So it was only verbal demands to pay for 600 users? no actual bill sent?
yeah - scummy sales BS.
Sounds like they make it scummy sales BS only after getting caught doing something far more illegal. Don't let them water it down after the fact. It's like getting caught trying to hot wire a car but convincing the cops that they weren't stealing the car, just stealing the Taco Bell food that they saw in the car... still illegal but not grand theft auto that they were actually caught attempting in the beginning.
But Dragon Media argues that it is merely facilitating access to online content rather than providing pirated TV itself. "The entertainment industry for decades, even going back to Sony Betamax cases, have been fighting tooth and nail against innovation and technology and losing almost every single battle," Syverson said. "There is no reason for plaintiffs to be optimistic in any way."
"I remember a young company called YouTube whose business model was copyright infringement. It was sued, and it didn't turn out too badly for YouTube, did it?" Syverson also said. (Viacom sued YouTube in 2007, and the case was settled in 2014.)
"Generally speaking, linking to content online has been cleared by almost every court in the land," he said.
Gather knowledge from different websites and after doing depth research for the topic, you can write for the same topic in your blog too with your own words. But rewrite the same article by changing words and sentences is not good and you should have to suffer from legality.
For you second question,
Technical steps for the same topic remain mostly the same for all articles. So if you think for write the topic which you have suggested here "Installing Snipe-IT on CentOS 7" then also technical steps remain the same which is the legal. But that doesn't mean that you can copy/paste in place of write in your own words.
Content flow is also important to make content more interesting for users. This article will help you to know how to write the article in the proper way.
That's weird none of ours every auto renew. Heck usually they don't even expired based on time. It's a minimum money spent, when you pass that it expires. It's to make sure they cover all their build our costs for the fiber circuits.
That's how it's been for me too. After the original contract expires they just move month to month. Luckily they haven't tried to jack up our rates in Month to Month, but I suppose they could.
My experience with staffing companies is that they get more than 2%. Most of the time I have worked with them I have been able to negotiate a higher salary. I know they have to have more wiggle room than 2% to allow negotiation on salaries.
Why? They simply pass the cost along to the company you really work for. I'd guess that the employing company and the staffing company have some sort of agreement of salary range for the position. Though if you think about it, assuming a straight percentage is how they are paid, it would be in the best interest of the staffing company to get all staff placed at the maximum rate the position allows.
Not if the customer sets the price. All depends on the contract.
If it was purely an issue of "on by default" I think it would be one thing. But because it is often, it appears, enforced as unavoidable private company data collection pushed through school policy then it becomes a much bigger issue. That means that government, albeit local government, is basically selling the right to student monitoring to a private entity that has promised not to collect that very data targeted at students contractually.
The issue when schools require Chromebooks be used in a certain way means that the students are not given the option not to be monitored. "By default" is one thing and potentially problematic on its own. But if schools are requiring that students submit to being tracked by a private company without oversight that's a much, much bigger issue.
It is a chain reaction: school is a requirement, parents and students are not given a choice about the tools that they use, tools are enabled to track students, no opt out.... students are simply required to be tracked. It's not a "direct" situation, it's big brother via a chain of circumstances and rules that result in the same thing. A serious situation needing attention for sure. Thankfully it looks like the EFF is on the case.
That looks like a pretty significant loss. They must have been pretty sure that this one was coming for quite some time. Now they have to be thinking about how they are going to handle the rest of it since they apparently have two chips that were not covered in this case!