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.
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.
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 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
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:
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
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"?
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
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.