Tom Lehrer's attitude is more realistic than most. There are new fans and fans who want to keep his work alive. But is he not likely to make any serious money from them. What he has grasped is most works have a shelf life of a few years. Most artists need to continually create new works to make more money and hope the public still is willing to buy them.
In Tom's case, much of his satire was topical to events happening in the late 50's and early 60's. So unless you understand the reference, the humor will be missed.
The key about permission is whether is it verifiable by non-hearsay means. This article, while documenting his attitude, would likely be considered hearsay. But an email or letter from him to someone giving permission is direct evidence.
I was involved in a similar issue were the author died before we finished the project. The copyright passed to the author's brother who knew about the project and give his written permission to continue as we originally planned. There were some documents from the author which a lawyer said would stand up in court as showing intent.
The issue about extended family depends on what verifiable agreements have been made before the artist dies and what the will says about the IP issues. In Tom Lehrer's case it appears there are verifiable agreements were he waived any royalties. These agreements would be binding on the estate.
Part of the problem is most normal people will say something out of anger such as "X deserves to die because X is a Y" or "I should terminate with extreme prejudice X because X did Y" without any intention of carrying out the implied threat. This results with hypersensitivity in people being charged with some form of terrorism when they were just venting anger. Add that any comment made on the Internet can potentially be seen by the entire world.
Also, other judges and US Courts will read this opinion and take note that venue shopping will be frowned upon. The footnote strongly hints that they did not find the evidence of a crime persuasive but mostly based on the AUSA engaging in shystering.
Other than cross indexing like a library, these documents are often available via a Google search for free. I can get the relevant sections of the various regulations and documents via Google and if I expect to referring to them regularly; bookmark the relevant pages.
The problem is there are numerous agencies that live on after the original reason for existence ceases to be valid. These agencies must create mission creep to justify their continued existence.
When Canada actually balanced their national budget in the 1990's their experience was the best way to balance their budget was wholesale elimination of agencies and realigning duplicated efforts into fewer agencies. Their observation was often the agencies improved their services and the public did not notice any major problems with services. Analogy here is the fact so many agencies have their own internal police department and swat teams which duplicate other agencies. This inevitably leads to turf wars over who has jurisdiction.
Read the retraction notice (http://www.frontiersin.org/blog/Retraction_of_Recursive_Fury_A_Statement/812). The journal explicitly states there were serious ethical and legal problems with the paper. The principle on was the implication of a psychopathology by the authors on those they considered deniers without any real evidence of any pathology of the "deniers".
The journal also has stated they tried to get a revised paper that addressed the issues but the authors apparently refused to rewrite the paper to address the issues.
The paper was sloppily done and may be libelous to many who are not convinced that humans have that much effect on they climate. There are at least three groups: believers in AGW, doubters in AGW (a large number of scientists are actually doubters), and deniers. The doubters are concerned about modelling verification, inaccurate predictions, the very limited data, etc. They tend to believe models that are any good should be able to model correctly the observed data. And the current models overestimate the warming.
Upgrading or changing OSes can be a minefield because of various hardware, software incompatibilities. Windows to Windows has problems and Windows to Linux has another set of problems. Both are solvable but require proper planning.
RedHat is still around and doing very well. They are still selling support and maintenance for a free product.
Linux safety also has to do with how administrative and user spaces are handled. With Linux, one logs/boots into a user space and I am not sure if one directly boot into the admin space. On Windows, it is very common to boot directly into the admin space and Windows does not force one to make or use user accounts. Thus many Windows users are always root users which makes it easier to install stuff in the background. Linux users in an user space with limited privileges and most escalate privileges to install something. A Linux user could install malware but it requires an affirmative permission to do so. If a Linux user is taught to only install and update from the distro's repositories the chances of malware infecting system are very low. Add that distros con be grouped into families which use different packaging and package management tools; complicating the malware writer's problems.
The major use of Linux root privileges is to install applications and update the system. Otherwise, the average user would not use root privileges. Also, when Linux updates, it rarely requires a reboot and for most it will update the entire system. So you do not get serial messages at boot to check for updates from MS, Oracle, Apple, Virus Scanner, etc.
The problem with the MS system is that there is no centralized system updater and the user privileges seemed to be too narrow.
"Word does happen to run on Linux - but my kids all use OpenOffice and haven't had any problems yet. Usuually it is acceptable to convert such documents to PDF when submitting them, isn't it? Why do we still allow teachers to dictate our choices in life?"
I routinely save to MS formats from LibreOffice and no one has ever noticed or commented on my formatting. I suspect if no one told the teacher, no one would know.
Most users are not really computer literate in the sense they understand what is going on. I would suspect most of the people using TOR do not really understand how TOR works. Nor do many of them care. Like any crytographic system, TOR can easily be defeated by user carelessness. Also, with a relatively large ring in the criminal activity it is very likely a couple of members are either clueless or do not care. Either way, they make simple mistakes that allow others to break the system.
Or somebody work in a foreign intelligence agency discovering the problem and not talking. The only reason anyone knows about this is the people who discovered these flaws published their results. I would love to know if the Russians or Chinese have been using NSA funded backdoors on the US government.