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."
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.
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
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"?
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.
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
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
John
The Church of the SubGenius -- because somebody had to put all that slack in there...
John
Actually, if you read your agreement with the magazine, they probably will mention that they will distribute promo items with the mag . . .
I'll bet it doesn't say they will LOAN me promo items or that I can't use them in any way that I want. A promo item is a gift. If the cuecat isn't meant as a gift (but rather, a loan as DC would have us believe), then it's not a promo item, and it is covered under the postal regulation.
The Privacy Foundation statement which was mentioned in yesterday's CNet story is now online.
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"
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.
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
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
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:
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.
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!
Can it not still be a "free sample", even if you do ask for it?
It can, but this postal law specifically refers to unsolicited items. It's to keep companies from sending you items then demanding you pay for them or use some service of theirs. It's to keep mail order companies honest.
This doesn't apply to all cuecat readers, only the ones sent to readers of Wired and Forbes. If you went to Rat Shack or their website and asked for one this doesn't apply to you.
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
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
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.
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"?
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"?
Now you're just trolling.
Says Enah (for real): "It's not like they fired the first shot."
Are you kidding? They've fired the only shot... this entire slashdot thread is showboating by most participants, me included. (I haven't taken any direct action. I in fact do not have a CueCat and do not want one.) DC is the one actually pulling out the lawyers.
Says Enah: "a community of people have completely bypassed their controls over their product"
Your entire argument is based on assuming the validity of those controls, which is absurd on at least three levels, one of which is the point directly in contention. Those controls are illegal according to the laws of the Postal Service. Those controls have been added after the transaction occurred. Those controls (attempt to) use a novel and hellaciously dangerous (and most likely illegal!) way of binding you to a contract, specifically, "You are playing with our gift. Here's the contract you are now bound with." Last and least, those controls are utterly unethical.
To hell with their "controls". They do not have any basis whatsoever to impose those controls. You can't obligate me by giving a free gift. It would be horrible if you could.
(ps... the true reason this is a real issue is the bit about trying to tie EULAs into hardware usage, a supremely dangerous development if allowed to continue.)
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?
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.
Yes, because DC has explicitly said that you are bound to use that free gift ONLY in approved manners. The implication is that if you don't, you have to return it or pay them $20 for a personal developer's license. You got it in the mail as a free gift. Postal laws say that you canNOT be bound in this manner. It's all about freedom. How would you like it if Microsoft could send you a "Free Windows-ME CD" and bind you to either having to install it, return it or pay for it? Oh, gee, all of a sudden it becomes different, eh?
None of this applies to people who asked for them at ratshack, of course.
-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
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?
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.
I recieved one from Wired in the mail. I got another one at radio shack.
The postal service arguement only applies to the ones that are mailed. The ones that RadioShack hands out are free to Linux users because they never agreed to the EULA (since the software couldn't be installed anyway).
Either way you look at it, DC was clueless in their approach, but what they are trying to do is very dangerous to consumer rights (in many cases Citizens' rights). They are attempting to open the door to licensing physical property like intellectual property. If they get their way, then end user mods to purchased goods will be vorboden.
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.
The whole uproar is a bit of a payback for DC sending out Cease and Desist letters to curtail hacking the device they sent out (unsolicited). They have attempted to sneak in a license that many believe is unfair.
If no one fights it, this sort of action will become the rule. They have lawers and some laws on their side, but there are other laws that apply, and for this fight to become legitimate in the eyes of the public at large, the battle has to be taken up with established means, in this case, the law as it concerns the US Postal Service.
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."