Notwithstanding some really rare cases (e.g. interlocutory), which this does not appear to be, an order is unenforceable while under appeal.
Doing what an order asks is grounds for dismissal of an appeal, notwithstanding cases where acts are made explicitly with the agreement of the parties and sometimes affirmation of the court to be without prejudice to the right of appeal. However in cases of disclosure of information, the disclosure is generally a form of prejudice (since it cannot be undone) that undermines appellate entitlement.
So it is wrong to say they are are defying an order. They are doing what everyone does on appeal.
If they were to defy an order they could be held in contempt of court. That would be an interesting story.
Actually, the judge lifted the freeze on the court order, so Microsoft is in fact defying it. Microsoft states they plan to appeal, but until they do appeal, they are still defying it.
People and businesses and governments everywhere will be watching this one.
If America can force Microsoft to reach out to Ireland for data, then Germany (etc.) can force Microsoft to tunnel into America, right?
And, as mentioned, people, businesses and governments are already skeptical of the cloud, anyway.
People, businesses and governments may force "data nationalism" to become the norm.
They already can and have been doing so for years. If Microsoft wins, there will quickly be treatise signed with most countries allowing law enforcement to access data of their citizens suspected of criminal activity, just like happened with banking.
The answer is no, because jurisdiction is territorial. You can't apply Ireland's law to MS in the U.S. simply because they have a corporate office there, thus the reverse is true too: you can' t apply U.S. law to a subsidiary in Ireland.
And yet Microsoft has no problem trying to apply US patent and copyright laws against foreign companies. The reality here is that if I was the criminal in question and stored the data on my personal computer in Ireland, the US would ask the Irish to sieze the physical computer and turn it over and they would. However, Microsoft isn't the criminal, they are just the email provider who happens to be storing emails related to the criminal activity and happens to store it in Ireland. So, the authroities have issued a warrant to Microsoft for that data.
Now, if the US was trying to sieze Microsoft's servers in Ireland, that would be different. They are only asking for the emails of a person suspected of a US crime. When this started, it wasn't even known they were stored in Ireland. Microsoft brought that up because they thought that was the only way to keep from turning over a customer's emails.
I would suspect that if Microsoft prevails, it won't be for long as we will see new laws about data laundering just like happened with money laundering through foreign banks.
Self serving and customer-centric are one and the same in this case. I see nothing wrong with that, and I have nothing but respect for Microsoft doing this. They will likely be facing down some pretty serious daily fines while they wait for this to play out, at least judging from how cases like this have gone in the past. Good on them, whatever their motives.
Microsoft is fighting a warrant about turning over a customer's emails in a criminal case. Are you really arguing because the electrons are sitting on an SSD in Ireland, the criminal should go free, even though Microsoft has full control over those electrons? The individual didn't instruct Microsoft to store the data there, Microsoft did it of its own volition.
It is a rational self-interested decision that may be good for consumers.
Of course it's "self interest", and more accuratly "self preservation". Micrsoft is a business that ultimatly has to answer to their stockholders. If it comes to pass that US "law enforcement" can reach out and get personal data from non-US servers, it will completely destroy Microsoft's European business, due the the much stricter data privacy laws in Europe. It would be "game over" for Microsoft in Europe.
No, it won't. Europeans will still have the same protections they do under their laws. However, US citizens committing a crime in the US won't be able to store their data on foreign servers of American companies and have it safe from authorities. In otherwords, if a US crime is committed, it doesn't matter where the US company hosts its server farm, it is still under the control of that company and subject to the authorities.
If Microsoft wins this challenge, then there will be no server farms in the US because any that were overseas would be exempt from US authorities. Just think of something as mundane as tax avoidance. The IRS comes in and asks to see your companies data, but you don't have to give it to them because it is in a different country? Or let's say some government agency stores its data in Canada. Now it is exempt from the Freedom of Information Act?
The reality here is that if Microsoft wins, there will no longer be a tech industry in the US because what is left will move overseas to avoid US laws.
Microsoft's actions might seem "customer-centric," but really they're fighting for their lives.
If MS can be forced to give up European data, stored on European servers, that's game over for them. Lawsuits and investigations will flourish in Europe, because their data protection laws are much stronger/stricter than ours.
This could kill MS's European business.
Which would kill Microsoft because that would provide enough of a critical mass to overcome the barriers to entry that Microsoft has erected in the Office market - wipe Microsoft out of Europe, and Europe would move to a truly open document format. And to communicate with Europe, the US markets would have to be able to read/write such formats - and actually do it WELL.
And once that happens, the money Microsoft makes on Office is gone....
Maybe we should be cheering this judge on?
This case is about a search warrant for a suspect's email that happens to be hosted on a server that Microsoft owns in Ireland. Even if Microsoft has to comply with the law, it won't have the impact you are implying.
It's all just a matter of legal principle. Can any internet company be publicly ordered to break laws in other countries, regardless of where it is based. So M$ is challenging the order to publicly establish a principle and protect it and all other internet companies in this regard. Technically speaking all other internet companies are now getting a free ride on M$'s dime, so it seems sometimes they do pay back to the industry. This is an important principle of law and something the US Federal government should be paying attention to and legislating to ensure the future of all US internet companies is not severely threatened.
Should a bank be publicly orederd to break laws in other countries, regardles of where it is based? That has already been answered in the affirmative. Banks are held to the laws of the country they are chartered in. Why should internet companies be different? Microsoft has no problem trying to hold foreign companies liable for US patent infringement, even if their local patent laws are different. Companies can't have it both ways. If you are a US company, you can't cry foul when US laws work against you but turn around a use US laws only when they are in your favor.
Its an American's data stored under a European account in European servers.
Perhaps. But if it was an American, residing on European soil, there would be extradition procedures to follow. And those would involve having the local (EU) police generate their own warrant and make their own arrest based upon a formal request. The aprehended suspect would then be turned over to the requesting country.
The same sort of thing should happen here. The USA should make a formal request to the Irish court to secure the evidence and turn it over to US authorities.
That is true, but it's not about an American, but an American's data that is in question. You can only extridte people. If an American only needs to store their data in a foreign country to keep from complying with a warrant, then every criminal organization will do that. What the court is saying is that jurisdiction follows whoever has control over the data, which in this case is Microsoft, but could just as easily be drug cartel or terrorist group.
You mean "Kill every company on the internet's business that serves customers in Europe and America."
Legal precedent would compel Google, and everyone else, to do the same stupid thing this judge has ordered, who is apparently unaware of international laws and seems to assume that US law is the only thing that exists or even should exist. If MS loses, everyone loses.
Actually, this same scenario happened with the banking industry and what the judge is proposing actually follows the international law and treaties that came out of it. In short, it doesn't matter where the assets are stored as to who has jurisdiction, but as to who has control over them. For instance if the IRA had deposits in Irish Allied Bank, but the cash was stored in the US, then the Irish Government could still freeze the account. So, if the data is stored somewhere else, but the company is headquartered in their land, why not the same thing?
Adding an additional data point - Jesus's woodcrafting tools measured in cubits so it's not that either. In fact his penis was said to be several millicubits long.
That would be Noah's woodcrafting tools. By the time Jesus came around, nobody was quite sure what a cubit was anymore.
For sufficiently small values of 3 dimensions, it effectively becomes 2 dimensions.;-)
So, when you draw a line on paper, it's a line on a plane, even though the ink has some depth to it and the paper has a surface which isn't completely flat under a microscope.
Or, something like that.
But what you are drawing is only a representation of a line on a plane, not the actual line on a plane. If all of these 2-dimensional sheets were stacked on top of each other, would they still be 2D? If not, then technically, they aren't 2D to begin with. You would think that scientists would be more accurate with their articulation of complex concepts.
Europe: population is 742 millions USA: population is 352 millions
Yes, there are people outside the USA, and MUCH MUCH more than inside. And you still don't know it and display your ignorance right out there for everyone to see... Nice job, really.
To be fair, Europe is a continent while the United States is a country. A more accurate comparison would be North America versus Europe, which would be 742M to 565M. Of course the continent of Europe includes Russia, which most people don't include. Take out Russia and the two populations are very closely matched. If you want to compare by country, then the US still is many times larger than most European countries.
No, it's flamebait. It mentions no less than four additional points not relevant to this discussion simply in an attempt to troll Americans. Take out those four other points and I would agree it's a valid criticism, or perhaps include other points that ARE relevant/related.
I'm sorry, but the point regarding the imperial system is relevant. Only the irrational "logic" of religion would explain why the hell we refuse to convert.
The Vatican, while obviously not representing all religions, but being a major one, uses the metric system, so I'm pretty sure that imperial vs metric has nothing to do with religion.
It may provide some features not previously existing, but it also breaks a lot of stuff that people "knew" were there.
A better question is why does it matter. Nobody is forcing systemd on distros. They are free to use whatever init system them want. The only reason this is an issue is because debian change to it and all of the derivatives, including the *buntus are now changing because of debian's change. However, nobody is forcing anybody downstream to change.
Distros are free to use whatever init system they want. Now, if they don't want to expend the effort and use the upstream init system, well, that is a design decision on their part. But, they aren't being forced into it.
You mean like gmail and youtube, which were initially built and operated almost entirely with money obtained from Google's search service? I'm still wondering why nobody filed a complaint for that.
Because when gmail came out, Google wasn't a major player and there were already other free mail services. As for Youtube, didn't they buy them out?
Google's current cash cows (AFAIK) are search, email, and android.
Close. Google's current cash cows are search. That's it. Just search. As of their FY-2013 statements, search was still 91% of their total revenue. Android is a loss leader to keep people tied into their app ecosystem, which keeps the data & advertising machine fed. Paid email (a la google apps) is a mere drop in the bucket.
Actually, their cash cow is selling information. Search is just how the primary way they obtain it.
Your reasoning sounds very similar to what Microsoft said about internet explorer vs Netscape in the 90s. Maybe what makes such giving the service for free anti-competitive is the market share of the the one giving it away. Obviously Google and Amazon are huge players in the market. If giving their stuff for free eliminates the other competition, then it can be anti-competitive.
Walmart did this in its early expansion days. They would come into a small town sell products much cheaper than any other store and once those stores closed, WMs prices were raised. What's to keep Google or Amazon from doing the same thing?
When you are the little guy, it is permissible to undersell to gain market share. When you have the majority of the market, and you decide to do so usually means there are other motives.
- Campus Christian Ministry decides to start spamming the entire campus with pro-life messages. - Young Republicans club start spamming the entire campus with messages calling for the impeachment of Pres. Obama. - ROTC program starts spamming the entire campus with messages encouraging students to sign up for military service.
Where's your unfettered free speech now?
Why anybody would be worried about those groups or any other boggles the minds. If the content isn't illegal, then why censor it? Surely if kids are smart enough to be in college, they are smart enough to hit a delete key for content they don't want.
Maybe tech firms should hold on to some those dividends paid to shareholders and use them to train their employees if the employees are just "sort of ok." Or, maybe the government should say for every foreign worker you higher, you need to pay 20% of gross wages and benefits into a fund that will be used to train those "sort of ok" workers. That way, the short-term solution of hiring foreign workers leads to a long term domestic solution. It also keeps companies from having a windfall profit from the practice.
An mp3 file is not considered tangible personal property... I can buy a book and somebody can inherit it. I cannot buy a pattern of electrons called an ebook and somebody inherit it.
Nobody except the RIAA, MPAA, et. al. has ever made a legal argument that such a distinction exists. I do not believe it exists. I do not believe that any court has ruled that such a distinction exists or that any law has been enacted that creates such a distinction. I think you are an RIAA (et al) shill, spreading FUD.
Now put up or shut up.
It doesn't matter what you believe, only what the law/courts say. There are ample court cases, most of it under state sales and use tax laws to show that electronic content is not a sale but a contract agreement to use it. That's one of the reasons there are federal proposals to tax edelivery of content -- because current tangible property laws don't apply. It has nothing to do with the RIAA or MPAA. It has to do with 200 years of property law. Like all laws, if you don't like it, work to change it.
The deceased, unless they created the music, does not own the music. The purchased a license for them to listen to the music.
Bullshit. They most certainly do own that copy of the music, and none of your ridiculous FUD and RIAA shilling will change that.
It has nothing to do with the RIAA. An mp3 file is not considered tangible personal property, the media it is on is, however. It is also not considered real property (ie land and buildings). As such, there is nothing to transfer or inherit. Now, if the files are stored on a local computer, that is personal property and you can inherit that. However, your remote hosted drive is not owned by you and cannot be inherited.
I can buy a book and somebody can inherit it. I cannot buy a pattern of electrons called an ebook and somebody inherit it. You can only inherit tangible personal or real property. An ebook or other electronic media may have a license that allows it to be assigned to another person, in which case somebody else may have access to it after your death, but 1) most do not and 2) if they do, you still don't inherit it. Like the original purchaser, you don't own it, you just have a license to use it.
Chances are it was sold to them with a buy button and the description of the product was the product not the licence to the product. Chances are the payment was one time payment for permanent access to the copy. This is the definition of a sale. Calling a sale by another name does not change it from being a sale.
Unfortunately, it does. You also don't usually buy software. It may look like a sale and even be called a sale, but you are accepting a license to use the product in a manner that the owner of the product deems appropriate. If it were a true sale, you would be the owner and thus could do with it whatever you want. Also, for a sale to take place, there has to be an exchange money for tangible property. Electronic distribution has already been determined by the courts not to be tangible personal property, so again, there cannot be a sale.
In reality, it makes no difference what the transaction is called, it is all about who retains ownership and with electronic content, it is not, usually, the person paying for it.
I don't care much for the social media accounts, but it is good that bought ebooks, music and movies should be accessible to next of kin, just like their physical counterparts are.
Ebboks, movies, etc. are not personal property. They are simply licenses to view the copyrighted content. Physical books, on the other hand are tangible property and can be given, willed, etc. Until the license agreements change, it won't matter what Delaware's law says. You cannot inherit from the deceased what is not theirs in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
Notwithstanding some really rare cases (e.g. interlocutory), which this does not appear to be, an order is unenforceable while under appeal.
Doing what an order asks is grounds for dismissal of an appeal, notwithstanding cases where acts are made explicitly with the agreement of the parties and sometimes affirmation of the court to be without prejudice to the right of appeal. However in cases of disclosure of information, the disclosure is generally a form of prejudice (since it cannot be undone) that undermines appellate entitlement.
So it is wrong to say they are are defying an order. They are doing what everyone does on appeal.
If they were to defy an order they could be held in contempt of court. That would be an interesting story.
Actually, the judge lifted the freeze on the court order, so Microsoft is in fact defying it. Microsoft states they plan to appeal, but until they do appeal, they are still defying it.
People and businesses and governments everywhere will be watching this one.
If America can force Microsoft to reach out to Ireland for data, then Germany (etc.) can force Microsoft to tunnel into America, right?
And, as mentioned, people, businesses and governments are already skeptical of the cloud, anyway.
People, businesses and governments may force "data nationalism" to become the norm.
They already can and have been doing so for years. If Microsoft wins, there will quickly be treatise signed with most countries allowing law enforcement to access data of their citizens suspected of criminal activity, just like happened with banking.
The answer is no, because jurisdiction is territorial. You can't apply Ireland's law to MS in the U.S. simply because they have a corporate office there, thus the reverse is true too: you can' t apply U.S. law to a subsidiary in Ireland.
And yet Microsoft has no problem trying to apply US patent and copyright laws against foreign companies. The reality here is that if I was the criminal in question and stored the data on my personal computer in Ireland, the US would ask the Irish to sieze the physical computer and turn it over and they would. However, Microsoft isn't the criminal, they are just the email provider who happens to be storing emails related to the criminal activity and happens to store it in Ireland. So, the authroities have issued a warrant to Microsoft for that data.
Now, if the US was trying to sieze Microsoft's servers in Ireland, that would be different. They are only asking for the emails of a person suspected of a US crime. When this started, it wasn't even known they were stored in Ireland. Microsoft brought that up because they thought that was the only way to keep from turning over a customer's emails.
I would suspect that if Microsoft prevails, it won't be for long as we will see new laws about data laundering just like happened with money laundering through foreign banks.
Self serving and customer-centric are one and the same in this case. I see nothing wrong with that, and I have nothing but respect for Microsoft doing this. They will likely be facing down some pretty serious daily fines while they wait for this to play out, at least judging from how cases like this have gone in the past. Good on them, whatever their motives.
Microsoft is fighting a warrant about turning over a customer's emails in a criminal case. Are you really arguing because the electrons are sitting on an SSD in Ireland, the criminal should go free, even though Microsoft has full control over those electrons? The individual didn't instruct Microsoft to store the data there, Microsoft did it of its own volition.
It is a rational self-interested decision that may be good for consumers.
Of course it's "self interest", and more accuratly "self preservation". Micrsoft is a business that ultimatly has to answer to their stockholders. If it comes to pass that US "law enforcement" can reach out and get personal data from non-US servers, it will completely destroy Microsoft's European business, due the the much stricter data privacy laws in Europe. It would be "game over" for Microsoft in Europe.
No, it won't. Europeans will still have the same protections they do under their laws. However, US citizens committing a crime in the US won't be able to store their data on foreign servers of American companies and have it safe from authorities. In otherwords, if a US crime is committed, it doesn't matter where the US company hosts its server farm, it is still under the control of that company and subject to the authorities.
If Microsoft wins this challenge, then there will be no server farms in the US because any that were overseas would be exempt from US authorities. Just think of something as mundane as tax avoidance. The IRS comes in and asks to see your companies data, but you don't have to give it to them because it is in a different country? Or let's say some government agency stores its data in Canada. Now it is exempt from the Freedom of Information Act?
The reality here is that if Microsoft wins, there will no longer be a tech industry in the US because what is left will move overseas to avoid US laws.
Microsoft's actions might seem "customer-centric," but really they're fighting for their lives.
If MS can be forced to give up European data, stored on European servers, that's game over for them.
Lawsuits and investigations will flourish in Europe, because their data protection laws are much stronger/stricter than ours.
This could kill MS's European business.
Which would kill Microsoft because that would provide enough of a critical mass to overcome the barriers to entry that Microsoft has erected in the Office market - wipe Microsoft out of Europe, and Europe would move to a truly open document format. And to communicate with Europe, the US markets would have to be able to read/write such formats - and actually do it WELL.
And once that happens, the money Microsoft makes on Office is gone....
Maybe we should be cheering this judge on?
This case is about a search warrant for a suspect's email that happens to be hosted on a server that Microsoft owns in Ireland. Even if Microsoft has to comply with the law, it won't have the impact you are implying.
It's all just a matter of legal principle. Can any internet company be publicly ordered to break laws in other countries, regardless of where it is based. So M$ is challenging the order to publicly establish a principle and protect it and all other internet companies in this regard. Technically speaking all other internet companies are now getting a free ride on M$'s dime, so it seems sometimes they do pay back to the industry. This is an important principle of law and something the US Federal government should be paying attention to and legislating to ensure the future of all US internet companies is not severely threatened.
Should a bank be publicly orederd to break laws in other countries, regardles of where it is based? That has already been answered in the affirmative. Banks are held to the laws of the country they are chartered in. Why should internet companies be different? Microsoft has no problem trying to hold foreign companies liable for US patent infringement, even if their local patent laws are different. Companies can't have it both ways. If you are a US company, you can't cry foul when US laws work against you but turn around a use US laws only when they are in your favor.
Its an American's data stored under a European account in European servers.
Perhaps. But if it was an American, residing on European soil, there would be extradition procedures to follow. And those would involve having the local (EU) police generate their own warrant and make their own arrest based upon a formal request. The aprehended suspect would then be turned over to the requesting country.
The same sort of thing should happen here. The USA should make a formal request to the Irish court to secure the evidence and turn it over to US authorities.
That is true, but it's not about an American, but an American's data that is in question. You can only extridte people. If an American only needs to store their data in a foreign country to keep from complying with a warrant, then every criminal organization will do that. What the court is saying is that jurisdiction follows whoever has control over the data, which in this case is Microsoft, but could just as easily be drug cartel or terrorist group.
You mean "Kill every company on the internet's business that serves customers in Europe and America."
Legal precedent would compel Google, and everyone else, to do the same stupid thing this judge has ordered, who is apparently unaware of international laws and seems to assume that US law is the only thing that exists or even should exist. If MS loses, everyone loses.
Actually, this same scenario happened with the banking industry and what the judge is proposing actually follows the international law and treaties that came out of it. In short, it doesn't matter where the assets are stored as to who has jurisdiction, but as to who has control over them. For instance if the IRA had deposits in Irish Allied Bank, but the cash was stored in the US, then the Irish Government could still freeze the account. So, if the data is stored somewhere else, but the company is headquartered in their land, why not the same thing?
Adding an additional data point - Jesus's woodcrafting tools measured in cubits so it's not that either. In fact his penis was said to be several millicubits long.
That would be Noah's woodcrafting tools. By the time Jesus came around, nobody was quite sure what a cubit was anymore.
For sufficiently small values of 3 dimensions, it effectively becomes 2 dimensions. ;-)
So, when you draw a line on paper, it's a line on a plane, even though the ink has some depth to it and the paper has a surface which isn't completely flat under a microscope.
Or, something like that.
But what you are drawing is only a representation of a line on a plane, not the actual line on a plane. If all of these 2-dimensional sheets were stacked on top of each other, would they still be 2D? If not, then technically, they aren't 2D to begin with. You would think that scientists would be more accurate with their articulation of complex concepts.
Because of the size of the population (which exceeds that of all Europe)
It always surprise me how americans see the world: in their head.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W...
Europe: population is 742 millions
USA: population is 352 millions
Yes, there are people outside the USA, and MUCH MUCH more than inside. And you still don't know it and display your ignorance right out there for everyone to see... Nice job, really.
To be fair, Europe is a continent while the United States is a country. A more accurate comparison would be North America versus Europe, which would be 742M to 565M. Of course the continent of Europe includes Russia, which most people don't include. Take out Russia and the two populations are very closely matched. If you want to compare by country, then the US still is many times larger than most European countries.
No, it's flamebait. It mentions no less than four additional points not relevant to this discussion simply in an attempt to troll Americans. Take out those four other points and I would agree it's a valid criticism, or perhaps include other points that ARE relevant/related.
I'm sorry, but the point regarding the imperial system is relevant. Only the irrational "logic" of religion would explain why the hell we refuse to convert.
The Vatican, while obviously not representing all religions, but being a major one, uses the metric system, so I'm pretty sure that imperial vs metric has nothing to do with religion.
Nobody is forcing the adoption? Really? You do know that Gnome3 has a dependency on logind and logind has a dependency on ... yes, kids ... systemd.
And who is forcing anybody to use Gnome3?
Who really needs systemd?
It may provide some features not previously existing, but it also breaks a lot of stuff that people "knew" were there.
A better question is why does it matter. Nobody is forcing systemd on distros. They are free to use whatever init system them want. The only reason this is an issue is because debian change to it and all of the derivatives, including the *buntus are now changing because of debian's change. However, nobody is forcing anybody downstream to change.
Distros are free to use whatever init system they want. Now, if they don't want to expend the effort and use the upstream init system, well, that is a design decision on their part. But, they aren't being forced into it.
You mean like gmail and youtube, which were initially built and operated almost entirely with money obtained from Google's search service?
I'm still wondering why nobody filed a complaint for that.
Because when gmail came out, Google wasn't a major player and there were already other free mail services. As for Youtube, didn't they buy them out?
Close. Google's current cash cows are search. That's it. Just search. As of their FY-2013 statements, search was still 91% of their total revenue. Android is a loss leader to keep people tied into their app ecosystem, which keeps the data & advertising machine fed. Paid email (a la google apps) is a mere drop in the bucket.
Actually, their cash cow is selling information. Search is just how the primary way they obtain it.
Your reasoning sounds very similar to what Microsoft said about internet explorer vs Netscape in the 90s. Maybe what makes such giving the service for free anti-competitive is the market share of the the one giving it away. Obviously Google and Amazon are huge players in the market. If giving their stuff for free eliminates the other competition, then it can be anti-competitive.
Walmart did this in its early expansion days. They would come into a small town sell products much cheaper than any other store and once those stores closed, WMs prices were raised. What's to keep Google or Amazon from doing the same thing?
When you are the little guy, it is permissible to undersell to gain market share. When you have the majority of the market, and you decide to do so usually means there are other motives.
- Campus Christian Ministry decides to start spamming the entire campus with pro-life messages.
- Young Republicans club start spamming the entire campus with messages calling for the impeachment of Pres. Obama.
- ROTC program starts spamming the entire campus with messages encouraging students to sign up for military service.
Where's your unfettered free speech now?
Why anybody would be worried about those groups or any other boggles the minds. If the content isn't illegal, then why censor it? Surely if kids are smart enough to be in college, they are smart enough to hit a delete key for content they don't want.
Maybe tech firms should hold on to some those dividends paid to shareholders and use them to train their employees if the employees are just "sort of ok." Or, maybe the government should say for every foreign worker you higher, you need to pay 20% of gross wages and benefits into a fund that will be used to train those "sort of ok" workers. That way, the short-term solution of hiring foreign workers leads to a long term domestic solution. It also keeps companies from having a windfall profit from the practice.
Maybe he should teach about how not to run a company into the ground by going over his tenure at Msoft.
Nobody except the RIAA, MPAA, et. al. has ever made a legal argument that such a distinction exists. I do not believe it exists. I do not believe that any court has ruled that such a distinction exists or that any law has been enacted that creates such a distinction. I think you are an RIAA (et al) shill, spreading FUD.
Now put up or shut up.
It doesn't matter what you believe, only what the law/courts say. There are ample court cases, most of it under state sales and use tax laws to show that electronic content is not a sale but a contract agreement to use it. That's one of the reasons there are federal proposals to tax edelivery of content -- because current tangible property laws don't apply. It has nothing to do with the RIAA or MPAA. It has to do with 200 years of property law. Like all laws, if you don't like it, work to change it.
Bullshit. They most certainly do own that copy of the music, and none of your ridiculous FUD and RIAA shilling will change that.
It has nothing to do with the RIAA. An mp3 file is not considered tangible personal property, the media it is on is, however. It is also not considered real property (ie land and buildings). As such, there is nothing to transfer or inherit. Now, if the files are stored on a local computer, that is personal property and you can inherit that. However, your remote hosted drive is not owned by you and cannot be inherited.
I can buy a book and somebody can inherit it. I cannot buy a pattern of electrons called an ebook and somebody inherit it. You can only inherit tangible personal or real property. An ebook or other electronic media may have a license that allows it to be assigned to another person, in which case somebody else may have access to it after your death, but 1) most do not and 2) if they do, you still don't inherit it. Like the original purchaser, you don't own it, you just have a license to use it.
Chances are it was sold to them with a buy button and the description of the product was the product not the licence to the product. Chances are the payment was one time payment for permanent access to the copy. This is the definition of a sale. Calling a sale by another name does not change it from being a sale.
Unfortunately, it does. You also don't usually buy software. It may look like a sale and even be called a sale, but you are accepting a license to use the product in a manner that the owner of the product deems appropriate. If it were a true sale, you would be the owner and thus could do with it whatever you want. Also, for a sale to take place, there has to be an exchange money for tangible property. Electronic distribution has already been determined by the courts not to be tangible personal property, so again, there cannot be a sale.
In reality, it makes no difference what the transaction is called, it is all about who retains ownership and with electronic content, it is not, usually, the person paying for it.
I don't care much for the social media accounts, but it is good that bought ebooks, music and movies should be accessible to next of kin, just like their physical counterparts are.
Ebboks, movies, etc. are not personal property. They are simply licenses to view the copyrighted content. Physical books, on the other hand are tangible property and can be given, willed, etc. Until the license agreements change, it won't matter what Delaware's law says. You cannot inherit from the deceased what is not theirs in the first place.