This isn't lost USB sticks - this is USB sticks that were lost and weren't reclaimed long enough to end up in a transit authority auction.
There's another sample out there of sticks that WERE encrypted, or DID have useful data on them that were recovered by their owners. IE they were USB sticks that nobody gave a shit about. Why would we be surprised that there's malware on them and that there was no sensitive data. The other sticks were likely reclaimed.
Is http://www.pcpro.co.uk/blogs/2011/07/28/obscene-whitehall-it-spending-or-sloppy-journalism/
Basically, they took something out of context and sensationalised it.
False positive from a rarely used AV package - detects the same thing in an empty folder on a clean machine.
http://www.f-secure.com/weblog/archives/00002133.html
What's interesting if you read the complaint is that some of it is predicated on enforcing the EULA that's presented when logging into PSN and when downloading firmware updates. Have these ever been tested before in US courts?
Every last one of these acts will have a twitter / facebook / forum etc... at least a couple of them are going to be people who interact with their fans on there in person.
Do they know that this is being done in their name? We know that songs are http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_v._Thomas#The_24_songs so let's start asking them the question...
Most photographers in my field who've been open enough to discuss it with me are on a 50/50 deal with their agency. So this is a pretty poor offer.
It's a particularly odd turn of events in concert photography. Whereas those of us who do it with a pass are tied to 3 (or less sometimes) songs, no flash, from a particular shooting position and potentially restrictive contracts, the kid who sneaks an SLR in, or happens to get good shots can apparently now license their images in a way that wasn't authorised and as pros we wouldn't be allowed to.
Maybe they'll crack down on cameras at concerts. Who knows?
What the audience wanted : answers
What the writers wanted : to make more episodes of Lost
The two being pretty much mutually exclusive until the point that the series was scheduled to end is what made it such a frustrating experience.
God no, they're not interested in publicly available photos for fans at all. They'd perhaps be interested in using your photos on their website (without having to pay you) if you happen to get a spectacular shot.
I should say that most events *aren't* like this, but the bigger the name, the harder the access, and the more likely a rights grab, it seems.
Speaking as a photographer, you have to keep in mind that they may well be limited as to what they can do.
The photo of Halle Berry was clearly taken by a professional who may very well not be at liberty to CC the image even if they wanted to. They may have been given permission to take photos for a certain use only, and Wikipedia might fall outside that. At worst, they may even have been forced to give away their copyright and line themselves up for damages by letting you use it (Jane's Addiction, I'm looking at you... http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2009/07/17/concert-photographers-asked-to-transfer-copyright-to-janes-addiction/). I didn't shoot Steven Segal, but I believe his contract bought all your photos for $1 and then exposed you to $1,000,000 of damages if you broke the contract. Here's the PDF of the release the photographers had to sign to shoot him - http://www.blackshadow.com.au/releases/seagal.pdf
Personally, I've been in a position where I'd like to donate better images of bands which I've taken professionally to Wikipedia, but at the end of the day, I may not have the right to do so as it falls outside the remit I was given when I took the photo, and I'm not prepared to potentially expose myself to any liability to help out.
In my opinion your best bet genuinely is a talented amateur who wasn't tied to any contract when they took the shot, and can CC license the shot with impunity.
Chemist who falls in acid is absorbed in work.
