Personally I'm less worried about being spied on than I am of the knowledge that our governments don't seem to be able to comprehend security.
Highly sensitive US military networks are apparently vulnerable to anybody with a few scrip-kiddie tools and in the UK our government can't even keep social security records on laptops safe.
I mean my god the NSA just grabbed everybody's data in a drag net to catch one or two people. Does anybody think Fox Mulder is going to be sitting there reading every single e-mail and web search? Uncaring emotionless computers will do all the grunt work.
Nobody cares you watch lesbian granny porn and pay for the privilege.
Now Google and other similar companies already track everything you do on-line. And they can't even claim it's in the interests of national security.
It's really sad people in the nation that proclaims it's self to be the leader of the free world are fighting over a tips jar in court. Even worse, they still have a tips jar!
"Open source licenses are often described as the "constitutions" for the communities that form around the software they govern. That would seem to imply that in their absence, alongside other unwanted consequences, the communities would collapse. A provocative paper by Clark Asay, Assistant Professor at Penn State University Dickinson School of Law, suggests that this isn't the case, and that software could be released into the public domain and yet still thrive as a collaborative project."
I've never known anybody to even suggest this. The purpose of the GPL is to stop industry or other entities building on open source code and then refusing to share their improvements. Clearly such entities would not really be part of the core community and would just be bit part actors on the side lines scraping up scraps of code from the web.
The problem is not so much the "not sharing". It's the unfair advantage they gain.
I think it's best to find out before commenting just what these sites are/were up to.
Telsa have to admit we have a long way to go before their electric cars can match standard American gas guzzlers.
The Times need to make sure the next time they send a reporter to review what is essentially an oversized child's electric go-cart, they send someone who can at least operate a toaster without instruction. I think their reporter in this case would have struggled with that task.
This is really just one more reason to use LibreOffice.org instead or even Google Docs.
That way everybody is a winner. Microsoft's software doesn't get pirated and users get to use their software as they see fit and save ?100 or so into the bargain.
Even more shocking than this policy of Microsoft's is how EMC licences Captiva. They do it "per image captured". When you reach your pre-paid level of images you can't scan any more until you buy a new licence package.
Imagine if Microsoft charged per Word document? Perhaps by page produced in Word? Or even per word typed in Word?
I know 6 to 8 years isn't exactly a lifetime, but so far as free offers or discounted hosting deals go it's a damn good run.
The company could probably phase this out more gradually. If the hardware's failing and it's going to cost them too much to virtualise then what else can they do? Sticking to the line "we promised" isn't a viable business model.
Techdirt is always ready to criticize companies and organizations for sticking belligerently to failing business models. Well when things change there are often casualties. You can't have it both ways.
This isn't the first time this sort of thing has been offered. And while it might potentially break the law. People uploading pirated content are already breaking the law. So it's a bit late to cry wolf on that point.
What does bother me is the potential for accidentally or deliberately blocking a legitimate peer offering legitimate content. Microsoft are funding this thing. Microsoft are currently trying to kill the competition. Linux is part of that competition and many Linux distros use torrents.
And then there's Hollywood whom it seems regularly asserts copyright on content it has no right to if bogus take down notices are anything to go by.
And if you can block a torrent peer, surely it's not a huge leap to start blocking other content.
Given the potential for abuse I think this sort of thing should be illegal if it isn't already. The law exists to deal with criminals.
This article should terrify the rest of the world. We've had public access to the Internet since the early 1990s and our politicians still don't get it. But they insist on making laws governing it's use.
Wasn't it an American politician who said something like "the Internet is made of tubes, stuff goes through the tubes and the tubes get clogged up"?
So what's clogging up the tubes?
B&N are now just an extension of Microsoft. It's not surprising they've started this bull.
"In these and countless other examples throughout our history, the ability to give birth to an idea and convert it into economic success, whether it is the content of a film or the technology of the internet, depends on copyright and patent protection "
Well that's interesting. Yahoo and others claim Facebook is in violation of their patents which is why Facebook buys other companies. To get their IP. However Facebook was a success long before it had the capital clout to go around buying up other companies or even before Facebook it's self was a company.
So in spite of the fact Facebook is supposedly in breach of Yahoo's IP. Facebook succeeds where Yahoo is increasingly failing. I don't think it's IP law that's driving success here.
B&N are doomed just like all other Microsoft partners. It's a recurring theme that for the life of me I can't understand why other businesses can't see it. Microsoft haven't exactly managed to hide all their dodgy dealings.
Most artists produce a "masterpiece". And then from that masterpiece they go on to produce copies. If they sold you the copyright to the original masterpiece, they wouldn't be able to profit from or even produce and sell the reproductions.
Of course there is an easy way around this problem. Don't sell the masterpiece until you're done with it. Reproductions only have any significant value if they are relatively rare limited editions.
Given these arrests are about protecting the victim in this case and reassuring other victims they can come forward in confidence then I would say it makes complete sense. This isn't some frivolous use of the law to cover up some juicy gossip. It's a serious effort to protect vulnerable people which should be commended.
I also happen to think the accused's name should also remain anonymous until there is a final verdict. A rape allegation can destroy a man's life. A fact women have in the past taken advantage of for petty revenge. Justice needs to be allowed to run it's course before people start disclosing details in these cases.
Another important fact to remember here is that an arrest is not a conviction. This isn't something the police can give you an on-the-spot-fine for. So people need to calm down and let the police do their jobs.
US copyright laws apparently apply in the UK. So why shouldn't they know everything about me? The more the USA pushes and the faster they push the quicker they'll find out what it feels like when an empire falls.