It's not the same as re-telling a secret. You have an intellectual property interest in your own likeness. Whether you agree or disagree with whether that "should" be the case, unless the pictures were taken in public, or she waived her rights for the distribution of those images, she has a cause of action against the person who distributed them without her permission.

Look at it this way. In the most straightforward case, if you sneak into someone's house and take a picture of them when they're naked, clearly the fact that you own the camera doesn't mean you own the right to distribute such a picture. The person whose picture is being taken didn't consent. Now, let's take a case where the person consents to the picture. Does that consent to have a picture being taken implicitly grant the right to distribute those pictures? At a minimum, it would depend on the facts. A picture taken of someone posing for a picture in front of a fancy restaurant with a bunch of friends, you could argue the right to redistribute was implied in that consent, and certainly it's not really practical to get a signed consent form of all the people in the picture. Nude photos taken in a private bedroom? You can be damned sure that consent to have the picture taken did not carry with it the right to redistribute unless that was explicit (and as the person doing the redistribution you would probably need it to be in writing to cover your ass).

That was true initially, but after the problem was realized they got full ownership over much of the IP. As of now they do own a few hundred articles.... Well, I mean, as of before this ruling. They are again back to owning 0 now.

If putting out a good, clean product is nowhere in the requirements for your software, why would you compensate the people enough to retain people competent enough to put out a good, clean product? Do you remember that slacker in your CS/IT classes? You know who I'm talking about, the one who never did any of the work in group projects but took all of the credit when it was time to present it to the class. The one who has the same degree you do, but couldn't code his way out of a cardboard box. They need jobs too! Sorry, but the Tech world has been somewhat insulated from the recession, and finding a job in CS/IT isn't that hard right now. If you're stuck at Zynga, there might be a reason.

Hi, you've missed the point of my post entirely. The point is not that the people involved were charging too much. The point is that, ultimately, someone could very likely have paid as little as $5 in order to commit fraud and totally destroy your financial stability, at least for a time. The fact that the market price for such data is so low shows just how saturated the market is for people who want to buy this kind of stuff.

If you work in computer security and have dealt with the black market for stolen identities, you'll find out that $200 an identity is really pricey. It's a little scary, but the market rate for this kind of information is more like $5 a pop.

Companies don't drive degree inflation, supply and demand drive degree inflation. If companies couldn't recruit college graduates at a reasonable cost because there weren't enough of them, they'd have to look at qualified people without a degree. But, with the government these days pushing the idea that a college education is a right and the long term stated goal of having 100% college graduates, the supply of college graduates is so high that they fill up all the jobs that actually need a degree and there is still a large qualified pool of graduates willing to work for jobs that don't really need one.

Now, given the supply is there, and when you're interviewing the the average entry level job candidate 90% of them are going to look more or less the same, why wouldn't you hire the one that has the extra line item of a B.A. or B.S.? Sure if a non-degree holder stands out, you'd hire them, but "stands out" by definition means they are the exception, not the rule.

This makes as much sense as suggesting that gun control will prevent gun crime. Inappropriate behavior between students and teachers is already illegal. Outlawing one medium for student-teacher communication just means they will find a different medium. This type of stuff has a tendency to route itself around roadblocks. The progression from a free country to a nanny state is sickening to watch. For those of you who have posted that this is a good law on the basis that a teacher with good common sense would already have this policy, my response to you is that it is not the government's place to legislate common sense. People should be free to make their own decisions, and the government should only step in when actual harm is caused. The act of friending a student on Facebook poses no harm in and of itself.

Buzz!! Wrong Read the sentence again. Where in the sentence does it suggest that Tolkien was watching Evangelion? The sentence implies that if the person reading the button was reading Tolkien, he should know that the wearer of the button was watching Evangelion instead. In essence, the wearer of the button is suggesting that watching Evangelion is a better use of his time than reading Tolkien. Nothing in the sentence links Tolkien to support or not support Evangelion in any way or form. You fail at basic reading comprehension.

So, if Apple knowingly overbilled their customers and sent out bills to that effect, isn't that mail fraud? All you need is some thugs chasing Tom Cruise around and you could make a movie out of this!

Most artists are fads, sure, but there are a few from each generation that are timeless. Johnny Cash, Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, are still considered good music, even today. The question is whether FB has that kind of staying power. I guess we'll find out.

Different business models. Android is aiming for it to be installed on everything, so the Android device market is not designed to be a high margin businesses. Since there are no iOS makers except iPhone, they charge what they want and people are forced to pay. Their net profits has exceeded that of the Android market this past year despite a smaller market share. As long as what Apple disciples are willing to pay allows them to net more money than an open system, there's no incentive for them to change business models.

If Apple's market share shrinks to the point that serious handheld app developers no longer feel to make an iPhone version of their apps at all, maybe at that point Apple would be forced to switch, but until then, they're raking in the bucks.

I would imagine this was because whether a number was divisible by 7 was not dependent on the application.

Microsoft should patch windows to fail to resolve any DNS requests for apple.com and any websites dedicated to promoting Apple products. In addition, HTC could break apple related websites on all of their phones. Then, when Apple complains, just reply "Wait, that's not ok? But, we were just following your lead, asshole!"

Remember when Network Solutions tried to hijack all the failed DNS requests to redirect to their webpage? The community backlash was terrible. People started planning on coding changes to Mozilla to block that from happening, as well as other technical solutions. Apple needs to remember 1 thing about technology. In the long run, you play nice, or you lose, because when you piss everyone off, people will find the weakest link in the chain and screw you. No one holds the keys to all the layers of technologies that have to work together for something work, especially when that something is a communications device and must play with others.

From the wisdom of Princess Leia herself, "The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."

I'll put it this way. A person, right now, who is starving, who kills a man to take his food is a murderer and deserves to be convicted, sent to jail for life, and possibly executed, depending on your beliefs on that issue. We don't give murderers a pass now because they were hungry.

A person who does it in a post-apocalypse situation is no different. If we do not tolerate our hungry and homeless from taking by force now, what makes people doing so after disaster strikes OK? Perhaps it's because suddenly it becomes possible where you're the hungry one, and you'd like to re-write the rules to make it OK for you to kill to get food? That's a bunch of crap. No, doing that is NOT OK, and no amount of rationalizing makes it a moral choice.

Hell, one could argue doing so post-apocalypse is even worse because you're taking from someone who can't easily replace what was lost.

No, I'm not, people may be sometimes good, and sometimes bad, but a person who believes that there is ANY circumstance where it is OK to kill a man for his possessions is unprincipled. He is a man willing to rationalize away morality for his own good.

Morality does not go out the window based on circumstances. I suppose if you are a thief and an armed robber in this situation, then you are probably one now, but you are restrained only by the thought of jail. You either have principles or you do not. If they are principles only when convenient, then they really are not principles at all, are they?