Actually, no it's not. The photographer owns the copyright to his or her work. When it comes to selling or licensing the photo, the model has all the say, barring an explicit agreement to the contrary because they own the right to public display of their image (exception: when the photo was taken in a public place with no reasonable expectation of privacy).

That's true. But the problem is that at the prices any of the Linux vendors large enough to support this kind of environment are charging, Windows is actually the cheaper option (Microsoft gives Windows etc for practically free to government, let alone education and healthcare organisations).

You know you can lock down Firefox if you use FrontMotion right? (We do that here)

Your statement is patently false. That one investment would need to run into the hundreds of millions of dollars, perhaps even billions, to produce every piece of software for which no Linux option exists... PACS software, laboratory information systems, radiology information systems, clinical portals, clinical coding applications, MRI controller software, linear accelerator controller software, haematology analyser interface software, EMR software, patient administration systems, and THAT's just for healthcare! Imagine the rest! On top of that, building all this software would take at least a decade.

So no, they can't switch to Linux and open source freely. In fact, it'd be bloody expensive and an incredibly long process - that would divert billions of dollars away from front-line operations (and stuff like pharmaceuticals etc) for no good reason.

Coupled with... well, what PACS is even available for Linux? Last we checked, none. Nor is there an EMR designed for very large implementations. Clinical Portals. Laboratory Information Systems. Radiology Information Systems. Clinical Coding Applications. MRI Control Software. Linear Accelerator Control Software.

The list (of clinical applications not available on Linux) goes on.

Switching to Linux in a hospital is simply not doable, right now. Someone either needs to get the vendors on board, or start their own vendor producing this stuff. I don't see either of these things happening.

The problem is that the Free OS vendors also charge a metric shitload. You seen the cost of a Red Hat Workstation license? It's actually more expensive than Windows! Red Hat Server? Also more expensive than Windows!

Or Gentoo, where all you get is seeds, and the ingredients list is simply a molecular analysis of each component.

No, the real irony is your tirade including how it's a joke that the poster you replied to (who is apparently the devil for having a differing opinion from yours- seriously, get a grip) doesn't seem to know the difference between "there" and "their" when you don't seem to know the difference between "viscous" (the word you used) and "vicious" (the word you MEANT to use).

And... well, Spell Check is your friend. You managed to misspell Microsoft, Steve Ballmer, "multi-user" (yes, it's hyphenated).

To be honest, the most harmful thing to the FL/OSS cause are... well, its advocates. Instead of extolling the benefits of Linux (of which there are indeed many), they spend the majority of their time decrying Windows as the hell-spawn of Satan (as you have done through your entire monologue). While I realise you were responding to a rather vitriolic rant yourself, replying with even more vitriol does not do yourself or your cause any good. So do yourself (and your cause) a favour. Calm down, and respond thoughtfully and respectfully.

Of course considering there is exactly zero large hospital-grade software on Linux, the freedom is kind of a red herring. Since apparently you'll have the freedom to not deliver on your core business. Hardly useful.

Actually, in neither case do you have the right to share them. You don't hold performance rights on the first (making it copyright infringement), and the second is outright CFAA material.

Only difference is in A, you have civil liability and B, you have criminal.

Isn't that technically already illegal, under "Conspiracy to commit X crime" laws? Deliberately soliciting someone to commit a crime is always illegal, is it not?

That's not actually true. The copyright in the recording belongs to you, but the copyright in the performance belongs to the person being filmed. The consent of both is required to further redistribute (hence why playing an audio tape in a restaurant requires two licenses - from ASCAP and the RIAA).

So no, the default under copyright law is that you are not entitled to share it further at all - unless monetary consideration was provided by you to the person being filmed, in which case the "work for hire" provisions take effect.

That's not the intent of the anti-discrimination laws at all. In sane places, you are absolutely free to refuse service to anyone you want, as long as the reason that you refused service is not on protected grounds. In your example, the customer could not sue you because the reason you refused service is due to their undervalued offer.

Granted, this is not how the laws are always applied. And that's what needs to be addressed, not their mere existence.

That's not actually true.

And I'm relatively sure most people don't sign Model Release agreements when they let their SOs take those kinds of photos!