No...of course the Chicago Tribune wouldn't even acknowledge the ISO date standard.

What does "7/8/9" refer to exactly? Anything you want really. Heaven forbid you have to decode months latter. You could very well mis-categorize an accounting journal entry very easily by getting the date wrong!

People...there is enough confusion in the world...One of the first things I do in setting up a computer is to force the display to show 24h date format and obliterate the mm/dd/yy format. D*$n you Bill Gates for proliferating this abomination.

Bravo!!!!

The idea that corporations or lobby groups can 'quietly' manipulate public opinion through the media is disturbing and should be considered criminal. How are these types of actions any different than subliminal advertising?

If some lobby or corporate entity are not honest in your intentions or identity, why should the public believe anything you say or consider doing business with you?

Steve Balmer...are you listening?

I had originally posted to get clarification on some questions after reading the related news stories. I had taken some care to remain on topic and try to be open minded without reducing myself to a level of histrionics. I see that effort on my part was in vain. Some simple questions and I incur the wrath of a web troll.

Thank you for your replys; however, I found them less than helpful due to a rather narrow viewpoint. I wanted some insightful answers to my questions. Something you failed to provide as your overwhelming opinion of Thomas-Rasset's guilt precludes any/all discussions of hypotheticals and/or larger-picture issues.

I would direct you to the other posts on Slashdot regarding this case. Feel free to attempt to spread your viewpoints there.

• Analysis of MediaSentry Wins Music-Download Suit
• $1.9 Million Award In Thomas Case Raises Constitutional Questions

You strike me as a very angry legal professional. Hopefully you will find some peace of mind...somewhere...somehow...

It may be best that you NOT reply any further to this thread.

Regards

Agreed, Yates did violate the trust of his employer. Bad humour on my part. Sarcasm doesn't always translate well in print.

Rather than users being subject to the vagarious actions of a nameless, faceless board of directors who base decisions on profits without consideration to best-practises, agreed upon standards and users' needs, thus directing developers on these assumptions, people who use FLOSS do so because they want to share to improve the quality of the software, not to profit from its development. The only expectation I perceive is that all (both developers and users) share in the failure and success of the end result. No "spin" or "stroking the press" is necessitated to placate faceless investors/shareholders as none exist, only users. If the software fails, go back to drawing board. If it works, great! Build on this success to continue. In short, WE (royal pural) CHOOSE to use the software. IMHO, music copyright has no bearing on FLOSS. I have to reject your generalization about FLOSS and that music copyrights = FLOSS. These are two separate issues in my mind. Do feel free to direct the discussion to other works if this is not the case.

The detail that Thomas-Rasset's computer was password protected was missed on my part. This only highlights the need to not share passwords, as well as the failings/absence of file-level security in the FAT/FAT16/FAT32/NTFS file systems (the Microsoft default). It does leave open my original question about KaZaa software. I don't use the software and I'm developing a less-than-exemplary view of the product. What does this software do upon installation? Can it be installed and circumvent user-level security? Does it scan a drive and make available non-DRM'd data originally intended for personal use? Can you answer those question directly, please? If any of these questions bear out discussion, they would be examples of worst-practices for software that developers should educated themselves about. Otherwise, these would be matters about the case that may have been glossed over in the reporting and would be used to sway opinion.

Honestly, there was an aspect of the RIAA case that left a bad impression. There was very little mention of actions of 3rd parties in the news items. My view (and it didn't involve a bleeding heart) to the RIAA trial was an overwhelming sense of railroading. To have an army of lawyers go after a middle-aged, single mother over $24 of songs seems the lawyer-equivalent to killing a misqueto with a 155mm Howitzer. Yes, shock waves were sent out to the world, but did this help the cause to educate readers? What was the collateral damage? It would be naive to think there wasn't any because of this trial. Your assertion of my so called "bleeding heart" a case in point in how this issue polarizes people's opinions.

Obviously, I have tromped with both feet upon your cynicism. I "get it" that you have vested, albeit legal, interest in these cases to the point you have armed yourself with details of these cases. Does it make me a bleeding heart to have some faith in peoples', sure. But this is not a "bleeding heart issue" (your words, IMHO, are a rather rude personal attack). If my sarcasm got on your nerves, please say so directly. Apologies would be forthcoming promptly.

Did the news agencies do "justice" to this news item? Did they paint an uncomplimentary view of the legal profession, the RIAA, and US copyright laws? If I subscribed to your views, the answers would be yes. Balance of reporting is a matter of perspective. Individual news websites cater to categories of user types. So, if Ars Technica did some injustice to the story, this should be a matter for their editorial board. If I misread that story or got the facts wrong - point it out. But making generalizations doesn't seem to be appropriate course of action.

I had a take/opinion on a news story. Not being in the court room, nor with access to the documents involved, you could have easily directed me to web pages pointing out the inaccuracies of my opinions. OR, your replies could point out the inaccuracies/fallibilities of the reporting. But yet you choose personal attacks as a reply based solely on a few typed words of someone whom you have may never before have laid eyes upon. Not everyone shares the same views. A reason we have forums.

Just to return the "petard" favour...Slashdot is based on Open-Source software developed by the very people for whom you have shown such disdain. And yet here you reply...

Einstein - General Theory of Relativity (1905)

Absolute Morale of the story: Persuasion is better than force.
Aesop's Fables - The North Wind and the Sun
Wikipedia Link

Sure, the original HDD was toasted and this may be a mute point.

It is not a moot point because she lied about when the drive was replaced. That goes to credibility and shows an attempt to distort evidence.

I wouldn't go THAT far to say she lied. I would at least like to give her the benefit of the doubt before attaching labels. The practice of law, in my understanding, is a complicated mire. To expect the average person to be conversant with its intricacies I feel is expecting too much. I would like to believe that people can make honest mistakes. Granted, her credibility is rather tarnished because of the issue of dates in question. However, to say she blatantly lied? Not comfortable with that label being applied.

Again...what was the involvement of a third party? Call it the baby-sitter defence, if you will, but I have a hard time accepting that a person is responsible for the actions of another on their computer. That means every Mom/Pop/Grama/Grandpa with a computer are liable, even if they do not understand the technology, if someone else with access downloads something questionable? This would put a crimp in how people support each other with "new technology". My "nightmare" scenario is a legal-based IT support industry bent solely on high-priced, self-preservating help for exorbitant costs. Not good! And so not worth it!

There was another story this last week about someone going to jail for making an unauthorized copy of the movie "The Love Guru" and passing this same onto a relative. Something is amiss here in the legalese forest...$US1.92M for 24 songs, jailed for "distributing" a lousy movie (shame alone should be punishment)...what next?

Gilbert and Sullivan's The Mikado(1885)

You use to be able to buy replacement money as a stand-alone product.
Is Parker Brother's still doing this?
Wasn't there some story about PB's printing more money than the US Treasury?

I followed the story on ARS and I still have questions about this case.
The biggest is the ex-boyfriend's involvement. It may have been Thomas-Rasset's computer, but could the RIAA prove she actually installed KaZaa? Sure, the original HDD was toasted and this may be a mute point. However,...the question lingers in my mind.

One of the defence arguments was that the original CD-files were in wma-format while the "infringed" files were mp3. I've known other software that will "scan" a drive looking for similar/same files so as to make them available when the user runs the program. Does/Did KaZaa scan for wma files? Could it be conceivable that Thomas-Rasset had "ripped" CD's for her personal use (an argument made by some game users wanting to protect their purchase of the CD from loss), yet when KaZaa was installed, these files were then infringed?

I would like to read some discussion on this point.