Comment: Not a 'Free Market' (Score 3, Insightful) 319
It's an oligopoly (with a high risk of collusion)...
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
Comment: Re:hackerz (Score 1) 86
You are exactly correct Sir. Any hacker worth his or her salt would use ANOTHER PERSONS NETWORK, on a CLEAN COMPUTER. But we all know that of course, and this isn't any surpise to any of us that some non-anonymous hacker is now under investigation...
Comment: When it comes to jury duty.. (Score 3, Insightful) 653
Remember what your peers on here have said about slights committed by police officers. Give the guy/gal on the defense an extra benefit of the doubt, they really need it in cases where the police take it apon themselves to "help" get a conviction.
Comment: Re:Would fruit of the poisonous tree play into thi (Score 1) 262
Yeah. That's not a problem. The law isn't to prevent the infringer from gaining, but to prevent the copyright/trademark holder from losing. They still owe the copyright holder for damages done (assuming they're found to be infringing).
Right, and the current number of users they have are using their program, instead of something made by the original copyright holder, because they (may have) violated copyright. It could be argued that all past, and future, income was derived because of their copyright violation... Also, in civil court, you only need to prove the possibility that this is the case.
