Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.
We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!
ScrewMaster (602015) writes "According to this article in Wired, the Feds raided at least two data centers in Texas. Apparently, the agents were indiscriminate in their seizure of equipment, not limiting it to those companies/individuals actually accused of illegalities. The disruptions caused by the FBI's activities are widespread, and have caused millions in lost revenue to companies not involved in the alleged crimes, many of whom may have to close their doors because the FBI now owns all their server equipment and customer data. One of those affected commented that "the FBI appears to have assumed that all the servers located at Crydon's address belonged to him, and didn't seem to understand the concept of co-location." That would appear to be the case: an FBI spokesman commented that "My understanding is that the way these things are hooked up is that they're interconnected to each other" (perhaps Ripley was right after all, and IQs did drop sharply while she was away.) At first glance, this sounds a lot like the old story of the cops who were assigned to confiscate some equipment, and brought along a crowbar in case they had to "get anything out of the computer."
The original complaints were registered by AT&T and Verizon, but apparently the FBI based their belief that criminal activity occurred upon the statements of a single, disgruntled ex-employee. Do such shotgun seizures and the resulting collateral damage constitute reasonable behavior on the part of the FBI, or is it as uninformed and barbaric as it looks? I know how I'd feel if I were one of those outfits that suddenly found themselves out of business because the Feds didn't have their act together." top
ScrewMaster (602015) writes "According to this article, Google is not going to allow programmers who have purchased the Dev Phone 1 to purchase paid apps from the Android Market. I just signed up as a G1 developer, and was about to plunk down the $399 for a Dev Phone 1, but now I'm going to have to think about it. I know that Google is interested in preventing (cough) "piracy", but does this seem like the right way to go? I know the Dev Phone 1 is primarily a developer's tool, but I would like to actually use the thing, and not have to spend another $180 from T-Mobile for a regular G1 just for the privilege of buying software." top
ScrewMaster (602015) writes "The Hollywood Reporter tells us that the RIAA wants the Copyright Royalty Board to lower the royalty rate given to songwriters. Interestingly, the big online music distributors (such as Apple) want to lower it even further.
Gee, is there anyone looking out for the rights of the artists anymore?"