Chilean lawyer Guillermo Frêne is having a bit of a bad hair day after it was revealed that draft legislation aimed at cutting the internet connections of illegal downloading ne'er-do-wells was presented in .doc format written on pirated software. The full outrage was exposed here, which shows that the firm of attorneys …
...looks handy, and worth visiting for the video links (babe with bulgarian airbags skipping) this blogger has collected:
We wouldn't complain about bundled software if it was as useful, neat and humble as the some of the apps listed here.
The docment clearly states that it was created on 4th December, edited on 16th December and there are only 2 revisions.
He - or someone using his machine - must have edited it on one or both of those occasions, on a pirated copy of word installed by him (I find it unlikely someone installed said software and used his name just for the hell of it).
Se requiere un título
Ha ha ha!
maybe his name rhymes with 'train' ...
... and someone wanted to stitch him up.
Hey Guillermo! You've been Frêne'd!
Mine's the one with the parrot on the shoulder.
Burn him, burn him!
If there's any justice he'll get burned for this. Just because he didn't do it he shouldn't be excused from serving 10 to life for being seen near pirated software. I mean, it's only fair, the rest of us face punishment if we as much as look at a MS software package the wrong way.
Deport him to the US
Send him to Gitmo!
It's only fair.
Remember when the BSA's details were found in the draft Software Patents Directive?
But this ignores the fact that you can be using a pirated version of some software but still have a license to cover it, making them fully compliant with the law.
Maybe the pirate install was tailored in just the right way and they thought it would save them time instead of recreating it using their legit copy, but their volume licensing scheme has a valid CAL to cover that copy?
Nobody here seems to understand how a .doc properties work. The author name will be that decided when Word was first used for that profile unless that is particularly changed. However, it is very common for people to make a document, not from a blank template, but from a pre-existing document. This pre-existing document may well have been made from another pre-existing document, which of course could have been written on another machine. Unless you actually access the properties to edit them, the properties of the very first document will continue to show.
A litttle known fact is that if you click 'send to email recipient' the title that shows in the subject of the email is not the title you have given the document but that written in properties. A colleague of mine decided to send a report to the Managing Director, that had been written modifying a document that had been written modifiying a document that had been written modifying a birthday message. The title of the report showed in the email subject line as 'I love you darling!'.
- Nokia: Read our Maps, Samsung – we're HERE for the Gear
- Kaspersky backpedals on 'done nothing wrong, nothing to fear' blather
- Episode 9 BOFH: The current value of our IT ASSets? Minus eleventy-seven...
- Too slow with that iPhone refresh, Apple: Android is GOBBLING up US mobile market
- Analysis Uber, Lyft and cutting corners: The true face of the Sharing Economy