ptolemy said the planets circled the Earth in epicycles, and mathematically "proved" it to the accuracy of available instruments. This was good enough for about a 1000 years. Together, Newton and Galileo proved heliocentricity, but calculated ellipitical orbits, also wrong, and also within the accuracy of available instruments. Brahe and others eventually measured things so precisely that they were able to find that Newton had an error, but they didn't understand it. Later, someone (I forget who) was able to measure the orbit of Jupiter's (known) moons and show that the speed of light caused an apparent lag in their orbital motions. But planetary orbits still didn't obey Newton precisely. The world had to wait for Einstein to get an explanation - space/time curvature, etc, predicted the variance from Newton's calculations. Somewhere in all of this, British scientists predicted the existence of Australia by the wobble it causes in Earth's spin. Failure of real world measurements to match theoretical predictions can lead to greater discoveries. Sometimes the failure is more significant than success would be.
I seem to recall about 10 years ago font copyrights, etc, and the ClearType issue came up regarding Linux. The question then was whether it was OK to do *something* like this, or include fonts, etc, in OSS files and/or SW. Anyone remember the details?
Antivirus companies have contracts with M$ and other companies that allow them to do this (for a fee, I guess). This is what being a "M$ partner" means - an organized cabal that shares secrets and non-litigation covenants to provide a single "interactive TV set" appliance to "consumers" (instead of "computers" to "customers").
Here's a challenge for you. Input: copper, stone, wood tools, ropes, boats, sliders (like on a sled). No wheels, but you do get to use levers. Power supply is limited to bone and muscle - yours, or any animal you can train to do it.
Now, spend a few thousand years figuring out clever ways to put these tools together to get things done.
People often forget the element of time. We aren't as clever with rope and levers and ramps, because we have huge amounts of power to use or waste.
"Technology" doesn't have to mean smaller, faster computers - it can mean using the old resources better.
When I was a kid in high school in the early 1970's (yeah, I'm a jurassic geezer), this was one of the theories of how it got built. Although not given much credit by scientists, it was considered more likely than aliens and anti-gravity technology. Always remember, Hollywood got it last idea before the pyramids were built.
Flixster is asking for the user's password to *other* networks, not to its own. Whether a user chooses the same password in more than one app is irrelevant. No honest reputable business would ask for your password to some other company's services. This is just asking permission. Nine out of ten times, they've already got the information.
NO, they don't have the info - that's why they're asking for it. They put up a display that borders on phishing (some would say it IS phishing), without explaining what they're going to do while pretending to be you.
Your email certainly looks like astroturf, by the way. Which would fit right in with the kind of tactics used by a company that asks for user passwords to other networks.
But to give you the benefit of the doubt:
There is absolutely no reason, security or otherwise, for a user's password to be anywhere but between the user's ears or typed in to the one correct "password" box where it applies. Even the company who provides the password-protected service has no need of it, unless they have a severely damaged concept of security.
Asking for someone's password shows a flaming disregard for data security and the privacy of users. It's also an insult to the intelligence of the user. Morally, if you ask for a password, you accept the same responsibility of using that password as the original user. I doubt flixster (or any company) would willingly accept the terms of service that companies usually force on users.
The only reasons to ask for a user's passwords are:
1> To pretend to be that user, which is certain to be against the terms of service of ANY security-conscious provider;
2> To access that user's private data, which would not be password protected without reason.
This is about as severe a character flaw as an internet company could possibly have.
Also, email sent from a password protected account will stain your reputation. Especially if used in court against you. Even though it can easily be challenged, the judge and jury would probably still think hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
The RIAA isn't losing a significant amount of money, even if the claimed infringements were real. They are demanding huge sums that would destroy all but the richest people. *Who* they attack is just as relevant as *how*. Suppose a $billion company sues another $billion company over miniscule infractions. This is perhaps still wrong, but the difference is somewhat akin to two pro hockey teams constantly highsticking each other, and a pro hockey team using baseball bats on a first-grader's hockey team. In one case, it's a somewhat distasteful display of normal business aggression. In the other case, it's a morally repugnant display of inhumanity. Business v. business does nothing but bleed the litigants of some cash. Individuals at the companies are emotionally detached from the battle, and they can go home at the end of the day. But such large scale attacks on natural persons in difficult situations destroys lives. This is relevant to justice.
A case dismissed without prejudice can be brought again, once the plaintiff finds a new angle. The judge is saying the defendent has a right to closure, and owing the lack of evidence and shaky legal theory, she doesn't deserve to be forced to help pay for the RIAA's test of its tactics.
IANAL, but I think 'pro bono' means the lawyer won't get paid at all. I think what's meant is 'on contingency', that is, the lawyer only gets paid if he/she wins.
If she wins flat out, a flood of copy-cat defenses will appear, since many, many of the RIAA's victims are in the same situation: no evidence against them, no money for them, atrocities have NOT been committed, etc. As soon as RIAA is forced to fully face the music one time, everyone else will rush to play the same tune. And that kills the RIAA's backup business plan - "if you can't hold the product hostage, hold the customer hostage".
I've had to train "Computer Science" majors in some of the most basic programming skills and concepts. Click and drag VB? OK, no problem. Build an Access database with the query builder, even normalizing tables correctly? Got it. SQL? If I hear one more noob coder say "SeeeeeKwuuull" I'll rip his lungs out. Anytime I hear "seek wool" instead of "Ess Que Ell" I know I've got my work cut out.
I love programming, especially the true science aspects of it - the math, the form and style of well-built code, etc. There's still a wide frontier there. What's happening is that the monoculture has narrowed down how many people can access the frontier. Only a few hughmongocorps run most of the industry and most of the product development. The only real leading edge stuff that goes anywhere is what the big guys want, or what fits in with their limited vision. The rest of the programmers in the industry have monkey jobs pushing buttons, clicking/dragging, developing cookie-cutter apps that are all the same.
The only really creative work I get to do is as a hobby, on my own. Why? Cuz what I want to do, M$ doesn't make a toolkit for. I think many youngsters look at the state of the industry, not the state of the art, and see that it's a piece work industry, like machine shops, only not as cool.
Slashdot Mirror
What just happened in this discussion: the meaning of "owner" changed. For example, if I buy a car, I'd say I'm the owner of the car, and all that comes with it, including the owner's manual. If I buy software, and I say I'm the owner of the software, I mean exactly the same thing, cuz I'm using the word 'owner' in the same context. In neither case is ownership of the copy equal to ownership of the copyrights.
But in your reply to me, when you say "No, the owner of the software ISN'T you", you mean "the owner of the software copyrights isn't you". This is correct, but it is different from what I meant.
Without realizing it, because of the change in context, you have changed the meaning of the expression "owner of". This is an automatic thing, I think brought about by all the noise and fury made by the RIAA, et al, over "piracy". They have worked long and hard to muddy the waters of the discussion in order to divide and conquer.
So assume my meaning of "owner of the software" means "owner of the software, not the copyrights", and reapply this concept: The "owner" of the copy of the software you purchased is you, just as the owner of the car you purchased is you. Does ownership of a copy of the software give you the right to use that copy of the software any way you see fit? Yes, it does, for your personal use. If I make a copy and offer it to others without permission and without including or destroying every personally owned copy I have, then I am infringing copyrights.
But I can not infringe copyrights by only using the software personally. Depending on the end user contract, I can breach the contract by doing so, but that's contract law, not copyright law.
The Wiki is wrong. Period. From the wiki: Use of software without a license could constitute infringement of the owner's exclusive rights under copyright
... such as in a shrink wrap contract
This is incorrect. The "owner" of the software you purchased is you, just as the owner of the car you purchased is you. Does owning a car give you the right to use the manufacturer's patents in making your own products for sale? No. Does it give you right to commericially republish copyrighted material (such as the owner's manual) that came with the car? No. Does it give you the right to use what you purchased how you want to? Yes. You can use the patented and copyrighted items you purchased, for your personal use, exactly how you see fit.
The software vendor's copyrights can not limit product usage. Copyrights are called "Copy" rights because they're not "usage rights". Lawyers have tried to split hairs and say that copying a work from CD to HD or from HD to memory is "copying" under copyright law. Usually (but not always) they fail.
More from the wiki: A software vendor may offer a software license
Again, this fails to correctly distinguish between contracts and licenses. This article looks like it was written by Secured Dimensions, a subsidiary of Microsoft: (avi shillo, is that you?) Secured Dimensions, a subsidiary of Microsoft has introduced a new concept called scalable licensing. With the SecureLM product, software vendors can ship
Yup, straight from the marketing department..
PS: yes, in the US you can copy an entire legally owned copyrighted work for personal use, which is one of the clauses of the copyright "fair use" provision.
Yes, it is. There'd be no point in buying the software if you couldn't copy it to your computer. Even if it weren't literally fair use, judges are allowed to avoid literal interpretation of the law in order to avoid a ridiculus or contradictary result.
Note that fair use you quoted was when you copy part of something for distribution to others. If you own a photocopier, you can legally copy an entire book you legally own (say, "Harry Potter And The Twenty Dollar Doorstop"), as long as it's for your personal use. If you need a new doorstop in your house, this is one legal way to get it. Just don't distribute your photocopies to others.
For software, this also includes making as many backup copies as you'd like.
Here's another example of legal fair use: Recording TV shows, even off of cable or satellite. You paid for it, you can play it as much as you want to. However, courts have ruled against sports bars for using big screen TVs and charging cover to watch the superbowl. Sony vs movie industry set the precedent on personal recordings (copies).
The EULA is a *LICENCE* which grants you extra rights (such as being able to use the software) which aren't otherwise allowed. If you buy something, even software, you have the right to use it. With software, what you don't have are copyrights - that is the right to copy and distribute beyond your own personal fair use. Copying the software to your PC - even more than one, if they're all yours - is fair use. It's the software companies that want you to think that you can't legally make more than one copy. You're limited to one copy by the EULA, not by the law.
What software companies call a "License Agreement" is a contradiction in terms - a license does NOT require agreement. A true license is (as you said) a granting of rights that are otherwise illegal, but you omitted that the grant is unilateral - only the owner of the rights has to agree.
Here's an example: I own a barbecue pit. I hereby grant you the right to use it on the next February 29, provided you can find it. (If you do, tell me...my garage is, well,...) See? You didn't have to agree - it's my BBQ, I'll let you use it if I want. Whether or not you use it (or even find it) is up to you and the lords of chaos that rule my garage.
A software "EULA" is actually a contract. Contracts require "agreement", so a "End User License Agreement" is a contract. They grant you nothing you wouldn't already have the rights to (via purchasing the software), and in exchange, you give up all those pesky rights that the vendors don't like. "License" doesn't actually enter into most EULAs - really. Pick one, read it and see if it lets you do *ANYTHING* that you wouldn't have the right to do just by purchasing the product. Even software doesn't need a EULA.
I can't imagine how society can possibly benefit from a law mandating homelessness and employment for any group or individual. Sure, it'll start by checking ONLY immigration status - but how long will that limit last?
It used be said that the way to make a terrorist is to kill a terrorist. Someone (or more than one) in the corpse's family will step up and take his place.
This is a just a more humane way to make terrorists. If your children are hungry and people around you are fat, and it's illegal for you to get a job, what would you do?
I can see absolutely no possible benefit to this. It's cruel and unusual punishment before the crime is even committed - and it will create the crime of employment - that is, if you don't have a job, it's a crime to give you one.
Who owns the Linux trademark?
You can also read the full list of all 204 Linux trademarks
At least 204 people and/or companies, I'd guess. That's what a trademark is - something registered with the gov't so everyone knows who owns it. The trademark registry includes full description of the mark and the scope of the services,products or markets where the trade mark is used. "Who owns" regarding trademarks is very much like "who owns" regarding motor vehicles. Just read the title to the property.
In the letter from the Committe on Homeland security to Nookoolur Regulatory Commission about it,
In accord with current regulations, NRC staff decided against investigating the failure as a "cybersecurity incident" because 1) the failing system was a "non-safety" system rather than a "safety" system,
If failure of the component is dangerous enough to force a system shutdown due to lack of cooling, that IS a safety system. It's like saying there's no need for bracing the BOTTOM of the ladder, cuz it's such a short fall.
It wasn't the power plant that made this determination. It was the NRC.
for not RTFA'ing. Being a true /.er, here's my opinion anyway:
Microsoft sucks. Users are idiots.
Any money paid to the company hosting the game is entertainment dollars spent, no matter what service or product it buys. If you spend $1000 US for $10 million Linden or 10 million acres of virtual real estate, in the US gov't eyes you're buying software or a software service. That's all. Linden dollars, virtual land, soooper weapons and hot elvish sexbots - why would the gov't even care what the software 'service' is in your imagination?
Eventually, it'll get to where it's as complex and may be considered a foreign economy. Transactions that take place using in another country using that country's currency are not taxable by the US. The US can (IIRC, does) tax you for no other reason than you're a US citizen, but that's probly reduced by taxes paid in the other country and exchange rates. I seriously doubt anyone wants to attempt to set that up with MMOs. I expect that the taxation would be on sales in US dollars between humans in exchange for a parallel but opposite in-game transaction involving in-game objects. The gov't won't care about the bits in the box, but the bucks changing hands on Ebay. I suspect the tax rate would be like any other online sale.
Suppose you use the tool (like in Second Life) to create an alife - an artificial lifeform with AI. Suppose the you-plus-computer-generated character can interact with other human players.
Suppose it makes money for its own use.
Suppose it has kids, and they make money.
Who pays the taxes?
If the alife does, how you gonna arrest tax cheats? De-res them ala Tron? That won't work so long as there's backups.
Once alifes begin their own game-based economy, and start trading with humans, might humans start getting money that "comes from nowhere" when they convert it by sales to other geeks on Ebay?
I do not envy the folks who are hired to write and/or enforce these laws - programmers can write source code a lot faster than lawyers can write legal code.
I was sure I'd get a lotta the details wrong. I didn't take time to look it up - I figgered wikipedia, etc is too easy, so the parent poster could look it up him/herself if interested. But thanx for the correction!
I was just showing how nitpicking the numbers can sometimes lead to new discoveries as well as confirming old theories.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno's_paradox
Ptolemy said the planets circled the Earth in epicycles, and mathematically "proved" it to the accuracy of available instruments. This was good enough for about a 1000 years. Together, Newton and Galileo proved heliocentricity, but calculated ellipitical orbits, also wrong, and also within the accuracy of available instruments. Brahe and others eventually measured things so precisely that they were able to find that Newton had an error, but they didn't understand it. Later, someone (I forget who) was able to measure the orbit of Jupiter's (known) moons and show that the speed of light caused an apparent lag in their orbital motions. But planetary orbits still didn't obey Newton precisely.
The world had to wait for Einstein to get an explanation - space/time curvature, etc, predicted the variance from Newton's calculations.
Somewhere in all of this, British scientists predicted the existence of Australia by the wobble it causes in Earth's spin.
Failure of real world measurements to match theoretical predictions can lead to greater discoveries. Sometimes the failure is more significant than success would be.
I seem to recall about 10 years ago font copyrights, etc, and the ClearType issue came up regarding Linux. The question then was whether it was OK to do *something* like this, or include fonts, etc, in OSS files and/or SW. Anyone remember the details?
Antivirus companies have contracts with M$ and other companies that allow them to do this (for a fee, I guess). This is what being a "M$ partner" means - an organized cabal that shares secrets and non-litigation covenants to provide a single "interactive TV set" appliance to "consumers" (instead of "computers" to "customers").
Here's a challenge for you. Input: copper, stone, wood tools, ropes, boats, sliders (like on a sled). No wheels, but you do get to use levers. Power supply is limited to bone and muscle - yours, or any animal you can train to do it.
Now, spend a few thousand years figuring out clever ways to put these tools together to get things done.
People often forget the element of time. We aren't as clever with rope and levers and ramps, because we have huge amounts of power to use or waste.
"Technology" doesn't have to mean smaller, faster computers - it can mean using the old resources better.
When I was a kid in high school in the early 1970's (yeah, I'm a jurassic geezer), this was one of the theories of how it got built. Although not given much credit by scientists, it was considered more likely than aliens and anti-gravity technology.
Always remember, Hollywood got it last idea before the pyramids were built.
Flixster is asking for the user's password to *other* networks, not to its own. Whether a user chooses the same password in more than one app is irrelevant. No honest reputable business would ask for your password to some other company's services.
This is just asking permission. Nine out of ten times, they've already got the information.
NO, they don't have the info - that's why they're asking for it. They put up a display that borders on phishing (some would say it IS phishing), without explaining what they're going to do while pretending to be you.
Agreed. I've come to equate "marketing" with "lying with intent to steal", almost synonmous with "fraud".
Your email certainly looks like astroturf, by the way. Which would fit right in with the kind of tactics used by a company that asks for user passwords to other networks.
But to give you the benefit of the doubt:
There is absolutely no reason, security or otherwise, for a user's password to be anywhere but between the user's ears or typed in to the one correct "password" box where it applies. Even the company who provides the password-protected service has no need of it, unless they have a severely damaged concept of security.
Asking for someone's password shows a flaming disregard for data security and the privacy of users. It's also an insult to the intelligence of the user. Morally, if you ask for a password, you accept the same responsibility of using that password as the original user. I doubt flixster (or any company) would willingly accept the terms of service that companies usually force on users.
The only reasons to ask for a user's passwords are:
1> To pretend to be that user, which is certain to be against the terms of service of ANY security-conscious provider;
2> To access that user's private data, which would not be password protected without reason.
This is about as severe a character flaw as an internet company could possibly have.
Also, email sent from a password protected account will stain your reputation. Especially if used in court against you. Even though it can easily be challenged, the judge and jury would probably still think hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
The RIAA isn't losing a significant amount of money, even if the claimed infringements were real. They are demanding huge sums that would destroy all but the richest people. *Who* they attack is just as relevant as *how*.
Suppose a $billion company sues another $billion company over miniscule infractions. This is perhaps still wrong, but the difference is somewhat akin to two pro hockey teams constantly highsticking each other, and a pro hockey team using baseball bats on a first-grader's hockey team.
In one case, it's a somewhat distasteful display of normal business aggression. In the other case, it's a morally repugnant display of inhumanity. Business v. business does nothing but bleed the litigants of some cash. Individuals at the companies are emotionally detached from the battle, and they can go home at the end of the day.
But such large scale attacks on natural persons in difficult situations destroys lives.
This is relevant to justice.
A case dismissed without prejudice can be brought again, once the plaintiff finds a new angle. The judge is saying the defendent has a right to closure, and owing the lack of evidence and shaky legal theory, she doesn't deserve to be forced to help pay for the RIAA's test of its tactics.
IANAL, but I think 'pro bono' means the lawyer won't get paid at all. I think what's meant is 'on contingency', that is, the lawyer only gets paid if he/she wins.
If she wins flat out, a flood of copy-cat defenses will appear, since many, many of the RIAA's victims are in the same situation: no evidence against them, no money for them, atrocities have NOT been committed, etc. As soon as RIAA is forced to fully face the music one time, everyone else will rush to play the same tune.
And that kills the RIAA's backup business plan - "if you can't hold the product hostage, hold the customer hostage".
I've had to train "Computer Science" majors in some of the most basic programming skills and concepts. Click and drag VB? OK, no problem. Build an Access database with the query builder, even normalizing tables correctly? Got it. SQL? If I hear one more noob coder say "SeeeeeKwuuull" I'll rip his lungs out. Anytime I hear "seek wool" instead of "Ess Que Ell" I know I've got my work cut out.
I love programming, especially the true science aspects of it - the math, the form and style of well-built code, etc. There's still a wide frontier there. What's happening is that the monoculture has narrowed down how many people can access the frontier. Only a few hughmongocorps run most of the industry and most of the product development. The only real leading edge stuff that goes anywhere is what the big guys want, or what fits in with their limited vision. The rest of the programmers in the industry have monkey jobs pushing buttons, clicking/dragging, developing cookie-cutter apps that are all the same.
The only really creative work I get to do is as a hobby, on my own. Why? Cuz what I want to do, M$ doesn't make a toolkit for. I think many youngsters look at the state of the industry, not the state of the art, and see that it's a piece work industry, like machine shops, only not as cool.