(Fairly sure your comment was meant to be taken as implied sarcasm, but just in case...)
I'd say it's more likely that they know full well what counts as malware and are just lying about it in an attempt to bolster their case. As Skeeter pointed out above, if someone had done the same thing they did but to them you can be sure that they'd be screaming about malware loud enough to be heard for miles.
Still, something that irks me is... why music copies should be paid for? I mean, I'm reading people that say that they buy their music (not sure in what for, some say in CDs or whatnot).
To be honest, isn't that just stupid? I mean, you're paying for something that is being made artificially scarce by a few, when you know that the marginal value of each copy is close to zero.
Why pay? For me at least it's because I enjoy good music and want to reward those that make it, and so I can have an offline copy should I need or want it.
"You made something cool that I enjoy, and are offering it on terms that I find acceptable, so have some money as my way of saying thanks."
Sure I could go without paying, the source of almost all of my music(Bandcamp) allows you to freely listen to a song/album as many times as you want for free(though some albums have a pop-up to remind you to buy if you listen a certain number of times, a pop-up that can be simply closed), but I'm not paying because I feel I have to, I'm doing it to reward the person who made the cool music that I get to enjoy, both as thanks and in hopes they'll make more in the future.
I should point out that my willingness to pay/interest in rewarding a given artist with my time, attention and money is in direct proportion to the terms they offer and how they treat their customers, so even if their music is absolutely amazing if they violate one of the criteria below I'm going to go elsewhere with my money, as I don't believe in rewarding or encouraging bad behavior.
Infected by DRM? No sale. Locked down to a given service? Not happening. Artist has a reputation for lashing out against their fans or treating them badly? I can do without. Price too high? There's always something else to listen to.
I mean, we are having a quite lukewarm approach to copyright, to be honest. If artists want to get paid, it's their job to figure out how, the same as with other jobs and professionals.
And with new, more reasonable services popping up that can be as simple as 'Make something cool, get people's attention so they know about it, and make them want to give you money.'
CwF + RtB as TD/Mike puts it.
Doesn't have to be that complex really so long as your creation is good, people know about it and can get it on reasonable terms, and you aren't like some 'professionals', lashing out against your fans and making them wonder if they really want to be supporting you by buying your stuff.
The closest I've run across that's at least somewhat rational(even if I disagree with it) is that longer copyright = more 'value', increasing the incentive to create more, and even that argument falls apart when you consider that even if it's true, that something might be created with life+70 but not say life+50 the fact that it's still locked up for what's effectively forever means it's not doing much to add to culture, making for a lousy deal for the public.
If you were to look at it honestly, ignoring the laughable excuses or justifications thrown out in it's defense the answer is simple enough: Longer duration allows private companies control for longer, allowing both a longer monopoly and resulting chance for profits and reduced competition with more recent creations.
At a time when highly informed voters might seem like a good thing, the Appropriations Committee voted down, 18-32, an amendment from Reps. Mike Quigely (D-Ill.) and Scott Rigell (R-Va.) that would have made it easier for the public to access Congressional Research Service reports.
Voters having access to non-partisan, carefully researched info is great if the position a given politician holds or is proposing is backed by evidence and has been fact-checked to be as accurate as possible, but if they're pushing things that say, might not be 'well acquainted with the truth' then 'highly informed voters' is the last thing they'd want. It's a lot more difficult to lie to someone if they have evidence that contradicts what you're saying after all.
"Sure we'd absolutely consider it malware if someone else used it, and assuming they didn't have the protection of important friends or a bank account that would allow a sufficient defense you can be sure that we'd come down hard on anyone doing something like this, but when we do it I can assure you that it's not malware."
Bandcamp for me. The ability to listen to an entire album(several times usually) prior to purchase to allow me to decide if I want to pick it up has led me to buying more music in the past few years than the rest of my life combined.
Being able to *gasp* try before I buy has resulted in a huge number of sales that would not have otherwise happened; the idea of buying an album because I heard a single song from it from elsewhere, or just had someone tell me it was good is not something I'd ever see as reasonable, hence why I didn't buy music before I stumbled across the service, sticking with free 'amateur' stuff instead.
It's funny really, had I been interested in pirating music it's entirely possible that I would have been buying music before, given both Bandcamp and piracy allow one to do the same thing, listening to the music in it's entirety without having to pay first, but because I never bothered with that sort of thing it's only recently that I've begun to buy music.
Customer: Yeah, I'd head that those that you promote tend to see a nice increase of sales, I was looking to see if I could sign up.
Agency rep: Absolutely, sign with us and we can ensure that more people than ever will hear of your business and you'll see a noticeably uptick in sales both short-term and long as you become more well known.
Customer: Sounds great, so what exactly is involved here?
Agency rep: Well first of all we'll need you to sign this contract with us regarding our advertising for you and the rates we'll be charging, then we can-
Customer: Wait. Stop. You want me to pay you to advertise my business?
Agency rep: ... well, yes. We're not exactly in the business for offering advertising for no compensation after all.
Customer: I should think not!
Agency rep: Good, glad we got that straightened up. Now then as I was saying-
Customer: Clearly you should be paying me to use my stuff!
Agency rep: ... you want us to pay to advertise your product/business.
Customer: Of course! You're using my stuff-
Agency rep: To advertise your business and increase your sales.
Customer: Stop interrupting. As I was saying, you're using my stuff, so it's only right that you pay for it's use.
Agency rep: That's certainly one possibility, yes, although I think I have a better one: We could not advertise your business.
Customer: Or you could- wait, what?
Agency rep: Yeah, if the terms of the 'deal' are that we pay you to advertise for you or don't advertise for you at all, I think we'll have to give your 'gracious' offer a pass. Thanks for your time, feel free to come back if you change your mind and are willing to agree to our terms.
Customer: But... how are people supposed to know about my business if they don't hear about it?
Agency rep: That's not our problem now is it? Good day, try not to let the door hit you on the way out.
Carrying around a copy of both the Constitution and the Whistleblower Act(and from the sound of it using both quite often) gives a very strong impression that those he was dealing with neither knew about nor cared about either. And keep in mind these were government officials dealing with whistleblowers.
The problem(one of them anyway) is that so many involved in the legal system, from government down to police on the street have come to see themselves as the 'good guys'.
Now if they were constantly striving to meet that idea that would be a good thing, but by assuming that they are the good guys it follows that everything they do is automatically 'good', because 'Good Guys Don't Do Bad Things'. As such if something gets in their way it's an impediment of justice, not something designed to protect it, and it's to be removed or bypassed as soon as possible so that 'justice', which is not seen as the innocent protected and the guilty punished(in that order of priority)but rather the conviction of the accused, can be carried out.
Seems the judge is bending over backwards to grant the government it's 'request' to withhold the information while at the same time trying to twist the case such that the defense, who he agrees should have access to the information, isn't actually owed the information.
What should be done about it when, under these facts, the defense has a justifiable need for information in the hands of the government, but the government has a justifiable right not to turn the information over to the defense?
If the judge, after having admitting that the defense has a very real interest in having access to the code also admits that the FBI doesn't have to hand it over cared about seeing justice done the answer to the question above would be an easy one:
The FBI doesn't have to give the defense the code, but if they don't then they're not allowed to use any evidence that resulted from it's use. That this would essentially gut their case would be entirely their problem, and one they could easily solve by handing over the code for the defense to examine.
The alternative would be a complete perversion of justice, saying that claims of government secrecy trumps the right of the defense to examine evidence used against them and challenge it, and I'd like to hope that the judge cares more for justice than allowing that in their court room, even if their treatment of the case so far doesn't exactly bode well in that regard.
Simply getting rid of venue shopping would get rid of most of this rubbish. If companies knew they'd actually have to argue the case on the merits, instead of just filing in E. Texas, going to court and saying 'We have a patent that they might infringe on, make them give us money' I imagine most of them wouldn't even bother.
It's one thing to shake others down when you know you can stack the deck in your favor by simply filing in a certain location, quite another when the playing field is a little more even.
With a tirade like that I'm absolutely certain that the negative reviews talking about what a toxic work environment he provided were all hyperbole and exaggerations. Nope, no possible way they could be in any way, shape or form even remotely accurate, I mean come on, does he sound like the sort of person that might explode in your face if he had a bad day and/or was faced with criticism?
'Overly broad' is actually putting it very mildly, I'd probably go for 'Absurdly, ridiculously broad'. There is no 'working around the keystones' when the patent in question is basically 'any device that can play mp3's or videos and allows the user to choose tracks', so the only way for Google or other companies to avoid violating the patent(especially in 'patent' friendly East Texas) would be if they didn't sell any device capable of playing digital media unless the user had no control over what could be played.
This isn't some big mean companies stomping on the little guy, this is a company that made a product years back, others did it better, and rather than compete they've turned to shaking down anyone they could for as much as they can. I don't care how good their mp3 player was, they don't deserve to get a cut from every device that has the ability to play digital media(all of them at this point) just because at one point they sold a device that could do something similar.
Yeah, I imagine if you removed those that only 'subscribe to cable tv' because it's part of their internet package from the numbers they would look a lot different, and they'd be really hard pressed to brush the numbers aside as not that big a deal.
Another nice perk about keeping the terms of the settlement private is that it makes enforcing it basically impossible because no-one knows what that involves.
If the requirement on the side of the police is 'extra training' so that they can know for sure this time that they aren't allowed to arrest anyone recording them, but no one outside of the police knows about the condition then there's no-one to make sure that they actually follow it. They can just as easily ignore it completely, making the 'settlement' entirely one sided, with the reporters dropping any case they might have had, and the police giving up absolutely nothing in exchange.
True, my comment was more aimed at those buying the laws who insist that the laws need to always be ratcheted up 'for the creators', the very same creators who are being told that no in fact they do not own the rights to their own creations here.