But I thought the law stated that criminal copyright infringement requires distribution for financial gain, and I didn't see that mentioned here. There's also the exception that applies to distributing a work that hasn't yet been released yet, but since the movie had already been in theaters for a week, that wouldn't apply either.
What other cases can criminal copyright infringement be applied to that is actually applicable here? My guess is none, but I suppose that doesn't really matter if they just scared him into accepting a plea.
Also... don't do stupid things like put a 3840x2160 LCD behind a slightly-oversized bezel so the outer 50 pixels are hidden.
I don't think any manufacturers do this (or at least I've never seen or heard of one). What most TVs do have is an overscan setting (sometimes on by default, sometimes off by default, and sometimes on with no option to disable***) which discards the outermost pixels of the image and stretches the remainder of the pixels across the screen. The reason (or at least one reason) for this was that analog TV signals had data (like closed captions) encoded in the vertical refresh between frames. That data should have (in theory) never been visible, but it wasn't uncommon to see it creep into the top and bottom of the picture. So to solve this, many TVs use overscan to hide this distracting "garbage" so you have a nice, non-distracting image. And really, it has negligible effect when watching TV and movies because no sane producer would put important info that close to the edge knowing many people would never see it. However it is a huge annoyance for any sort of user interface.
***some monitors have this "feature" built in too. I've got a Samsung 2494 which does not let you toggle it. It is forced off for DVI and VGA mode, but annoyingly forced on for HDMI mode.
Wow, you sure spend a lot of your time on slashdot bashing the "lefties". Check your comment history. It's all leftie this and leftie that. Oh, and what's this tidbit:
I say let the market sort it out. Not total lassiez faire, but only as much regulation as necessary to prevent criminal activity. To keep and eye on things, as it were. I don't even think there should be a minimum wage.... Furthermore, you assholes have actually decided that two grown adults of sound mind can't come to an agreement to exchange labor for wages if that agreement is below what YOU have decided is reasonable
Well here you go. The market is sorting it out for you. Microsoft has decided how they want to spend their money, and they choose to spend it supporting companies that pay their employees what they think is fair, not just in wages but in time off. That's certainly Microsoft's right to do. They are grown adults of sound mind negotiating the contracts. You asked for it, but then when you didn't like the shape it came in you bitched. Oh, wait...what else was in that same post?
Just what I need. This presents the perfect opportunity for me to market to these parents my latest book: 8 Do It Yourself Homeopathic Recipes You Can't Live Without
Before calling people morons and telling them to read and comprehend, you might first try to read and comprehend what you are writing. Your exact words were
it's rather difficult to classify this as mere "theater" without slapping that label on every other form of email encryption.
If you meant to say "every other form of self destructing email" or something along those lines, then you are absolutely correct. Every single service that offers a self destructing email is also theater. However, that is NOT the words you chose to use. The words you chose made it appear you couldn't comprehend the difference between ordinary encryption (which is a valid feature which generally performs as advertised) and this stupid self-destructing email.
So what's the problem then? If you just want the knowledge, save yourself a shitload of money and just read the book on your own time. You don't need to go to college to read a book. So why even bother signing up for the course (online or otherwise)? I'm guessing it's because you want it to count toward your degree, but why bother getting a degree? I'm guessing it's because you want it to help you get a job, but if that's the case, why don't you just get your degree from some cheap hole in the wall that's even worse than University of Phoenix? I'm guessing it's because you wan't to get it from a university that most employers will actually RESPECT when they see it on your resume.
Wow...and on top of that, you've been moderated to -1 Troll for correctly pointing it out. For any clueless moderator who might be included to give you a -1 mod:
Let's Encrypt is not "trusted by" root certificates***. It's more correct to say that the Let's Encrypt root certificate is now a trusted root certificate in the certificate store of all major browsers.
*** I guess technically they are also trusted by a root certificate. Let's Encrypt's intermediate certificate is also cross-signed by CACert, which is how older browsers (versions before the root certificate was included) were previously able to trust Let's Encrypt certificates. However, that's nearly 3 year old news, and although an articles about 3 year old news is not unheard of on slashdot, that's not what this particular article is about.
"Corruption" is not binary but a sliding scale, a "government" is not an expression of a singular will but an activity of a wide number of people with a wide number of individual goals, and "authority" means many different things in many different shades.
Blockchains won't stop Mugabe from expropriating farms and distributing them to his supporters, but there are any number of cases of quietly-bribe-three-clerks scams in (for example) India that blockchain property records could potentially make impractical. And with the increasing numbers of smartphones even in the poorer places on Earth, a blockchain-based method is potentially far more practical, infrastructure-wise, than trying to make sufficient duplicates of paper records or maintain secure backups of centralized databases.
Great, but you didn't really address my criticism of using "blockchain" in this situation. So lets go with your bribe-three-clerks example and try to see what "blockchain" will do for this.
So what can I do by bribing three clerks?
1) I could bribe them to file a lien on your property. How does blockchain stop that? A lien can't require my signature, otherwise I could just refuse legitimate liens. So the government needs the ability to file the lien without me signing off. Thus I could still bribe someone to file it that way, and so we didn't really solve anything
2) I could bribe them to remove a lien without the lienholders permission. This is the same as 1, but just reversed.
3) If someone did 1 or 2, then the other party needs to go to court to get it removed. The same will be true with blockchain. You will need to present evidence that you paid off the lien. They will need evidence (in the form of a contract) that the lien is valid for services performed. Nothing really different here.
4) Sales, transfers, etc are all just variations on the above.
5) I could bribe someone to delete all record of a filing. The same can be done with blockchain. You just rewrite the chain history. To prevent that you need other people to have copies of the blockchain to verify against. This is where blockchain's consensus comes into play, but in this discussion we are talking about consensus-free blockchain. So if nobody else is signing off on the consensus, then really they are just keeping copies of the historical records. Without blockchain, you can just post all records publicly as they are filed, and those same people could just keep copies. You can also have that data replicated within the government to a separate read only database managed by a different department, or possibly even a different level of government (have city replicated to county, county replicated to state). So now you need to bribe multiple people across multiple organizations. That's just not practical.
In summary, I'm failing to come up with a scenario where blockchain protects you in a way that you can't also do without blockchain.
It's specific to certain cryptocurrencies, including bitcoin. Block chain is essentially a group consensus algorithm. Consensus is whatever 51% of the nodes agree on. The problem is, its trivial to use 1 computer to spawn nearly limitless copies of the software mimicking as many individual nodes. So to deal with that, you need some methodology to identify each node by some form of limited resource.
Proof of work uses the limited CPU/GPU resources to solve this. You can spin up 2 or more copies of the software, but each will be dealing with only half as much cpu,and thus half as much say in the outcome,and thus there's no benefit of found so.
Another algorithm is proof of space, which works in a similar fashion except using limited disk space in place of CPU (you can spawn multiple copies, but they will collectively have the same total storage,thus no benefit). Proof of space is more environmentally friendly than proof of work, but still wasteful.
The third common method is proof of stake. This works pretty much like shareholders voting in a company. The more shares of stock you have, the bigger a say you get in the vote. The more cryptocoins you have, the bigger your vote in the consensus. This eliminates all of the resource waste, but has the downside (in some peoples view) that essentially the rich get richer. The more coins you get, the more say you get.
This covers pretty much every coin out there, but Im sure someone has come up with some other limited resources to use wastefully....proof of bandwidth or something.
You are confusing the block chain with the consensus protocol
No I'm not. You seem to be confusing the fact that consensus is the ONLY new feature that block chain brings to the table. Every other feature...digital signatures to verify authenticity, hashed history chaining, multi-master redundancy...all of it has existed for decades. Using block chain without the consensus is like chemotherapy without chemicals.
Sorry,but those are in direct conflict. Anywhere that property records are in concern, that implies the government is the final authority on the record. The entire purpose of block chain is that there is no final authority...the authority is collective. Without that feature of block chain, you just have a public database with checksums and redundancy. You are welcome to make copies of that database if you want, just like you are welcome to keep copies of the public records. If the government is corrupt enough to modify the history of records and the courts to not overrule you contesting the changes, the why do you think they are just going to say "oh, but now its block chain enabled so I guess we just gotta stay honest". And let's look at this from the opposite way. Lets assume the government is 100% honest. What do you think the government is going to do when you refuse to digitally sign off on a legit tax lien be levied against your property, or the property being legitimately foreclosed and resold when you didn't pay your mortgage? Do you think they are just going to say " oh well"? If they have the ability to override your lack of consent, then what was the purpose of this block chain to begin with?
...to add onto my previous post, effectively TRU paid out an average of $400m extra per year for the past 17 years to service that leveraged buyout debt. That's $6.8 billion total. How much different might things have been had TRU invested that $6.8b into their business over the last 17 years?
How can you possibly believe that the huge debt they were saddled with was not the cause of their demise? The leveraged buyout stuck them with a HUGE annual interest payment. For the fiscal year ending Jan 2016 they had a net loss of $130 million dollars, which included $429 million in interest payments. For fiscal year ending Jan 2017 they had a net loss of $36 million dollars, which included $457m in interest payments. [1]
So tell me...what does a net loss of $130m turn into if you don't have $429m in interest payments? Or a $36m loss without $457m in interest payments? Of course, not the ENTIRE debt is from the leveraged buyout. Before the buyout their interest payments were only $130m/year [2]. But then after the buyout it rocketed up to $537m per year. They've been able to reduce the $537m over the years. If they didn't have to deal with the buyout debt, they wouldn't been able to do the same (even better, actually) reduction with their previous debt. So likely their interest payments would've been under $50m/year.
I find it hard to understand how the leveraged buyout could NOT be responsible for putting them in the position they are in.
OK, working on the assumption that this isn't a joke/troll/misplaced irony:
Well, you know what they say....when you assume you make an ass out of u and me. Although in this case I think you just made an ass out of yourself. Could you really not see the sarcasm in that ACs post? What, you REALLY thought that he though we went straight from coconuts to plastic cups? The sarcasm in his post is blatantly obvious.
No human being could possibly be so dense. I'm convinced we've got AI trolls posting on slashdot. I mean, something like Watson surely is advanced enough to read phrases like "What DID we do before disposable containers?", search its database of everything on the web, and come up with an answer, all without the ability to detect the glaring sarcasm. But a human? Surely it couldn't be.
I haven't used used Firefox in many years. Are its developer tools every bit as good as chrome is today? If not, switching is not a consideration (I don't want to use different browsers for normal use and development)
Actually, he's not wrong. On further investigation we were both right. My understanding was only correct with respect to an employee, but he is correct when it's a contractor creating the work, which is surely the case here.
Did they have it written into a contract that they couldn't re-use code? If so they company's boned, but if not,
Actually, it's the reverse of that. Unless it's written into the contract that they CAN reuse the code, the company is probably boned.
Generally the law is that whoever writes the code keeps the copyright, unless someone else paid them to write it (ie: a work for hire) and the contract did not state otherwise. So if they wrote the game and then sold it to Bethesda, they're OK. If Bethesda contracted them to write it and wrote in the contract that they can keep the copyrights, then they're OK. But the most likely scenario here is that Bethesda contracted them, and the contract did NOT say they can keep the copyright, which would mean Bethesda wins.
Now of course, it depends on the nature of the bugs. If, for example, the bug is the result of some code library they wrote years ago (before the contract), then that particular code would not have been part of the work-for-hire and would most likely be treated like any other licensed 3rd party library.
So do I, but for a completely different reason than you. Those little fucking devices are an absolute scam. At many restaurants they are programmed to add a $1.99 charge onto your bill for playing games if you interact with them in any way at all.
We don't go to the restaurants chains that uses those things very often, but the first time I saw one a few years back we ended up with a charge on our bill. I was 99% sure our kids had not actually played any games on them, but I couldn't be certain. I complained to the waitress and she removed the charge. Then last year we saw them in a restaurant on vacation. This time I was 100% positive...I never let the kids lay a finger on it. However, I did interact with it myself...I simply browsed through the menus on it, but absolutely did not launch a single app. End result....$1.99 charge on my bill. Again I asked and the waitress happily had the charge removed from the bill.
Then I went home and read up on it, wondering if something weird had just happened to me (maybe someone interacted with it after the last customer and it simply attributed it to me as the next customer in the booth). It turns out countless people have this happen continuously, and it's simply a scam they're running. Any interaction with the screen results in a charge on your bill. Not all locations are programmed to operate this way, but many are. And of course, the waitresses understand this and are always happy to remove the charge when you ask. But how many people simply pay their bill without checking it over, or figure "oh, I guess the kids used that game...I'll just pay for it then", or even people who realize the charge isn't right but are too embarrassed to bring it up for fear of looking cheap in front of their date/friends/coworkers. I really wonder how much money ziosk and the associated restaurants have scammed from those people.
So now if I ever find one at my table, the hostess takes it before I sit down.
Slashdot Mirror
But I thought the law stated that criminal copyright infringement requires distribution for financial gain, and I didn't see that mentioned here. There's also the exception that applies to distributing a work that hasn't yet been released yet, but since the movie had already been in theaters for a week, that wouldn't apply either.
What other cases can criminal copyright infringement be applied to that is actually applicable here? My guess is none, but I suppose that doesn't really matter if they just scared him into accepting a plea.
Also... don't do stupid things like put a 3840x2160 LCD behind a slightly-oversized bezel so the outer 50 pixels are hidden.
I don't think any manufacturers do this (or at least I've never seen or heard of one). What most TVs do have is an overscan setting (sometimes on by default, sometimes off by default, and sometimes on with no option to disable***) which discards the outermost pixels of the image and stretches the remainder of the pixels across the screen. The reason (or at least one reason) for this was that analog TV signals had data (like closed captions) encoded in the vertical refresh between frames. That data should have (in theory) never been visible, but it wasn't uncommon to see it creep into the top and bottom of the picture. So to solve this, many TVs use overscan to hide this distracting "garbage" so you have a nice, non-distracting image. And really, it has negligible effect when watching TV and movies because no sane producer would put important info that close to the edge knowing many people would never see it. However it is a huge annoyance for any sort of user interface.
***some monitors have this "feature" built in too. I've got a Samsung 2494 which does not let you toggle it. It is forced off for DVI and VGA mode, but annoyingly forced on for HDMI mode.
Wow, you sure spend a lot of your time on slashdot bashing the "lefties". Check your comment history. It's all leftie this and leftie that. Oh, and what's this tidbit:
https://slashdot.org/comments....
I say let the market sort it out. Not total lassiez faire, but only as much regulation as necessary to prevent criminal activity. To keep and eye on things, as it were. I don't even think there should be a minimum wage. ...
Furthermore, you assholes have actually decided that two grown adults of sound mind can't come to an agreement to exchange labor for wages if that agreement is below what YOU have decided is reasonable
Well here you go. The market is sorting it out for you. Microsoft has decided how they want to spend their money, and they choose to spend it supporting companies that pay their employees what they think is fair, not just in wages but in time off. That's certainly Microsoft's right to do. They are grown adults of sound mind negotiating the contracts. You asked for it, but then when you didn't like the shape it came in you bitched. Oh, wait...what else was in that same post?
You are a fucking hypocrite
Yep, that about says it all.
But he's absolutely correct. The vast majority of Americans are very well off. It's only the rich that are struggling.
You know they work much better at night, right? ie. Pointing away from the big yellow ball thing.
You know I'm always forgetting, so please remind me which frequency is "yellow" and where does that fall in the EM spectrum?
FYI - radio emissions from the sun are extremely weak, and radio telescopes are using during daylight hours all the time
Just what I need. This presents the perfect opportunity for me to market to these parents my latest book: 8 Do It Yourself Homeopathic Recipes You Can't Live Without
Here's a sneak peak at the book:
Table of Contents
1. Homeopathic Birth Control - page 1
2. Homeopathic Nausea Relief - page 1
3. Homeopathic Constipation Relief - page 1
4. Homeopathic Diarrhea Relief - page 1
5. Homeopathic Antacid - page 1
6. Homeopathic Plan B - page 1
7. Homeopathic Epidural - page 1
8. Homeopathic Sodium Thiopental - page 1
I can tell watching the TV commercial that those are not cell phone pictures. The depth of field is too great
I think you meant the opposite. Cell phones have great depth of field. Getting a shallow depth of field is the difficult part.
Before calling people morons and telling them to read and comprehend, you might first try to read and comprehend what you are writing. Your exact words were
it's rather difficult to classify this as mere "theater" without slapping that label on every other form of email encryption.
If you meant to say "every other form of self destructing email" or something along those lines, then you are absolutely correct. Every single service that offers a self destructing email is also theater. However, that is NOT the words you chose to use. The words you chose made it appear you couldn't comprehend the difference between ordinary encryption (which is a valid feature which generally performs as advertised) and this stupid self-destructing email.
An iPhone for those who want a real OS!
...and a headphone jack
Yeah, except this isn't like the Empire Strikes Back "altering the deal" scene you so fondly remember. It's more like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I don't want respect from an online course.
I want knowledge.
So what's the problem then? If you just want the knowledge, save yourself a shitload of money and just read the book on your own time. You don't need to go to college to read a book. So why even bother signing up for the course (online or otherwise)? I'm guessing it's because you want it to count toward your degree, but why bother getting a degree? I'm guessing it's because you want it to help you get a job, but if that's the case, why don't you just get your degree from some cheap hole in the wall that's even worse than University of Phoenix? I'm guessing it's because you wan't to get it from a university that most employers will actually RESPECT when they see it on your resume.
Wow...and on top of that, you've been moderated to -1 Troll for correctly pointing it out. For any clueless moderator who might be included to give you a -1 mod:
Let's Encrypt is not "trusted by" root certificates***. It's more correct to say that the Let's Encrypt root certificate is now a trusted root certificate in the certificate store of all major browsers.
*** I guess technically they are also trusted by a root certificate. Let's Encrypt's intermediate certificate is also cross-signed by CACert, which is how older browsers (versions before the root certificate was included) were previously able to trust Let's Encrypt certificates. However, that's nearly 3 year old news, and although an articles about 3 year old news is not unheard of on slashdot, that's not what this particular article is about.
"Corruption" is not binary but a sliding scale, a "government" is not an expression of a singular will but an activity of a wide number of people with a wide number of individual goals, and "authority" means many different things in many different shades.
Blockchains won't stop Mugabe from expropriating farms and distributing them to his supporters, but there are any number of cases of quietly-bribe-three-clerks scams in (for example) India that blockchain property records could potentially make impractical. And with the increasing numbers of smartphones even in the poorer places on Earth, a blockchain-based method is potentially far more practical, infrastructure-wise, than trying to make sufficient duplicates of paper records or maintain secure backups of centralized databases.
Great, but you didn't really address my criticism of using "blockchain" in this situation. So lets go with your bribe-three-clerks example and try to see what "blockchain" will do for this.
So what can I do by bribing three clerks?
1) I could bribe them to file a lien on your property. How does blockchain stop that? A lien can't require my signature, otherwise I could just refuse legitimate liens. So the government needs the ability to file the lien without me signing off. Thus I could still bribe someone to file it that way, and so we didn't really solve anything
2) I could bribe them to remove a lien without the lienholders permission. This is the same as 1, but just reversed.
3) If someone did 1 or 2, then the other party needs to go to court to get it removed. The same will be true with blockchain. You will need to present evidence that you paid off the lien. They will need evidence (in the form of a contract) that the lien is valid for services performed. Nothing really different here.
4) Sales, transfers, etc are all just variations on the above.
5) I could bribe someone to delete all record of a filing. The same can be done with blockchain. You just rewrite the chain history. To prevent that you need other people to have copies of the blockchain to verify against. This is where blockchain's consensus comes into play, but in this discussion we are talking about consensus-free blockchain. So if nobody else is signing off on the consensus, then really they are just keeping copies of the historical records. Without blockchain, you can just post all records publicly as they are filed, and those same people could just keep copies. You can also have that data replicated within the government to a separate read only database managed by a different department, or possibly even a different level of government (have city replicated to county, county replicated to state). So now you need to bribe multiple people across multiple organizations. That's just not practical.
In summary, I'm failing to come up with a scenario where blockchain protects you in a way that you can't also do without blockchain.
It's specific to certain cryptocurrencies, including bitcoin. Block chain is essentially a group consensus algorithm. Consensus is whatever 51% of the nodes agree on. The problem is, its trivial to use 1 computer to spawn nearly limitless copies of the software mimicking as many individual nodes. So to deal with that, you need some methodology to identify each node by some form of limited resource.
Proof of work uses the limited CPU/GPU resources to solve this. You can spin up 2 or more copies of the software, but each will be dealing with only half as much cpu,and thus half as much say in the outcome,and thus there's no benefit of found so.
Another algorithm is proof of space, which works in a similar fashion except using limited disk space in place of CPU (you can spawn multiple copies, but they will collectively have the same total storage,thus no benefit). Proof of space is more environmentally friendly than proof of work, but still wasteful.
The third common method is proof of stake. This works pretty much like shareholders voting in a company. The more shares of stock you have, the bigger a say you get in the vote. The more cryptocoins you have, the bigger your vote in the consensus. This eliminates all of the resource waste, but has the downside (in some peoples view) that essentially the rich get richer. The more coins you get, the more say you get.
This covers pretty much every coin out there, but Im sure someone has come up with some other limited resources to use wastefully....proof of bandwidth or something.
Well, its good for making IBM and Microsoft at least $357 million.
You are confusing the block chain with the consensus protocol
No I'm not. You seem to be confusing the fact that consensus is the ONLY new feature that block chain brings to the table. Every other feature...digital signatures to verify authenticity, hashed history chaining, multi-master redundancy...all of it has existed for decades. Using block chain without the consensus is like chemotherapy without chemicals.
Sorry,but those are in direct conflict. Anywhere that property records are in concern, that implies the government is the final authority on the record. The entire purpose of block chain is that there is no final authority...the authority is collective. Without that feature of block chain, you just have a public database with checksums and redundancy. You are welcome to make copies of that database if you want, just like you are welcome to keep copies of the public records. If the government is corrupt enough to modify the history of records and the courts to not overrule you contesting the changes, the why do you think they are just going to say "oh, but now its block chain enabled so I guess we just gotta stay honest". And let's look at this from the opposite way. Lets assume the government is 100% honest. What do you think the government is going to do when you refuse to digitally sign off on a legit tax lien be levied against your property, or the property being legitimately foreclosed and resold when you didn't pay your mortgage? Do you think they are just going to say " oh well"? If they have the ability to override your lack of consent, then what was the purpose of this block chain to begin with?
...to add onto my previous post, effectively TRU paid out an average of $400m extra per year for the past 17 years to service that leveraged buyout debt. That's $6.8 billion total. How much different might things have been had TRU invested that $6.8b into their business over the last 17 years?
How can you possibly believe that the huge debt they were saddled with was not the cause of their demise? The leveraged buyout stuck them with a HUGE annual interest payment. For the fiscal year ending Jan 2016 they had a net loss of $130 million dollars, which included $429 million in interest payments. For fiscal year ending Jan 2017 they had a net loss of $36 million dollars, which included $457m in interest payments. [1]
So tell me...what does a net loss of $130m turn into if you don't have $429m in interest payments? Or a $36m loss without $457m in interest payments? Of course, not the ENTIRE debt is from the leveraged buyout. Before the buyout their interest payments were only $130m/year [2]. But then after the buyout it rocketed up to $537m per year. They've been able to reduce the $537m over the years. If they didn't have to deal with the buyout debt, they wouldn't been able to do the same (even better, actually) reduction with their previous debt. So likely their interest payments would've been under $50m/year.
I find it hard to understand how the leveraged buyout could NOT be responsible for putting them in the position they are in.
[1] https://www.prnewswire.com/new...
[2] https://www.bloomberg.com/busi...
OK, working on the assumption that this isn't a joke/troll/misplaced irony:
Well, you know what they say....when you assume you make an ass out of u and me. Although in this case I think you just made an ass out of yourself. Could you really not see the sarcasm in that ACs post? What, you REALLY thought that he though we went straight from coconuts to plastic cups? The sarcasm in his post is blatantly obvious.
No human being could possibly be so dense. I'm convinced we've got AI trolls posting on slashdot. I mean, something like Watson surely is advanced enough to read phrases like "What DID we do before disposable containers?", search its database of everything on the web, and come up with an answer, all without the ability to detect the glaring sarcasm. But a human? Surely it couldn't be.
I haven't used used Firefox in many years. Are its developer tools every bit as good as chrome is today? If not, switching is not a consideration (I don't want to use different browsers for normal use and development)
Actually, he's not wrong. On further investigation we were both right. My understanding was only correct with respect to an employee, but he is correct when it's a contractor creating the work, which is surely the case here.
Did they have it written into a contract that they couldn't re-use code? If so they company's boned, but if not,
Actually, it's the reverse of that. Unless it's written into the contract that they CAN reuse the code, the company is probably boned.
Generally the law is that whoever writes the code keeps the copyright, unless someone else paid them to write it (ie: a work for hire) and the contract did not state otherwise. So if they wrote the game and then sold it to Bethesda, they're OK. If Bethesda contracted them to write it and wrote in the contract that they can keep the copyrights, then they're OK. But the most likely scenario here is that Bethesda contracted them, and the contract did NOT say they can keep the copyright, which would mean Bethesda wins.
Now of course, it depends on the nature of the bugs. If, for example, the bug is the result of some code library they wrote years ago (before the contract), then that particular code would not have been part of the work-for-hire and would most likely be treated like any other licensed 3rd party library.
So what you are saying is that commercial-free Hulu does not show commercials on any shows except for the shows where it does show them?
I really hate those things, personally.
So do I, but for a completely different reason than you. Those little fucking devices are an absolute scam. At many restaurants they are programmed to add a $1.99 charge onto your bill for playing games if you interact with them in any way at all.
We don't go to the restaurants chains that uses those things very often, but the first time I saw one a few years back we ended up with a charge on our bill. I was 99% sure our kids had not actually played any games on them, but I couldn't be certain. I complained to the waitress and she removed the charge. Then last year we saw them in a restaurant on vacation. This time I was 100% positive...I never let the kids lay a finger on it. However, I did interact with it myself...I simply browsed through the menus on it, but absolutely did not launch a single app. End result....$1.99 charge on my bill. Again I asked and the waitress happily had the charge removed from the bill.
Then I went home and read up on it, wondering if something weird had just happened to me (maybe someone interacted with it after the last customer and it simply attributed it to me as the next customer in the booth). It turns out countless people have this happen continuously, and it's simply a scam they're running. Any interaction with the screen results in a charge on your bill. Not all locations are programmed to operate this way, but many are. And of course, the waitresses understand this and are always happy to remove the charge when you ask. But how many people simply pay their bill without checking it over, or figure "oh, I guess the kids used that game...I'll just pay for it then", or even people who realize the charge isn't right but are too embarrassed to bring it up for fear of looking cheap in front of their date/friends/coworkers. I really wonder how much money ziosk and the associated restaurants have scammed from those people.
So now if I ever find one at my table, the hostess takes it before I sit down.