Slashdot Mirror
Digital Convergence Changes EULA, and Gets Cracked
mfdii writes "Apparently Digital Convergence has changed their EULA. This EULA has been modified to include the CueCat reader in an attempt to shutdown those tinkering with their cats. The old EULA can be seen here."
Meanwhile a dozen or so really excellent programs utilize the childishly simple protocol (or, if you're DC, their "Intellectual Property")... and as if that isn't enough, apparently their service was cracked. Anyone who used DCs CueCat software has had their information stolen from the DC servers! This comes from an e-mail being sent in by zillions of people warning them (and also apologizing by giving a $10 gift certificate).
You know, as I was scanning my book collection and using Amazon to match up titles/authors to the barcodes (and, incidentally, realizing just how large a percentage of my collection is out of print OR too old to even have a barcode), I was thinking that that's exactly what I needed... a CDDB-style database for bar codes.
My husband, meanwhile, is bemoaning the fact that he stuck our "From the music collection of..." stickers over the barcodes on our CD cases ("That's the one thing on the label we'll never need, right?")
Slashdot's token middle-aged housewife
Yeah, I was kind of miffed about this. I received one in the mail from Wired Mag. (Note, I didn't ask for this but it arrived in my mailbox. Therefore it is a gift) Having previously seen discussion of IP issues regarding this device on /. I carefully inspected everything that came in the box. There is no notice of copyright/EULA printed on the device itself. There is no legal warning on the enclosed audio cable (BTW, has anyone figured out how that thing works. Seems kind of cool). There is no notice or warning or printed copy of the EULA on the instruction sheets. However there is a notice on the unsealed cardboard sleeve that the software CD comes in saying that by opening the CD package you must agree to the EULA contained on the disk. Somehow I would imagine that this is unenforcable since you are unable to read the contract until you have taken an action that is specified to constitute acceptance. Hell you really can't avoid it even if you tried, my CD fell out of the sleeve when I dumped the contents of the box onto the kitchen table. Oh well, that's enough ranting for the day.
________________
They're - They are
Their - Belonging to them
I don't want free as in beer. I just want free beer.
If you look in that EULA, im sure you'll find the good ol line that says the EULA can be changed or modified at any time, its a pretty standard thing in a EULA... Funny thing is, i never remember having to agree to that at all when I got mine, i opened the bag, my cd fell out and i can't find it =P
catnip, a decoder for windows can be found at http://s1066194.umsl.edu/cuecrap/ or at www.wizkid.org/cuecat
When will companies start being held legally accountable for these types of inexcusable security oversights?
Where the hell do they get off throwing lawyers at innocent people for violating their "property" and then making no effort what so ever to protect my property (specifically, my personal information)?
How about if I make DC sign an EULA that says "if you lose positive control of this information (last name, first name, address) then you owe me $10K for every piece of junk mail I get as a result"
Did anyone besides me notice the fact that in order to get your 'free' $10 RadShack gift certificate, you have to go to the DC site and provide them with your NAME, ADDRESS, ETC, far more personal information than they orginally asked for...
Think about it, the reason they are offering the free certificate is BECAUSE SOMEONE CRACKED THEIR SYSTEM AND STOLE OUR PERSONAL INFO... and now they want us to go back and GIVE THEM MORE?
Huh? I never made the connection....
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing -- Emo Phillips
sulli
sulli
RTFJ.
Your understanding is wrong. The issue with Digital Convergence here is that they WANT you to use their software, and by using your own software with the Cuecat you're infringing on their IP (or so they claim). It's the hardware that they have an issue with.
I have a cuecat. It was handed to me at radio shack with no mention of a license agreement, and in fact, the salesman said they were "giving them away for free". I have not installed the software, or even taken the software out of its sleeve. I wrote a javascript decoder for it. I can just as easily write the decoder without having a cuecat, so I want to tell digital convergence i do not accept their EULA. How does one officially do this? Mail it back? Take it back to the RS I got it at?
Their registration "database" was actually a plain text file published on their webserver! No hacking involved. Just type a URL into netscape, and viola, there's the "database." Digital Convergence isn't staffed by geniuses.
---- ----
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
No, they were really cracked. I've seen the data. It was posted to a publically accessable web server for quite some time.
/. posts it on monday)
DC submitted their press release on the issue at 10pm friday night, probably in hopes that nobody would care about it by monday. (Tried and true technique, release bad news friday night and it has less impact. Unless nobody hears about it until
I read their press release on Yahoo's news site saturday. It's probably not there anymore, news gets turned over pretty quickly.
The $10 certificate is probably their way of saying "Please don't sue us for mishandling all that information you gave us."
This is just like television, only you can see much further.
If MS or one of their vendors decided to send me MS Word, I could use it all I wanted. I would feel even less constrained than I do by their stupid shrink wrap liscence that tells me not to install it on more than one of my machines. The CD in question, of course, would make a better coaster.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
"The software, documentation and any fonts accompanying this License whether on disk, in read only memory, on any other media or in any other form (the ":CRQ software") are licensed to you by Digital :Convergence. The :CRQ software and any copies made and/or distributed under this License are subject to this License."
Seems they are even claiming to own the font in your machine that you used to view this EULA with. What a bunch of graby fuckers.
Steve's Computer Service, Hobbs, NM
It gets worse.. If any of his friends take it out of his closet after October 28th, DC can sue them for anti-circumvention under the DMCA.
Yeah, I know, gotta get linux. Working on it.
sulli
sulli
RTFJ.
IANAL, but copyright prohibits you from copying that code. It doesn't prohibit you from using it. And since they gave it to him before there could be even any pretense at mutual agreement to a license (which is dubious legally anyway - the courts are still hashing it out) they really haven't got a leg to stand on.
Ah well...
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
On line 19 of the FCC Declaration of Conformity it states "Changes of modifications not expressly approved by RadioShack may cause interference and void the user's authority to operate the equipment". What exactly does this mean? And who is to inforce it? The FCC or DC or RadioShack? People violate these FCC things all the time. Like operating you computer without a case...
I've used the AMD/Cyrix, or predating that, Phoenix and BIOS, cleanroom argument many many times as examples of how to legally do reverse engineering without poisoning the results.
Honestly, there have only been AFAIK a handful of cases with regards to this issue. And they're split between camp A (If the box says that you're bound by a document stored in a basement beyond a sign saying 'beware of the tiger' then you are, buddy) and camp B (you've got to be joking - software licenses are stupid, violating, as they do, long held principles of contract law)
Last I heard the B side was edging into the lead, but I don't expect to see a resolution on this for a while.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
I too have thought about this...But prior to mailing it I am going to do a little disassembly of the hardware...with a very large hammer!
Except it's only good at radio shack.
Besides my privacy is worth more than $10,
Because it only takes 30 seconds to ask if someone else had done it already.
Matt Slot / Bitwise Operator / Ambrosia Software, Inc.
You're absolutely correct. Any unsolicited merchandise you recieve is yours to keep without charge to do with what you will.
Here is the Postal Service guide to preventing mail fraud in PDF format (it doesn't say much about this other than anything sent to you unsolicited is yours to keep).
-------- This space intentionally left blank --------
I don't even know what that agreement is for, or what it would give me if I agreed to it, but since I don't have one of their cheap scanners, I can be bound to it by pressing the 'Agree' button.
So where's the 'Agree' button?
Also, my name is not "Your Signature". Sorry, try again... Could they at least have you fill out a form to generate something official-looking with the right name on it? Sheesh.
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
You mean like making it a federal crime to buy more than 50$ of prescription medicine in Canada and bringing it into the States? (5000$ fine)
Since when has the US been protecting bad business plans?
*urghh*
Pan
I said no... but I missed and it came out yes.
The CueCat is the product of what might just be the dumbest startup ever. I'm not sure who's going to be made to suffer for the error: the engineers or the investors.
The thing spits out whatever barcode it reads, massaged for easy merging into a URL by a logical XOR on the number 67 followed by a pass of Base64 encoding, not unlike what happens when you attach a file to e-mail. In nontechnical terms, this is "encryption" weaker than passing something through a Flash Gordon decoder ring, then passing the result through a Lone Ranger decoder ring.
The "intellectual property" Digital Convergence is trying to protect can be expressed in 3 lines of very basic Perl or a flowchart sketched inside a matchbook. I wish them luck.
As a result, I've seen a quickie book database someone slapped together: it grabs the ISBN and fetches book info from Amazon. Anonymously. Without having to pass a thing to Digital Convergence, makers of the scanner, and without passing a cookie or any other form of ID to Amazon. I've never been consumed with an urge to catalog my books or CDs on my computer, but the CueCat makes it surprisingly convenient. It took me about ten minutes to feed in about 60 books. The ones without barcodes are still a problem, but this certainly takes much of the bite out of the process. Nearly all CDs, on the other hand, have barcodes.
Another little perl script floating around lets you scan anything the Digital Convergence folks have catalogued on their servers groceries, radio shack catalog items, magazine articles) and jump to the product's site or web page.. again without passing so much as a user ID or cookie to them. The servers are wide open and will return the product URL for a given barcode regardless of whether or not you're a registered, cookied user of their official software. Whoops!
Since it's easy to distinguish between the barcodes on books, CDs and grocery items, the same three lines of perl could be used as the basis for a five-line program to put products in a shopping cart on your favorite web grocery store, again without involving the CueCat folks.
You'd think in the four years this was in development someone would have wondered why no other company had ever tried to build a tight marketing database around cheap barcode scanners given away at a loss.
It's not because it hasn't occurred to thousands of entrepreneurs since cheap barcode wands first appeared 15 or so years ago. It's because until the dunderheads behind the CueCat came along, all the other peopole who had the same dream realized that even a kinda-sorta lockable barcode scanner would cost too much to give away for free. And then with that Big Idea out of the way they went and did something productive, like wash some dishes or eat a Popsicle.
So simple, so early-80s is the CueCat's design that those Linux drivers probably took someone half an hour to write while watching TV and feeding the dog. Especially given the dozen or so little shell scripts and perl programs that have since popped up, all of them ramshackle "baby's first program"-caliber triumphs. I can't wait to see what online music, grocery and book stores do with this.
If any license agreement short of requiring a signature before receiving a security-free scanner like this holds up in court, it would open the way for hand-tool makers to require people to buy separate "screwdrivers" and "paint-can openers".
I wonder if Digital Convergence is publicly held.
I had an interest in the hardware they put out so I signed up for one.
I got an email this morning stating, "[a] security breach in our system may have exposed certain members' names and email addresses."
Here's the kicker: "As a result of this breach, unauthorized third parties may have been able to gather your name and email address."
So what do I see in the headers of my email? They CC'ed their users instead of BCCing! I can see all their email addresses!
Geez DC...Get with it.
Connah
Connah
"Your mouse has moved. Windows NT must be restarted for this change to take effect."
InterNet News Radio ran an interview with me this morning about the CueCat. I have it mirrored
here. It runs today, Sept 18, 2000, so you'll have to look for it in their archives starting tomorrow. However, I'll keep the mirror at my site.
---- ----
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
The boneheads put their registered file in a public directory. http://net.c-me-register.com/Registrations/registr ations.txt
The server was not hacked as their claim, but their net admin's were morons.
The problem with putting up a server on the net, the world doesn't know what's private or public unless the server setup. A public anonymous ftp might setup to permit anonymous upload from the outside looks like a fine place to exchange files. From the inside, "Why is our DDS line so slow". Try an FTP search at ftpsearch.lycos.com and ask your self how many of these people know their server is being used by the public.
Fact, if you set your directories to be public, then the public can access them. Don't blame the users for not having your secure information SECURE! Don't blame the theif if you neglected to lock your door.
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
I don't think you accurately depicted the two camps. ProCD is the case most cited upholding "shrinkwrap" licenses. However, the holding was based on the premiss that you could return the software for a refund if you did not agree with the license.
Actually, the term shrinkwrap is nowdays amibiguous. Initially, it meant those little stickers on the outside of the box telling you that there was a licnese inside the box and you agreed to it by opening the shrinkwrap. These types of licenses have never been upheld in court since they violate the "knowing consent" principle of contract law.
Later, the companies change the practice to either having the license printed on the seal saying that if you break the seal you agree to the license. Or they use "click-wrap". Those little license screens that make you click "I agree".
The original version of shrinkwrap licenses have never been upheld. The later ones are the ones currently being debated in the courtrooms.
I feel like picking a fight with everyone who thinks they are right. - Rainmakers
For example, if the software contains an EULA saying "you may not reverse-engineer this software", and you never accept the EULA, then you have every right to reverse-engineer the software.
However, you don't have the right to burn copies of the CD and pass them out (except of course as permitted by "fair use"), because even without accepting an EULA, you are still bound by copyright law. (By the same token, if you get a copy of Newsweek in the mail, you can give it to a friend, but you can't distribute a zillion copies of the articles in it -- you own the physical magazine, but Newsweek's publisher owns the copyright.
Getting back to the CueCat: Whether or not you've consented to the ULA, the firmware inside the CueCat is protected by copyright law, and you can't, say, download the object code and then burn it onto chips at your own bar-code-reader factory. However, reverse engineering is not forbidden by copyright law, so if you don't consent to the ULA, you can reverse-engineer the CueCat protocol.
IANAL, of course, and I am ignoring the whole question about whether shrink-wrap licenses are ever enforceable.
--
send all spam to theotherwhitemeat@ropine.com
They have every reason to lie.
Their server wasn't hacked, they just left all registrations in a public directory! No hack, stupid.
A hack implys an active attempt to get access to personal information.
Fact, they just left all their user information on their server for the public to access.
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
I don't recall when it was passed, but 17 USC 117 pretty clearly states that it's legal to copy computer software into other parts of a computer (e.g. from a CD to a HD to RAM to Cache etc) if it's a necessary step in utilizing it.
Provided that you legally own a copy of the software anyway (not the copyright - just own a copy)
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Welcome to Linux 2.2.17.
Cherokee login: root
Password:
WHAT "cancel" at the login prompt?
/me takes your crackpipe away
First posting isn't trolling. It's...first posting.
It's kinda the same thing. I don't own the software on the the CC's microcontroller, but I do own the hardware (I have a reciept), so I can, say, take it apart, or analyze it's output, without ever caring about the software burned into it's ROM.
Of course, assuming I *did* want to read the uC's ROM, I prolly wouldn't be able to. Many microcontrollers are read-protected so people can't look at the ROM.
--K
---
Haha! Nice reference to "Red Dwarf". Smeggin' hell!
Nope. Don't need to - not when my Slackware CD serves as an emergency bootdisk :)
First posting isn't trolling. It's...first posting.
I've set up a mailing list for CueCat related issues, legal discussions, and development work.
You can join by sending a message to majordomo@azalea.com with the body of
subscribe qlist
While your at it, my company is giving away a font package to let you make CueCat barcodes
check it out: AzaleaQTools
--
Cory R. King
Azalea Software, Inc
I was thinking that the cuecat would be good for making your login password harder to hack and still easy to enter. Pick a barcode and carry a copy in your wallet - then enter a shorter password + the scan of the barcode as your password. As long as someone didn't know where the barcode came from and your shorter password at the start they couldn't hack into your account. just a thought Just a thought.
I'm not talking about the software on the CD or floppy. I'm talking about the software withing the cuecat that turns a bunch of lines into a bunch of alphanumerics.
Companies don't have good will. Every move that they make is one that (they hope) will bring them more money.
<br><br>
Using the scanner for something other than what DC intended is just like throwing it out. DC must have realized that a good number of people who got a Cue Cat would just throw it out (or not use it). If they didn't, then they are stupid.
Except for emulation, the same goes for the PC software. DigitalConvergence can't protect against emulation unless they get a patent on some crucial part of the decoding process.
--
Try this: "In opening this bag, you agree to the EULA on the enclosed software package."
<O
( \
XGNOME vs. KDE: the game!
Will I retire or break 10K?
Of course you can, for instance, remember the person who sued McDonalds after he spilled a cup of McCoffee?
In this analogy, sadly enough, Software is considered a good that can be purchased, boxed, patented. Why couldn't you sue Microsoft if they sold a product, like outlook, that when used in the method it wasn't designed for (i.e. running rouge VB scripts) that causes lots of $$$$ worth of damage? Makes sense to me
yes. this is what we (or at least, I) want. I want after-sale business models to FAIL
/. community in general want them to fail? Once they do start offering value-added services for a fee, are we going to see everyone here coming up with ways to get around paying? Gnome-warez sites popping up everywhere? People bad mouthing them for trying to make some money for the valuable additions they have made to Gnome?
You mean like Helixcode and Eazel? Isn't this exactly what their entire marketing plan revolves around?
Does the same hold true for them? Does the
load "linux",8,1
IIRC, most EULAs allow the software maker (but not the user) to change the terms of the license, subject to agreement by only one of the two parties. So, the company lawyer says, "Sure, I agree to that change," and there you go: the EULA has changed, and you are still bound by it.
Of course, this assumes that click-/shrink-wrap licenses are binding, which will become law when UCITA gets passed. (And don't fret, it will, just like the DMCA did. You don't have enough money to brib... er, donate to your elected representatives.)
"I came here to kick ass and chew bubblegum. I'm all out of bubblegum." MSE USC APX AIA CSI CASp
It's all covered under the GPL.
their software. (I can't remember where to put the annoying ":"'s nor the name of the software.)
Anyway, the infomercial was in a classroom setting of the future with a cheesy (but not unattractive)
teacher telling the class how the world changed after "Convergence" took place. It seems that DC
is going to change the world with their service and we'll never understand how we limped along
in the current world of the internet.
Annoying infomercial aside, the function that their software has been designed for is pretty neat.
Anyone can register (buy? license?) a 'Cue' (personalized barcode) that is encoded to a specific web page.
The uses for this are pretty much limitless, and in most instances quite useful. Read an article in a magazine
and zap a code to see a page of links to the products mentioned, or a group of related recipies, or a list of
vendors, you get the idea. You can even get a personal 'Cue' that you could print on business cards,
greeting cards, a resume, etc.
In short, it seems to be a fairly neat way to accelerate the movement of information.
So why don't these clueless people focus on selling 'Cues' to every business on the planet?
It's obvious that's where the revenue lies. Forget the specific demographics that they will be denied by
all but the lemmings. Just track the hits generated by each 'Cue' and use that to make their customers
swoon. Otherwise they're just going to end up with a lot of John Does living at 123 Anystreet using their service.
I think we all have a good idea of how far that will take them.
--Kit
Speaking only for myself at the moment but employed by:
Former Inmate, VA Linux Sanitarium
When I got my 3 cuecats - one for each of my PCs - I cut a small corner off the unmarked bag that it came in. I slid the scanner out of the hole. The software and whatever other agreements/crap are still in the bag. This way, I can prove in court I never even opened the shrinkwrap for the software - it's still in there and can't get out.
I think the point is to appear to be the good guys on this issue. Yes they don't have a clue with their business plan, but they'll point to the "hacking" community as the reason their business failed, not to that plan. If people take the high road then I think they would be left naked with a crappy business plan and no one to blame but themselves.
In Soviet Russia...michael would be rotting in Siberia!
This cable is supposed to capture special bookmarks embedded within TV ads and forward you to the web site of their choice. It saves a lot of hassle, because you no longer have to type in "http://www.forbes.com" just to order an official :Forbes :Magazine :Golf :Shirt. Surely, this is also part of their :Intellectual :Property and took up some of their five years of engineering and development.
Why aren't they coming after people who are reverse engineering the :Convergence :Cable, those who circumvent their EULA by using it to make .ogg files out of their ":South :Park" video tape collection? Maybe somebody should put up a "How to :Reverse :Engineer the :Convergence :Cable" :web :site.
Could someone please tell me what the difference is between the :Cue :Cat and the :Convergence :Cable?
check out the cuecat.com webpage by digital convergence:
they say: "We've made it super easy to get your new :CRQ system, including the :CueCat reader, absolutely FREE"
Even Digital Convergence's own page says "Digital:Convergence will distribute more than 10 million of its new :CueCat(TM) devices and :CRQ(TM) software free to consumers by the end of this year."
Even more interesting is who runs Digital Convergence (see link above): "The company's management team includes a roster of industry veterans from Time Warner, AT&T, GE, ING Barings and Disney."
It would seem that they're not idiots. They're just dumb
-V
>Of course, assuming I *did* want to read the uC's ROM, I prolly wouldn't be able to.
>Many microcontrollers are read-protected so people can't look at the ROM.
Ah, the infamous WOM - Write Only Memory.
ProCD involved IIRC an incredibly abridged version of the license (basically indicating that the 'Compleate Licfence Agreemente' was within.
I don't think that anyone ever cared in the ProCD case about the terms of the license; it was whether or not you were stuck with it. The judge (stupidly) ruled that unless the contract violated the law or was unconscionable you didn't have to even see it to agree to it if you bought the software (because it's expected that your purchase is conditional on the acceptance of the license)
Weirdly enough though, this was determined to only govern the software in the result of commercial transactions. If you find a random copy of software on the street, you're NOT bound by the license.
Personally I've always prefered the idea of writing 3rd party installer programs that can be used to install software (by reading through the script that the original installer has) w/o even seeing a license agreement, much less being forced to agree to it to use software that you already paid for.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
What I find is so funny,is this is in a response to a 'We've been hacked' letter. THeir system is ALREADY insecure, and they want more information from users? Yes! Lets just give the script children more info and more email addies to spam! Yay!
I have to admit, the first time I saw the email, I thought it was a hack. There have been numerous occasions when hackers have sent out security bulletins saying a system of victim company has been compromised, and asking or verifying that email addresses, passwords, credit card information, etc. be given. Most notably, Blizzard comes to mind as an example of this.
I think, just for giggles and shits, i'll install one of the renegade copies of software, and tell DC about it. I want to see if they really will 'recall' or unloan my cuecat, as they say they will in the EULA. Give me a break.
-BB
Witty quotes suck.
It appears that the new EULA forbids me from reverse-engineering the protocol myself, but still does not forbid me from using third-party software with the CueCat even if it was derived from reverse-engineering.
the only place you have to acknoledge the eula is in the software correct? I do not agree, then use the hardware. Your not obligated if you didnt agree to the eula.
--- Always remember. 99.36% of all statistics are inaccurate.
"I received a CueCat in the mail. Apparently because I am a subscriber to Wired."
Perhaps because they want to try something like that Digimarc MediaBridge joke they tried to foist on us a few months back?
http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem& item=439351024
NipokNek
Why choose white shoes?
You know that they conspired with Wired to create a database that cross references your Wired subscription information with the electronic ID in the cuecat that they sent you, right?
</paranoia>
load "linux",8,1
--Fesh
"Citizens have rights. Consumers only have wallets." - gilroy
--Fesh
Kill -9 'em all, let root@localhost sort 'em out.
Question is though, can DC afford to spend $10 for every person on their mailing list? That's quite a bit of cash...Just a thought.
Connah
Connah
"Your mouse has moved. Windows NT must be restarted for this change to take effect."
How about all the great /.ers out there who have picked up 20 or so of these from Radio Shack all decide to reject the EULA and ship them back to DC... postage due.
If they refuse to pay postage for you to return them, does that imply that they don't want them and you are no longer held to the EULA?
Either way, it would be a sight to see!
load "linux",8,1
I can't image there is any sort of legal thing to bind you. I got a CueCat 1-2weeks ago and I didn't even know there was a license to the thing until now. I didn't even see a "you agree to the license by opening the package" notice.
I opened it up (I did, not my dog this time:), tossed the software aside, plugged it into my Linux box, and grabbed the Perl translation scripts to have fun with.
Brian Macy
Don't know why this was marked as a troll, but anyways... For confirmation:
N =669719818&CONTEXT=969293000.49807373&hitn um=59
.txt file globally readable via http:.
http://x64.deja.com/=dnc/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?A
The site was not "cracked". They simply left the registration file as a plain
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
Ahh, I see what you mean. I guess they need to put the EULA inside the microcode on the Cuecat in the next revision? ;)
So let me get this straight, you have a barcode printed on your security badge, and this is your password....
If I can determine what the barcode is (either because the digits are below the bars, or I scan your bar code on my computer with my cuecat, or I interpret the bars myself [1]), and I use your barcode reader to do something (e.g., scan a coke UPC code and send it in an email), I can login as you.
Since the :C:C just passes a bunch of keyboard stuff, I can sit down and log in as you by typing the first part of your code (the :C:C serial number that I got from the coke) and the uuencoded+Xor67 version of your barcode. A long password, yes; but a secure solution, no.
[1] As I remember, when some high school forced students to wear visible ID badges with their SSNs barcoded on the front, some kids taught themselves to decode the barcodes at a reasonable distance. (I'm sure the school blamed the no good student "hackers" for breaking their "encryption")
Nobody viewed, copied, reverse engineered, or emulated any part of the firmware in the CueCat, so there couldn't be a problem with that.
--
It does sort of sound like they're looking for a way to yank back any
I agree though -- since I make a habit of not revealing who I am to Radio Shack unless there's a warranty involved (c'mon, guys, do you really need my phone number and address when I buy a fscking pack of resistors?) and DC would have absolutely no clue that I had one of their kitties. Not that it's a particularly good implementation of a barcode scanner, you understand, but as long as it's free
73 de N5VB (ex-KD5BIV) AR SK
Remember, some laptops have integrated Winmodems. Just saying "Get a Real Modem" usually isn't sufficient.
I'm lucky, though, as my laptop has a Lucent winmodem which has a driver (so to speak). Go see www.linmodems.org for more info.
-- "I am disrespectful to dirt. Can you not see that I am serious!"
Dunno. I use mine as a cup coaster. I got their platinum version right now, but I really liked the gold one. It blends in with the furniture.
;-)
___
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
The bag is presumably sealed: "if you open this bag you agree to the EULA."
<O
( \
XGNOME vs. KDE: the game!
Will I retire or break 10K?
Let's think about the issue of the crack/hack for a moment. Let's assume that it's a fake just to get you to sign up for a $10 gift certificate. Why would they fake it? Claiming to be hacked creates a bad atmosphere with their current customers. The customers will wonder, "Is this going to happen again? Should I give them my data again? They hackers will know where I live!" If they want to verify your mailing info, why not just send out a mass email and say, "You're our favorite customer! Please accept our gift of $10...go sign up here now!"
Now, let's assume they did get hacked. Why in the WORLD would they want to admit that?! Sure, if their users got spam, they would be mad. But we all get enough spam as it is, how would we know it's DC's fault to blame them?
It just doesn't make sense either way. But given that they CC'ed they users on the email so everyone could see the addresses, maybe they ARE that dumb. Thoughts?
Connah
Connah
"Your mouse has moved. Windows NT must be restarted for this change to take effect."
Here is the Postal Service guide to preventing mail fraud in PDF format
Funny, my mail fraud is all on paper. I haven't seen any "make money fast" schemes in PDF format.
;-)
--
Friends don't let friends misuse the subjunctive.
Yep. The fact that they can verify your info is just icing on the cake. I set up an account on my home box specifically for an event like this, or in case hey started sending me spam. No problems, I fill it out with a fake name and my real address (note to self, put fake name in mailbox so I can receive the cert..) and then delete that user after I receive it. No harm no foul. Pick up a new cuecat when I spend my $10 at the shack.
To start - what DC is trying to create is a bailment. A bailment is A delivery of goods or personal property, by one person (bailor) to another (bailee), in trust for execution of a special object upon or in relation to such goods, beneficial either to the bailor or bailee or both, and upon a contract, express or implied, to perform the trust and carry out such object, and thereupon either to redeliver the goods to the bailor or otherwise dispose of the same in conformity with the purposes of the trust. Black's Law Dictionary, 6th ed. All that verbaiage is the attempt to legally describe all the ways you can lend things to other people without transferring title. As DC says in its EULA, The :CueCat reader is only on loan to you from Digital:Convergence and may be recalled at any time. Without limiting the foregoing, your possession or control of the :CueCat reader does not transfer any right, title or interest to you in the :CueCat reader.
:CUECAT READER TO ACHIEVE YOUR INTENDED RESULTS, AND FOR THE INSTALLATION AND USE OF THE :CUECAT READER. This is pretty standard sales warranty disclaimer language. DC states that the user has chosen CueCat. While this may be true for those folks who got it at RS, it is not true for those who received it unsolicited in the mail.
:CUECAT READER IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND. DIGITAL:CONVERGENCE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES AND/OR CONDITIONS, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDED, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES AND/OR CONDITIONS OF MERCHANTABILITY OR SATISFACTORY QUALITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE The disclaimed warranties are all sales warranties. The especially damning one is the disclaimer of warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. First, DC says you can only use it for a particular purpose, and then says it is not warranted to actually serve that purpose. The fitness warranty applies where you get specific help or guidance in selecting a product for a particular use. DC wants it both ways - they want to force you into their particular use, but say that they did not so they can disclaim the warranty.
The most important thing is that a bailment is not an absolute transfer. The bailor (in this case DC) retains title to the chattel property (CueCat).
Problem is, DC goes on to contradict its bailment agreement as follows:
1. The warranty recital.
The DC warranty disclaimer says, YOU ASSUME FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE SELECTION OF THE
2. The warranty disclaimer.
The DC warranty disclaimer goes on: THE
3. Integration clause
The integration clause says, No amendment to or modification of this License will be binding unless in writing and signed by Digital:Convergence. . Hey, where's the signature?
For further entertainment, check out http://www.digitalconvergence.com/legal.html, which contains the absolutely laughable statement, The materials ("Materials") contained in Digital:Convergence Corporation ("Digital:Convergence") Web site are provided for informational purposes only. Ah, its just info, not a real contract.
Geez, these guys are fools. Bankruptcy or buyout in 12 months.
Ah, the infamous WOM - Write Only Memory.
It's not as stupid as it sounds.
The ROM and processor are on the same die,
so the ROM is readable by the processor core, but not externally.
--K
But you probably knew that already.
---
So, when you get ready to use it do you type?
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
> Dunno. I use mine as a cup coaster.
You'll probably get busted for that. That's not what they wanted you to do with it.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
No problem. Just add your own unilateral terms on top of that:
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I guess I will sit around and wait for my subpoena.
Good luck. I put a C version up on my page and on Freshmeat over a week and a half ago, and still haven't gotten a letter.
Has anyone gotten a cease-and-desist letter from these clowns after the first wave?
This
Hey don't underestimate the power of a "you suck" note.
A lot of companies do suck -- DC is certainly one of them -- and they often need to be reminded that they do, in fact, suck.
Everyone tries to be nice-nice. "Dear Sir, It has come to my attention that your bar code device... blah blah blah"
Just tell them they suck and be done with it.
People underestimate the power of simple, honest language. Everybody tries to throw in 10-cent words when a few, choice 5-cent words will do just fine.
Besides, I'm tired of all these companies talking at my head. "You can do this, you can do that, you can't do this, blah blah blah."
It's high time consumers -- or whomever -- just dispense with the niceities and get down to brass tacks: more and more corporations suck, period.
Corporations want to fuck us over, take our money, and move on to the next sucker, er, consumer at our expense.
That *does* suck. And the corporations that do this *do* suck. And no amount of "pretty" language (or professional) will hide this. I'm tired of being a "nice" consumer when these not-so-nice corporations want to order me around, and spit me out for dead when they feel like it.
I'm sick and tired of it.
DC sucks. And their stupid bar code reader sucks.
1) If you don't know a license agreement exists, you can't agree to it. If someone gives me a piece of hardware free, and I don't see any reference to a license on the package, I'm going to assume it's a gift and the device belongs to me. IANAL, but any lawyer could make a really solid case out of this.
..
2) If someone loans you something, it's their responsibility to know they loaned it to you and keep track of what you do with it. How does DC know I have one of their units, especially if I never opened the software package and never even *saw* the license agreement? Can you prove I have one? If I lost it, or it "accidentally" got run over by the car, or what have you, do I now owe them some exorbitant abuse and damage fee?
My opinion on this whole thing is that DC should just admit the obvious and declare Chapter 11 now, while they still have enough money to pay off the board's golden parachutes. They've made it clear that they don't have a clue how the real market works and deserve to be driven out of business
73 de N5VB (ex-KD5BIV) AR SK
:Personally I've always prefered the idea of writing 3rd party installer programs that can be used to install
:software (by reading through the script that the original installer has) w/o even seeing a license agreement,
:much less being forced to agree to it to use software that you already paid for.
Wouldn't that violate the DMCA, the original binary installer + script being the "copyright protection device"? Hmm.
DC seems to have realized the potential liability you just implied, and has sent email to every registered luser offering them a $10 RadioShack gift certificate to make it up to them. Probably, most of their normal users will take the offer.
What's their cost per user now? How many clickthroughs (scanthroughs?) do they need before it starts to pay back? Their financial statement for FY 2000 is looking redder and redder. Digital Convergence, meet fuckedcompany.com!
Lawyers: The Other White Trash.
Look, no one is "ripping off" cue:cat. You have every right to modify a piece of equipmaent you own. If you want to use a pot in your kitchen as a hat, it's your damn right, and it's not the pot manufacturer's right to say otherwise. They're not trying to get a free service here, they simply wish to modify whatever the hell they please if it's theirs, the problem stems from DC claiming that in doing so they are revealing IP. This is a load of crap b/c nayone with half a brain can figure out how this thing codes info.
"God is REAL
I like the way you think :-)
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Diffrence being the 3 year ISP contract in exchange for $500 is just that, a written contract the user enters into out of their own free will. $500 now in exchange for about $800 in 3 years isn't a bad deal, and you are not obligated to sign in. If you like Compuserve or MSN great. Deals are still around, I was rather hoping though that there were some deals like that for DSL.
:CueCat device "Is free", and no contract is disclosed when you get it from Rat Shack, and they come free in the mail.
:Cues on TV and Radio, as well as paper :Cues, where you must pay DC a fee to get a code issued, and further get information from Digital Demographics.
The
DC's business plan is perfectly acceptable. They plan to corner the market on imbedded information.
Now their plan is hopeless as digital media already has imbedded information, the only thing missing is the little cable between your TV and computer, though that is not too far off. And their hope to corner the market on bar codes is just a little too late by about 20 years. I'd rather have ethernet or even USB over a 1 way audio connection. Given the audio cue technology is the only one actually with a pattent, I'd say good luck guys, see you with your chapter-22 in under 2 years.
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
I requested mine from Rat Shack. They rang it up like a sale, for $0, and explicitly said that they were free. I never agreed to an EULA of any kind (damn, I hate that 4-letter word). I plugged it into my Linux box, downloaded the Linux software, and scanned a few barcodes for fun. I think I'll even put my root login on a keycard (with the CODE128 barcode format) so I can just scan it in rather than typing it each time. I never in any way consented to a contract of any sort with DC, and I was never informed that I was leasing the unit rather than buying it. It appears that this CueCat is now MINE.
I suspect that sometime in the not-so-distant future everything, even things of trivial value, will be "leased" and not "sold". I also suspect nobody except the aware few won't care. It's a sad fact of the IP climate in the world, with everyone trying to stomp out everyone else and prevent them from profitting from their ideas. But until the courts actually allow that to happen, DC can fuck off. Thanks for the nifty barcode reader, btw.
That said, DC has a really good idea, and I hope they succeed. I actually think the idea of embedding product links in a catalog with barcodes is a GREAT idea, and I might actually use them (with Linux software, of course). I do buy a lot of stuff from Rat Shack.
-John
Nobody viewed, copied, reverse engineered, or emulated any part of the firmware in the CueCat. Period.
That can't be right - the firmware encodes the barcode, right? And those clever hackers figured out how to decode it, so doesn't that count as reverse engineering?
Not that there's anything wrong with that you understand...
There was no shirnk wrap to break. No license agreement to agree to. I *NEVER* installed their software, so their new EULA is just as unenforcible as their old one and will get the same response from my atterney: Get Bent.
Their service wasn't hacked into... They allowed their data to be plainly viewed with a URL (see comp.security.misc for detials).
This company was doomed from the start and it is a good thing since the next company that decides to use similar business practices will take CueCat's mistakes into consideration. Not a single user is at fault here. Just like when you are paying taxes. I read a book that teaches how to minimize tax payments, it started with a disclaimer stating that nobody should pay more than is required by the law. So, if the CueCat did not understand this simple concept - user will not pay more than is required by the law, and did not encorporate this idea into their product, it's their own mistake and they will pay for it. The bar code reader maybe good due to excellent engineering (I don't have one, since they are not distributed in Canada) but CueCat's business model is flawed and that is due to poor business management (who the hell sponsored these guys anyway?)
You can't handle the truth.
Is it just me, or is that a little too specific? When was the last time you saw this kind of language when other "e-commerce" sites got cracked?
I mean, I'm not accusing DC of doing this, but if I were a marketing company, and my product was based on being able to track who scanned what ad, and I were to sell my database to mainsleaze spammers (e.g. MessageMedia, m0.net, and other "legit" spam-for-hire outfits, as opposed to the MLM and MMF pyramid/quack-medicine/pr0n scammers), this is exactly how I'd do it.
Those of you who gave DC a "spamtrap" address - say, a dc-spam-12345@yahoo.com type of thing, to trace the spam you got from DC and to not be detectable with a traditional dictionary attack on Yahoo - keep an eye on your headers.
If the spam's from a random dialup IP, it's probably a dictionary attack or maybe, in 3-6 months, if there was a cracker, then maybe the addresses did get resold.
But if it comes from a "mainstream" spam-for-hire company with real money behind it, and advertises real products, you just might want to suspect that DC themselves sold the data to the mainsleazer.
Hell, I'll bet it's even in their "privacy policy" that they have the right to do so. So blaming an imaginary "Hacker X" shouldn't be necessary in the first place. Again, I'm not accusing them, and I have no evidence that this is the case, but I must confess I'm just a little bit suspicious that maybe there's more to "Hacker X" than meets the eye.
EULA for ACME Toothbrush. By opening the packaging for this toothbrush, you acknowledge that this device will only be used orally. This device may only be used to brush teeth, dentures, or anything as approved by the ADA.
Improper uses unclude:
Pets
Shoes
Computer parts
Silverware or any other dishes
Any other device where the object where the cleaning agent is not toothpaste.
Our lawyers will attack if this agreement is breached.
If you'd sooner have your cat on /dev/scanners/cuecat than hanging off the back of a Windows box then you can patch your kernal today... CueCat Driver 0.1.8 was released on Freshmeat mere hours ago.
0daymeme.com: Great stuff.
You can use the same disk to install the cuecat software on multiable machines.
You can not give the disk to someone else to install on machines.
You can not put the software on your web site to allow others to download it to put on other machines. You can not download their software and post it on your web site for others to download. You can download their software and install it on multiable machines.
Gawd, can't you read lawyer?
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
Well, you *do* own that copy of the software and can do anything with it that you legally could do with a book... You can sell it, use it, modify it, ignore it, critique it, benchmark it, burn it, or feed it to a cyber-pet.
You can't bypass copyright controls and start reselling the AOL software (plural), but you may resell your copy of the AOL software.
Ditto with the CueCat. You own it in all concievable ways, but that doesn't mean you own the patents it's based on, or the copyright on any ROM code. But you do own the right to use everything that it comes with.
The majority of the people who use the cracks do so because Cue's software either doesn't work on their OS or because they don't want Cue to snoop on them. In either case the EULA would never be seen by the user, I can't imagine that it would be enforceable.
Icebox
Companies change their license agreements all the time, if a new product comes out then it stands to reason that the lawyers are going to want to see it included in the EULA.
;)
What would have been more relevant would have been a if DC (or any other company for that matter!) had made a change to the EULA, not notified their users and then tried to enforce the changes.
I don't know if this is the case, but to be honest, DC would probably have been much better off having two completely seperate EULAs. This way there is no confusion - and again no possibility of falling into the "no notification" trap.
Mind you, it is governed by the laws of the State of Texas, so I guess that you'll be on the chair before you have a chance to pipe up your disent of any part of the agreement
-Tom
as far as I can see Eazel's stuff is a pure service, not an after-sale, since there is NO SALE to begin with. and since their software is open source, they sure can't be accused of tying a product (whatever they develop) with a service. hence, for all I care, they should feel more than free to base their business on offering their update services -- although I have my reservations as to whether it's a viable model. and if it *does* work, it'll be precisely because of this lack of tying; once the users know that they're free to use whatever service (or none), and that this is freedom is protected by the fact that the software is open source, they may actually have less reservations to use the service in question.
Add something else to this line of thought: it is legal to disassemble software. After the initial round of legal nastygrams went out, I asked a number of people in the know about the legality of this whole mess, and the common answer was: It is legal to disassemble software. If you use those instructions line for line in another product, that is not protected, but you can dig up the algorithm, reimplement it yourself, and all is fine. The DMCA (DCMA? I don't remember. It's morning) has made some weird restrictions on reverse engineering, but there's no copyrighted information we are accessing, they can't even wave that one around.
So, this lands under contract law -- the sort of thing where they start saying "If you do not agree to these terms, we do not acknowledge your existence and therefore you must vaporize immediately or stop using our product", but even with that in mind, there's still some problems. They've just made changes to a contract nobody agreed to in the first place, which is not available with the product, neither through radio shack or the magazines that sent them to their subscribers.
Hoo boy, things do not look good for Digital Convergence. Remember the "FreePC" deal that went bust due to a similar poorly-thought-out business plan?
Get your Cue:Cats while you can, folks.
When I printed the text portion of patent 6,098,106 from the USPTO.GOV site, I found this interesting tidbit:
This application is related to copending US patent application Ser. No. 09/151,471, entitled "Method for Interfacing Scanned Product Information With a Source for the Product Over a Global Network" filed of even date herewith.
Interesting, but not exactly a patent on the CueCat itself, based on the title.
I'm hoping that the community would take the high road on this issue and not degrade to flaming DC. I think that clear, concise, informative and not insulting emails to DC might help them see the light. Certainly it could have more of an effect than just telling them they suck. Think of them as children in need of guidance, because their behavior is that of a 10 year old, not that of adults.
Instruct, don't destruct.
In Soviet Russia...michael would be rotting in Siberia!
You may want to update your Perl script to take into account some recent discoveries about modifications to the 'Cat.
Specifically, you may want to insert the minor tweak that lets the code handle those 'Cats that return command and slash.
I got my little toy (which fills the space behind my computer with an eerie red glow - very spooky) in the mail apparently because I am subscribed to Wired. I opened the box, saw this cat-looking thing fall on the floor.
.. hmm..
"Cool", I thought.. I wonder if those drivers that were supposedly banned are still available.. Yup..
A little while later I'm happily scanning ISBNs from my books..
Only then did I look at what else was in the box.. What's this? an audio cable with a monophonic 1/8" mike plug, with both a male and a female phono connector on the other end. "What's this for?" I wonder.
Reading the docs showed that you're supposed to connect your VCR's audio out to the phono connectors, and you're supposed to connect the mic plug into your computer's audio in, and after installing this software that came with the cue cat (windows only - I have only linux on my desktop at home) when you are watching a commercial or a tv show, the web page for the commercial or tv show is somehow transmitted to your computer.
Does anyone know how this works, and is there a Linux driver that will translate this information? Someone speculated that the info is somehow read from the closed-caption part of the signal, which got me thinking.. Perhaps I could receive via email transcripts of my favorite tv shows i never get time to watch
Restrictions are prohibited. Be well, get better.
It strikes me that whenever a company comes out with something where they intend to make their profits from after-sale mechanisms, the first thing that people want to do is to try and avoid this. We've recently had this CueCat business and a page complaining about paying $10 a month for TiVo, despite the fact that they sell their hardware as a loss leader and rely on the subscription charges to make any money.
To me, all of this seems like trying to rip off companies that are providing something which people obviously want. And if people succeed, then these companies are going to suffer, which means no more deals for people. Is this what we want?
Every time a new service is hacked into so that the company fails to be able to make a profit, it just discourages other companies from being so generous, or encourages them to follow the MPAA/RIAA in slapping restrictive laws or licenses on the technology. Do we really want a situation where every new technology comes out hand in hand with restrictive legislation to give the companies a chance to make a profit?
Or at least I've seen the phrase "it is a violation of fedaral law to use this product in a way it was not intended to be used" on such things as lysol cans and stuff. I am praphrasing from memory so forgive and misquotation...
You are right. But the difference between weak encryption and strong encryption is not simple. If it was cryptanalysts are out of a job. And even if so, bear in mind that encryption does not prevent reverse engineering. It just makes it longer and harder. Someone who decides that it is worth their while might actually go ahead and do it.
Press Release
Not much in the way of details.
Riiightt... so, now not only can't I reverse engineer the software under thier "agreement", I have to dob in anyone I find out that is reverse engineering it?
hmmm, better stop reading slashdot, I guess MS, RIAA and the MPAA were right. You are all the spawn of Satan. Lucky the big companies are here to protect me and my children (please, won't you think of the children?).
1. Computers
The free computer with internet acess model is flawed because people can add. When you commit to a internet service to get your computer, you are tied until that computer is WAY beyond useless. Also, these companies forget computers are useful for things BESIDES the internet.
2. :CueCat
This is bound to fail because of the stupidness of the whole thing. I mean, really, a hacker might use this to create something for themselves, but really why do you need a barcode reader?? And the whole idea struck me as kind of dumb after I tried it and thought about it. I mean, except for the decoding thing and DC's only software WHAT possible use do you have for this dumb thing? Indexing CD's, videos, or DVD's by barcode may be the only thing. And why do companies keep trying to put a barcode reader in things? (Networked fridge with BC scanner, still not available cuz it's DUMB!).
3. Netpliance iOpener...
Hmm, lessee, let's make a network appliance out of commodity hardware, try to make it hack proof, and sell it so PC and Internet people can get grandma on the internet. Oh and let's sell them and a whopping loss so we can make money off of people who think they need to use their service on it. Netpliance could have done a smart thing and made a better investment in the hardware and made the thing truely unhackable before selling it. They didn't. Their revenue stream does not exist.
I could go on but what's the point? A company should just sell the freaking device at a reasonable price level, and charge little or nothing for the service. If Tivo reduced their fee to say, about 2 bucks a month (what I used to pay the cable company for monthly guide which I never looked at cuz of the on air tv guide channel and tvgrid.com) I'd jump on it! Another thing they could do is try to work out deals for people to reduce the amount of bills they have for services. An example might be phone companies have one fee to pay for tv guides for tivo's, internet connection thru ADSL, phone service and cable TV all in one bill a month which I'd call an Information Service bill. I'd love that.
Gorkman
That's funny. I guess their lawyer didn't do a good enough job of combing through the EULA after cut-n-pasting it from somebody else's shrinkwrap software.
So are you bound to the specific contract that you agreed to with the "I agree" button, or can you use multiple copies since they publicly state that you can?
--
Actually it is well known that the "Lather, Rinse, Repeat" instruction is included to keep androids from conquering the earth. As soon as they read it their heads tilt to the side and smoke starts coming out.
Here's a Python implementation of the decoding algorithm. It's a little rough around the edges, but it works (hey, this is my first shot at learning Python).
:)
:Cue:CAT and displays the barcode in human-readable
:Cue:CAT readers.
This decoder is a bit different than the others I've seen, in that I put an emphasis on human-readable output.
Also, I've tested this with two different scanners, and each scanner obviously sends its own ID along with each barcode scanned (I think we already knew this, but I've now confirmed it).
Oh, one more thing.. It should be pretty easy to make this into a CGI script. <grin type="evil"/>
Happy scanning
#!/usr/bin/python
# Reads input from a
# form. Simply start the script and scan a barcode.
#
# Written by Nathan Walther <kas@devzero.org>, September 2000
#
# Copyright 2000 Nathan Walther
# This program is free software under the terms of the GNU General Public
# License, with absolutely no warranty.
#
# Thanks to...
# Joshua Garvin, for providing a very well-documented decoder in VisualBasic
# Stu, for pointing out the obvious (periods are the field seperators)
# And the people who gave me their
import string
# The base64 mapping of ASCII characters to numeric values
# There is a Python module for this, but I'd rather implement the
# whole algorithm here, to help others see how it works.
map64 = {
'a':0, 'b':1, 'c':2, 'd':3, 'e':4, 'f':5, 'g':6, 'h':7, 'i':8, 'j':9,
'k':10, 'l':11, 'm':12, 'n':13, 'o':14, 'p':15, 'q':16, 'r':17, 's':18, 't':19,
'u':20, 'v':21, 'w':22, 'x':23, 'y':24, 'z':25,
'A':26, 'B':27, 'C':28, 'D':29, 'E':30, 'F':31, 'G':32, 'H':33, 'I':34, 'J':35,
'K':36, 'L':37, 'M':38, 'N':39, 'O':40, 'P':41, 'Q':42, 'R':43, 'S':44, 'T':45,
'U':46, 'V':47, 'W':48, 'X':49, 'Y':50, 'Z':51,
'0':52, '1':53, '2':54, '3':55, '4':56, '5':57, '6':58, '7':59, '8':60, '9':61,
'+':62, '-':63 }
def decode(input):
'Takes a component of the scan text, and returns it in human-readable form.'
# Process blocks of 4 6-bit values
block_list = []
i = 0
block = 0
shift = (18, 12, 6, 0)
for char in input:
if map64.has_key(char):
block = block | (map64[char] << shift[i])
i = i + 1
# One block of 4 values completed
if i == 4:
block_list.append(block)
i = 0
block = 0
else:
print 'Unexpected character:', char
# Check for leftovers
if block > 0:
block_list.append(block)
# Convert each block of 24 bits into 3 8-bit values
byte_list = []
for block in block_list:
for offset in (16, 8, 0):
byte_list.append((block & (0xFF << offset)) >> offset)
result = ''
for byte in byte_list:
dec = (byte ^ 67) - 48 # Get one decimal digit (48 is ASCII 0)
if dec < 0 or dec > 9:
print 'Unexpected value:', dec
else:
result = result + `dec`
return result
# Read a line of text as if it came from the keyboard
scantxt = raw_input('Scan: ')
# Split scan text into its component parts
prefix, scanner, type, barcode, suffix = string.split(scantxt, '.')
# Prefix should be two escape characters followed by '[21~'
# Suffix should just be ''
# TODO verify the prefix, suffix, and number of parts
# Print human-readable output, with nice formatting
print
print 'Device Number: ' + decode(scanner)
print
num = decode(barcode)
if type == 'fHmc':
print 'Barcode Type: UPC-A'
print 'Manufacture: ' + num[0] + '-' + num[1:6]
print 'Product: ' + num[6:11]
print 'Checksum: ' + num[11] # TODO compute expected checksum
elif type == 'cGf2':
print 'Barcode Type: ISBN and price'
print 'ISBN: ' + num[3] + '-' + num[4:9] + '-' + num[9:12] + '-' + num[12]
currency = num[13]
if currency == '9':
currency = 'Unspecified'
elif currency == '5':
curreny = 'US Dollars'
elif currency == '6':
currency = 'Canadian Dollars'
else:
currency = 'Unrecognized'
print 'Currency: ' + currency
print 'Price: ' + num[14:16] + '.' + num[16:18]
elif type == 'cGen':
print 'Barcode Type: ISBN'
print 'ISBN: ' + num[3] + '-' + num[4:9] + '-' + num[9:12] + '-' + num[12]
elif type == 'fGj2':
print 'Barcode Type: Paperback (?)' # TODO confirm this and get more info
print 'ISBN: ?-???-' + num[12:17] + '-?'
print 'Price: US $' + num[7:9] + '.' + num[9:11]
elif type == 'aabI':
print ':Cue: ' + num # TODO figure out the format of these beasts
else:
print 'Unrecognized Barcode: ' + num
This signature has eleven vowels.
OK, here's our chance to piss off Digital Divergence AND the MPAA in one stroke. Let's publish DeCSS in barcode that can be read by CueCat. Publish it in some magazines - the caption: "Barcode as Art in the Digital Age". Put it on T-Shirts that can be scanned with the cat (on the front of the shirt, with the source on the back as it is now, only no typing required!)
What damn good is the barcode? I don't get it. As far as I can tell it "accelerates" the typing in of a URL. That's not exactly the biggest barrier to accessing the web, now is it? If the CueCat software, on the other hand, is sending info on people about what they're scanning, not only will it be useless, but people will avoid it like the fascist plague that it is. Either way this company is screwed.
Since in the email they sent they ask you to fill out a form to get the $10 Certificate snail mailed to you -- it is just a way for them to tie your address in Meatspace to your 'userid' or whatever it's called in their software. I for one won't be getting the $10 certificate. Infact I just disabled the email account I had setup to get a code to test the software with.
I'm not going to sell my address to those spammers for a lousy $10.
Weirdly enough though, this was determined to only govern the software in the result of commercial transactions. If you find a random copy of software on the street, you're NOT bound by the license.
So... have your friend buy the software and drop it in the street for you to pick up later.
I received a CueCat in the mail. I have accepted no license, and I don't plan to. I'm not going to install their software by any means. They have given me no ability to refuse the terms of their license. It was sent to me without any action on my part, other than being a subscriber to a magazine- that sounds like a gift to me.
As others have pointed out, under US postal law, the CueCat you received in mail is an unequivocal gift. If I were you, I'd mirror the Perl scripts Digital Convergence has been complaining about, write letters to DC telling them that you're mirroring the scripts, write letters telling DC they're morons, etc. Then, when they invoke some provision of the EULA requiring you to return the CueCat or something, report them to your friendly neighborhood Postal Inspector. I wish I got a CueCat in the mail. That could be fun.
I have no idea about the legalities of chaning the EULA for a product already in one's possesion. Obviously, they are trying to add the hardware to the EULA, which only included the software before, but how on earth can this be enforced.
Most licenses expire. At least most non software licenses expire like driver's licenses, and alcohol licenses. Each time you renew, you could be subject to new rules, but all parties are more or less aware of that in advance. I don't see how they can expect to change the terms of a license that most people just clicked through, and expect it to mean something.
IANAL, but even in the great state of Texas, I think that their business, if it depends on this change in EULA, is pretty much over.
I don't practice what I preach because I'm not the kind of person that I'm preaching to.
Yes, CueCat's method of scrambling barcodes is childishly simple. But there would be little point in implementing a stronger algorithm since an attacker would have an unlimited number of plaintexts available and could generate chosen plaintexts at will. Any algorithm that would be feasible to implement in a piece of giveaway hardware would be vulnerable to attack.
I received a CueCat in the mail. I have accepted no license, and I don't plan to. I'm not going to install their software by any means. They have given me no ability to refuse the terms of their license. It was sent to me without any action on my part, other than being a subscriber to a magazine- that sounds like a gift to me.
:CueCat reader leading to my acceptance of the license. But what do they mean by using it? Using it as a doorstop? Paperweight?
They have the broad statement of (2) using the
I really hope this issue comes around and hurts them in the end. They must have spent a *huge* amount of money to get this out. They probably have 100's of thousands sitting in a warehouse somewhere, ready to be shipped. I hope they never get to ship them.
Hmm... a thought. Can I refuse their terms with an email that states that if their email server accepts the message, they accept my terms? That sounds a lot like the arbitrary acceptance conditions that they put forth.
There was no database involved, they were stroring info in plain text. ( a .txt file !)
The only tools needed was Netscape (lynx would have worked as well...)
I received a CueCat in the mail. Apparently because I am a subscriber to Wired. I did not ask for the CueCat, did not order it, did not pay for it (yes I know its free anyway). Under US Postal Regulations, this item is now mine. It is not the property of D.C., they have not loaned, lent, nor licensed it to me. They can not ask for it back, they can not tell me what to do with it. It is mine, period. If they would like to claim differently, they can take the issue up with the Post Office, not me.
They did damage control. Otherwise, if securitywatch.com had sent the report first, it would have been worse.
So if I don't agree with the licensing terms for this unsolicited mailing, what can I do with it? I certainly can't break it into bits or burn it up. That would violate the "disassembly" clause. I can't even throw it in the trash since that would be an illegal "distribution" of the device.
What's a poor law-abiding consumer to do? I guess I'll just have to keep it in my closet.
What do you mean they cut the power? How can they cut the power, man? They're animals!
Has anyone cobbled together a Windows driver for the CueCat that just translates the output without initiating IP traffic to DC? I'm aware of Linux drivers, Java translators, yada, yada, yada...how about something native to Windows?
Yeah, they had cherry preserves, but it seemed a little late for that......
Everyone will start to cheer when you put on your sailin' shoes.
Repeat after me, no one is ripping off these companies. If some braindead MBA believes that selling stuff below cost in order to gain mindshare is a business plan, I am not obligated to satisfy his plans for me as a consumer by paying for a marked up service or accessory to something I got for free or below cost.
It strikes me that whenever a company comes out with something where they intend to make their profits from after-sale mechanisms, the first thing that people want to do is to try and avoid this.
I seem to remember one of the first things I was taught in Economics class being that consumers should be assumed as rational beings that will try their best to maximize their utility (i.e. consumer happiness) by paying as little as possible for a service. In my opinion a company that fails to factor in the lessons of ECON 101 while designing a business plan deserves to fail.
People like you who complain because consumers are not going along with a corporation's plan to sell them a marked up service or product shock me. I cannot for the life of me figure out why I should spend more than an item costs after other payments are factored in for the illusion of being given something for free. Anyone remember all those free PC companies that made you sign 3 year ISP contracts? Guess that means the PCs weren't so free, huh.
I have a question maybe someone knows: on the back of lots of cards like .. credit cards, video rental cards.. other stuff there is a clause similar to this :cat device's. It says that they can tell you you must return it at anytime -- does anyone know if this has ever gone to court or anything where a credit card or other company sued to get the card back or something? I wonder about legal precedents concerning that..
I'd hate to see the EULA for Peterson's AI shoes.
"Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi"
In magazines in the past, I can remember seeing advertisements from companies nobody ever heard of, offering really low-priced, desirable knick-knacks.
"How can they sell those genuine stainless steel, bone-handled pocket knives for only $1.50 each?", we asked each other.
Because they wanted to collect names and addresses which would later be sold as a database of folk who were known to buy via mail-order. And the mailing list could be sold over and over and over again, more than making up the cost of the "genuine...".
What do you think DC intends to do with those addresses? Mail you your coupon and then wipe the file off of their disk?
In fact, they're legally obliged to. And the idea of a loss leader is hardly a new one after all, there is a hell of a lot of hardware out there designed to pull in after-sales business rather than make money from the initial sale.
I seem to remember one of the first things I was taught in Economics class being that consumers should be assumed as rational beings that will try their best to maximize their utility (i.e. consumer happiness) by paying as little as possible for a service. In my opinion a company that fails to factor in the lessons of ECON 101 while designing a business plan deserves to fail.
But this fails to take into consideration the fact that in the long-term this kind of selfish behaviour can only lead to a loss of utility as cash-starved companies are forced to reduce services thanks to the actions of a few people whose greed outweighs their rationality.
No. Software isn't any different than a book. When you buy a book, you own the book. When you buy software, you own the software. (Note that in both cases, you're just buying the item, not the copyright, so IP rights are still preserved.) You can tear the pages out of a book and make paper airplanes, and you can disassemble software.
The only time you buy a license is when the purchase of that license is explicitly made a part of the sale. (For example, when people buy custom software from my employer, I think they sign a license at the same time that they hand over the check, although I don't work on that side of the biz, so I'm not sure if this is still done.)
Or if the license grants you additional rights that you otherwise would not have under copyright law, then you might decide to agree to the license in order to take advantage of those additional rights. For example, you normally can't give away copies of copyrighted works, but some software comes with the offer of a special licence (e.g. GPL) that will grant that right (with some restrictions) to people who agree to its terms.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Hmm, this gives me an evil idea!
If I were [theoretically of course!] to crack into a database and obtain e-mail address data, it wouldn't take much effort to then mail out everyone whose addresses I had obtained saying "We're sorry - our database got cracked. Send us your credit card details and we'll give you a $10 refund straight to your card for the inconvience!". =)
Put in a genuine looking "From:" address, and a temporarily set-up "Reply-to:" address, and wait for those CCs to come rolling in =) I'm sure there are enough people out their who would happily fall for such a scam!
-Tom
I registered my CueCat at work and at home. At work, I got the e-mail this morning addressed to me and to someone else where I work.
If the whole idea behind the message was to apologize for accidentally releasing our e-mail addresses, does it make sense to mail it out to people and include OTHER PEOPLE'S e-mail addresses?
Did anyone else have multiple TO: names in their e-mail from CueCat?
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing -- Emo Phillips
IANAL, but can they change the EULA so radically after thousands (millions?) of CueCats have been distributed? I got mine from rat shack a number of weeks ago, and immediately destroyed the CRQ CD. Now they're trying to bind me with a contract I didn't agree to? I'm going to disassemble my CueCat right now...
We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from the machinations of the wicked.
You're making a statement of ethics here, and it's important to recognise this.
The legalities of the situation are totally different; the right to reverse-engineer and adapt technology is well-established (if under attack in the US via the DMCA...). Let's be clear: hacking TiVO or CueCat is totally legal.
Now, to address the ethical side of this question, yes every business's first goal is to make money. And if you feel sorry for these poor companies having their income stolen from underneath them, then that's fine.. I don't have a problem with that.
However, personally, my own feelings are of mild contempt for the businesses concerned.. It smacks of incompetence to build an entire business around people's goodwill in not using their legal rights to reverse engineer your profit-stream..er...technology, without understanding what the impacts are.
In the CueCat case, they've taken some ever-so-slightly warmed-over technology (barcodes + scanners; available since the early '80s), wrapped some "encryption" around it, and expect to charge a great deal of money for providing what is effectively a referral service. Personally I'd have thought that it would have been cheaper for these guys to do a mass-market cheap implementation of same on the existing universal bar-codes; substituting quantity for quality with no hardware overheads... That's a business model I can see working, and people getting behind - think "hotmail" here...
--
I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy
Oh shit, I broke it.
Sorry guys. How much do I owe you?
Ah, you think that the long-term effect of this is that we will cross over the transition from having a free lunch, to not having a free lunch? There never was a free lunch! They're not going to "reduce services", they're just going to make costs more explicitly spelled-out up front.
If you get one of these CueCats and use their software, then it isn't free. They are getting information about you (which has value) and probably selling that information to someone, or selling targeted adspace (which has value) to companies that want to advertise things related to whatever you scanned. Whenever someone pays Digital Convergence for an ad, that money doesn't come out of thin air -- it comes out of the sale price that you pay when you buy that item.
Any time someone pretends to give you something for free, it is almost certainly an attempt to decieve you. Taking advantage of them is a Good Thing, since it punishes lies and hidden costs. The especially nice thing is that if they don't try to trick you and actually put the costs up front where the customer can see them, then no one can take advantage of them, and fair market forces decide their fate.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
A previous Slashdot article of a few weeks ago encouraged people to submit comments for that proceeding. Some of those comments are online at the FTC site. (The FTC staff tell me all the comments should be up shortly.)
End of story.
Hmm, go tell that to the various parts of the firearms industry currently having their asses sued off by various misguided, politically correct etc... etc... cities.
Elgon
Disclaimer - I make no apologies for my views on firearms. I have been a responsible fireams user since the age of 13. All forms of armed violence, except in reasonable self-defence, defence of the law or the defence of others in danger, are wrong.
And if you really wanted to read bar codes why not just write software to scan a picture from a quickcam? Or heck why not just type the numbers on the bar code label?
I am just imagining scared housewifes standing on a chair trying to beat down a CueCat on the floor with a broom.
Seriously, how much bickering is there going to be about all these litttle details on an inanimate object? I don't think people are going to take software agreements seriously anymore with all this BS going on. I haven't even hooked up my cuecat, and I could care less about it's agreement on the software I won't be installing. I'm not really afraid of any acronyms in this situation.
Ok I know the dogma here, Linux is great and Windows sucks, but most people still use some form of Windows at home. If the hardware hack is so easy, why don't we just write a piece of code for Windows that will translate the output of the Cue:Cat into plain text. Regular folks who receive a "free gift" of a Cue:Cat reader in the mail could then perfectly legally throw away everything but the device itself and download our code to scan books or video tapes or groceries or anything they want. There would be no fear of personal information going back to any server because it would be a very simple hardware translator that acts like a keyboard. We could even write the code as open source and let people compile it themselves if they like. Pick the language of your choice to implement it in. If someone has already done this, please let me know. Thanks.
It seems to me that the USA really needs some good privacy laws. In New Zealand, when personal information is collected, you must be informed for what it is to be used for, and it is illegal to use that information for any other purpose. Bascially, it means that information about yourself is your personal property, and cannot be used or divulged by anyone else without your permission. This has several side effects:
- a few years ago, the university I work for used to publish in the local newspaper what papers each student passed. This became illegal under the Privacy Act.
- we cannot display on notice boards student assessment marks next to their names - we can only use their ID numbers
- we have the right to have our name and number removed from the public phone listings
- we have the right to demand that any business or ministry turn over to us a copy of all data held by them
- we have the right to have erroneous data corrected so far as it pertains to us as individuals
- a company can't have you register for a product, then turn that data over to another company without your permission - no spammers buying e-mail lists!
I think the USA should start looking at getting some similar laws, it might fix a lot of the problems they seem to be having.
Okay, I won't pretend that statement makes any recognizable sense, but I'd like to read the article that it ALLUDES to. Cracked? When? How? By whom? I'd like to read an article about it, not a passing mention. Where's the story?
/news/index.html
So there is a story:
http://www.digitalconvergence.com
...you will notify Digital:Convergence of any information derived from reverse engineering or such other activities...
Well, so far I've determined that the people at Digital Convergence are pricks. Does that count?
Guess I better go notify them.
The whole reason it seems for this "encryption" is that DC really doesn't want people to use all those free Cue Cat readers with someone elses web site and setting up deals with other Vendors. The encryption was the charade they use to create something enforceable. IF they sent out readers that just read say plain UPC codes or Code39 codes. Anyone could have easily created alternative uses and they couldn't have stopped it. So they tried adding something artificially "unique".
-
Except as expressly permitted in this License, you may not decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble, modify, rent, lease, loan, sublicense, distribute or create derivative works based upon the
:C.R.Q. Software in whole or part or transmit the :C.R.Q. Software over a network or from one computer to another.
Has been changed to this:-
Except as expressly permitted in this License, you may not decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble, modify, rent, lease, loan, sublicense, distribute or create derivative works based upon the
:CRQ software or :CueCat reader in whole or part or transmit the :CRQ software over a network or from one computer to another.
They clearly thought that anybody wanting to reverse engineer their scanners would have to disassemble their software, so they thought that they could prevent this with the software licence agreement. They clearly didn't realize that by using such a braindead-simple protocol, people could reverse engineer the protocol just from the hardware, so they have extended the EULA to cover reverse engineering from the CueCat itself.But how can this be legal? What you buy a piece of software, you are buying a license to use that software. When you buy ( /are given ) a piece of hardware you own it. You can do what you like with it. You have the right to sell it to someone else, and DC have no contract with that person.
This cannot be enforcable.
You're right! Individuals are exercising more and more power over companies. It's getting out of control and is completely contrary to the American way of life. People are unfairly exercising their rights to think and use technology to abuse poor companies that have no recourse when faced with the power of a motivated hacker and such unscrupulous tools as Linux.
One of the problems with capitalism and technology is that individuals often become so powerful that their influence over honest hard-working companies becomes so great that they can start to take advantage of them. This is where the federal government can step in to protect the rights of these poor companies that are just trying to mind their own business and make a buck.
People might complain that these companies need to exercise a little more judgement when they come up with their business plans, but let's face, even the most careful companies can fall victim to ruthless individuals utilizing their technology to take unfair advantage of them.
It's time people stood up for the rights of victimized corporations! Write your Congresspeople so they can pass laws to protect those poor companies who cannot protect themselves.
If we don't stand up for the big companies, who will?
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
See this comment for a link to the more-restrictive EULA that was posted about two weks ago.
--
send all spam to theotherwhitemeat@ropine.com
As other people have stated...
I was at radio shack picking up some various little things and they ASKED me if I had a "cat". I said "A cuecat?"
they said "Wow, He knows what one is."
They proceeded to hand me one. I never agreed to anything. There is no agreement even on the package. They just handed me a chunk of hardware. They never even said what I was supposed to do with it.
Any Business model that involves handing out the hardware and relying completely on service charges should have a more secure method.
Yes.
Well, last week I threw together a Java based CueCat decoder/web page finder. Its at http://www.timpatton.com/jcat. It just needs java 1.2 or better. I guess I will sit around and wait for my subpoena. :)
I registered their software (using an email account that is about to go the way of the dodo) and I did get their email. This is not another case of the MS email tracking hoax, just for the hell of it, I went over to DC's site, following the link provided, to their secure server, and was rpesented with an apportunity to enter my address so that they scould send me a $10 coupon for Radio Shack. It is real. However, since they now want more personal information from me (the original software asked for name and email, not they want address as well) I did not bother to fill it out, but for those who will, DC now has their name, email address and snail mail address. considering that the average consumer who signed up for this won't think along these lines, DC has amde a wonderful $10 investment to get the name/address/email and buying habits of that person. I don't think the $10 is a hoax, I think that maybe the hack was a hoax. They could not have planned it better if they tried.
I think....therefore I am
I reject your reality
QUOTE:
"Please read the following license agreement carefully before using this software or hardware as you are agreeing to be bound by the following terms and conditions of this license. You agree to the terms and conditions of this license by performing ANY OF THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS: (1) using the :CRQ software; (2) using the :CueCat reader (3) pressing the "agree" button below; OR (4) printing out a copy of the agreement, signing the agreement and returning a copy to Digital:Convergence(TM). If you do not agree to the terms and conditions of this license, do not press the "agree" button or engage in any of the foregoing acts."
Hmm.
So here is what we have got here... a "legal" (read as "clickthrough", "shrinkwrap") agreement that tries to be as binding as if it were signed and returned to D:C. I wonder how many seconds this will hold up in court when challenged. The fact of the matter is is that when they give me hardware, it is now MY hardware, and if they think that I have to use their software, then they are stuffed. Also, is it possible to open the package and use their damn barcode reader WITHOUT viewing any portion of the license at all? Of course. However, D:C wants to bind you to their terms even if you don't ever even take a glance at their terms.
D:C is one of those companies that will be throttled by their own license and slowly fade away. Thank god.
Oh, I was about to post this, and lookee what else I found, buried in an unindented block of legalese:
QUOTE:
"The :CueCat reader is only on loan to you from Digital:Convergence and may be recalled at any time."
They need to realize that when they put hardware into my hands that it is MY hardware. If they want me to sign a contract with them (not the crap faux contract they try to bind you to in the first place), I will happily do so, but as long as they try to stiffarm me into forking over all my data, I'll just use the cracked software.
Oh, yea, I want to see someone ballsy enough to actually print out that agreement, cross out everything that they don't agree with, and fax it to them. :)
inquis, posting anonymously 'cause he's too lazy to go get his password.
I think that the reason we're seeing so much angst over these business models is that these "giveaways" are presented as free; they aren't, as you have so eloquently argued. The actual intent is to trick the unwary into giving away something of greater value for something of lesser value. The old "new lamps for old" scam.
If some one wants to make such a deal, knowing what he's getting into, fine. If CluelessCat wants to trick the gullible, I don't think that is fine at all.
Every time one of these companies sets their "rules", and finds that people who never knowingly agreed to them don't follow them, we can only laugh. If new technology comes out with restrictive legislation, it'll be because you didn't contact your congress-critters early and often.
Nels
See what I've been reading.
Being... well... Evil, it occured to me that you could pop out to Radio Shak, pick up one of these, open the box, disagree with the EULA and send it back to Digital Convergence. Think a couple'a hundred thousand of their silly felines in the mail might make a point?
Of course, if I were looking for a laser scanner, I'd have much more faith in the Intermec hardware I can get, and it dumps staight ASCII and is much more stylish.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
If a protocol is simple and it peforms its task well, then it is indeed a good protocol.
Look at HTTP, it's its childish simplicity that made it the dominant web protocol.
I'm not familiar with the CueCat protocol but I do take issue with that condescending tone about 'childish protocols'. You may not like the company and its tactics but don't put down simple protocols. They are what make the internet and many other electronic gadgets tick.
TT: Hey! Would you like some toast?
TT: NO.
TT: Ok.....
(five mins later)
TT: Hey! Would you like some toast?
Me: NO!!!!!!
TT: Your toast will be ready in a jiffy buddy!
Me: I DON'T WANT ANY FRAGGING TOAST!!!
TT: What's wrong, you agreed to get toast at least four times a day
Me: I did no such thing you dammed devil box!
TT: I'm sorry buddy but it says right here in the EULA..
TT: *Prints out 18 page fine print document*
TT: "By saying no two times in succession you
agree to eat at least five pieces of toast
Me: *BANG* (Voids warranty on Talky Toaster)
Defraggle
Head monkey
Dynamic League of discord POEE Cabal "Monkey"
Works just like the Windows license...
--
Your Servant, B. Baggins
Anyone who believes these liars is a fool. Sure, validate their account details on you for $10 credit if you like - it may be a fair sale to some.
:)
:)
Just don't for a minute believe they were hacked. Oh, they're using NT servers so I'm supposed to believe their "our IT is incompitent" line.
This sounds too vague to be legit. Offering $10 to end users for SELLING their details is one thing - at least that is honest. This little scam makes them no different than the spammers who put "reply to unsubscribe" in their email (in order to verify an address to sell it at a higher rate).
Besides, the Linux software is better than the Windows version.
Dear :CueCat member,
We've been alerted to a security breach in our system that may have exposed certain members' names and email addresses. As one of the members who may be susceptible, we want to explain to you how you may be affected and what we are doing to rectify the situation.
Digital:Convergence has secured the site and is conducting a thorough security examination to ensure the safety of its information.
As a result of this breach, unauthorized third parties may have been able to gather your name and email address. You may receive unsolicited emails (a.k.a. spam) from unrecognized sources. If you do not recognize the source, please delete the email immediately. You can also go to www.cauce.org, which provides information on spam and spam-blocking software programs that will prevent unwanted emails from reaching your desktop.
In light of these developments, we would like to give you a $10 gift certificate to RadioShack. If you are interested in receiving this certificate, please fill out a short form on www.crq.com/rs.html and we will mail it to you.
Digital:Convergence values our members and reiterates our commitment not to share your personal identifying information with third parties. We regret any inconvenience you may experience. We have fixed the problem and are taking extra precautionary steps to ensure it won't happen again.
Satisfied?
I checked out the page to register for the $10 coupon, but, of course, it requires all the information I lied about to them the first time around.
Should I just throw it out now and avoid the hassle, or can it do something useful?
--
whuppy enjoys smelling like diesel fuel
Ahh but the EULA dosn't apply becouse the toaster said no the first time not the user :)
(Ops)
Hay wait.. you just violated the EULA on the gun... you shot a non-living talking object...
It's only supposto be used on a living item....
*BANG* Ok now that was within the EULA *THUD*
I don't actually exist.
Mine works fine using perl scripts under win32. It just sends keyboard esc codes, why should a kernel driver be needed?
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
I unplugged my cat and tossed it on my bed. When I realised my (falsified) data was not safe, I deceded to abandon ship. They offer a gift cert of $10 to the shack, but the last time I needed to go there was about 3 years ago.
Lowmag.net
I can't help but wonder: has Digital Convergence stopped to think about the early adopters who really drive the spread of new technology? Since the benefits of their scanner aren't immediately obvious, I think that Digital Convergence, whether they realize it or not, is dependent on these early adopters. And these are the very same people that are (1) going to find out about the license shenanigans and legal blustering and (2) be really irritated by it.
The saying, "don't bite the hand that feeds you" comes to mind. I think Digital Convergence is about to learn what happens when you ignore this sage advice.
Phil
Anyone who used DCs CueCat software has had their software has had their information stolen from the DC servers!
Humble suggestion: make it a policy that Slashdot editors should preview their posts, and even consider doing this yourself.
--
Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
Shrink-wrap license on material goods? I think not. You don't 'license' goods, you buy them (or are given them for free).
Patents are given only if the creator can show that the invention is novel enough, after which, the inventor is given a limited-time monopoly.
If DC can't get a patent that specifically covers the CueCat, then they shouldn't be able to arbitrarily upgrade their protection to the level of a patent. If they were able to, then there would be no reason for the patent review office. The kind of protection they're seeking is only given to products that do something in a non-obvious and novel way.
--
It probably doesn't help DC's case that Radio Shack's latest commercial (the one where Howie brags on their new in-store Microsoft center) mentions at the end that they'll give you a free cuecat scanner when you stop in and ask.
I'm waiting for the wording to be changed to "We'll loan you a cuecat scanner"...
Michael
P.S. Too bad I didn't register.
Do you have ESP?
If anyone is interested, you can find the one and only Digitalconvergence.com patent here. The patent number is 6098106 and it was issued August 1, 2000. It covers using sound to link to a web site. IANAL, but it doesn't look like it covers bar codes.
As for bar codes, they really don't encode much information. The first part of the number is the company producing the product, and the last part is a unique identifier for the specific product (a green widget would have a different identifier than a red one). So really it's just a pointer or index that links into a database elsewhere. Forget any hopes of scanning your CD's and getting a song list from the barcode, unless you link it to a database that contains what you're looking for.
Just to say that I may be bound by there old EULA (which i am not because i didn't install CRQ), would i be bound by the new one? My CueCat came with the old one. I never knew of this revision when I plugged in my cat. Which god do i bow to?
Ever read your shampoo bottle: "Lather, Rinse Repeat. Rumor has it that, as we argue here, Prell is hiring lawyers to stop people from circumventing their instructions.
sulli
sulli
RTFJ.