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).
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"
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.
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 --------
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Well, knock me down with a feather!
If companies are basing their business model on after-sale mechanisms, and they intend to rely on technical means to compel people to pay them money, it's obvious that somebody is going to try and get around it.
Instead of trying to use *technical* means to do this, have they considered a) contracts, and b) making the extra-cost services sufficiently compelling to justify their customers spending money? If you're going to use a lock-in strategy, why not be up-front about it like the mobile phone companies, and be prepared to offer a contract-free version at the full retail price.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
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.
If companies want to make money this way, they need to get people to sign a contract up front. Plain and simple. If you build a business on being able to trick people into paying you for nothing, then you deserve nothing when they wake up.
As for the EULA, it's as worthless as the original. Here is the babelfish translation:
"Now that we've concluded our contract, here are some extra terms that we'd like to add."
All EULA's say exactly the same thing. If a vendor wants to enforce a EULA, it must be presented before the sale so that I can read it, and the vendor must refuse the sale to transpire without me signing the agreement; otherwise, it's all bullsh**.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
-
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.
-
it just discourages other companies from being so generous
DC is being every bit as generous as your local dealer who gives crack to kiddies to get them hooked. DC is not being generous. It is driven by the motive of making money.-
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?
I have two imaginative thoughts.-
Sell things for what they are worth. Crazy, I know, but what if DC tried selling the scanner for what it cost them to make it? Wow!
-
Just write off the loss. Okay, hands up anyone who has ever taken a free T-shirt at a trade show, for a product that they will never, ever, buy. Should there be an EULA on the T-shirt against that? If DC were really feeling generous, they could just write off the loss of a handful of scanners to
/. geeks who want to hack around with them, and concentrate on pushing more scanners at lusers who are more likely to use their software.
DC are currently expending a lot of energy on fighting us, not on making money. This is very dumb.-
despite the fact that they sell their hardware as a loss leader and rely on the subscription charges to make any money.
Ah! DC is stupid. Tell me again, why is that my problem?