> Is it fair that you have to worry for decades and pay for further credit > monitoring when they are to blame for your information ending up in the > wrong hands?
You are liable for the actions of your agents. If they screwed up you can sue them but you are still responsible to your customers.
> I don't know (I wouldn't blame them particularly, since I doubt most > free/open-source devs have access to copious amounts of ram).
Right. How could the "devs" at kernel.org and Mozilla, for example, possibly have access to fancy hardware? After all, they are only backed by little companies such as IBM, Intel, Oracle, HP, Google...
How many different architectures is your software built and tested on?
,,,if doing so does not infringe copyright. From Title 17:
No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.
Thus the activity must be such that some other provision of Title 17 would be violated and the copyright owner must object. Material in the public domain is thus not covered.
The DMCA "circumvention" provision is execrable, but Slashdot regularly grossly exaggerates its breadth.
> I'm also troubled by this trend in the way that google delivers their news > offerings, it seems that the logical progression of this is that we will > mostly only be exposed to material that fit our highly individualized > pre-existing reality bubbles.
You don't have to be logged in to a Google account to use Google News or Google Search, you know (in fact, you needn't even accept cookies). As for the "highly individualized pre-existing reality bubbles", that's why people read Huffington Post/Fox News. They don't want truly individualized news. They want news that conforms to the dogma of their reference group,
>...to the ridiculous lengths people will go to to justify theft?
Copyright infringement is not theft.
> Seriously, there is free software for every niche, and gigatons of free > movies and music. If you don't want to pay, load up on all the free stuff > that's there for the taking.
This is true. Popular entertainment is not a necessity of life. If it was I'd be dead. People here get ridiculously enraged and indignant about it. I agree that much of the entertainment industry seems to be run by jerks and assholes, but so what? Just ignore them. There is no need to either buy their stuff or infringe their copyrights. They will disappear eventually, and they know it. That's what's got them so agitated.
> You'd think the founder, with 49% ownership of the company, would get 49% of > something. Not usually.
Yes, usually, if he employed a competent attorney. The terms should have specified exactly how the revenue was to be shared. Better to sell the company outright for cash, though.
> "How do we empower top scientists working in industry to lead science-minded > positive change within their organizations?
You don't. There are no top scientists working in industry. Anyone working in industry who is not a downtrodden oppressed worker is by definition a despicable tool of the esploiters. (except the executives. They're demons).
>... How do companies who seek genuine dialogue with this community engage?"
They don't. Companies are irredeemably evil and seek only to damage the "community". Anything they say that looks like an attempt at "dialogue" is a lie (everything they say is a lie. Even when it was true before they said it).
> When any other big business does even a small fraction of this sort of > creative accounting, they get jumped on by every lawmaker and regulator who > can dream up a way to punish them.
What you are missing is that this scheme does not deprive the government of any revenue, nor does it impact a large enough number of individuals to be of political significance. Thus the "lawmakers" don't care (nor should they: it's none of their business).
> What I really wonder, though, is does all this creative accounting deprive > state/feds of tax revenue?
No. The profits are transferred to the owning corporation which pays taxes on them. It may even result in a slight increase in taxes paid as the scheme may interfere with some possible tax avoidance schemes (legal ones).
It should be noted that these dodges do not avoid any income taxes as the profits are simply shifted to the studio. It also should be noted that the studios have been doing this since before WWII. Anyone who accepts a "share of the profits" deal is at best ill-advised.
> Why Mr. van Rijn use their proprietary name in his blog post?
Because it damn well pleases him to do so, and in the USA, at least, he is free to do so with impunity as long as he does not use it in a way that might mislead the public into believing that they are getting said product when they are not. A trademark is not a copyright.
,,,the fundamental nature of patents. Patents are published, by the PTO. This means that anyone, "international" or otherwise, can already view them. Furthermore, it is settled law that discussion of a patented invention, including detailed explanation of how to implement it, is not infringement.
> That would require 'boxless cable' to have been a tradition in the first > place. It wasn't.
Yes it was. originally there were no "boxes" at all. The cable companies just took the signals off the air and put them on the cable (sometimes rearranging the channel numbers).
> It would be so enticing for the "hacker community" to believe the story > because it inflates their already unwarrantedly large egos: we're just so > much smarter than the average person at solving puzzles, right?
The "hacker community" also consists of normal human beings. People outsmart each other all the time. It's what they do.
> The government surely only employs easily duped idiots - even in > significant security positions...
No, the government employs people. People are often gullible. Especially when they have led each other to believe that they are not.
>...whereas we are geniuses operating from our basements.
No, you are also people. The fact that you tolerate and even support the government (any government) in its "security" operations is proof that you are also gullible.
> USA postal service considers that body part "non-essential". You get a > pittance.
Only if you are fool enough to accept the first offer. Otherwise you get what the jury decides to give you unless you accept the improved offer the USPS makes when they realize you aren't bluffing about going to court.
...avoid "GM" foods, do so. No need to inflict your rants on the rest of us (but of course you intend to inflict your religion on us as well, don't you?)
Slashdot Mirror
> Is it fair that you have to worry for decades and pay for further credit
> monitoring when they are to blame for your information ending up in the
> wrong hands?
You are liable for the actions of your agents. If they screwed up you can sue them but you are still responsible to your customers.
> Now, now, there is really no need to insult the monkeys like that.
Good point. Gorillas aren't monkeys anyway. They're apes (though behaviorly chimps are a better fit).
The Marines have had guns for centuries.
> I don't know (I wouldn't blame them particularly, since I doubt most
> free/open-source devs have access to copious amounts of ram).
Right. How could the "devs" at kernel.org and Mozilla, for example, possibly have access to fancy hardware? After all, they are only backed by little companies such as IBM, Intel, Oracle, HP, Google...
How many different architectures is your software built and tested on?
Thus the activity must be such that some other provision of Title 17 would be violated and the copyright owner must object. Material in the public domain is thus not covered. The DMCA "circumvention" provision is execrable, but Slashdot regularly grossly exaggerates its breadth.
> I'm also troubled by this trend in the way that google delivers their news
> offerings, it seems that the logical progression of this is that we will
> mostly only be exposed to material that fit our highly individualized
> pre-existing reality bubbles.
You don't have to be logged in to a Google account to use Google News or Google Search, you know (in fact, you needn't even accept cookies). As for the "highly individualized pre-existing reality bubbles", that's why people read Huffington Post/Fox News. They don't want truly individualized news. They want news that conforms to the dogma of their reference group,
> ...to the ridiculous lengths people will go to to justify theft?
Copyright infringement is not theft.
> Seriously, there is free software for every niche, and gigatons of free
> movies and music. If you don't want to pay, load up on all the free stuff
> that's there for the taking.
This is true. Popular entertainment is not a necessity of life. If it was I'd be dead. People here get ridiculously enraged and indignant about it. I agree that much of the entertainment industry seems to be run by jerks and assholes, but so what? Just ignore them. There is no need to either buy their stuff or infringe their copyrights. They will disappear eventually, and they know it. That's what's got them so agitated.
> You might say this is only fair, but leaked movies tend to hurt the bad ones
> just as much (if not more) than the good ones.
Pre-release leaks are 100% due to ineptitude on the part of the producers. The solution there is better internal security, not more laws.
> There is no reasonable doubt that piracy harmed Crysis, making it (compared > to other games) a financial failure for Crytek
In other words, it could have made a lot more money, therefor it "failed".
> You'd think the founder, with 49% ownership of the company, would get 49% of
> something. Not usually.
Yes, usually, if he employed a competent attorney. The terms should have specified exactly how the revenue was to be shared. Better to sell the company outright for cash, though.
> Feet? Come on, grandpa Simpson! Why the hell do you people insist in using
> that primitive measurement system?
Ok, ok. 1.5 rods.
> For now, only install plugins from people you know and trust...
Um, "for now"?
...sounds a lot like this thing called "television" that we used to have back in the last century.
> "How do we empower top scientists working in industry to lead science-minded
> positive change within their organizations?
You don't. There are no top scientists working in industry. Anyone working in industry who is not a downtrodden oppressed worker is by definition a despicable tool of the esploiters. (except the executives. They're demons).
> ... How do companies who seek genuine dialogue with this community engage?"
They don't. Companies are irredeemably evil and seek only to damage the "community". Anything they say that looks like an attempt at "dialogue" is a lie (everything they say is a lie. Even when it was true before they said it).
> When any other big business does even a small fraction of this sort of
> creative accounting, they get jumped on by every lawmaker and regulator who
> can dream up a way to punish them.
What you are missing is that this scheme does not deprive the government of any revenue, nor does it impact a large enough number of individuals to be of political significance. Thus the "lawmakers" don't care (nor should they: it's none of their business).
> What I really wonder, though, is does all this creative accounting deprive
> state/feds of tax revenue?
No. The profits are transferred to the owning corporation which pays taxes on them. It may even result in a slight increase in taxes paid as the scheme may interfere with some possible tax avoidance schemes (legal ones).
It should be noted that these dodges do not avoid any income taxes as the profits are simply shifted to the studio. It also should be noted that the studios have been doing this since before WWII. Anyone who accepts a "share of the profits" deal is at best ill-advised.
> Why Mr. van Rijn use their proprietary name in his blog post?
Because it damn well pleases him to do so, and in the USA, at least, he is free to do so with impunity as long as he does not use it in a way that might mislead the public into believing that they are getting said product when they are not. A trademark is not a copyright.
,,,the fundamental nature of patents. Patents are published, by the PTO. This means that anyone, "international" or otherwise, can already view them. Furthermore, it is settled law that discussion of a patented invention, including detailed explanation of how to implement it, is not infringement.
> I have no idea if your contract with Comcast will let you do this...
Don't ask. Just do it.
> That would require 'boxless cable' to have been a tradition in the first
> place. It wasn't.
Yes it was. originally there were no "boxes" at all. The cable companies just took the signals off the air and put them on the cable (sometimes rearranging the channel numbers).
n/t
> "How could the military/government be so dumb?"
By consisting of normal human beings.
> It would be so enticing for the "hacker community" to believe the story
> because it inflates their already unwarrantedly large egos: we're just so
> much smarter than the average person at solving puzzles, right?
The "hacker community" also consists of normal human beings. People outsmart each other all the time. It's what they do.
> The government surely only employs easily duped idiots - even in
> significant security positions...
No, the government employs people. People are often gullible. Especially when they have led each other to believe that they are not.
> ...whereas we are geniuses operating from our basements.
No, you are also people. The fact that you tolerate and even support the government (any government) in its "security" operations is proof that you are also gullible.
> USA postal service considers that body part "non-essential". You get a
> pittance.
Only if you are fool enough to accept the first offer. Otherwise you get what the jury decides to give you unless you accept the improved offer the USPS makes when they realize you aren't bluffing about going to court.
...avoid "GM" foods, do so. No need to inflict your rants on the rest of us (but of course you intend to inflict your religion on us as well, don't you?)