I'd run across a variation of that one before, though phrased more modernly I believe, interesting to find out where it originated from.
In this case, and following the lesson from that tale, if the chefs are claiming that pictures are 'stealing their IP', I'd say a suitable recompense would be for the ones taking the photos to 'pay' with a picture of coins/bills. Photo for photo as it were.
Now now, you can't forget their 'super duper accurate IP matching programs', the ones that they assure courts are completely accurate, and would never, and could never, result in a false positive leading to the wrong person being sued.
Of course the judges will just have to take their word for it, as for some reason they always seem to object strongly to having their programs tested for accuracy, but I'm sure that's a total coincidence, and has nothing to do with them knowing any independent review would show their IP matching programs to be laughably inaccurate.
Schmidt, 73, who headed one of the more infamous departments in the infamous Stasi, called himself appalled. The dark side to gathering such a broad, seemingly untargeted, amount of information is obvious, he said.
“It is the height of naivete to think that once collected this information won’t be used,” he said. “This is the nature of secret government organizations. The only way to protect the people’s privacy is not to allow the government to collect their information in the first place.”
What with the claims of how photographs are somehow 'taking away their intellectual property', someone really needs to ask them 'How?', because honestly, it sounds like they're using it as nothing more than buzz words, where it sounds big and important, but is actually completely meaningless.
Does the photo somehow take away the taste of the meal from other diners? Does taking the picture somehow make it harder for the chef to remember just how to cook that meal? Does photographing the food somehow make if more difficult for the chef to cook that particular meal in the future?
Honestly, I'd really love to know how taking a gorram photo somehow devalues their 'intellectual property'(and how exactly a meal can be considered 'intellectual property' in the first place, given I'm fairly sure you can't copyright a plate of food).
For how 'obviously illegal' file-sharing and similar sites are supposed to be, the ones demanding they be shut down sure seem to avoid like the plague any court time where they would actually have to prove that the sites are breaking the law and should be shut down/blocked.
Why, it's almost as though things aren't as cut and dry as they like to pretend, or that their 'evidence' isn't nearly as strong as they like to claim it is.
Not much would change I'd imagine, this isn't a democrat/republican issue, as both parties are equally guilty.
Now, some may try and spin it as all due to 'those dirty democrats/republicans', but that's just attempting to shift the issue, get people fighting over which party is 'to blame', rather than focusing on the actual problem.
The funny part is all the 'other' people (possibly Mike?), thinks this means its ok to completley copy another's work and sell it(as in a non-transformative). Like Mike says, "at least we can assume those people just don't know."
Nice strawman there, remember to keep it away from open flames and logic.
What would be really funny is if the letter wasn't in fact referring to their 'office life', but was a subtle stab at the overbroad, 'Grab Everything' spying the NSA loves so much, by rephrasing it in a smaller context like a boss spying on his employees.
If that were the case, I'd say the one who sent in the letter did a brilliant job of highlighting the 'One set of laws/rules for us, another for the rest of you' mindset the NSA has.
Maybe they're going there to listen in and try and gauge the reactions to their actions, not realizing that their presence is only going to make those reactions worse.
It's also possible they're showing up at events like that to try and 'guide' any discussion in the direction they want it to go in(like they've fairly successfully managed with the MSM), avoiding as best they can the topics they'd rather avoid. Of course, if that's the aim, they don't seem to have picked a very good target, as most people at a conference dealing with security are likely to see through their lies.
At this point it might be worth it to just stop inviting them to such events, no matter how much 'prestige' big names like that may bring, and make it very clear that the pulling of the invitations are entirely due to the fact that the government reps and spying agency reps are completely and utterly indifferent to adding to the discussion in any meaningful fashion.
A huge public snubbing like that, from multiple sources, would likely do more to further the discussion than their presence and silence ever could, and really put the focus on how completely and utterly silent they've tried to be any time the subject has come up.
Yeah, actually leaving Russia, asylum or not, would probably not be the best(or safest, or sanest) idea, but even if he stayed right there, to have a country publicly grant him asylum would be quite the accomplishment, and a giant (well earned) middle finger to the USG over the matter, showing that that country at least was willing to stand up to the USG and refuse to bow to their threats.
I'm pretty sure that the inside of someone's house is generally considered by the law to be private, not public, property, whether the door is wide open, or locked shut, and whether or not there's a sign visible stating that it's private property.
So I really can't help but find funny their supposed 'anger' over the printing out and sharing of those documents, or at least their laughable attempts to blame the anger on the fact that classified documents were shared when they shouldn't have, rather than the fact those those documents exposed their lying.
Had they done the 'proper' thing and notified those involved, the CIA and the Intelligence Committee, without having evidence to back up their claims, given we're talking about a report showing how the CIA was lying to the Intelligence Committee, the same committee that was supposed to be providing oversight on the CIA's actions, do they really expect anyone to buy the idea that they would have just gone 'Oh, you got us, yeah, we've been lying to you this whole time, here's the real information you've been looking for'?
Yeah, not likely.
Instead, they most likely would have buried the report, and then when the committee came calling, tried to bury them with an avalanche of excuses along the lines of 'it's classified' and/or 'no such report can be found(and even if it could, it would still be classified beyond your clearance)'.
That should have been funny, it really should have, but unfortunately it's far too accurate to be so, as the US loves their prisons and punishment, but has a pretty strong aversion to actually treating prisoners or the mentally ill to keep them from going to, to going back to, prison.
If the issue was one of quality, it would seem the better choice of action once you were aware of the script would have been to get in touch with the developer, work with them in making it better and the result more polished, not jump straight to trying to shut it down.
Should they have asked you before throwing something like that out? Yeah, probably so, however, the fact that they bothered to go through the trouble to throw it together indicates a strong interest in the subject matter, so I'd say they likely would have been willing to listen and work with you had you approached them with a reasonable offer to work together on it, rather than just trying to get it pulled.
Filing what for all intents appears to be a bogus DMCA claim(unless you're going to claim that you have the rights to the script in question, then it would appear you lack the valid claim needed to file to have it taken down) first just indicates a willingness, and eagerness, to go legal, rather than take a more measured approach.
Now, as to the last point, while your concern there is certainly valid, again, you almost certainly would have been better off getting in contact with the developer of the script, explaining your issues regarding quality and the worry about it possibly being pulled, and asked them to work with you, or at least explain your concerns and ask them to stop, rather than going legal so quickly.
People and companies these days seem to bring out the lawyers way too quickly, when often a more measured, reasonable and personal discussion would be far more productive, both in getting things done, and on the PR front.
While normally that saying is pretty cliche and inaccurate, in this case, and other cases of government agencies doing everything they can to hide their activities behind the veil of 'national security'/'it's classified', I'd say it's pretty much dead on.