Slashdot Mirror
Digital Convergence In Violation Of Postal Regs?
mfdii writes: "Glenn Powers has been investigating the postal regulations and found that Digital Convergence could very well be in violation of them. Check out his site to get more one this, and file your own complaint with the postal inspectors."
They were mailed to Forbes and Wired subscribers.
Surely, under these regulations, if you receive unsolicited software through the post then your right to "use" it includes running it. As for an EULA, would the regulations not make this null and void? So that if the EULA attempts to restrict rights you would have in the absence of the EULA, then you retain these rights.
Precisely. And if Sys Admin tried to tell you what you could and couldn't do with that poster, that would be illegal too.
banning a link sounded incredible to me.
Oh, you think that Wired or Forbes cares? They sold DC their mailing list, just like they sold everybody else their mailing list.
I was under the impression that the CueKittie came with the magazine...?
Actually, now that everyone is moving towards the Windows Installer method of installation, Microsoft provides this neat editing tool called Orca, which does a fine job of re-arranging, inserting, and removing screens from the install process. Oops. The license screen never got displayed; I don't recall ever seeing a license, much less accepting one...
> pain caused by reading this. If you read
> this, you agree to send me all your property
> and money.
Darn. You got me. Ok, what's the address I need to send it to?
(Damn those "glance-wrap" liscenses!)
-- Michael Chermside
If he weren't on a mailing list, how do you think they know where to send free samples? The phone book? It wouln't be unsolicited only if he ordered the thing explicitly.
the right to retain, use, discard, or dispose of it in any manner he sees fit
This runs somewhat contradictory to their cease and desist orders. This part also describes what the recipient can do with it, and doesn't mean punitive action won't be taken either
Winning actually wouldn't surprise me in this case. MPAA/RIAA were backed by competent lawyers. DC seems to be spewing fairly incredible claims, and thanks to one enterprising person, has been shown to be in violation of federal law. This doesn't sound like they have competent legal advice.
mmm . . . you treat it case by case . . . DC is taking a lot of flack from the geek community because they've targetted a large portion of the community and the issue is privacy and ridiculous terms of use.
I doubt that the majority of the hackers out there are thinking "I want to screw Company X over." They're doing what they want, and sometimes it ends up that they do something Company X doesn't like . . . and if the issue is large enough, the community takes a unified stance . . .
With DC the main issue is privacy, and the invasion of privacy, w/o any open disclosure, much like DoubleClick. Yes, the concept of DC is rather nice, but DC should have realized there'd be a backlash of somesort if they attatch UID's to their devices . . . much like Intel did . . . DC has a good idea, but a business model that seems to rely on these UID's . . .
Is a user supposed to blindly support the product because the idea is cool? Just ignore the product, even if it is cool, because of privacy issues? Or find a way to use it and avoid the whole privacy issue?
As I read it, the merchandise has to have been unsolicited. Don't you have a subscription to the magazine? Do you know whether the terms of your subscription allow them to send you such hardware as they might deem useful to their subscribers? If they do, the hardware might not be unsolicited after all, and the whole point may be moot.
Well, we don't have digital radio (and I'm not sure why I want it, FM is good enough for most of the trash that gets put on the radio - AM is great for talk stations, and you can make a reciver from a pencile, razor blade a magnet and some wire it is hard to see a reason to switch to something more complex). All the music stations are FM, which better then cassette tape, and good enough.
My cell phone though is GSM only (And 4 oz seems about right), and it works almost everywhere I want to go. I've considered an analog module, but I don't have one and don't really need it.
digital TV is avaiable, but nobody I know wants it. I don't watch TV myself so I don't care.
But since I would be completely and utterly laughed at, so should DC.
This is not the way to build a lasting empire.
many companies pull stuff like this knowing that 90% of the sheeple will pay, 9% will complain to the company but take no other action, and .0009% (maybe) will actually try to get the company in legal trouble.
The other 0.9991% write to their Senator or Representative bemoaning the poor state of the US education system, or Intel.
How about because the "smart ways to do business" that they have come up with is illegal? What is being discussed here is not some "subarticle in some section of some USPO law". It is a basic component of US law that all direct mail marketers should be familiar with.
If some company's "smart ways to do business" are not smart enough to check with their lawyer to make sure that what they are doing is legal, well then it wasn't very smart was it.
As an example, when I subscribed to Sports Illustrated, I ended up also recieving a "free" phone. I wasn't aware that the phone was included in the subscription and SI didn't take any additional steps to make me aware beforehand. However, if for whatever reason SI felt it needed to issue a recall on the phone for whatever reason, I would probably feel obligated to comply.
Please don't flame me, I'm pritty much playing devil advocate here, but I believe D:C probably sees this as being similar to the SI case. That in subscribing to a magazine, you also have an implied (or maybe even written) agreement to recieve additional material in connection with that subscription. Also, similar to SI, I believe that the distributor still retains the right to attempt a recall if required.
If the USPS has my "devil's advocate" defination of "ordered" then maybe the people to be complaining to is not USPS but rather how magazines "package" a series of services rather than allowing a customer to buy *just* the magazine.
I'm gonna start getting concerned, though, if someone else tries something like this (like Sony shipping Music Clips, and then charging you your immortal soul for the software).
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
No in fact they do not have the right to control the product they control. Especially if it is sent out through the USPS or distributed to anyone who walks into radio shack. The only way a comapany gets to control the hardware they control is through the use of binding legal documents. DC requires nothing like this.
In fact, Digital Convergence has now distributed their product in a way that violates the postal code too. What does it mean? Well according to the Post Office if I recieve on of these things without the free gift notice on it I am granted the right to use the hardware, or dispose of it as I see fit. Now there are some really good reasons for this. Imagine a comapny sending out products to individuals and then demanding payment even if the person who recieves the product did not order it. This happens and its called mail fraud. Digital Convergence isn't asking for money, but instead they are demanding that you use this product, which they sent out to you, in a certain way even though you didn't solicit it. This is one reason why this situation reeks.
I will not roll over while Digital Convergence attempts to strip me of yet another right. I have felt my rights as a consumer get battered every day. You know, it isn't even necessarily malicious either. I'm sure Digital Convergence is just trying like hell to cover their bottom line.
on a side not changing an EULA by the company is forming a new contract and voids the old contract, and the new EULA doesn't become valid until you receive compensation for the change (standard contract law even under ucita btw-- and contract law is a much bigger entity than one ucita law)
---
---
Just from the wording of the law, it seems the recipient might indeed have the right to release the material. If somebody just gave you a CD, you would not have that right. You would own the CD, and you would have the right to do what you want with the material on it up to the limits of copyright and other law, but you would not be bound by any license with it (except maybe in states that passed the UCITA, et cetera). But 39 USC 3009 goes beyond that; it does say the recipient can use and dispose of the material "in any manner he sees fit." That's a powerful phrase. Maybe the recipient cannot actual place the material in the public domain, but I would argue they can at least make and distribute as many copies as they wish. What does the case law say?
But this is in response to a company trying to use a legal sledgehammer to crack a nut. Their software didn't run on Linux, so some bright spark cracked the crappy encryption algorithm and DC are now threatening all sorts of legal action against them. This is the kind of bull that the DMCA allows, thank god we don't have it here yet, but given that the UK is pretty much in the pocket of America, it won't be long.
---
---
hmmm... Could the electronics used in a CC be used to manufacture an explosive device ? If so - DC becomes Una-DC: "Hello, police - i received a package that contains PARTS FOR A BOMB" :)
Let the DC root in the same cell with Ted.K.
--
1% APY, No fees, Online Bank https://captl1.co/2uIErYq Don't let your $$$ sit in a no-interest acct.
I refuse to be a part of this nonsense.
----------
Stupid sexy Flanders.
When is Slashdot going to get a new icon for these stories?
Maybe a generic one for "Nasty companies we're trying to hound to death."
Hello? One-click patent, anybody? Companies do find crappy ways of ruining other businesses, and we do despise them. We are merely engaging in self-defense against a company doing unethical things.
Why is it always that "we" are right and "them companies" are wrong when it comes to finding smart ways to do business or break other people's businesses.
You're completely missing the point. The point is not to destroy Digital Convergance, the point is that their attempt to bind us in a legal contract (the EULA) in bold violation of postal regulation is reprehensible. Nor is this a 'clever' way of using the law; this is exactly what that postal regulation is trying to prevent: Mail fraud!
If they hadn't tried to screw people, maybe people wouldn't be upset. But it's not just illegal to send unsolicited gifts and then trying to tie conditions to use, it's unethical too, and that pisses us off. It's good to see a lack of complacency.
You can lead a dead horse to water, but you can't make a silk purse out of a pig in a poke. (With apologies to Bloom County)
Companies don't get "attacked" for producing neat toys, they get attacked in response to their response to the way Linux people respond. Linux users made the :CueCat usable under a new operating system, and screwed up the business model (probably without realizing it right away). Digital Convergence got upset and tried to stop them, and so they will get nothing but negative responses.
On the other hand, you have devices like the TiVo. People hack it all the time, adding hard drive space, etc. The people who make TiVo took a different approach, which basically allows you to do what you want with your TiVo for use in your home, with the understanding that any warrantee is null and void. I have heard very little negative response to TiVo, because the TiVo people did not have a negative response to the hackers.
The response of Linux fans may or may not be the right one, but the response isn't just to random companies that make neat stuff.
- W. Blaine Dowler
http://www.bureau42.com
that got me thinking. We need a gallery of dead *Cats! Email me photos or scans of your horrifically killed *Cat and I'll assemble the gallery.
By the way, I emailed the CEO of barpoint.com suggesting that they build some code into their site to unscramble *Cat's output. With no installed software, a user could use the free device easily with that service. No response yet.
Do you think these things will ever make it to the UK? I kind of feel that we're missing out on a lot of fun ;)
R Tape loading error, 0:1
They make great coasters. And interesting mobile components -- especially if you microwave 'em for a few seconds before you hang them up.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Step one: do your homework
Step two: know the law
Step three: if someone can "childishly" knock holes in your business model by pointing out that it's illegal, they will. This points out a flaw in your business model, which is your responsibility, no matter how "childish" you consider the ones who point it out or exploit it.
http://drteknikal.blogspot.com/
That's odd - I thought you had to explicitly ask for one of these - have they started sending them out to random addresses in the US (even though I can't find one in .uk for love nor money?)
--
-=DaveHowe=-
It seems to me that the real question is whether digital covergence can be held accountable for the actions of others even though they themselves are surely partly to blame. My point is that DC didn't send you the device. Wired & Forbes did. It's a fine line, but in court these kinds of lines can be very powerful, especially when the law hasn't caught up to the technology. The counterargument would of course be that DC obviously lobbied and won Wired & Forbes' support for this technology and got them to send it out free for them. Another fine line that may give support to the view that the cue:cat was unsolicited merchandise, but since no one has seemd to mention the first point I thought I'd bring it to your attention since it does give DC a possible leg to stand on if they were dumb enough to go after some hackers in court.
There are clear postal regs on mailings. This is because in the past companies would just mail products to people, along with a bill. They can't do that now, it has been made illegal. They can't require you to do anything with their product, it is a gift to you. Meaning you own it. And they can put NO restirictions on that ownership, including forcible eula's. Otherwise the unscrupulous companies of the past would send you stuff with an eula saying 'i will send company xxx $30'. No go. This is the best thing yet to turn up on DC. If they mailed these with these restrictions that they are not allowed to place, then they have violated the law. Let me say that again. They are criminals.
And any agreement clicked on by someone who received this in the mail is completely null and void.
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.
Now, think about this. You open your mail one day, and find a :CueCat reader. You decide you don't need it and throw it away.
2 months later you get a registered letter from DC saying that they've decided they want it back, and please return it immediately or face a lawsuit for violating the EULA...
I really wish companies would actually hire "Director of Logic" to overrule the lawyers sometimes.
Just a thought.
-steve
Why is it that "my" community is always there when it comes to ruining legitimate businesses? As soon as some company comes up with a neat device and accompanying businessmodel (I-Opener, Cuecat), there's a whole bunch of geeks that are ready to ruin the company by finding all kinds of little loopholes in some law.
I think as a businessman I have a good perspective on this. First, nobody is out to ruin the I-Opener people. Rather, they were offering a cheap piece of hardware that meant anyone with under $200 could have a decent Linux machine. It's a natural that some people would snap them up just for that purpose. Netpliance saw that their business model wasn't working quite well, and decided to change it dramatically.
The CueCat case, and Digital Convergence, is a lot different. They started giving out a piece of hardware that is also useful for purposes other than those which DC had intended. When people started using them in other ways, DC sent out phony "legal" letters claiming that they had to protect their Intellectual Property, etc. They harrassed people. Their own semi-literate CEO wrote a letter to Slashdot about it where he rambled on about protecting their IP.
It doesn't help their case that their business model is essentially about collecting & selling peoples' private information, even if it is with their permission. It also doesn't help their case that they've made many false claims (we're actually loaning you the device, etc.) that have absolutely no legal basis. This doesn't just apply to those who received one through the mail; I got mine at Radio Shack and it is mine free and clear. I have a receipt for a $0 purchase, and there was no agreement signed, nor did the salesman mention any further stipulations.
The point is that DC has to learn to play by the rules. If you give out a piece of hardware, some people will use it for other purposes. That's reality, that's perfectly legal. If it's going to cause them financial harm, then it's something that they should have thought about beforehand, and it should be clearly stated in their business plan.
I really doubt that the Linux users are going to make a dent of any kind in DC's revenue with their simple use of the device. Let's face it, if people aren't running Windows, DC couldn't have made money from them in the first place. There's nothing to lose.
but imagine Amazon finding some loophole in some law that enables them to ruin other people's businesses, would you agree with Amazon?
Amazon did find a loophole: dumb patent office personnel. And they did use it to harm B&N. You might want to come up with a better example.
Michael
Do you have ESP?
----------
Stupid sexy Flanders.
I think I had it the right way. The razor is the handle, and the razor blade is the thing that you have to replace frequently. Similarly, with the I-Openers, the razor was the actual unit, and the razor blade was their internet service.
--
Why can't I moderate something "Wrong" or at least "Grossly Misinformed"?
Either way, they've handed you a piece of hardware, and without a lease agreement that you actually inked a signature on, they've got zero legal recourse to people who use in ways they've not intended. If they had a leg to stand on, there would be no drivers available for any device that were not specifically authorized by the corporation that made the device. Interpreting the output of this device using homegrown software is completely legitimate, whether it was scrambled or not. There is no parallel here to putting a descrambler at the end of your cable tv line to obtain free access to premium content. This device has no output to speak of until it is used to scan a barcode. The analogy would be a video camera that scrambled content onto VHS tapes, theoretically requiring a descrambling VCR. But there is no way the makers of the camera can prevent you from building or buying a descrambling VCR or other device of your own.
Even if it is a law it is still not common sense behavior. All these intellectual property laws are not working at all as intended. They create black and grey markets and turn otherwise good citizens into people whose ethics are questioned. This is the same battle on so many fronts. When software can no longer be owned (it is only "on loan" or "licensed"), only thieves will own software.
I do not have a signature
"Our" community is in no way trying to ruin a company or hamper an innovative business model. A minor percentage of individuals with above average intellect and skills, testing those skills on new products, won't in any way cut into the profits of these companies. It is for that reason that, when they change EULA's to specifically target us, and threaten legal action, we fight back. It's the principalities of the matter!
Ok, my dumbass figured it out. I was using we in general terms. Not saying that i developed anything in linux. Using we in an sense to signify the oneness that becomes when a group of people works together. Not really trying to say that i was involved in OSC devel. Trying to say that when people work together big things can be done. Not meaning that OSC is involved in problems with DC, yet just using that as an example of people working together and getting it done. Sorry for the confusion, and yes i have tendancies towards the moronic
Unfortunatly this is what makes the EULA license "AKA shrinkwrap License" so dangerous. You don't have to see the license, the simple fact that you use the device/software/dvd means that you are agreeing to the license. This is why this is such a big deal. The CueCat is not that important as a device I've seen schematics to build a simple bar code scanner before. The point of all this is that our rights as consumers and citizens of this country are being stripped away by the Government and Mega-Corporations.
Read the Constitution sometime, learn what it means. Understand the context of the time it was written in. Pay close attention to the Bill of Rights and Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8. Heres one of My Favorite Court Quotes:
"It was never the object of those laws to grant a monopoly for every trifling de-vice, every shadow of a shade of an idea, which would naturally and spontaneously occur to any skilled mechanic or operator in the ordinary progress of manufacturers. Such an indiscriminate creation of exclusive privileges tends rather to obstruct than to stimulate invention. It creates a class of speculative schemers who make it their business to watch the advancing wave of improvement, and gather its foam in the form of patented monopolies, which enable them to lay a heavy tax upon the indus-try of the country, without contributing anything to the real advancement of the arts. It embarrasses the honest pursuit of business with fears and apprehensions of concealed liens and unknown liabilities to lawsuits and vexatious accountings for profits made in good faith."
This quote apply today more than ever with "One Click" shopping and CueCats... But when was it made? 1882 by Justice Bradley!
You not only have the Right to protect you liberty's you have an Obligation!
Mine wasn't packaged with the magazine. It came in a seperate box with only Wired logos and an ad for Delta-Air.com on the outside -- no indication of what it was.
As far as it being part of the magazine order, as stated in a previous post, there was nothing about it on the order form when I subscribed. Just 12 magazines and a free mousepad for ordering before some date. Therefore it was unsolicited, and is now mine to do with what I want.
Hey that sounds good - I want to make a radio of of those things, post links!
What do they mean by opening the software?
What looked like a CD box had no way of ever being
completely close and seemed to contain some kind
of frisbie. There is a mention on the sheet
that there is a CD that would automatically
start which seems illogical unless it'd be
an a bootable CD so it is assumed to be for
some foreign OS. For that reason the frisbie
ended up in the garbage can as any other
frisbies that we find with a new computer
(Win 98, Office, etc)
Nowhere did I see any license agreement until
I read something about cue-cat on slashdot.
As far as I am concerned I was given a free
toy at the local Radio Shack. I was told it
was free but my name was entered and was
given a receipt with a cost of $0.00. There was
no way for me to know at the time that I couldn't
use it. Even if I had been able to know that I
couldn't use it, it would violate some law as I
don't see how you can sell something and deny the
purchaser the right to use an item that he
purchased.
Why is it that the community is always trying to circumvent the business models of these businesses? Well let's look at the two examples you give, I-Openers and Cue:Cat Scanners.
:)
Both of these are what is becoming a disturbing trend in computer hardware: licencing agreements. They are saying that we aren't buying our hardware, we're "borrowing" it from them, and as such, can't do what we want with it. Even though it's sitting on the desk in front of you, you're not allowed to open it up and see how it works.
Imagine if this paridigm started being used with other hardware, cars perhaps. Would you want to sign an agreement when you buy your car that declares that will only get it repaired at the dealership? Or even worse, that you would not allow the hood to be opened to anyone who wasn't a Ford employed mechanic. People would be outraged.
Another example I thought of was that people would never accept software without the source code, otherwise how would they be able to change it. I guess that's not the best example
My point (and I do have one), is that companies are trying to apply the razor/razorblade loss leader business plan to computers. The problem is that computers are so damn versatile that people are finding really cool stuff to do with the razor, and aren't bothering to buy the razorblade.
This is a simple fact of reality, they need to learn to deal with it.
--
Why can't I moderate something "Wrong" or at least "Grossly Misinformed"?
Had DC not jumped on the folk who "reverse engineered" their product (I think it's been stated enough that what they're claiming as their IP is pretty silly) then the community wouldn't be jumping on them. Since they jumped on the tactical legal representations of their position, I think that it's perfectly fair for the community to respond in return.
:) ) but if you wake the beast, expect to get bit.
/.'ers are not malicious people as a whole (myself excluded!!
I would hardly refer to DC's business model as legitimate.
This is a company who distributes a product that tracks your product purchases. Their product sends out private information while pretending to be a harmless bar code scanner. Does everyone keep forgetting that 95% of the people using the devices are not going to be aware of this.
Mind you, this would not have escalated if they had not struck first. This would have most likely quietly passed by and with only a handful of people using a very cheap product for something other then it was intended. Instead... DC sited weak IP rights and boisterous claims concerning development. They shouted and raved to the community concerning a great infringement... they brought attention to themselves. Maybe they wanted people to see this great company and vision... but eyes have a funny way of straying and peering about. They have offended many of us.
Freedom is a precious commodity... one we have to fight for everyday. The more we give... the more that is taken from us... It may not be clear to some as to why so little is worth fighting for... but we must fight no matter how small the prize.
"You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
For anyone who received a C&D letter, this isn't legal nit-picking, its a legal defense.
If a friend gets a copy of the AOL modem software as an unsolisited bulk mail distribution, that friend has a perfectly valid reason to hand that same software to somebody else so they can install it on another computer.
:CueCat are going to be crammed down people's throats.
The point of this is NOT about copyright, because the software being used by the "hacker" community is licensed under the GPL. They have a license to distribute the software if they care to. Indeed copyright law freely permits people who have a license to distribute software to make as many copies as that license allows (which is unlimited with GPL). Digital Convergence has produced a product, and as long as you don't manufacture new identical copies of the hardware, then I can't see how you are in any way violating copyright.
The DCMA, on the other hand, has a very questionable principle that still has to be tested for constitutional validity that the mere act of reverse engineering something to see how it works is illegal. This is entirely the same principle that the deCSS software is going through the courts right now, and if the MPAA, DVD-CCA, and the DVD Fourm are allowed to set a precident, then products like the
For a lighter side of reverse engineering, look at The Red Green Show, which usually includes a segment on how Red Green (the name of the fictional host) hacks at a car or other household appliance (with a chain saw/hack saw/tin snips, ect.) to make a useful product out of it. The show has been on PBS for a number of years, but it appears as though CBS has picked it up for the fall (or for the folks in Canada, I think it is being broadcast by CBC.... I know that it is a Canadian import). It is too bad that the news media doesn't have this view of hackers instead of the 16 year old wannabe that breaks into the Pentagon computers and starts a nuclear war.
"and their [sic] stuck with their anologue phone that resembles a house brick."
Uh, we've had digital phones small enough to fit in a shirt pocket unobtrusively (i.e., 4 oz., 4" x 2" x 1" max dimensions) for a couple of years now.
"half the stations were stuck on AM when I was over in the US, "FM" was like a new fangled thing."
Uh, you're joking right? I've been listening to nothing but FM since 1970. When were you in the U.S., 1965?
AM is still broadcast largely for rural listeners. Once you get very far from an FM tower in a place with real mountains , the reception gets quite bad, whereas AM is still audible many miles away. Remember, the U.S. is an awful lot bigger than the UK.
I don't see this as a petty violation of the law. By using the CueCat and the software provided, your web purchases and inquiries can be tracked by Digital Convergence. Was this recipient informed of this possibility? This 'petty act' is nothing short of sending a spy into the recipients home.
There's no legitimacy in making a business out of trying to harass folks away from doing what is clearly their right--in this case, reverse-engineering a piece of hardware so that they can use it to their own ends.
If a business (small or large) attempted to squash, via impotent threats, some legal activity in which Amazon.com was engaged, I would expect Amazon.com to respond in like manner--that is, point out the impotence of the threat and continue the activity. If the business happened to be doing something illegal, then I would expect Amazon.com to point that out as well.
Also I hope that by "little loopholes in some law," you're not including the reverse-engineering and publishing of driver software. This right is far more than some loophole!
--When you buy proprietary software, you don't get better software. What you get is the right to complain about it.
I thought this reg was there to stop the practice of mailing out unordered products and then sending a bill?
I guess after reading his site I'm not clear on what he hopes to accomplish other than flooding the USPS with complaints and causing some inconvenience to the Postal Inspector's office. I don't see how this really helps with the open source reader issue?
There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.
Intel tried to sue the pants off some companies for selling varying 486 processor chips. Claimed trademark infringement. Judge rammed Intel a new one, declared that mere numbers are not legal for trademark protection. And a copyright on a serial number is completely unprescedented- except people who (on poor legal ground) claim they have "intellectual property" rights in a serial number to register shareware.
But when I get CD's, they *do* tell me what I can and can't do. Does that mean that I can ignore the license on the CD's I receive in the mail?
-Brent4: The terms of the contract requiring you to surrender your property rights to the barcode scanner without compensation could be construed as a "unconscionable" contract before the law, and hence be invalid.
Both the I-Opener and CueCat are examples of companies pushing "childish" business models that do not work.
Pointing out that a company is attempting to use coercive tactics to prevent you from doing something within your right is not, to my mind, "childish". Sending out quasi-cease and desist letters without legal merit, on the assumption that the recipients will cease engaging in legal conduct because they don't know better is clearly coercive. I don't know that anyone is specifically intending to hurt their flawed business model -- I just don't see that I need to play along with their games.
I intend to post the CueCat programs to my webpage shortly, and notify Digital Convergence of that fact. And I am a lawyer.
Steve
"All right, then." - Karl
Just as a small point here, you might want to double check the terms of your Wired or Forbes subscription, there may be a clause in there that allows them to sidestep this clause by treating your subscription as consent to send such promotional items. Me, I'm just amused by the whole thing because the Cat is usless for a iMac using GD like myself...
though it does seem like it SHOULD be "Unibomber". I thought he got the name because at first he was sending bombs to professors at universities, hence "uni-bomber". But I guess most people pronounce "university" with a "una" sound, so it was spelled that way.
The article points out that, as designed, the :CueCat is a solution in search of a problem, and DigitalConvergence.com (where the hell does the silly colon go in their name anyway?) must have an unbelievable burn rate at the moment. The latter factor could explain why the DC people are so anal about people fooling around with the Cats in "unauthorized" ways even though the number of people doing so is undoubtedly a tiny percentage of the people who actually have the devices...
Eric
--
Be who you are...and be it in style!
Here's their detail privacy advisory.
*By accepting my reply, you agree to moderate it to "Score:+5, Absolutely frickin' brilliant" and to "hook me up" with any daughters you have now or will have in the future. If you do not agree to these terms, you must immediately return this reply and still "hook me up" with any daughters you have now or will have in the future.
See the problem now?
You have your wish.
http://www.cuecat.com/getcat.html
Just for my two cents, it seems kind of lame to try and drive a company out of business whose prime sin is that, in their quest to give us all free gadgets, didn't do it on the terms we most desired. True, their response to the whole thing lacks some degree of class and may constitute a minor legal violation. Still, there are far more pressing issues. Woe to the soceity whose members waste their political and civic activism on CueCat and Napster.
Actually you don't need a magnent (really ferrite bar). An oatmeal cylindar box and wire will do.
Here are some links to some crystal radio pages:
http://www.freeweb.pdq.net/headst rong/foxhole.HTM The razorblade radio plans
http://www.midnightscience.com/
http://www.freeweb.pdq.net/headst rong/crystal.htm
http://www.thebest.net/wuggy/
http://home.earthlink.net/~drduggee/xt al.htm
This seems a fair question -- but let's look at who's doing the ruination here.
Clearly, the current utility of this device is marginal at best. The CC is *not* a terribly useful device in and of itself; its *only* uses to the customer, as usage would be allowed by DC, are: (a) to scan the half-dozen sweepstakes codes that come in the package; (b) to scan the codes in Wired and Forbes once a month; (c) to scan products for more neat-o advertising, like we don't get enough of that. The actual *value* to the customer is truly, truly marginal, no matter what the DC marketroids might have talked themselves into believing.
What does this mean? Well, it means that unless DC gets *unbelievable* penetration and is able to *fundamentally* change the usage patterns of a hundred million computer users, the CC will be useless 99.9% of the time. And a device that is generally useless on your desktop gets removed, right?
So the next logical step is to improve the overall utility of this device -- which is *exactly* what /. users have been doing. If some clever person writes, say, a GPL'd household inventory control application for the CC, the value of the CC suddenly goes through the roof, doesn't it?
DC has acted incredibly shortsightedly throughout this fiasco, and it isn't as though their failures are attributable solely to /., either. The installation procedure is horrible, horrible, horrible. The client software is horrible, horrible, horrible. And their tactics to scare the geek community have been, to date, pathetic, and belie fundamental misunderstandings about who they're dealing with.
DC had another path, you know. Remember when everyone first got the CC, how cool everyone thought it was? DC could have said, "yes! We're giving you a cool toy for nothing, do with it as you will, and in exchange, please let us market to you." It's been proven again and again that the *vast* majority of users DON'T CARE about handing over a little piece of their privacy if they get something of clear value in return! But instead they tried to be sneaky, and they got into a pissing contest with the smartest people on the internet, and what do you know, now they smell like piss.
And it's not as though DC is beyond saving, either. But they need to get a lot smarter, a lot faster, before they run out of money. Hey, America loves to give second chances to the truly penitent. We're suckers that way.
Actually, If I was DC, I _WOULD_ be scared of this. You DON'T mess with the USPS.
_ _
i sday/991017onthisday_big.html
Remember, everyone thinks that Al Capone went to jail for Tax evasion - He didn't he went to jail for MAILING the false return.
_______________________________________________
Did you bother to check your facts before posting this nonsense. Please give a reference. Try:
http://verify.nytimes.com/learning/general/onth
It is a link to the New York Times article after the conviction. It reads in part:
Two of the five counts are
misdemeanors, failure to file
income tax in 1924 and 1928,
each carrying possible
maximum sentence of one
year imprisonment and
$10,000 fine. The other
counts on which he was
found guilty are felonies and
each carries a maximum
penalty of five years'
imprisonment and $10,000
fine for "attempt to evade and
defeat" the income tax in
1925, 1926 and 1927.
It's amazing how fast misinformation can spread over the internet.
Even if it arrived with the magazine -- Unless it was conspicuously plastered with the 'Free gift included' messages (that I previously thought were PR bunk, and now know are legally required notices disguised as PR bunk). They would be in violation of postal law (you ordered a magazine, not a CD), and any request for payment would be similarly illegal.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
http://www. sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1083392/0000912057-00- 020438.txt
If common sense applied here, this is how I see the Cue-cat deal (in the mail, not Ratshack).
My sister asked for me to look after her dog recently while she went on vacation. Nice dog, but I took this dog into my house and looked after it, with the understanding that I would have to give it back. I had to be responsible for this animal. It was a favor, and I had the right to say no. With DC sending you this in the mail they are saying "here, take care of this thing for us. You're responsible for returning it eventually."
This company is asking for you to do them a favor (enter into a contract to take care of and return their private property) without asking you if you are willing to participate. If I was never given the chance to say "NO", why should I be obligated? DC is abandoning this equipment in my mailbox.
So, let's say my sister had been a further pain it the butt by saying "Checkers (her dog) likes to play the game fetch with a stick, and only with a stick. Not a frisbee. And she only eats Alpo." If my sister had said this, I'd tell her to find someone else to take care of her dog. I'm doing her a favor, so she can cut me some slack. Well, in the case of DC, I didn't ask for this responsibility, so I'll do what I damn well please. Don't like it, DC? Include some return postage.
The other aspect of this is the personal information being collected. Where does it tell me in the EULA that I can't use the Cue-cat to collect personal information about myself for myself? Why can't I use this thing to index my stuff and keep the info in MY DB instead of theirs?
I'm not an enemy of this company. I have no problem with someone trying to make a buck. But if I receive one of these in the mail without my consent, it's mine, and I bet the laws governing the US mail would take priority over DC's EULA.
"What would you do if you were a company and saw your product ruined by a couple of kiddies who obviously never had anything to do with running a business before? Sit there and watch your dollars go down the drain?"
I have a hard time seeing how this is different from any other free market/competitive response. Let's say there are three profit-making (in the legal sense) companies competing to sell a certain product category, and that there are no free/open-source type products in that market. Company A release a new version which is potentially "better" or more attractive than Company B or C's, but appears to violate some law or cause some long-term damange to the customer. You had better believe that Companys B and C will immediately counterattck on several fronts with both their sales forces ("oh, you didn't know that product A causes sterility after 6 months?") and through the legal/political/media system. In fact, Companys B and C would be in violation of their obligations to their shareholders if they did _not_ counterattack and their directors could be subject to shareholder lawsuits seeking damages.
Now, how is this different from the instant case?
sPh
Are you trolling or what? Of course the USPO was involved in the Unabomber case, you don't really think sending bombs is legal do you? And what if we do *lose* the ability to get the scanners? We already have them. It's too late for them now.
"Well kids, you tried your best, and you failed. The lesson is, never try."
"Our" community simply points out the obvious. CueCat, instead of building a business of eyeballs (redirects, ads, etc.) is building a data mine of "our" information, shopping habits, pages visited, etc. Digital Convergence is not running a legitimate business model. "Our" privacy must be respected. By building profiles of individuals, using unique equipment to link this data together, like the Processor ID of PIII's and the unique serial number of the cuecat, your privacy is invaded. As far as iOpener is concerned, they should have made their product available on two pricing tiers, one with a net access contract, and the other without. Because once something is mine, its mine and I can do whatever the hell I want with it. So don't blame "us" for "their" problems. "They" didn't have well thought-out business plans, and in the case of the DC, "their" business plan was downright shady.
How are they ruining the product? It still works, does it not?
Some people who were sent the scanner are choosing not to use it as DC intended. This was kinda to be expected.
The only harm being done to DC is the harm they are doing themselves by proclaiming their cluelessness.
Why is it that anyone with a hare-brained idea and idiotic business plan feels that they are due massive profits, just because It's On The Internet (TM);
>If you were sent a :CueCat as unsolicted merchandise through the US Mail
But are they really unsolicited? I've only seen where you go to the website and ask for one to be sent for a nominal S&H charge. I hadn't heard that they were mailing them out like AOL CD's. If that is what's happening, I just hadn't heard.
There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.
Whether or not you agree with the production of third-party software for decoding the CutCat barcodes, or with the installation of Linux on the I-Opener machines, or any of the other examples in this category, the fact of the matter is that any company that attempts to make money on services while distributing a "loss leader" to utilize those services is taking a risky gamble at best. Certainly, sometimes this gamble pays off, but in reality, I would wager that 90%+ of companies that try to do so either barely break even or fail miserably. DC has taken this gamble, and built a business model that not only requires that users utlize the barcode readers in conjunction with their software, but that they use them often, and that they actually feel that swiping barcodes that are linked in the DC database to particular websites is conveinent enough that they can build a demographic database that can be peddled to companies interested in such data.
Furthermore, no matter what the motivation of those who are filing complaints with the USPS against DC might be, it does not mitigate the fact that they are clearly in violation of the regulations. One would expect that a company that expects to "loan" such a device to end users while distributing them to those users by way of magazines via the USPS would certainly inverstigate to see if such a distribution was not in violation of regulations. Clearly, they either did not do the research, or either they don't care. In the first case, ignorance of the law does not clear the offending party of any guilt, although it might persuade those in the business of dispensing justice to "go easy" on the offending party. However, if DC is violating postal regulations despite knowledge of them, it's their own tough luck if they get slapped around in the legal system.
-------
Oh yeah the "community" has never trashed TiVo. What the fuck ever. Slashdot posts front page stories about TiVo invading your privacy with targeted advertising without even mentioning the fact that your viewing database never leaves *YOUR TiVo*!!!!! This is like, the cornerstone of the TiVo privacy policy.
We used to get pissed off only when companies tried to sell software. Now we get pissed off when they don't give us the hardware for free too! Wake up, people. Arent tech industry workers and geeks supposed to have the largest disposable income of any other demographic in the history of the world?
How come we seem to respect each other so well but often forget that companies like DC are full of our own? Think about what they are trying to do - integrate print and the web - I very much enjoy reading Wired now that it is full of barcodes. I can easily get more info than the printed page can hold. Sure they could just publish a long url that i'd have to type in, but scannning a barcode is soo much easier. I mean... a bunch of geeks started DC to do something cool. We've got all of these people finding all kinds of legal loopholes screaming IANAL the whole fucking time -- you think the geeks at DC are lawyers? But instead of giving them the benefit of the doubt and trying to HELP THEM FIX THE LEGAL PROBLEM as you undoubtadely would help someone writing a free software application, you just trash them, point your finger, sic the post office on them.
Guess what guys?
When you put DC out of business you will go back to paying minimum of about 100 bucks for a barcode scanner that will scan as well as the CC (cheaper ones will not even scan through the plastic of a CD case or on reflective surfaces like soda cans) and, oh yeah, you will no longer get nice barcodes on articles in magazines. Publishers will stop promoting/creating the "extra" content.
Sometimes it's good to support a good idea because it is a good idea; not because you're pissed off that you didn't think of it or that someone is trying to make money off of it.
~GoRK
There is also the question of supporting people who recieved the CueCat in the mail. A company supporting them is free to give them any information they want to. People who asked at Radio Shack (and may or may not be bound by any shrink-wrap agreement) are responsible for ensuring that they don't violate such an agreement. Holding a poster responsible for the subset of CueCat owners who might be bound by a contract is (hopefully) untennable. At most, you might responsible for putting a notice reminding anybody that might be held to a contract that they should pay attention to the contract that they 'signed'.
-- IANAL My sister is one, but she doesn't talk to me.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
so, if I connect a cuecat to my I-Opener (oh god, not THAT again!), and I run reverse-engineered code to make them both work together, am I in double-violation? or did they both cancel each other out?
--
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
I've been thinking a little about how the cuecat operates, and I think they might have a point.
...
:-)
You see, the whole justification behind "shrink-wrap" licenses is that a company managed to convince a judge that loading software into a computer counts as "making a copy", and therefore the user needs to be licensed to use software, as opposed to when she purchases a book, and can read the book without copying anything (except for making a chemical image on her retina, I suppose.)
I personally think that the "running software == copying" argument is nonsense, and is the cause of a lot of problems, but let's stipulate it for the sake of argument.
Back to the cuecat. The general consensus is that if you don't use the cuecat software, then the cuecat device is just a hardware device, and requires no licensing whatsoever.
However, I was just thinking
The reverse-engineering efforts have determined that there is an EEPROM inside the cuecat that contains the serial number of the cuecat. Without that serial number, DC has no way of knowing exactly who is scanning with what cuecat. Their demographic information would be ruined if that serial number was disabled.
It has also been determined that every time the cuecat is powered up, the microcontroller reads the contents of the EEPROM, the serial number, into its own memory.
So the question is, does this count as a copying operation?
If so, then the only way for an individual to use the cuecat in full compliance with the copyright laws would be to make the hardware modification, cutting the wire between the EEPROM and the microcontroller. This way, no information would be transferred from the EEPROM storage media into the processor, and no license would be required, because no copying would be done.
Of course, this would totally destroy DC's business plan, but all we want to do is fully comply with copyright law, and this may be the only way to do it!
Any opinions?
- John
The point is, the license agreement doesn't matter.
You didn't ask for it; they can't attach any 'terms' to something you received unsolicited and for free.
You open the mail, something is in it. They cannot 'require' you to agree to terms with it. Especially 'license agreements'.
Why? This is the same, if you think about it, as companies that used to mail you 'merchanidse' and then if oyu didn't return it, they send you a bill. This is illegal now. This is the same thing.
I mean, it's fine.. but if they try to prosecute it, they are in trouble.
IIRC the /. collective gave a pretty big neat when the entire concept of the free barcode reader was posted here not too long ago. We supported them becuase we thought what they did was neat, now all of a sudden they turn around, start changing things on us (meaning EVERYONE who has a cuecat, not just /.ers). We gave them props for their idea and thought it was good, then they made modifications to the idea and we didn't like the changes, no one ever said we had to.
Right. This doesn't simply mean checking a box that says 'we can send you stuff'.
This means you didn't ask them to send you a cuecat.
If you DID ask them to send you a cuecat, you could perhaps be held to certain terms.
If you didn't, they are out of luck.
Er, so if PepsiCo mails me a letter with their logo on it, do I get free reign on use of their trademarks? If I'm mailed a description of the molecular structure of Prozac, can I form a company to sell it? Legally, logical use might be different from physical use. (Rather, it's almost certainly a legal grey area; computers are where logical use and physical use converge.)
-------
"Whatever happened to fair use?"
-- Duff-Man
John
The Church of the SubGenius -- because somebody had to put all that slack in there...
John
>want to sign an agreement when you buy your car that declares that will only get it repaired
>at the dealership? Or even worse, that you would not allow the hood to be opened to
>anyone who wasn't a Ford employed mechanic. People would be outraged.
Why imagine? It's called a lease. Pretty popular thing.
>My point (and I do have one), is that companies are trying to apply the razor/razorblade loss
>leader business plan to computers. The problem is that computers are so damn versatile
>that people are finding really cool stuff to do with the razor, and aren't bothering to buy
>the razorblade.
The razor is the expensive product you need to constantantly replace. i.e. the Jaz cartridge. The razor blade is the product being sold below market price just to get you to buy razor blades. i.e. the Jaz drive. i.e. You have it backwards.
I didn't find the post so much interesting as a very clever troll maybe.
If you disagree then it must be overrated, redundant or trolling.
Yeah, the author of the original story has a point. Digital Convergence is in violation of postal codes. That they didn't research this out is yet more proof that the company is made up of blithering idiots.
However, I doubt the sincerity of the motives. Aw, mean old Digital Convergence got mad when someone bypassed their lame software, discovered how easy it is to write a driver, and DC decided to fight back.
And now people are trying to annoy them out of existence.
Really, what's next? Are we going to see people going dumpster-diving outside their offices looking for some obscure tax-law violation that exactly three tax-law-savvy lawyers are aware of? Come on.
>If they hadn't tried to screw people, maybe
>people wouldn't be upset.
It's not like they fired the first shot.
>But it's not just illegal to send unsolicited
>gifts and then trying to tie conditions to use,
>it's unethical too, and that pisses us off. It's
>good to see a lack of complacency.
Here's a question: did anyone go to Digital Convergence beforehand, *before* notifying the authorities? That's what pisses me off. No warning. Just go straight to the authorities. They may not have even been aware that they were in violation.
Okay, here's the score so far: a community of people have completely bypassed their controls over their product, and, in response to their fighting back, said community is going to be digging into postal regulations, law books, etc. to do *anything* to "get back" because they "pissed us off." Mature, man, real mature. It's like the regulations wars people have in subdivisions: neighbor looks at you funny, call the building inspector. Neighbor sics inspector on you. You sick inspector back on them. Before you know it, both of you are broke because you've had to spend dough on getting "up to code".
I'm gonna go puke now.
Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
Sounds like the whole "new economy" business model! Just swap "marketing push" for "fraud scheme" and "dot com" for "con artist," and you've got a tasty little nugget.
a lly-annoy jargon for the new world... dot con artist.
Uh-oh... I see another bit of witty-the-first-time-you-hear-it-but-then-gets-re
-Mad Dreamer
I agree. Also, is what happened here an actual violation of the law in question? My CueCat's literature made it pretty obvious that this was a free gift. Digital Convergence is making no effort to collect any payment of any kind for the thing. Neither are they limiting its use in particular. Nothing that came with my device said I had to return it if I didn't agree to the EULA o even that I couldn't write software for it. No one has told me, thus far, what I can and cannot do with the the actual physical device. As far as I can tell, what they send people does constitute as a free gift.
People may not like the license that comes with the software, but any 'free' software you're given, including gnu stuff, comes with a license restricting your actions.
As for the "cease and desist" orders, those are a different issue. They have nothing to do with restrictions based on the contents of the box they send you. As far as I can tell, DC has not been trying to stop the use of the software, just its distribution. The very fact that they make a developer's license available indicates that they consider the use of 3rd party software on their device an acceptable possibility. Yes, they are trying to run a fairly rediculous closed standard of a device that is easy to figure out. Dumb, but not illegal.
The Privacy Foundation statement which was mentioned in yesterday's CNet story is now online.
An AC wrote:
> I don't have the time to be bothered with petty
> 'law'. If it becomes useless to me I'll
> uninstall the software and dump the reader in
> the trash. Or maybe I'll just keep it and use it
> for something else later... What's the problem?
The problem is that DC is trying to claim that the thing is still their property. Theirs to sue you for vandalism if you have trashed the device when they recall it. Theirs to write you a cease and desist letter if you do something with it they don't like. In the mean time, your personal information and private property is theirs to make money off of by selling demographic info to the highest bidder.
Your only protection from all of this: a certain "petty law" and the people who "waste" their time fighting for it.
K, thanks, didn't hear about that one. Sure that makes a world of difference ( ----> me going to the mailbox in anticipation as I am a wired subscriber)
There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.
That IS what is happening. People who subscribe to certain magazines [such as Wired] were sent the :CueCat without any solicitation.
So anybody in that boat is perfectly within their legal rights to consider it a gift, and nothing in the EULA can change that.
-[Blaine]- "'Oh dear,' says God, 'I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic."
It is about information, this company's primary sin is attempting to harvest information off of the unwary. Afterwards, they probably intend to utilize the data for marketing/resarch. Thier second offense is attempting to circumvent the united staes postal regulations by saying that something they sent to me without my asking is not mine to do with as I wish ( I received mine from a wired subscription ). The craziest thing about this I have seen is, on the local news here in Dallas, (WFAA to be exact) this was covered as a news story. This WAS NOT an objective piece. It compared the cue cat to competing devices, and made no mention of the information gathering done by the device. In general, the effect was the same as a fawning infomercial, it was billed as the next big thing that would change computing too. It really was either bought or inept, considering the source, it could have been either.
_this is not a signature_
I don't want them to change their ways. I love getting free crap from them and hearing them complain because they were too ignorant to figure it out before hand!
That said, Digital Convergence didn't find any "little loopholes" in any law. What happened is that Digital Convergence reacted to the initial hacking of their device with vague, legal-sounding threats. The /. community responded the same way hackers have always responded to any legal sounding threat: mirrors, freedom rants, and of course, more code.
For their part, I've heard NOTHING more from Digital Convergence since the "Victory over Evil Hackers" speech. I suspect this speech was made strictly for the investors' benefit. I think they tired of our hacker rants long before we did.
So, is Digital Convergence evil? No, they're trying to make a buck. Are they being ethical about it? They're not very up-front with their data collection intentions. (They are never mentioned in the paper documentation that comes with the CueCat, nor in the Radio Shack advertising or signage. It's certainly the darker side of ethics as we define them here on Slashdot.) But evil? They're just a corporation, driven solely by profit.
You are absolutely right. The "cease-and-desist" letters were a knee-jerk first reaction, and very poorly thought out. I think they were sent based on their misunderstanding of the various intellectual property laws. But we on Slashdot are being way too harsh on them by calling for lawsuits, filing frivolous fraud complaints, predicting the demise of the company, etc. We do ourselves a disservice by making ourselves into the pitchfork-waving-mob. We should let this drop, ignore the threats, and get back to coding Linux drivers for CueCats.
In this case, the legalistic letters prompted the mob reaction. Hopefully, the next company with a cheap hardware model will keep these lessons in mind before angering the peasants again.
John
The Church of the SubGenius -- because somebody had to put all that slack in there...
John
1) Mailing of unordered merchandise ... constitutes an unfair method of competition and an unfair trade practice in violation of section 45(a)(1) of title 15.
and 2) that communications prohibited by subsection (c) [in other words, communicating to you that you owe money for this unordered merchandise] is also an unfair method of competition and an unfair trade practice etc.
DC has violated subsection (a)'s first part, but not the second part, and apparently not subsection (c).
Now, is that clear as mud, or what?
---
---
Politics is about making compromises. Religion isn't. --Michael Horton
Not to mention that their "this is a loan, you must only use it with our software" is a violation of section (b).
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Yes, I checked - Most of his prison time was on Mail fraud - Call the post office (a good froend is a postal inspector)
-- 73 de KG2V For the Children - RKBA! "You are what you do when it counts" - the Masso
Whoops... forgot to mnention this:
Section (b) DOES apply. It states that merchandise mailed in violation of (a) or within the exceptions contained therein is a gift (emphasis mine).
So they are in violation of (b), regardless.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
So if DC wanted to recall them, how exactly would they go about it? Knock on everyone's door and ask for their :CueCat?
I never installed their software, so the only way they would know where I was, is if they ask Rat Shack (You've got questions, get in line, so do we) for it.
Let's face it, they're not ever going to get those things back (at least not in one piece).
The day Microsoft creates a product that doesn't suck, it will be known as the Microsoft Vaccuum Cleaner!
Let me note that you signed a rental agreement and also paid rental fees for phones in those days. It was an upfront deal and AT&T had the right to tell you to leave their equipment alone. The vertical integration of services and equipment was part of the deal that got them broken up.
However.... The Cue:Cat simply is not the same thing at all. They were handed out for free and sent through the mail, THEN D:C decided to change the game. They haven't been honest or forthright and may well have broken the law in the process. We should not feel any more sorry for them that we did when AT&T got nailed--especially since D:C is so clearly the ametuer hour when it comes to this scheme.
In space, no one can hear you moo.
Why is it that "my" community is always there when it comes to ruining legitimate businesses? Whether a business is "legitimate" or not has nothing to do with legalities; it has to do with whether they do things in a way I like or not. I do not consider myself to be primarily a consumer, which is how businesses view me. I consider myself to be a human being and a citizen entitled to the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If a company wants my business, they won't attempt to misuse privacy information, they won't build browser-incompatible web sites, they won't run sweatshops, and they won't try to screw me or other individuals out of individual rights. If they do stuff I don't like, I don't expect to ever give them a nickel of my business and do not consider them "legitimate."
Woah, really? HECK! I'll go buy one today if I could someone hook it up to a LAN.
MarNuke
Is a cease and desist order or other lawyerly harassent considered dunning communications (per section (c))?
--
Pretend there is some witty statement here.
If you give something away as a loss leader and the open source community finds uses other than it was originally intended for, shut your trap because you'll only create more trouble for yourself than you had before.
http://www.livejournal.com/users/cixel
The form requires the address of digital Convergence, which can easily be found on their web page -- however if you're lazy it's here too:
9101 N Central Expy.
6th Floor
Dallas, TX 75231-5914
further it asks what this is pertaining to -- one of them is "Harassment (goods ordered without consent)" while this sounds right, this pertains to being charged for a product you didn't order instead of receiving a misleading product.
I believe what you would want to enter in the form is "Misrepresentation of Product / Service"
The problem is this - they sent you the cd and the scanner. End of control for them. By law it is a gift. They CANNOT tell you what to do with this. They CANNOT make you agree to an eula. The scanner and software are now yours to do with as you wish - AS REQUIRED BY LAW FOR UNSOLICITED MAILINGS. Of course DC doesn't give a fuck about that. They don't give a fuck about your rights. The package is required to have "attached to it a clear and conspicuous statement informing the recipient that he may treat the merchandise as a gift to him and has the right to retain, use, discard, or dispose of it in any manner he sees fit without any obligation whatsoever to the sender." Instead it comes with an eula saying you can't reverse engineer it. That is illegal, and people need to stand up when companies try to take not just your moral rights, but your specifically enummerated legal rights.
Also the company is engaged in criminal behavior. As pointed out "This package was in violation of Title 39, Sec. 3009 of the United States Code and constitutes an unfair method of competition and an unfair trade practice in violation of section 45(a)(1) of title 15". So the primary sin of this company is that they are breaking the law. Not copyright infringement by an individual. Breaking actual laws. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, and I knew of this law, if they didn't they were just lazy and deserve to get bit on the ass. I don't know if the postal service will do anything, but i think the ftc would be interested too.
Thanks, that makes sense. I hadn't realized people were getting these in the mail without asking for them first. My only experience with this was looking at their website where they send you one 'free' for a S&H charge or you could drop into RadioShack and pick one up. Hey! I'm subscriberd to Wired, have to check the mailbox today to see if I have one yet.
There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.
The real problem for Digital Convergence is not that people are hacking their cheapo device. It's that people are drawing attention to the fact that their business model is stupid. Most of the Internet startups who tried to buy market share but didn't have a product people really wanted are now dead. Remember FreePC?
Now I really don't have any vested interest in seeing DC crushed, but I'm not going to sacrifice my rights to preserve their flawed business. IF they can find consumers who want to use the device on their terms, fine. Best wishes, good luck, and all that. If they can't do so, or someone else makes better gas/food/software, then like many companies, they'll fail due to their own error. This is a competitive economy and consumers have rights. If DC thinks they can push a product out the door and legally require that no one do a better job, they'd better pick up their marbles and go home.
Because they're a bunch of clueless gits?
Why doesn't slashdot layoff of DC a little bit and let them go about their thing (making money, yes someone is actually trying to make money here).
In order for them to do that from the ones that got bundled in Forbes and Wired!, they'll be in violation of US Postal Code. The can not attach strings to a free (as in beer) gift! They can't force you to use their service, nor can they force you to use their software!
DC should quit while they're still ahead, before the attract they attention of the USPS Inspector General's office, and/or the FTC.
James
I wish I'd receive a CueCat in the mail without having to go all the way to Radio Shack and ask for one. In order for his complaint to have any meaning, that's what must have happened. He doesn't state anywhere that he never asked for one (though perhaps it is implied?)
You're right. I'm sure people would be quite "outraged" if Ford started giving cars away with the condition that they could only be serviced by a Ford employed mechanic.
Yes yes, that argument wouldn't hold up in court. Copyright law says that the copyright holder has an exclusive right to reproduce his/her work. 39 USC sec 3009 says the recipient can use it however they want. Is copying included under "use"? Neither code specifies exactly, so I'd expect the issue to be decided in some court case, but I can't find any such cases. (I didn't look very hard)
I would think that even if the recipient could make millions of copies and distribute them, that the people you gave it to wouldn't be able to copy the software. Unless, maybe, if they were also sent via postal mail.
I'm pretty sure copyright law would have precedence though.
--
The Una in Unabomber stands for University and Airport. Or maybe Airline. Something to do with airplanes.
--
dman123 forever!
--
dman123 forever!
Filtering out the -1s and 0s since 1999.
One of the problems with being a Brit (well apart from us all having poor Dental Care and speaking like Dick Van Dyke in Mary Poppins, Guv'nor.) is that we never get to see half of these cool things over here.
Hell, we've only just started to get WebTV style boxes in the shops now. And don't even get me started about BT.
So, if anyone wants to send their used CueCats to good old Airstrip One, I'm sure we can find plenty of good homes for them! And it'll help drive Digital Con. off the face of the planet too!
Of course there would be a positive side to this too; Insightful stories would get a light bulb; Funny stories would get a foot (even if they weren't classified as humor); etc.
You could also sort by article moderation, exclude redundant articles, and get emails notifying you of good articles.
Anyone familiar with Slashcode want to write such a module and pitch it to the powers that be?
sullu
sulli
RTFJ.
I'd fire my business manager and probably my legal officer, because they obviously failed to do their jobs if a bunch of kids can undermine the business. The point is not whether the law is right or wrong, or whether the geeks are right or wrong. If the business is constructed so that it cannot survive in the real world, because the company itself overlooked the legal implications of its business plan, there is no one to blame but the business and its managers. They should not have launched a vulnerable business plan.
There are plenty of companies that recognize this. The RIAA member companies know it so well, they went out an got new laws passed so their business model itself would be the law of the land. DC did not have this kind of foresight, and it's your call whether that makes then good guys, bad guys, or just naive.
Edith Keeler Must Die
Disclaimer: This is not meant to be adversarial, I just think these are issues that need to be thought about.
An interesting question to consider is this: suppose they sent a book without your asking for it. Do you have a right to read the book via Title 39, Sec. 3009 where it says ...the recipient, who shall have the right to retain, use, discard, or dispose of it in any manner he sees fit without any obligation whatsoever to the sender. (emphasis is mine).
If you have the right to read it, do you have the right to think about it? Do you have the right to write a review? Do you have the right to be inspired by it and write your own book using the same alphabet and perhaps even some of the same phrases?
If you have any of those rights, how is software different? In both cases the protection is via copyright (although I think there is an argument for saying that any copyright the sender may have had was voided by the act of sending via the USPS regulation - do notice that the sender may not have had any copyright rights to being with).
Suppose I put a notice of an EULA on the copyright page at the front of the book (that nearly no one ever reads) and the EULA itself in an appendix in the back of the book saying that if you read any of the book, then you agree to certain terms. Where does that leave us?
-- OpenSourcerers
The difference is that neither SI, nor the phone manufacturer sent out threatening legalease letters telling people that they can not add 2nd line capability (or other mods), nor use it as a "beige box" (lineman's handset), nor did they tell anybody that their phone communications through the device must be monitored and circumvention of monitoring will be prosecuted.
Nope, nobody did any of the above to anybody getting an SI phone.
However, DC has already done this to several people that have CueCats.
That would be the difference.
Visit DC2600
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
Wrong. My subscription expired over 3 months ago and they still sent me one. I have no contractual or subscription agreement with either magazine, haven't for over 3 months, and yet, I still was sent one.
LetterJ
The Glass is Too Big: My Take on Things
Mine came in its own box, not with a magazine.
No indication of what it was on the outside of the box either.
--Remove chicken to e-mail
Can someone explain why this doesn't apply to all those coasters AOL has been mailing out for years and years now?
It's not that any community is out to ruin anyone else, it's just an emergent property of connecting the whole word with a sufficiently powerful communication medium. You've got all these smart, curious people out there. For any thing that is out, there available to be had by the masses, some of them are going to tinker with it, diassemble it, and put it to unanticipated uses. Thanks to the Internet, they can help each other figure out how something works and what other neat things can be done with it. Just as "given enough eyes all bugs are shallow," given the whole world, somebody is going to figure out how your device works and tell others.
It's just a fact of life in the Internet age that, sadly, some businesses fail to take into account. Whining about the fate of companies with flawed business models and those same companies trying to get everyone to stop tinkering will be about as effective as shouting at the wind.
CVS is teh suck. Use Vesta instead.
Actually, If I was DC, I _WOULD_ be scared of this. You DON'T mess with the USPS.
Remember, everyone thinks that Al Capone went to jail for Tax evasion - He didn't he went to jail for MAILING the false return.
The Post office doesn't screw around. This is why it's a BAD idea to vandalize someones mailbox.
BTW The Postal Inspectors are REAL law officers, carry guns (Up to and including MP5s - those are sub-machine guns for those that don't know)
-- 73 de KG2V For the Children - RKBA! "You are what you do when it counts" - the Masso
Got a box in the mail that says WIRED all over it. I thought to myself, "Hmm, what's this? I didn't order anything from Wired. Must be a promo." There were no EULA notices on the outside of the box. Inside the box were several items:
1) CD with CueCat software (I guess)
2) CueCat scanner
3) cable
4) user's guide
5) Delta Airlines promo card
The only place the EULA was at all mentioned was on the CD jacket, which clearly says, "opening this software constitutes acceptance of our License terms contained herein. Copies can also be found at www.digitalconvergence.com/ula.html. Hard copies can be mailed to you by contacting... blah blah blah".
I didn't see a copy of the EULA anywhere in the package, and since I wasn't interested in the software anyway, I didn't open it. Since I didn't open the software, according to what's written on the package, I am not bound by their EULA.
Even if I was, I don't think an EULA could override the postal code in this instance - for example, if the EULA was on the outside of the CueCat box, or even just notice that "opening this box constitutes agreement to be bound by our license" (Which it definitely does NOT say). Even in that instance, I would argue that the postal code transfers ownership of the physical device to me, and their license cannot apply to items they no longer own.
include $sig;
1;
EULAs/contracts are generally okay, but when they try override federal law, then I get worried.
--
(Score:-1, Redundant)
That would kill the whole reason why copyright is necessary. Example: budding author writes some seriously primo shit, War and Peace kind of good. Author sends it to a publisher for review. Because of copyright laws overriding this postal reg, the author can do this knowing that if the publisher decides not to pick up the book, the author can just toss the rejection slip into his RS pile and send a copy of the book to another publisher. Without copyright laws having precedence, the author would have to hire a legal team to hash out a contract with the publishers legal team in order for the publisher to just view the book, as the publisher, in your scenario, could just take an unsolicited submission, print 50,000,000 copies and distribute it worldwide without the author ever seeing a dime. So while I know Jack Shit about the law, I'm pretty sure that trying to bullshit around copyright laws using the aforementioned postal code would die a flaming death in a court of law (OK, I hope it would; things have become fucked up enough for me to have serious doubts).
Deo
Why is it that "my" community is always there when it comes to ruining legitimate businesses? As soon as some company comes up with a neat device and accompanying businessmodel (I-Opener, Cuecat), there's a whole bunch of geeks that are ready to ruin the company by finding all kinds of little loopholes in some law.
Sorry wrong answer, try again. A customer has absolutly no responsibility to support a companies business model. If they have a good business model then they make money if they have a poor one then they go out of business.
If anything it's these businesses who are seeking "loopholes" (as well as getting dodgy laws passed) to attempt to force customers to support their business model. If they were smart they'd be able to come up with a business model which didn't require law bending to be viable.
If these businesses really cannot hack capitalism then maybe instead they should move to Cuba or North Korea.
You're completely missing the point. The point is not to destroy Digital Convergance, the point is that their attempt to bind us in a legal contract (the EULA) in bold violation of postal regulation is reprehensible. Nor is this a 'clever' way of using the law; this is exactly what that postal regulation is trying to prevent: Mail fraud!
."
Indeed in bold violation of the basic contract of a contract too. The USPS takes the sensible position that no contract can possibly exist in respect of the supply of unsolicited goods, thus they are considered "gifts".
Otherwise party A could send party B a piece of paper saying "By opening the envelope containing this paper you agree to pay
Why is it that the community is always trying to circumvent the business models of these businesses? Well let's look at the two examples you give, I-Openers and Cue:Cat Scanners.
Circumventing is the wrong term, since the customer has no obligation to support the business model in the first place.
Both of these are what is becoming a disturbing trend in computer hardware: licencing agreements. They are saying that we aren't buying our hardware, we're "borrowing" it from them, and as such, can't do what we want with it.
Also in both these cases they have attempted to apply such conditions retrospectivly
Imagine if this paridigm started being used with other hardware, cars perhaps. Would you want to sign an agreement when you buy your car that declares that will only get it repaired at the dealership? Or even worse, that you would not allow the hood to be opened to anyone who wasn't a Ford employed mechanic.
The difference here is that more people understand the problems this kind of thing would cause with cars than who understand exactly the same issues which are showing up with computers...
The section is about unsollicited packages. Therefore it only applies if you guys didn't in any way invite Radio Shack or DC to mail the thing to you. This may be the case, I don't know, I'm not a merkin, but I find it hard to believe they'd mail the thing to each and every US citizen/household. Or do they?
Stefan.
It takes a lot of brains to enjoy satire, humor and wit-
The truth shall make you fret. (Ankh-Morpork tImes motto)
If their business model depends on selling the hardware at a loss, why should we feel sorry for them if it fails?
Especially if this is all there is to their business model. Other types of businesses, e.g. supermarkets, who use loss leader type of pricing only do this for a tiny proportion of their product lines. So even if they do something stupid, like giving out more loyalty points/cash back/etc than the value of a product their business will not fall over when someone walks in and buys their entire stock.
How about sending some down under. Send me a ::C:U::E::CA::T: I hope I got those ':'s right to:
PO Box 740
Christchurch
NEW ZEALAND
Thanks.
BTW, I am also collecting foreign currency for a school project. Any foreign notes (ie non NZ$) can be sent to the above address.
You make the mistake of thinking you can educate the fundamental stupidity out of people. You can't.
I will use this opportunity to plug the CueCat mirror list, to which your mirror should be added if you are concerned about the right to reverse engineer.
http://www.logorrhea.com/cuecat/mirror s.html
I eat dog. Free DVDs. Horray!
More like
FREE* pOffer;
GOTCHA* pYerScrewed = reinterpret_cast (pOffer);
A pointer to FREE can always be NULL...
--- Jump!! Fire!! Bullet time!! - Lego version of the Matrix
A while back the US Post Office was running public service ads to inform people "If you didn't order it but they sent it to you anyway, it's yours free."
.0009% (maybe) will actually try to get the company in legal trouble. If we can /. that last number up in a significant number of cases, we may change the cost/risk ratio for these companies and get them to change their ways.
If DC sent me a scanner, I would take it as a gift, to do with as I please.
This guy's idea seems like a workable solution: many companies pull stuff like this knowing that 90% of the sheeple will pay, 9% will complain to the company but take no other action, and
But then again, probably not.
www.eFax.com are spammers
You're on Slashdot,so there can be no point.Here's a synopsis: 1:company makes cool free loss-leader to make shopping easier 2:"hackers"find a way to use it in an unintended way 3:company doesn't want to see it being used for everything but shopping 4:company asks hackers to stop 5:Slashdot pisses and moans 6:It's a slow news day so Slashdot posts dubious legal stuff to get attention 7:You had enough common sense to be annoyed but yet,bored enough to post to the thread
Great minds think alike,but,fools seldom differ.
An interesting question to consider is this: suppose they sent a book without your asking for it. Do you have a right to read the book via Title 39, Sec. 3009 where it says ...the recipient, who shall have the right to retain, use, discard, or dispose of it in any manner he sees fit without any obligation whatsoever to the sender. (emphasis is
mine)
Remember also that books often come with an EULA which would, if applied as written, forbid reading aloud or remembering any part of the text.
If it doesn't have the lawyer fine print in the ads saying it's a FREE CUE CAT, has anyone who got theirs from RS contacted the FTC or looked at their website for the false advertising info?
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
>Haven't people got better things to do than file spurious complaints about extremely minor possible violations of the law?
Yeah, haven't people got better things to do than attempt to law-slap when someone helps their product be more useful for the low low price of free?
An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
Unfortunately, I have transferred my CueCat license and hardware to my local Waste Disposal Service Provider. In case of recall, you may contact their corporate headquarters at: Allied Waste Industries 15880 N. Greenway-Hayden Loop Suite 100 Scottsdale, Arizona 85260 Sincerely, Chris Owens San Carlos, CA
Why is it that "my" community is always there when it comes to ruining legitimate businesses? As soon as some company comes up with a neat device and accompanying businessmodel (I-Opener, Cuecat), there's a whole bunch of geeks that are ready to ruin the company by finding all kinds of little loopholes in some law.
Why is "your" (and "my") community ruining their businesses? Remember, it wasn't the community that decided to give away the products for free (CueCat) or sell it at a loss (I-Opener). If their business model depends on selling the hardware at a loss, why should we feel sorry for them if it fails? A business isn't entitled to success. If the model is flawed, whose fault it that? The busiensses.
I'm not trying to ruin DC's business. If they're giving away a cheap (and crappy) barcode scanner to anyone, why shouldn't I take one?
What would you do if you were a company and saw your product ruined by a couple of kiddies who obviously never had anything to do with running a business before? Sit there and watch your dollars go down the drain?
I'm not going to say that I wouldn't be mad; that would be a lie. I would be pretty mad. However, if my business model was flawed, its my fault, not the fault of those who took advantage of my stupidity.
I'm not saying you are doing the wrong thing, after all, there's this subarticle in some subsection of some USPO law that says you're in your right, but imagine Amazon finding some loophole in some law that enables them to ruin other people's businesses, would you agree with Amazon? Or would you despise this company?
Again, I'm not going to say I wouldn't be mad at Amazon; I'm sure I would be. The law should definately be changed. The FTC might have some say in the matter though.
Why is it always that "we" are right and "them companies" are wrong when it comes to finding smart ways to do business or break other people's businesses.
Businesses fail. That's the nature of the game. They use "loss leaders" all the time to get consumers into their stores or to use their service. But if the business takes too much of a loss, who should be blamed? The business.
Seems like DC might be stealing something from MS: The (not so coveted) position as the #1 company that /. loves to hate.
For a while, it seemed like Amazon might be that company, until Bezos became conciliatory on the issue of software patents.
For now, however, MS continues to reign supreme both on the desktop and the /. hate list.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
You're wrong. DC needs to be pushed to the wall on this. They are clearly in violation of the law. Their behavior is far more like the behavior of a con artist than a legitimate business. They need to be treated like a con artist. The major struggle of the late 20th and early 21st century is going to be over intellectual property, privacy, and individual rights. The Cue Cat embodies all three of these. First, they give you something that you did not necessarily ask for. This becomes your property. They then start telling you what you can and cannot do with this free item. This is infringing on your personal liberty. Whether or not you were given this item, or paid for it, or requested it personally from the CEO, once it is in your hands you possess it and it is yours. Barring any agreement that you have KNOWINGLY entered into, you are free to do what you wish with it. The EULA, as many have demonstrated, does not qualify as an agreement of any sort, since reading it or agreeing to it is not necessary as a precursor to using the Cue Cat. So now they're reaching into your life, and your privacy, to attempt to prevent you from using your property in whatever fashion you see fit. Finally, they're threatening you with Intellectual Property laws that do not apply. You (the figurative you, that is) did not recieve any intellectual property with the Cue Cat. The EULA that came with the software that was thrown into the trash bin does not count. The new EULA published on-line most certainly does not count. The hardware is what's at issue. Yet DC uses the language of law to reach out and threaten people on the basis that they are infringing on IP rights. At the same time they are quashing your rights to do with your intellectual property (the code you write ) as you please. This is your First Amendment. Say goodbye to it. It is a part of the personal enjoyment of people like me to take apart electronic devices and figure out how they work. It is our right to do so with the cue cat. It is our right to write software which interfaces with the cue cat, which we have been given for free, with no legally binding contractual stipulations. DC saw fit to push people who did so up against the wall and threaten them. They as a corporation, in the environment we've encouraged to exist in the US, believed that they had a right to do whatever was necessary to protect their business plan. Whether they were legally or morally entitled to was not a question. Whether their rights were more important than their consumers' rights was not a question. It was simply the standard corporate reaction to a threat to their profits. More and more these threats are percieved as a threat to their "right" to make money. The fact that a rather large number of people have been brainwashed and sheepified into thinking that this is OK is probably the clearest indicator that this kind of corporate ham-fisted bullying must stop. Digital Convergence are a very small foe comparted to the MPAA and RIAA, but in this arena every time we give in, and allow something like this to pass, we give permission. If we do not stand up and defend our rights, we don't stand much of a chance of keeping them, do we? If DC is not ridiculed out of business or faced with actual legal action, they may well come back next year with some bought legislation to enforce their 'right' to tell people what to do with their own property in their own homes. You might have to answer to hordes of lawyers every time you turn on your TV or open a book. You might end up 'signing' all kinds of back-stabbing agreements as you brush past a magazine rack, without even knowing it. So Digital Convergence needs to be stomped. Hard. In the face. They need to feel actual legal and financial pain. They need to be made a public example of. Other companies need to see this as a wake-up call. One's business model does not have precedence over the rights of one's consumers. If we don't, we will probably see this all over again next year. And once the gate has been cracked on our rights we may find it to be a hell of a task to push it shut again. There's a whole wave of con artists out there in line behind Digital Convergence, waiting to pounce as soon as the right to privacy and personal liberty is revoked.
Nope. Using the software is covered under copyright law. The EULA is unenforcable (unless you're in a state that passed the UCITA).
If I send you a CD, you're free to boot it up, play with it, sell it, etc. It's basically like first-sale, it's yours now, do with it as you like.
You can't break existing laws with it, like sharpen it and kill someone, or burn multiple copies, because murder and copyright laws cover those actions, but you can use it or sell it.
Not so... I gave RS(radio shack) my real address (dumb i know they've been sending me junk mail) and i know my dad did to (parents divorced) and nobody sent either of us a CueCat. I think they assume that if you are on thier mailing list then you will come into RS at some point and pick one up. Either that or RS has a policy aginst selling thier mailing list.
The same applies to the CC device sent through Forbes. He now has a free CC device, a CD that may or may not contain software, and crappy wrapping that he now owns. All as a gift from either DC, Forbes, or Wired, however you see fit.
At this point, there's nothing infringing about the problem.
*NOW*, if DC started to C&D this guy, or otherwise threating with their psuedo-IP arguement, then it becomes a question if DC is considering that their gift, or not. At which point I'd put letters in to the USPO.
At it stands, the case for non-DC CC 'drivers' is strengthened by the mail issue, and if we have to fight this, distribution by mail needs to remain open, not closed as this article suggests.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
Ummm. I think you need to recheck your logic train here...
Recieving a book in the mail (solicited or not) gives me the right to do anything with it I like except reproduce its contents in print/readable form without permission of the copyright holders. I may burn it, read it sliently, read it aloud (even in public if I don't charge for it; Remember story-hour at your local library?), grind it up and use it as cat-box filler, anything.
Recieving or not recieving, or the possession/lack thereof of a DVD has no bearing whatsoever on the dissemination of DeCSS. That will end up a constitutional law issue. I can have zero DVD's and (currently) have no right to disseminate DeCSS, or I can own a million legit DVDs and still have no "right" to do so.
As to cracking DC "encryption", that, AFAICS, would not apply because the data encrypted is not _created_ by the CC, merely read from another source. If the transcription of the bar-code and subsequent encryption of it by CC renders that data DC's Innaleckshual Propertee, then I'm going to go out, grab a copy of Windows2k, transcribe-and-encrypt it myself (probably rot _fourteen_, just to make it difficult *G*) and start selling my new IP at CD-production-cost-plus-mailing-cost-plus $5. I'll be rich. I'll call it "WIN2K Enterpreneurial Suite".
Now, if DC want's to claim that the encryption algorithm _itself_ is the IP, well, I think that there's probably considerable prior art, so patenting is out of the question. Copyright? Be serious. That only leaves Trade Secret, and that's already been discussed to death elsewhere.
At this stage, I'd say (just off the top of my head, you understand) DC is out in the cold. The USPS regs look like they put the final nail in the coffin as far as just who owns the widget once they email it to me unsolicited. Me to DC: "Mine! Piss off!"
Now, as to DC's _actual_ IP: The software they send with the gadget. So far, the only part of that they've lost is the "encryption" algorithm discussed above. And the loss came through legitimate means (specifically, reverse engineering of a Trade Secret). No other part of their IP has been recreated. Unless they want to try and patent "shopping by bar-code scanner". I think they'd have considerable difficulty there, considering the sheer number of big department stores that use bc scanners to help folks in bridal registries. That's a similar enough application that there could be considerable trouble getting such a patent.
These folks really need to re-examine what's up, and be prepared to cut losses and bail out.
Note to Venture Capitalists: From DC's little saga, I'd think several times before investing in any subsequent businasses that these clowns attempt (once DC tanks, as seems inevitable at this point).
Surely, under these regulations, if you receive unsolicited software through the post then your right to "use" it includes running it. As for an EULA, would the regulations not make this null and void? So that if the EULA attempts to restrict rights you would have in the absence of the EULA, then you retain these rights.
At a guess such regulations would not void copyright, but they would void any EULA. Thus you'd have a software CD with usage rights analagous to a music CD or a book.
Would this also apply to unsolicited software sent through the mail? Say for instance.... free AOL software? My free AOL coaster happens to have Internet Explorer and some other stuff on it. Would anybody be interested in a copy of IE that was exempt from the EULA? As I understand it, in the absence of a license agreement, only copyright law will apply.
Ha ha, someone wasted a mod point!
"You point your finger at the moon, the fool stares at your finger."
Mine wasn't packaged with the magazine. It came in a seperate box with only Wired logos and an ad for Delta-Air.com on the outside -- no indication of what it was.
Oh. Well. Um, then Nevermind.
I wonder if this could lead to tiny writing on magazine subscription cards - "By subscribing you are agreeing to follow all license agreements that come attached to anything we may mail you"
Giving away the cuecat may help the company giving it away, but it certainly does not help (and might even be considered unfair competition by) the companies who sell barcode readers.
The section of code is in reference to merchandise not copyright. So, you may give say, a CD away that you recieve, but you may not copy the software on the CD and distribute it independantly of the "merchandise", in this case a CD.
Bite the hand.
People were in fact sent unsolicited packages in the US. Subscribers to Wired and Fortune magazines were sent CueCat's and they did not order the merchandise.
dmp
Stop talking about who's to blame when all that counts is how to change --"Born of Frustration" - James
All subscribers of "Wired" magazine and "Forbes" received Cuecats. I got one at work with my Wired subscription, and never asked them for anything.
A close reading of the law seems to indicate that DC is not in violation of the law, just a victim of it.
... the mailing of unordered merchandise or of communications prohibited by subsection (c) of this section constitutes an unfair method of competition and an unfair trade practice in violation of section 45(a)(1) of title 15.
(a)
He argues that this subsection identifies DC's mailing of the packages (which actually may really be Wired's or Forbes's mailing), to be an unfair trade practice, etc.
But what is subsection c?
(c) No mailer of any merchandise mailed in violation of subsection (a) of this section, or within the exceptions contained therein, shall mail to any recipient of such merchandise a bill for such merchandise or any dunning communications.
(BTW, Dunning: To make consistent demands for payment. m-w.com)
Has DC sent anyone a bill for their CueCat? Have they made consistet demands for payment? I haven't heard of such a thing.
In this case they have not violated the law, and complaints to the postal service will be ignored.
That does not mean, however, that they are not subject to subsection b:
b) Any merchandise mailed in violation of subsection (a) of this section, or within the exceptions contained therein, may be treated as a gift by the recipient, who shall have the right to retain, use, discard, or dispose of it in any manner he sees fit without any obligation whatsoever to the sender.
In other words, it's yours, but they didn't break any law. Save your fingerpads on this one.
I don't need large brains to have a good time.
The Uni-Bomber sent packages that weren't marked free or anything on the front. At least I highly doubt it...
What's the purpose of harrassing DC?
Ya know, you might loose the ability to get the scanners. Have DC start selling them for slightly below cost ( $5.00 for an electronic toy isn't ridiculous ).
There's a gorilla from Manilla whose a fella that stinks of vanilla and has salmonella.
> you think the geeks at DC are lawyers?
Hell no, but the people in charge are.
> HELP THEM FIX THE LEGAL PROBLEM
Oh, I am. When we're successful and they're out of business or paying reparation to those they threatened for performing completely legal actions, then that'll fix the legal problem. The legal problem is THEM.
I'm sick and tired of bullying. When I was in school I watched a bunch of kids getting picked on, so I beat the crap out of the bully. He threatened to kill me and I reported him to the teachers, he got kicked out of school and sent to juvie.
I'm trying to do the same thing to DC. They pick on people, I'm trying to return the hurt to them, more than they dished out.
Bullies don't care if you ask them to stop, they want to get something and don't care who they hurt. You can't use polite societal rules to fight a sociopath. If DC is threatening people, we have the threaten the only thing DC holds dear, their bottom line.
My way to do this is send in tons of false scans (and record it how it happens to prove it later). When they try to sell their demographic info I can release the info and make it worthless... Doesn't take a lot of scripts running 24/7 to flood the actual data.
We've got to figure out the TV/PC code! Do you know how useful that would be. You could program your computer to mute commercials when it received the cuecat code, or press pause on your VCR.
Just think of the possibilities!
This applies to the cue-cats that were sent out to magazine subscribers, but what about the ones handed out at radio shack? I've seen ads claiming they'll give you one "free", without any indication that DC is just loaning it to you. I just spent a few minutes poking around their website, and it's the same thing. "Pick up your FREE :CueCat today...", "Get one FREE today..." and so on. Now IANAL, but this sounds like false advertising to me.
Why is it always that "we" are right and "them companies" are wrong when it comes to finding smart ways to do business or break other people's businesses.
The free marketplace is a jungle. Businesses should expect that consumers will act to maximize their utility. Businesses have a right to expect that consumers won't do illegal things. Consumers have a right to expect that Businesses won't similarly violate the law. Other than that business models that expect that consumers are too stupid to maximize their utility are broken as designed and deserve no special respect.
DC has appeared to give away a device when they've actually tried to retain ownership and control of the item. The text implementing this is buried on an EULA which is possibly not a legal contract with at least some people who have acquired the device. I'd like to see them prove that I've agreed to any contract.
Netpliance also sold devices and attempted to retroactively apply a user agreement that required purchasing their service. On one hand, they wanted to make it easy for people to buy the device (hey just plunk down your credit card and don't bother with any silly contracts) but they also wanted to hold people to contractual requirements. When this is done in other areas of commerce, it's often called fraud.
Virginconnect had a similar scheme and a similarly hackable product, but that haven't had the same problems as Netpliance becuase all of the terms of the agreement are spelled out at the beginning. You have to agree to them before you get your device. You are free to pay the cancellation fees and keep your device and use it as a doorstop if you want. They treated their customers with respect. (Now they may have GPL problems, but that's a different issue.)
Just because someone has a business model, Economics in gerneral or any economy in specific does not guarantee them a profit. Relying on the stupidity of the consumer is a particularly bad way to design a business plan.
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
How are 'we' ruining DC?
By refusing to use their CueCat scanners the way they'd prefer?
I could throw it in the garbage (within my rights, even they would admit) and they'd get to scans from me.
I could write (leaving asside questions of *my* programming ability, I mean the generic *me*) a driver that actually displays the information from the barcode. This I could use locally only, or to look-up items on any company, Amazon, B&N, or even DC, if they make a decent interface, etc.
So, if I use it my own way, they have a potential of getting scans, but likely don't.
How does my doing this affect what everyone else does?
If their service is so bad as to turn off users, or to make them look for new software, that's their fault.
What they should be afraid of is Amazon.com writing cueCat software that does a better lookup, for free, without DC's specific privacy invasion. Amazon would easily make their investment back just from the orders they'd get.
And it'd be perfectly legal, after all, the EULA for the DC software says 'if you don't agree, don't use it...' Well, they might get their wish, people wouldn't use their crippled, invasive software.
And it'd all be fair, free markets mean free choice. It's not like by giving us a cheap barcode scanner that DC could claim the ongoing right to any barcode scans we ever made.
Wow.
I mean really, Wow.
All I can say is that if I were Digital Convergence, I'd be shaking in my boots. This guy really has 'em by the short hairs, I tell you what.
</sarcasm>
But really, folks. Anybody remember all the clever little form threats you could send off to spammers, the FBI, CIA, and your grandmother about how spam was illegal by some particular subsection of this particular code that stated that you can't spam a fax machine, so send me my $500 now or I'll sue you?
Yeah. This is exactly that. Only for CueCats that you didn't order.
This isn't news for nerds or stuff that matters. This is harebrained legal manuvering for the sake of being a pain in the ass. Funny how this level of legal nit-picking on the part of some big, mean corporation usually brings forth nasty boos and hisses from the /. Collective...
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
It gets better -- I actually opened the CD (yeah, so I'm "breaking the law" now using it on my Linux box. Fsck 'em.) and found no file entitled anything resembling license.txt (opened it on a Mac). So if your OS can't read the CD, there is no license.
:-)
And I ran the whole thing by a lawyer I know anyway -- the "we own your 'Cat" is bullshit.
/Anonymous Coward
/
Anyone figured out how to reprogram the serial number in a Cue cat yet from the outside?
I figured this would be possible since the EEPROMs come blank from the supplier and programming a surface mount EEPROM would be a pain, then the Cuecat hardware must be capable of having a unique serial number programed into it through its cable avter manufacture. Perhaps during the testing process? The only question is, what's the sequence, voltages, etc. required?
I am not certain that it is true that you cannot distribute copies.
The postal regulation says that you can do anything you like with what you receive. That sounds to me like the sender is relinquishing all rights to the sent item.
If the sender is the copyright holder, then you could argue that among the rights relinquished is the copyright. If the sender is not the copyright holder, then the copyright is not relinquished any more than I can give away your car without your consent.
-- OpenSourcerers
I believe that a corporation which gives a serial-numbered tracking device free out to citizens as a "productivity tool", buries the little detail of "by the way, we're keeping your every move in a central database" in a lengthy legal contract, and then attempts to make gobs of cash off of the information gleaned thereby is immoral. However, I also believe in the rule of law, their freedom to do as they please within that law, and the capitalist system. It just happens to also be my right to see how the law works in my favor. And every bit of information that I can use against them I will gladly use. They may find that to be immoral from their point of view, but I'm only concerned that it's legal; then we're on even terms.
I am not usually an activist about such things, but this one seems to have crossed a line. Fortunately, these folks seem pretty technically and legally clueless, and I wish them a short ride to the business plan cemetery. So here's a plain-english recap for those who think that this issue is less than relevant:
DC launched the CueCat by giving them away free in exchange for registration information at Radio Shacks nationwide, AND by mailing them out to subscribers of Wired and Forbes magazines.
By giving away free hardware, DC immediately raises the antennae of privacy activists, who sniff the air for the scent of money and find, as expected, that their business model operates on collecting and collating demographic information on private citizens. Since the CueCat is a scanner that can scan coupons, UPC codes, book ISBNs and more, they can obviously gather a huge amount of info on shopping habits. This is all confirmed by DC's own corporate materials.
The ones that are sent through the mail (mine arrived sporting Wired colors) arrive in non-shrinkwrapped boxes containing a CueCat, a cable, a non-shrinkwrapped CD, and an instruction sheet. None of these have ANY legal contract on them. The legalese is all in the software CD (which I can't install 'cause it's Windows only and I'm only running mac and linux).
Meanwhile, hackers all over the place immediately take the little things apart and find out how they work. They're found to be super simple, without anything that can really be called encryption, just a base 64 conversion of some sort. Since the bar codes themselves are public domain, reverse-engineering happens quickly. Linux drivers are posted all over the net in no time flat.
More disturbingly, those who hack the little things discover a Serial Number encoded in each device, which gets transmitted as part of the datastream back to DC's servers. Privacy activists raise more antennae.
More linux drivers with serial-number-cleaning routines are posted, as are instructions on how to defeat the SN scheme by snipping a wire.
DC's lawyers send out Cease and Desist letters to the purveyors of the new code, on the grounds that the code is messing with their business model (boo-hoo), that it's tampering with their intellectual property (what, the public domain barcodes?) and their contract (which I, like many other, never even got a chance to see 'cause I couldn't even begin to boot their software). They also claim in the contract that they own the CueCat and are "loaning" it to me.
Now this story tells us that the contract might be irrelevant to those who received the CueCat in the mail because unsolicited gifts arriving in the mail belong to you no matter what. This is not an insignificant point, people! This is establishing the legal grounds that folks like you and me have the right to use this free gift however we want, and that right includes writing new software for it and promoting that software as an alternative to the intended use.
If it screws with DC's ability to make a profit, all the better, IMHO. But the bigger issue is not allowing corporations with lots of money to dictate what you can or can't do where privacy matters and freedoms are concerned.
"Luck is the residue of design" --Branch Rickey
This is just another example of what we can do when we work together. First we build one of the best operating systems in the world. Then we dont allow companies to push us around for no reason at all. In a way, yes, this is getting old, but we must all come together to fight this thing through. Only together we can defeat the beast that is digital convergence.
Under traditional copyright law, the copyright and the work-embodied-in-a-medium are seperate entities.
Thus, they sent you a copy of the work to do with as you wish, but they did not send you the copyright (a metaphysical property). They still retain that.
I don't need large brains to have a good time.
I went to my local Radio Shack to get another Cue Cat yesterday and, when I got home, was very careful about opening the package.
:C.R.Q. software CD folder. Unopened, only the CueCat device and the UPC paper is visable from the outside.
The CueCat comes in a shrinkwrapped plastic bag. Inside is the CueCat device, a poster-like illustrated set-up guide, a piece of paper with the Radio Shack-used UPC on it, and the
I opended the package and removed the contents. One the bottom back of the CD folder, in little type and not viewable from the outside of the package, reads "Opening this software constitutes acceptance of our License terms contained herein. Copies can also be found at www.digitalconvergence.com/ula.html. Hard copies can be mailed to you by contacting Digital Convergence.:Com in writing at this address: Attn: Licensee deaprtment, 9101 North Central Expressway, Suite 600, Dalas, Texas, 75231".
IANAL, but I read this one of the following ways:
1. Only the software, not the hardware is licensed. The hardware is mine. I did not remove the CD from the envelope, therefore the license does not apply to me.
2. Opening the shrinkwrapping is condidered to be accepting the license. The license applies to the hardware and software, but you only become aware of the license after you open the package. Therefore, you couldn't have known the terms of the license and couldn't have made an informed decision and the license is invalid.
3. Opening the software is removing the CD. However, since the license is on the CD and you must open the software and run it to read the license, you can't read the license until you aparently agree to it. The license is therefore invalid.
The license either doesn't apply to the hardware or the license is invalid. Any way you cut it, the hardware is yours.
There's how much I've cared about the CueCat nonsense. When I read the title, I followed the link because I thought I was going to read about how the PO had regulations against household convenience items becoming wired or otherwise digitally-capable. Nope, it's the CueCat ... again.
This suggestion moves the role of "hacker-activist" in the direction of self-parody. I mean, come on! You want us to start a campaign of complaints about an unlabeled package that allegedly violates some dubious postal regulation!? Am I the only one who can imagine this as a skit on Saturday Night Live...?
What'd happen? It'd be like AT & T back in the 70s. You didn't buy your phone, you rented it from Ma Bell. In fact if memory serves correctly, it was actually illegal to hook a non-AT & T device to the line or service an AT & T phone. By "service" that included opening up the phone.
I have a very vivid memory of this from when I was a kid. Me and a kid accross the street got curious and unscrewed a phone which had become defective. We didn't damage it in any way, we just removed the outer casing and a few simple parts, so that reassembly would have been obvious to anybody (even an adult). Well, his mom found out about it and soundly scolded us, much more than if we had taken apart a radio. Why? Because tampering with phones was illegal! It seemed strange to me. After all, taking apart radios and TVs was not illegal. People unscrewed tubes from TVs all the time. But, that's the way it was.
Now, this may have seemed strange, but I don't recall feeling particularly oppressed by the phone company. At this point, we could digress into the fact that the Telco was a monopoly at that time, and indeed, disolving it *did* open up a lot of things. Also, I think that some of the cool telephone products we have now are a direct result of the fact that you no longer have to rent your phone. So yes, hardware licenses do oppress people, and we should be opposed to them, but it's a mild form of oppression, or at least it was from my point of view.
I'd be more interested in hearing if any adults from that era were actually prosecuted for working on AT & T equipment without a license. If they were, and they got anything more than a small fine and a blot on their record, then this was indeed very oppressive.
So, maybe we should look at this in terms of AT & T, and pass a low a requiring that all communication services (not just AT & T) should allow you to use 3rd party equipment to access the service, so long as said 3rd party equipment functions properly and does not cause harm to the network or service.
That would mean that you would also have to allow 3rd parties to sell cable boxes (not descramblers mind you, that would still be illegal). Hmmmm... my cable box is owned by the cable company. I don't feel particularly oppressed by the cable company. OTOH, I bet that if we opened up this market, some innovative 3rd party might come up with a cable box that didn't weigh 10 pounds and throw out heat like a blast furnace. You might be able to get them in some other color than brown too.
OK, IANAL, etc... how would this work?
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
At that point, you get to use it, reverse engineer, etc. for free. When they send the lawyer letter, for reverse engineering it, then include a copy of the USPS complaint along with your response to their lawyers.
Do their lawyers get paid by the cease and desist letter?
Disclaimer: IANAL, you cannot sue for the pain caused by reading this. If you read this, you agree to send me all your property and money.
Fight Spammers!
This isn't a defense against an EULA. Picture the example where a gas station had a large changeable sign (where the letters can be moved) and it said "Item X, free with fill-up - pay with your gas-card and take one."
...", would that mean the contract the gas station had offered changed?
This is valid, they're making an offer and you accept by taking an Item X when you fill-up.
Now, if *you* changed the sign to read "Two Item Xs
What if you had a friend do it for you? Nope. You still know that the modified contract isn't what the gas station is offering, so you can't just take an Item X, even if the sign now offers them for free...
The bright side of this is that EULAs in the form of a click-through or shrink-wrap licenses aren't valid at all, so you can click 'I Agree' and not actually have entered into a contract.
The basic rundown is that you have to know about a contract to be ableto accept it, and you have to get something out of it (called Consideration.)
If they display the license (either in click-through or inside the shrink-wrap) *after* you buy the product, or they give it to you as a gift, you can't be said to have known about the contract (and not just that there is one, you can't agree to a contract you've never seen.) so you can't agree to it.
Also, further invalidating them, is the fact that after they've given you the software or you've bought it, they're trying to offer you the ability to use it as the consideration for the contract, but you've already be granted that right by the gift/sale so they have nothing else to give. No consideration = no contract. (Like me trying to get you to sign a contract where I offer you the right to use your car... hello?)
You do click 'I agree' but that's not binding because you're being coerced. That's *your* program there, free to use, and they're keeping you out until you click a button. You *have to* click that button to use it. For the EULA to be binding (in ANY case) it'd have to say 'I Agree' 'I don't agree, cancel' and 'I don't agree, install anyway'...
Basically, extortion is when you try to demand something (usually money) for letting someone do something they have the right to do anyways. That's what they're doing when they don't let you use your program without giving them agreement...
Luckily, extortion is illegal.
Click-through and shrink-wrap licenses are illegal and you could actually sue over them (and likely win) if you had the money for the lawyers.
In some places the UCITA makes these licenses legal but it won't last, it goes against centuries of contract law. And it makes really stunningly illegal things legal. (The right to retroactively change a contract without notice, etc...)
So let me rephrase the question like this: if Joe sends Mary an unsolicited Linux CD, this means Mary must no longer comply with the GPL?
Well, I have to rephrase the question, because, as asked, Mary does not have to comply with the GPL. Nobody has to comply with any contract they have not agreed to. Of course, Mary also would not receive the rights granted under the license.
I suspect what you meant was whether Mary would have the right to make and distribute copies of the CD without adhering to the GPL. If the CD were just sent to Mary in some way, I would say no, except as provided by fair use and such. But if the CD were mailed to Mary without her request, I would say that, yes, she could make a reasonable argument that she can copy the CD and distribute copies because of what 39 USC 3009 says.
Look , I agree that this is mostly fuss about very little, but as a point of language -- notice is not solicitation. If you tell me ahead of time that you plan to hit me in the face, that is NOT the same thing as if I asked you to hit me in the face (Although the wife always tells me, "Well, you asked for that!")
This next song is very sad. Please clap along. -- Robin Zander
Hell, have it change channels! The ultimate in couch potatoism. You don't even need a remote to skip commercials! You could set up a cue(!) as well. Perhaps you'd like to see that cool commercial with the chainsaw slasher that everyone's talking about, but don't want to spend all evening attached to the tv? Set up your pc and vcr and let it record when it gets the Nike tones.
Eewww, the bad side is I doubt that the political folks will catch on so they won't have the tones and then we'd get programming+politicoBS+programming+politicoBS... that would be tough to watch.
Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgement.
- W. Wriston, former Citibank CEO
So how about this?
Some slashdotter out there who runs your own company, burn a few cd's with the DeCSS software on it and mail it unsolicited to a bunch of Linux developers. Wouldn't that mean that the receipients are not bound by any legal agreement?
At the least, it should make for some interesting legal arguments.... 8-)
(P.S. I'm joking, please, no huge legal explanations of why this doesn't work... 8-) )
-Todd
- "When you want something with all your heart, the entire universe conspires to give it to you" -Paulo Coelho
Possibly because this forum is sympathetic to free software and/or limited protection of IP. There are a few general positions taken in this forum:
1. Radical: All software should be free. IP sucks.
2. Legal traditionalist: The copyright law is OK as it used to be. Attempts by corporations to extend their copyright through lobbying (DMCA, etc.) and shrink-wrap licenses suck. If I buy a copy of a piece of software, I OWN a copy under the usual provisions of copyright law unless I've explicitly agreed to a contract before purchase which says otherwise. I'll continue to exercise my fair use rights despite the EULA.
3. The corporate line: The copyright law needs to be changed to support control of use as well as copying. Fair use is a threat to economic growth in information industries and to the development of new business models. The DMCA and Shrinkwrap licenses need strong support under the law to promote the health of the industry.
That's probably a bit biased: I detest the arguments of camp 3 and I think they should be squashed like bugs whenever the law makes it possible---especially when you consider their lobying clout; if we don't use the law against them now, we won't have a law to use against them later. And I don't think camp 1's position is achievable or entirely desirable. I'll leave it to the proponents of these positions to give a better defense.
The vast majority of Slashdot readers seem to fall in camps 1 and 2. Most seem to fall in 2, though general arguments against IP are not rare. The proponents of position 1 will generally support the arguments of position 2 under the belief that "it's the best we can get."
This is a case of a company suggesting that they might enforce a license for an unsolicited product. Is it a big surprise that a crowd that's generally hostile to extension of licenses beyond explicitly negotiated contracts is pissed off by this? It seems like a consistent position to me. And finding out what laws there are against this strikes me as defending their turf in a way that is traditionally supported by law for good reason and might not be supported in the future. There's a sense of urgency here.
Amazon has gotten a lot of flak for their patents, so I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. Seems like a consistent stance to me.
Interesting. Does this i.e. http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/39/3009.text.ht ml mean that any
unsolicited software samples or other copyrighted material are therefore
fair game to be re-released by the recipient as public domain material,
since "the recipient... shall have the right to retain, use, discard, or
dispose of it in any manner he sees fit without any obligation
whatsoever to the sender"?
DC isn't in violation unless they have sent you a bill for the CueCat you received....
t ml
This is a mirror of the copy of Title 39, Sec. 3009 , taken from Glenn Powers' site:
Title 39, Sec. 3009 of the United States Code Quoted from http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/39/3009.text.h
(a) Except for (1) free samples clearly and conspicuously marked as such, and (2) merchandise mailed by a charitable organization soliciting contributions, the mailing of unordered merchandise or of communications prohibited by subsection (c) of this section constitutes an unfair method of competition and an unfair trade practice in violation of section 45(a)(1) of title 15.
(b) Any merchandise mailed in violation of subsection (a) of this section, or within the exceptions contained therein, may be treated as a gift by the recipient, who shall have the right to retain, use, discard, or dispose of it in any manner he sees fit without any obligation whatsoever to the sender. All such merchandise shall have attached to it a clear and conspicuous statement informing the recipient that he may treat the merchandise as a gift to him and has the right to retain, use, discard, or dispose of it in any manner he sees fit without any obligation whatsoever to the sender.
(c) No mailer of any merchandise mailed in violation of subsection (a) of this section, or within the exceptions contained therein, shall mail to any recipient of such merchandise a bill for such merchandise or any dunning communications.
(d) For the purposes of this section, ''unordered merchandise'' means merchandise mailed without the prior expressed request or consent of the recipient.
What this says is that DC is not allowed to send you a BILL for any merchandise they give you that you didn't ask for. THAT would be a violation of section 45(a)(1) of title 15 as an unfair method of competition.
What they CAN do is mail you anything they want, and IF THEY DO, this section clearly states that YOU have NO OBLIGATION to pay them for it. You can keep it, use it as a door stop, as fuel for your fireplace, whatever. But they aren't in violation of anything unless they send you a bill. The fact that it isn't marked with a "clear and conspicuous statement informing the recipient that he may treat the merchandise as a gift to him and has the right to retain, use, discard, or dispose of it in any manner he sees fit without any obligation whatsoever to the sender" is a moot point, because section (b) ONLY applies if they are in violation of section (a), and they are not.
You subscribed to Forbes/Wired, didn't you? The Cuecat came with the magazine as part of the subscription. Game over.
Or are you going to complain to the post office about the AOL CDs they put in there, too?
Can you say, 'nothing better to do with your time'?
You do not understand do you? At least a few companies should get the Darwin award and go titsup.com as a lesson to the others. Comsumers have rights too...
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
Obviously (at least it seems obvious to me) DigitalConvergence is using Radio Shack's customer database - you know, when you're at the checkout at radio shack and they ask you for your address... I never gave them my real one... now I kind of wish I had! I might've gotten a cuecat in the mail!
Anyways - does giving away your address while paying for a purchase count as "requesting" or soliciting in any manner?
I'm sorry, but you are incorrect. Digital Convergence's own press release states, "Digital:Convergence Deploys Millions of :CueCat Devices and :CRQ Software Free to American Consumers." Just because Wired/Forbes/Delta sponsored the mailing really doesn't matter, Digital:Convergence is responsible for distributing them.
If you are sick of this story, then don't read the story or post comments about it.
dmp
Stop talking about who's to blame when all that counts is how to change --"Born of Frustration" - James
Anyone here started hacking into the Cue:Cat units? They really are some neat little devices. We're (the other hackers in the dorm and I) going to the metalshop on Monday and doing a litttle desoldering. I'm considering turning the one that our library recieved (w/subscription to Wired) into a barcode scannner for borrowing books. Save the school a couple of bucks. Get the computer dept. into an outrage over messing with their shit. I love being a hacker.
The Original Celebrated Curiously Strong GHOST (mentha lemures)
- w
Jake
Dating: while( 1 ){ call_girl(); get_rejected(); drink_40(); } return 0;
Inside was the scanner, a CD, documentation, and a "TV/PC Convergence Cable" which apparently listens to your TV's audio output for special encodings and sends them to your sound card, where the software does whatever, such as perhaps taking you to a Coke web site during a Coke commercial, for example.
There was also a pamphlet from Wired and Delta saying that they were bringing me the latest in web technology, and "as an added incentive to start using this amazing new technology, we've created the FAT CAT WEB HUNT," which is a sweepstakes where you enter by swiping the bar codes of advertisers in the next several issues of Wired. Full details are here, as well as the usual alternate way to enter, which is "legibly hand-print on a 3"x5" card the names of all advertisers displaying the Digital Convergence Internet Enhanced Cue barcode in either the October 2000, November or December 2000 issues of Wired Magazine."
Do I like it? No. Do I consider it snail-mail spam? Yes. Do I understand why Cue doesn't want their lousy IP broken because usage is their only revenue model? Yup. Do I pity the person who doesn't realize the privacy implications? Oh, yeah.
Do I also think the whole thing is a very clever idea? Definitely.
Michael J.
Michael J.
Root, God, what is difference?
Just thought I should correct you, because I'm anal retentive.
Ladies and gentlemen, I know this is the moment you've been waiting for!!
Class Action Lawsuit Time!!
Yes, friends, that most American of American tricks. The Class Action Lawsuit.
Doesn't it just make you tingle?
I used to be someone else. Now I'm someone better.
Real life is underrated.
I got one of these free in the mail. It looks like a nifty little gift. I plan to see what I can do with it, hack it, etc. I never would have bought one, but getting one for free seems pretty cool.
What's the problem guys?
Someone needs to point this to their senators, This law that actually protects citizens must be abolished as it harms e-commerce and the expansion of corperate wealth.
Please write your congressmen and inform them that you dispise any laws that protect your privacy or you personally, and that you support the whoring of america for corperate uses/ greasing of government officials.
Be a good American, be a sheep.
This sarcasim brought to you by the Coalition to Protect the rights of plants.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Why not? From what I have read on /., as well as reading its own 'special' barcodes the Cuecat will read ordinary ones. So, especially considering the availability of 3rd party drivers, does this not make Cuecat compete with companies who market barcode readers? Or are you saying that the reason it is not competing is that the people to whom cuecats are given would not otherwise have wanted a barcode reader so would not have considered buying one?
You should probaly not give the USPS the impression that you have been the 'victim' of this 'crime'.
Falsly reporting an incident to the Postal Inspectors is a big deal, and with thousands of idiot Slashdot readers spamming the USPS, they decide to make some examples. You may be opening yourself up for criminal charges.
I for one think it is time for Slashdot to grow up a little, and figure out what responsibility means.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
Is it just me, or does anyone else here see that DC is headed down the tubes...RAPIDLY?
Connah
Connah
"Your mouse has moved. Windows NT must be restarted for this change to take effect."
Sure. Remember that they're trying to charge you a $20 fee to use their gift in ways other than they choose?
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
And *your* CueCat didn't? That's pretty surprising.
-BrentOK, why is everyone coming down so hard on DC. I think they had a great idea and a good business model, they just didn't go about it in the right way. Why doesn't slashdot layoff of DC a little bit and let them go about their thing (making money, yes someone is actually trying to make money here). Also, keep in mind that some ppl may actually like what DC is trying to do for them.
It's about control of things you own. If you buy something, or are given it as a gift, you (should) have the right to use it as you wish. You shouldn't be bound by a contract based on a copyright that you didn't violate. Heck, the morons didn't even shrink-wrap their CD, so how would they know you touched the CD or not? Check for fingerprints??
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
Wired and Forbes subscribers get them mailed. Wait, didn't I just say that? Oh well; SLASH doesn't allow an empty body.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
per 39$3009(c):
No mailer of any merchandise mailed in violation of subsection (a) of this section, or within the exceptions contained therein, shall mail to any recipient of such merchandise a bill for such merchandise or any dunning communications.
So save those those cease and desist orders as evidence, since they are the "dunning communications" that equate to a bill as far as the act is concerned.
Of course it goes without saying that IANAL.
Work for Change & GET PAID!
Post Office Inspectors were very involved in the Uni-bomber case. It's illegal to send bombs through the mail, you don't really need to find a legal loophole.
Trolls throughout history:
Jonathan Swift
Aberystwyth doesn't rhyme with with. Next contestant, thanks for playing.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
"attached to it a clear and conspicuous statement informing the recipient that he may treat the merchandise as a gift to him and has the right to retain, use, discard, or dispose of it in any manner he sees fit without any obligation whatsoever to the sender."
This is not the case as Digital Convergence states thatt you are bound by the EULA by: "; (2) using the
The
If you were sent a
dmp
Stop talking about who's to blame when all that counts is how to change --"Born of Frustration" - James
Am I missing something? What's this guy's point? I can't even begin to understand what he's babbling about, and why he cares so much about reporting this company to the USPS. I'm probably not the only confused reader. Can somebody clear this up?
FREE is just plain FREE.
FREE* has fine print attached somewhere. Just look for another appearance of that damned *.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
Glenn Powers' CueCat: Game Over web page is brilliant.
It helped me understand my rights.
Haven't people got better things to do than file spurious complaints about extremely minor possible violations of the law?
One could also ask if Digital Convergence didn't have better things to do than send C&D (sort of) letters to flyingbuttmonkeys and others for making use of their nice gifts.
Personally, I would suggest that the 'geek community' call for a truce. We get to use the CueCat as we see fit and the postal service doesn't have to get involved. Otherwise, everybody complains.
Stefan (If this appears twice, I was misled by the first one not appearing for over 10 minutes.)
It takes a lot of brains to enjoy satire, humor and wit-
The truth shall make you fret. (Ankh-Morpork tImes motto)
I think the weird problem is the fact that their little website agreement thing that was previously posted on slashdot espouses the fact that the device is not actually being given away for free, but actually being loaned. That's insane... sending an electronic device to someone in the mail unsolicited, and then pretending that it's on loan. That's what they deserve to get burned for.
Magazines *always* include lot's a free stuff with their subscriptions. This can hardly be claimed to be "unsolicited". Why, Just recently I recieved a poster with my Sys Admin magazine, and a CD with my Java Developers Journal. Oh, yeah, and a cuecat was sent to those who had Wired subscriptions.
-BrentLook on the bright side, at least DC didn't break the GPL, otherwise there would be hell to pay!
If you look at the EULA, they claim to own the device as well as the software- that the CueCat reader is on loan to you. That's in violation of the Postal Regs (Esp. if it said "Paid for by Delta Airlines" anywhere on the packaging!).
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
I think I've seen about 20 articles on the Cuecat so far. One thing I don't get.
Why is it that "my" community is always there when it comes to ruining legitimate businesses? As soon as some company comes up with a neat device and accompanying businessmodel (I-Opener, Cuecat), there's a whole bunch of geeks that are ready to ruin the company by finding all kinds of little loopholes in some law.
What would you do if you were a company and saw your product ruined by a couple of kiddies who obviously never had anything to do with running a business before? Sit there and watch your dollars go down the drain?
I'm not saying you are doing the wrong thing, after all, there's this subarticle in some subsection of some USPO law that says you're in your right, but imagine Amazon finding some loophole in some law that enables them to ruin other people's businesses, would you agree with Amazon? Or would you despise this company?
Why is it always that "we" are right and "them companies" are wrong when it comes to finding smart ways to do business or break other people's businesses.
There goes my karma, but I had to say it.
Ivo
<grub> Reading
CueCats were mailed out with Wired and Forbes Magizine.
They contain a license agreement.
The License agreement contains restrictions on the use of the CueCat Hardware. Heres the quote from the License:
:CRQ software or :CueCat reader in whole or part
you may not decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble, modify, rent, lease, loan, sublicense, distribute or create derivative works based upon the
Wired / Forbes are not claiming that the device is not a free gift.
Anything you recieve in the mail that you did not order and is not mark as a free gift is not subject to any license or other demands of the sender or manufacturer. Its yours! it belongs to you! You can give it way, sell it, use it to stop a squeek in your car, assign it in your will, hook it up to you computer and figure out what comes out of it when you scan something!
When DC trys to enforce their license on the hardware they are in violation of a Federal Law.
Here is the US Code covering such things:
Sec. 3009. Mailing of unordered merchandise
(a) Except for (1) free samples clearly and conspicuously marked as such, and (2) merchandise mailed by a charitable organization soliciting contributions, the mailing of unordered merchandise or of communications prohibited by subsection (c) of this section constitutes an unfair method of competition and an unfair trade practice in violation of section 45(a)(1) of title 15.
(b) Any merchandise mailed in violation of subsection (a) of this section, or within the exceptions contained therein, may be treated as a gift by the recipient, who shall have the right to retain, use, discard, or dispose of it in any manner he sees fit without any obligation whatsoever to the sender. All such merchandise shall have attached to it a clear and conspicuous statement informing the recipient that he may treat the merchandise as a gift to him and has the right to retain, use, discard, or dispose of it in any manner he sees fit without any obligation whatsoever to the sender.
(c) No mailer of any merchandise mailed in violation of subsection (a) of this section, or within the exceptions contained therein, shall mail to any recipient of such merchandise a bill for such merchandise or any dunning communications.
So heres what that says:
Anything you recieve thats not marked as free belongs to you. You can use it in any of the ways covered in section B. Which basicly says you can do with it as you want.
It also states that is section C that the NO ONE can send you any demands for money or on what you must be allowed to do.
So with that in mind heres how this all works out:
First, the license is "anti-competitive" for these devices when mailed. This is against the law!
Two, If and when DC mails out C&D Letters to those who has recieved this device in the mail, they have violated the law again!
This whole thing may not seem like a big deal, but YOU MUST PROTECT YOUR RIGHTS!!!! These little things are the important ones. The laws in this country are setup to allow us to improve on what we see. They are not setup to guaruntee any corporation income. This kinda thing interfeers with what made this country what it is today.
Almost forgot the AOL CD thing:
The cd you recieve is yours you can use it anyway you want for instance there is a contest going on to see the most original thing you can do with the AOL CD's. The software on that CD is covered differently, to and extent because it is labled as FREE. But the cd still belongs to you.
Wasn't the CueCat package actually mailed by Wired and Forbes? If so, then wouldn't this issue be better directed to those magazines?
...phil
...phil
"For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
If they sell the product to you, or present it to you as a gift, then no they have no rights to control your use of it whatsoever. This is pretty much the entire point.
The fact that they've tried to control the use is why people are upset. And it's not just some childish need to "pull it apart". This is a basic human right. It's something you should fight for. Instead you've rolled over and given it away.
I'm surprised you could even being to believe that a corporation has the right to control your life. What a disgusting thought. It reeks of the very things people have spent thousands of years fighting against.
I dread the day when apathy and ignorance has spread so far that corporations can get away with actions such as these. People such as yourself are speeding up the process, and it scares the almighty crap out of me.
A dinky and unimportant thing like this is just the kind of case that can be used to restrict your rights. No one can reasonably care about the device, but the principle is great.
For the purposes of this section, ''unordered merchandise'' means merchandise mailed without the prior expressed request or consent of the recipient.
Will checking 'Allow my details to be passed onto other companies so they can mail me crap' boxes on web forms mean that you have given consent?
Steve.
Magazines don't always include a lot of free stuff with their subscriptions. And if they, do, the point is that it is FREE STUFF. If you received a free poster with your Sys Admin magazine, they can hardly send you a letter next week changing the license on your poster (and requiring you to post it in prominent places of business for example).
Things I've scanned:
1. various bottles and cans of beer I've had lying around the computer room;
2. a box of about 1000 feet of Cat 5, some used;
3. a box of Hammermill paper, for inkjet printers;
4. various sodapop products (Mountain Dew, Dr. Pepper, Pepsi, RC Edge);
5. a Motor Trend magazine from 1998;
6. the barcode from the back of an X10 device (went to www.radioshack.com);
7. various UPS and FedEx shipping labels I still have lying around;
8. various barcodes I made with my labelmaker -- mostly words and sentences;
9. one of those barcode stickers the airlines use to more easily lose your luggage.
So, in reality, I won't use it for much else. If they want to sell my name and give me special deals for beer, soda, or inkjet paper, I'm all for it!
I had an idea this was going to happen when I first got this doodad, so I scanned accordingly. And like all things, I got bored quickly with it. Now it provides a nice nightlight for the otherwise dark computer room.
Now, though, I'll probably De:Claw it so I can have fun mucking up their records!
-m
I got one in the mail from Wired and I havn't had a subscription in two years. So no, I don't consider this a free gift with my subscription.
[place
All the members of "Monty Python" say it's written "Aberystwyth" but it's pronounced "Evahizchveh".
We don't want to put a chill on companies sending us free stuff. Let DC complain all they want, the Cat is a give-away, and there's nothing they can do about it now. Let's make it seem like they won, so that other companies will follow their business model.
"Look honey, Mr. Case sent us one of those neato web pad to access AOL. What should we do with it?"
"No notice saying that it's not free. Where did I put that Mandrake/SUSE install CD?"
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
yes it does...(bloody americans)
"right to retain, use, discard, or dispose of it in any manner he sees fit" looks pretty clearly like blanket permission to reverse engineer the thing
very nice
Any sufficiently advanced technology is insufficiently documented.
OK, time to put on the law hat. It's around here somehwere . . .
The United States Government has a lot of power over what happens when you use it's Postal Service. The government clearly states that when someone puts unsolicited items in the mail and sends them out, they become gifts. Game over.
DC is attempting to circumvent 39 USC 3009. The first section of that statute makes such circumvention a violation of the Federal Trade Act, specifically 15 USC 45. The Federal Trade Commission has the power to enforce section 45. The FTC can issue a cease and desist order (not just a "lawyer letter", but an order). If that order is violated, the FTC can sue for up to $10,000.00 for each violation of the order. It is very well-established that each mailing in violation of an order is a separate violation. See,e.g., United States v. Reader's Digest Ass'n.
Look, these guys at DC deserve exactly zero zympathy. DC sent out unsolicited items. They then attempted to assert an ownership interest in items they had given away as a gift. This is an unfair and deceptive trade practice. For once, the folk wisdom about the law is correct - if you get it in the mail unsolocited, it is a gift. Just about everyone in the US knows this. The guys at DC know it.
Look at the language Congress used: the right to retain, use, discard, or dispose of it in any manner he sees fit without any obligation whatsoever to the sender. I can't think of a broader description of full rights to chattel property. Scan whatever you want or use the little red light for rectal exams. It's your thing.
Any legal information in this post is worth exactly what you paid me for it.
While they may contain a license agreement, I have yet to see it. I've received two of the little buggers so far (total expenditure $0.00), taken them out of the package, plugged them in and used them. Nary a license agreement in site. Now, there's this CD in the package that I've never touched, so I have no idea what's on it. And, the company has a web site, that I have never had occasion to visit.
So. what license agreement are you referring to? I've not been given the opportunity to agree or disagree to one -- I've just been given some free hardware to play with.
...phil
...phil
"For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
I don't think they lose control just because they sell it to you. I think they lose control because they sell it to you without making you sign a terms of service contract. If you do sign such a contract I think you may be legally (or maybe just morally) bound to follow it.
I don't know about shrinkwrap agreements (where the terms are presented after you buy). In the past they were not legally binding, with the DCMA they might be. However I don't think they are morally binding. In fact I think they are morally repugnant.
And I definitly think that a shrinkwrap agreement on software you never ran (say, because the "forgot" to ship the Linux or FreeBSD version) isn't going to be legally binding at all!
O.B. trick. Don't like a shrinkwrap agreement? Change all the terms you disagree with, inital the changes, have it noterised, and send the terms back. This almost certonally won't get the terms change the way you want, but may legally void the shrinkwrap agrement and return you to the default rights of a UCC purchase (i.e. you probbably can't give copies to friends, but you can probbably reverse engenear, make backups, and all the other things people have been doing to software for 20 years, and machanical devices for centries).
I didn't receive *anything* with my Wired subscription, except the magazine. This odd-looking cat shaped red flashlight came with a very handy audio conversion cable in a box that said "delta-air.com" on the side, along with the name of a company I happen to get a magazine from. It wasn't in a cellophane wrapper over the magazine. Just another random box at my front door.
---