You're missing a key logic point there (or misstating your point). If there are debts, any debts except federally secured student loans, the estate is responsible for paying them off. You only inherit stuff once all debts are paid. Therefore, if you've inherited anything, it is only because all debts were satisfied: either paid, forgiven, or assumed by the inheritor.

Belmolis has it nearly correct. The last sentence fragment ", but they never inherit any debt." is the only misleading portion. Inheritors can and do inherit debt, but only when they choose to (mortgage on a house, loan on a car, or, as Cyberax pointed out, any other debt to avoid sentimental items from being auctioned to pay said debt).

Plait wondered:

Partial facial paralysis. Duh.

I don't need copyright, fraud, or theft explained to me, thanks. Nor does any explanation of why "action x, y, & z is bad" justify vigilantism.

Now I'm curious why a demonstrated ignorance of history with the likes of "Why is vigilantism bad?" is considered "insightful", but a clear historical precedence based answer is "overrated"? Probably too many moderators so its too easy for topics to be hijacked by "+1 agree" mods. Don't know. Would be interesting research.

There are more than 52 image pairings if you bothered to actually look over the site. I'm not only talking about Brett & Jizelle. But since you're talking about that post exclusively, I'm sure you saw the update

Regardless of when the original was found, they still don't indicate how or if they've identified the actual copyright owners or how the offending site got a hold of them.

I'm not doubting Brett & Jizelle being douche-bags. I think the evidence presented is rather compelling and their canned, expected response of blaming the nameless, faceless, "already gone so there is no point in pursuing it" ex-employee only serves to seal the deal. I think that much of the time, vigilantes like this are doing a public service. However I also think the negatives of being wrong outweigh any possible benefit of their actions because safer, lawful, working measures are already in place to deal with this kind of situation.

The vigilante debate is quite old. You asked how its a problem, the answer is well known.

Right. And I'm sure every accused criminal that was later exonerated suffered no ill-effects. They've never failed to get a job due somebody seeing the original, but not the fix.

You'll have to bring something new to the 1000 year old "Is vigilantism a good thing" debate if you want to continue.

Why would you sign up for a plan that costs $1500 but only pays a maximum of $1500?

Did you not read it? Or fail to realize that a $1500 cap / $1500 premium is a wash that basically guarantees you're losing money every year?

And you're a contractor with a health plan?

Your story does not sound very believable to me.

None of those images detail whether or not the copyright was transferred. Nor do they explain how the suspected infringer obtained the image (Did they rip it off the web, or buy a stock photo package while being assured everything was legit?)
Considering the plethora of "Original source unknown" descriptions of those pairings, it seems the investigation into whether or not it actually is infringing is still ongoing.

So, how is it bad? Just like any other form of vigilantism, it's not, until they get it wrong.
Then some honest photographer or artist gets to live with the stigma, and reduced business, from being labeled a thief. That kind of branding never goes completely away no matter what kind of redaction is published on the shaming site.

I think public shaming is a great way to deal with people that actually steal stuff. But the point of doing the whole C&D letter followed by a lawsuit is to give everybody a chance to have their say before the punishments start.

Ah, I see you're new to the whole "filing charges" thing. The correct filing should include (but is absolutely not limited to):

Evidence tampering, hindering an investigation, obstruction of justice, vandalizing government property, theft, fraud, abusing authority, circumventing electronic security, computer hacking, assault, providing material support to terrorists, and a "conspiracy to commit" of every one of those charges.

Well then, time to put in for an IT budget too. :)

Are you trying to imply that Linus wrote it in a vacuum, by himself, without GNU, MINIX, Unix, or the public's help, like a blogger writing a story all by himself without an editor, research team, or a guaranteed audience no matter what crap he spits out?

If you truly think his involvement in Linux was as complete as a blogger's involvement on a story so much so that you feel your rhetorical question repudiates my points instead of merely pedantically attacking a blogger quality spur-of-the-moment analogy... then I'm not sure where our discussion can go after this. It seems I strongly disagree with you.

1 vote for: Bloggers + Snopes > Journalism.

I doubt Sarten-X has an editor budget.
Its more like: "Pot, meet Fully Staffed & Automated Modern Kitchen Here Take A Look At The Internet Controlled Toaster No It Only Toasts One Side I Don't Know Where The Butter Is Anyways Just Have Coffee Oops I Spilled It."

You really think so?

Personally, I would think if what you said were true, we wouldn't have any vaccine deniers, Oprah would be penniless, & Rush Limbaugh would never have been famous at all. Really, how does Rush keep any viewers despite his wonderful record of lies, b.s., inaccuracies and hypocrisy?

No, they don't write, but they're of the same class as youtube bloggers. They are 2 of many that have proven the only thing you need to get readers or viewers, is a well-presented story. Facts be damned.

Bloggers just don't have the resources, the time, the inclination, the requirement, or the ability to do the kind of fact checking that mainstream media does. If a blogger spends 6 months intensely investigating a story, that is 180 blog posts they didn't write. The only thing that hurts bloggers total viewer #s is not posting regularly. While many outlets, *cough* cnn *cough*, have tried to follow the blogger money train in terms of story quality, and there have been scandals and honest mistakes in mainstream, they still have the power to produce quality, in-depth, reports. Bloggers don't. Just like individual code-whizes can produce some stunningly awesome apps, hacks, & snippets, but can't, in a 1000 years, just "whip up" a quality OS.

Do *some* bloggers do better and produce quality stuff? Sure. To me though, that only proves a million monkeys working together can eventually produce Shakespeare: 999,999 monkeys throwing shit + 1 Mojo Jojo.

The thing is, if you got a quality education, or even a sub-par one but made up for it with natural talent, you never "get away from your education" because technology, like other science, just builds on existing technology. The core of it doesn't change.

Obviously as it becomes more complicated, it requires more specialization, so there is a chance your chosen specialization may get pruned off the technology tree, but again that only means you have to go back to the last branch that goes to something active.

Furthermore, once you're done with school, you start your next round of schooling: conferences, documentation, "nothing we have now will do it right so lets find a new way." It is the very basis of every creative mind out there.

This is about money. More of it in his pocket at any expense to others. Pure and simple.