Slashdot Mirror
Shrinkwrapped Books
NortWind writes "I just saw this in the InfoWorld paper, in the "The Gripe Line" by Ed Foster. It describes how a "...book arrived wrapped in plastic with a shrinkwrap license on the front". Just when you thought it couldn't get any worse..." I wrote an essay about this a year or two ago.
IIRC, this was the driving force behind the "First Sale" doctrine...
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Now with the help of shrink-wrapped books, can the rest of us? :)
Why can't the government just look at what is going on and change things? And when I say change things, I don't mean adding new laws - REPEAL OLD ONES, AND STOP MAKING NEW ONES!!
EULA books. EULA software. Companies being forced to sell PCs with Operating Systems. Giving private enterprises the rights to hack individuals that they suspect are pirating songs.
STOP THE INSANITY!!! STOP IT!!!
"...book arrived wrapped in plastic with a shrinkwrap license on the front"
That's how most mail-order porn mags arrive. It means the seller can accept returns that are still wrapped and be confident the pages aren't stained with jizz. Retailers of regular fiction don't suffer from this problem.
mogorific carpentry experiments
Gee. I wonder if the publisher is willing to provide replacement media if at anytime the book should become unreadable or defective.
Ed R.Zahurak
You know, oblivion keeps looking better every day.
You mean Harlan Ellison has a new book out?
We're in license violation? Who is this publisher? The author should have included a link to the publisher so we can give them a good slashdotting!
Actually Lessig might argue that congree would pass a law that says that shrink-wrap licensing applies to all books printed this century. And, it would be illegal to have your own shrink-wrap machine because someone may break the shrink-wrap and then re-shrink-wrap the book to cover their trail.
Fight Spammers!
By opening this shrink-wrap you agree to the terms and conditions of the agreement.
To see the agreement, open the book to page 1.
For technical assistance call 724-987-1192, however, by calling this number you release us from any obligation of helping you.
Thank you and have a good day.
With my dying breath, I curse Zoidberg!
Unless I've forgotten my business law, if you don't ask for a product, and recieve it anyway, you can keep it. They can't possibly bill him for a book he didn't order.
I'd just burn the damn thing.
Don't burn it... feed it to the dog, or sell it or something... have some fun with it ;-)
----- Nuken Footzen, biatch
Some Sun Java books, notably, the Java Language Specification, are even worse -- the license isn't in the shrinkwrap, it's printed in small print on an early page. I bet most people haven't even noticed it -- at least you notice a shrinkwrap license for a microsecond before it gets tossed.
Get the book, go to the bathroom, unwrap the shrinkwrap with the license, then throw it away. When asked about the license, say: "What license?" I wonder how they're going to prove that you actually unwrapped the book yourself.
"Piter, too, is dead."
If UCITA laws were enacted in his area, the doctor(s) in question would first have to have opened the book, then be bound to the license which they would then be obligated to either agree to (by becomming a customer) or try to opt-out of somehow by returning the book (unopened?).
- Serge Wroclawski
If the license agreement was to be taken seriously, he either had to go to the trouble of trying to ship the book back or he had to become an Omnicare customer somehow.
I'd just trash it and forget it. It's illegal to send unsolicited items and then try to collect for it - just because they slap a boilerplate on something that arrives unsolicited in your mail you can still just treat it like any bulk business mail, crapcan it. All they are claiming ownership rights to is the contents. If you want to get in a moral quandrary over it, or become play the OmniCare game that's fine too.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
Anything that is mailed unsolicited to a person belongs to that person. Period. The postal code is extremely clear on this point.
There used to be a lot of scams where companies would send products to people along with a bill, figuring that enough people would pay to make it worth it. For one thing, the company did not provide return postage, so any return would be at the customer's expense.
Each and every one of those doctors now owns the book that was sent to them. I suggest they throw away the shrinkwrap, and use them for doorstops.
Here's the text in case the server goes down. Took a while to load at my end...
--
Open with caution
I SUPPOSE IT was inevitable. With sneakwrap terms showing up in everything from charity Web sites to pornographic spam, it was just a matter of time. Books with shrinkwrap license agreements have arrived.
The first report of this phenomena to The Gripe Line came a few months ago when a reader who is a physician received an unsolicited tome in the mail entitled Geriatric Pharmaceutical Care Guidelines, 2002 Edition, from Omnicare. "This book arrived wrapped in plastic with a shrinkwrap license on the front," the doctor wrote. "It plainly says that by breaking the seal you agree to the terms of the license and if you don't agree you should return the book unopened. Is this what software licensing has led us to? This license says the book remains the property of Omnicare. Will they come up with a way to remotely disable the book if someone else reads it?"
The doctor obligingly faxed me a copy of the license, and I saw that it was indeed a sneakwrap agreement worthy of Microsoft or VeriSign. "In the event that you do not agree with any terms of this agreement you should promptly return the material unopened to your local Omnicare pharmacy," it read in bold letters near the top.
The license was nontransferable and would "terminate immediately if the Licensee or his or her employer ceased to be an Omnicare customer." And although the Omnicare "Guidelines are intended only to provide guidance as to which pharmaceutical products Omnicare believes to be most effective" the "licensee" was nonetheless prohibited from disclosing any of the information in the book to third parties.
It struck me that this license put the doctor in an awkward position. As far as he knew, neither he nor any of the other doctors in his office (most of whom had received their own copies the book) were Omnicare customers, and he did not know where his "local Omnicare pharmacy" might be. Even if he wanted to keep the book, as a non-Omnicare customer the license prohibited him from doing so. And since Omnicare claimed to retain ownership of his copy, he couldn't destroy it either. If the license agreement was to be taken seriously, he either had to go to the trouble of trying to ship the book back or he had to become an Omnicare customer somehow.
The doctor wondered if Omnicare was trying to make him feel obligated to them. "Sometimes my less-than-favorite charities send me greeting cards or stickers or a writing instrument in the mail," the doctor noted. "They are hoping to provoke enough sense of obligation in me to extract a contribution, but legally I am not required to acknowledge, or pay for, or return, or refrain from using what they send. So what is my obligation when sent an unsolicited book? Am I legally required not to use it or to return it if I don't agree with the sender's intended use?"
So just what was Omnicare's purpose in putting a classic shrinkwrap agreement (it was even printed in small, poorly-contrasted type) on a book that was clearly intended to promote use of the company's pharmaceutical products? I hoped Omnicare officials might have a simple explanation, but if they did, they decided not to share it with me. After two months of going back and forth with their public relations staff, I did not even get an answer on the basic question of what a noncustomer was supposed to do with the book.
While I was waiting in vain for answers from Omnicare, though, I heard from another reader with a shrinkwrapped book. Interestingly enough, he was also a doctor, but his book was a membership directory published by a medical society. I'm not going to identify the organization, partly because my deadline didn't allow them much time to respond to my questions and partly because their license was much less restrictive than Omnicare's. But their spokesperson was also unable to offer any explanations for why they felt it necessary to attach a license agreement to that book.
As I thought about it, however, it occurred to me that it doesn't really matter why we're suddenly seeing these books in the medical field with shrinkwrap licenses. Perhaps the publishers have good reasons for using them, perhaps they don't. But if someone wants to slap some legalese of dubious merit on the front of a book, why shouldn't they? Software publishers have been doing it for years, after all, so it only seems fair that publishers of other forms of intellectual property should have the same right to try to put restrictions on how customers use their products.
And, if there's no real justification for prohibiting book publishers from doing what software publishers do, how can we draw the line even at products containing intellectual property? Perhaps lamps will soon come with fine print legalese on the inside of the lampshade banning them from being resold at yard sales without the manufacturer's permission. And tearing that tag off your mattress really will bring the police pounding on your door.
Last week we talked about how we've already lost some of the basic rights we used to enjoy under traditional interpretations of copyright law. Loaning a book to a friend is not yet one of them, but who knows how much longer we'll be able to say that. Today we might still reasonably expect that any sane judge would just laugh if someone tried to get him or her to enforce a license such as Omnicare's limited-use license agreement. We must remember though that there are very powerful forces in this country working to give all sneakwrap agreements the full force of a binding contract. Next week we'll pay them another visit.
I think thta in this particular instance there is some conflict with the postal laws and the shrink wrap license. Unsolicited mail sent to a person is considered a gift and as such is the property of the recipient. If you own the book, wraper, paper, etc. I wonder how it could be argued that you are subject to any shrink wrap license terms? Just because the paperwork claims that the book is owned by someone else does not make it so.
Key phrase - "received this tome in the (US) mail."
He was mailed it without asking for it. Postal regulations are very clear - it's his to do as he pleases, license blather notwithstanding. Same as being mailed a CueCat. Postal law takes precedence, always.
A call to his local postmaster, who will route him to a postal inspector, will end this charade in minutes. Absolutely nobody trumps a postal inspector, not even an IRS agent. Postal inspectors almost never lose, even the cases that make it into court, they win 97%+.
Books for classes have been doing this for years. Some have shrinkwrap licenses, though most have software that generally gets unused in the class, but is just there to make resale of the book harder. It's starting a mini-cottage industry of small booksellers that don't care about the license and will buy and sell the used book no matter what, as opposed to the large campus store that needs to comply with the bookseller's corporate "licensing" terms.
Shrinkwrapped licenses for books are clearly a violation of the doctrine of first sale (you do not own the rights to distribute the content of a book, but you completely own your copy of the the physical book, and may distribute that any way you please).
Each new insult is also one more bit of evidence that fair use is threatened. If this goes on -- and if we keep writing Congress, etc., every time it happens -- at some point, maybe things will be so visibly out of hand that there'll be serious public pressure to swing the pendulum back.
It won't happen by itself, but I cling to a shred of hope, no matter how thin. (Giving into despair doesn't help; think of hope as a modified Pascal's Wager.)
Stupid job ads, weird spam, occasional insight at
The book came unsolicited in the mail. The only rights the person who sent it may have are what is afforded by standard copyright. The physical object, the book, belongs to the recipient to use in a fair manner consistant with the local copyright laws no matter what the meaningless piece of paper says. They cannot give themselves the right to take the book away at a later date. The stuff about not being able to share the information with anybody is crap too.
Basically this is an article about a publisher being stupid and wasting paper; probably not nearly as much paper as the company that publishes "Internet Explorer for Dummies," so if you want to harrass somebody, you'd be better off harassing them.
Identify the fucking book, and don't buy it. If you feel like it, call up the publisher, tell them why you're not buying the book, then hang up.
...
Even if it's a textbook you need for a class, don't buy it.
Look at me, I'm a big boy I can read an article!
The book was unsolicited! My God, it's like spam! "By opening this email, you agree to buy this all natural penis enlarging formula, this is not spam."
[o]_O
I always open my books from the back....
:)
I like to see if the butler really did it.
I guess I never got a chance to see the license
There is nothing in Copyright Law that would lend any ability for a publisher of a book to enforce this. Heck, clickthru licences for software are only made legally enforceable by UCITA in the USA, and that's been passed in, what, 1 or 2 states so far?
So far, the only thing that keeps people obeying the terms of EULAs is that publishers generally have more and better lawyers than the users of their content. The fear of getting dragged to court is what forces any compliance.
Look at the tomato! Isn't it sad? He can't dance! Poor tomato!
I open every one I can find at B&N and borders...
Any book that comes taped closed or shrinkwrapped is happily opened by me. espically if I am interested in it
That's so wrong it makes my head hurt.
Here, let me send you something useful that you can't use without violating the license on the front. How can you evaluate a book without opening it (other than virtually opening it at amazon)? I evaluate non-fiction books, like most people, by several criteria: availability of a table of contents, the existance of an index, whether the index actually works to find the things I need to know, and sample content of one or more pages for the first and last chapters. The physician can't even evaluate the book without agreeing to the legalese stipulated by the shrink-wrap agreement.
What's sad is that it's probably a somewhat useful book, and then Omnicare's overactive legal department decided to get involved. What's really sick is that I can think of several ways to remotely disable a book if someone doesn't agree to the license. [Of course, not agreeing would have to trip a physical switch, but... ]
And yes, this is exactly what software licensing has led us to. Information, it would seem, wants to be shrink-wrapped.
It's a little wrong to say a tomato is a vegetable. It's a lot wrong to say it's a suspension bridge.
If you buy the US edition, the cover locks closed in Europe, and visa versa.
Table-ized A.I.
It is Title 39, United States Code, Section 3009:
c h. htm
http://www.usps.com/websites/depart/inspect/mer
So if this becomes widespread, does that mean I'll be doubly-damned for photocopying books in the university library?
Another one bites the ./ dust:
wget is a wonderful thing:
The Gripe Line
Ed Foster
Open with caution
I SUPPOSE IT was inevitable. With sneakwrap terms showing up in everything from charity Web sites to pornographic spam, it was just a matter of time. Books with shrinkwrap license agreements have arrived.
The first report of this phenomena to The Gripe Line came a few months ago when a reader who is a physician received an unsolicited tome in the mail entitled Geriatric Pharmaceutical Care Guidelines, 2002 Edition, from Omnicare. "This book arrived wrapped in plastic with a shrinkwrap license on the front," the doctor wrote. "It plainly says that by breaking the seal you agree to the terms of the license and if you don't agree you should return the book unopened. Is this what software licensing has led us to? This license says the book remains the property of Omnicare. Will they come up with a way to remotely disable the book if someone else reads it?"
The doctor obligingly faxed me a copy of the license, and I saw that it was indeed a sneakwrap agreement worthy of Microsoft or VeriSign. "In the event that you do not agree with any terms of this agreement you should promptly return the material unopened to your local Omnicare pharmacy," it read in bold letters near the top.
The license was nontransferable and would "terminate immediately if the Licensee or his or her employer ceased to be an Omnicare customer." And although the Omnicare "Guidelines are intended only to provide guidance as to which pharmaceutical products Omnicare believes to be most effective" the "licensee" was nonetheless prohibited from disclosing any of the information in the book to third parties.
It struck me that this license put the doctor in an awkward position. As far as he knew, neither he nor any of the other doctors in his office (most of whom had received their own copies the book) were Omnicare customers, and he did not know where his "local Omnicare pharmacy" might be. Even if he wanted to keep the book, as a non-Omnicare customer the license prohibited him from doing so. And since Omnicare claimed to retain ownership of his copy, he couldn't destroy it either. If the license agreement was to be taken seriously, he either had to go to the trouble of trying to ship the book back or he had to become an Omnicare customer somehow.
The doctor wondered if Omnicare was trying to make him feel obligated to them. "Sometimes my less-than-favorite charities send me greeting cards or stickers or a writing instrument in the mail," the doctor noted. "They are hoping to provoke enough sense of obligation in me to extract a contribution, but legally I am not required to acknowledge, or pay for, or return, or refrain from using what they send. So what is my obligation when sent an unsolicited book? Am I legally required not to use it or to return it if I don't agree with the sender's intended use?"
So just what was Omnicare's purpose in putting a classic shrinkwrap agreement (it was even printed in small, poorly-contrasted type) on a book that was clearly intended to promote use of the company's pharmaceutical products? I hoped Omnicare officials might have a simple explanation, but if they did, they decided not to share it with me. After two months of going back and forth with their public relations staff, I did not even get an answer on the basic question of what a noncustomer was supposed to do with the book.
While I was waiting in vain for answers from Omnicare, though, I heard from another reader with a shrinkwrapped book. Interestingly enough, he was also a doctor, but his book was a membership directory published by a medical society. I'm not going to identify the organization, partly because my deadline didn't allow them much time to respond to my questions and partly because their license was much less restrictive than Omnicare's. But their spokesperson was also unable to offer any explanations for why they felt it necessary to attach a license agreement to that book.
As I thought about it, however, it occurred to me that it doesn't really matter why we're suddenly seeing these books in the medical field with shrinkwrap licenses. Perhaps the publishers have good reasons for using them, perhaps they don't. But if someone wants to slap some legalese of dubious merit on the front of a book, why shouldn't they? Software publishers have been doing it for years, after all, so it only seems fair that publishers of other forms of intellectual property should have the same right to try to put restrictions on how customers use their products.
And, if there's no real justification for prohibiting book publishers from doing what software publishers do, how can we draw the line even at products containing intellectual property? Perhaps lamps will soon come with fine print legalese on the inside of the lampshade banning them from being resold at yard sales without the manufacturer's permission. And tearing that tag off your mattress really will bring the police pounding on your door.
Last week we talked about how we've already lost some of the basic rights we used to enjoy under traditional interpretations of copyright law. Loaning a book to a friend is not yet one of them, but who knows how much longer we'll be able to say that. Today we might still reasonably expect that any sane judge would just laugh if someone tried to get him or her to enforce a license such as Omnicare's limited-use license agreement. We must remember though that there are very powerful forces in this country working to give all sneakwrap agreements the full force of a binding contract. Next week we'll pay them another visit.
Have you received any sneakwrap agreements on books or other products? Write to Ed Foster, InfoWorld's reader advocate. You can reach him at gripe@infoworld.com.
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
The license was nontransferable and would "terminate immediately if the Licensee or his or her employer ceased to be an Omnicare customer." And although the Omnicare "Guidelines are intended only to provide guidance as to which pharmaceutical products Omnicare believes to be most effective" the "licensee" was nonetheless prohibited from disclosing any of the information in the book to third parties.
Wouldn't the Doctor's patients be considered "Third Parties" in this scenario?
"A microprocessor... is a terrible thing to waste." --
GeneralEmergency
Disclaimer: The preceeding argument should have been reducto ad absurdum. By reading the above comment, you agree to not post any flames. Furthermore, you may not read the comment out loud, nor can you discuss it in any forum (eg. Slashdot) without prior written permission by the author. You may also not correct the spelling or improper use of Latin phrases present in this disclaimer. If you do not agree to these terms, you must destroy all copies that may have been made, including the imprint on your retina. Terms enforced where prohibited by law.
The really insideous part of this is that, in order to protect strictly financial interests, copyright barrons like Disney and Microsoft and the politicians they (let's be honest) bribe with large campaign contributions have pushed us to a place where information and knowledge can be proprietary and restricted in a way that hasn't been feasible since the invention of the printing press.
To protect profits from Britney's new crappy CD, these companies have harkened in a world where information can be (at least in theory) totally controlled. Naturally, the fact that this is completely hostile to the basic presumptions of democracy is completely peripheral -- next we'll have printing of bills restricted, politicians suing to keep the gaffes in their public releases supressed under the auspices of the DMCA and an even more uninformed public.
Hopefully, this sort of thing will spur some sort of public outrage at it progresses, pushing the pendulum back the other way -- it'll happen eventually. The question is how far things will have to go before Joe and Jane Sixpack start to give a shit.
In the mean time, might I suggest a contribution to the ACLU or EFF? Remember that the RIAA, MPAA and other four-letter-orgs-'o-evil have to spend to overcome common sense, where those of us on the "right" side don't, so your $25 contribution means a lot.
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
That's how it works here in Sweden -- if a company sends you something you didn't order, you get to keep it. No matter what weird shrinkwrapped license they've attached.
Leveling up builds character.
When one buys a product with a shrink-wrap license, the vendor can at least claim the customer made a decision to acquire it. This new scam is beyond outrageous.
Books that comes with a license are NOT new. It's not at all unusual to receive books of documentation when one signs a non-disclosure agremeent (NDA). That's not the unusual part.
There are two new aspects to this idea. I'm not a lawyer, so perhaps the more legal minded can answer these.
First, can I attach a shrinkwap license to anything? It seems well accepted for software. But what about apples? Can I enforce a shrinkwrap agreement that says you won't sell the apple to somebody else?
Second, are you bound by a shrink wrap license one receives unsolicited through the mail? One is *not* bound to return anything or even acknowledge merchandise that one receives unsolicitied through the mail.
The writer may be an imbecile, but at least he is man enough to use his own name...
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing -- Emo Phillips
It is perfectly legal for somebody to send you something with the suggestion that you return money in exchange. In fact, that's protected by the First Amendment, which is why it's so hard to make some companies to take you off their mailing list.
But if they try to collect money from you in exchange for the goods (or demand you send it back at your expense) by claiming that a contract exists, that's unenforceable. There were some abusive practices in the 60s, and now this practice is explicitly named unenforceable.
Of course, back then I think the problem was charities counting on guilt as much as anything else. Now it's outright scam artists sending unsolicited toner, fax supplies, etc., with overpriced POs. A tightly run company will have a single vendor and can tell them to shove off, but many companies will automatically pay low-value POs for office supplies.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
I skimmed the article, wasn't the shrinkwrap agreement basically a "you can't copy this information and make a profit off of it" agreement? Its just another way to legally safeguard their IP. More power to em.
When I get a fiction book that has a license, then I'll worry.
Since everybody seems to be jumping in on the trend, I'm going to start up a business. It's going to be a clothing store. However, before the customer buys the clothing, they have to sign a licensing agreement, saying that they will not wear the clothing every day of the week. Slowly but surely all other clothing lines will follow suit (pun unintended) so that eventually, the clothing industry will have the entire planet color-coordinated. Tuesday will be Green Day, and Thursday is to be Hawaiian Shirt Day.
Naturally, Mondays will be black.
Anybody caught wearing their clothing on the wrong day of the week will be reported to the Thought Pol^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HAuthorities and be detained for breaking copywrite violations.
And everybody says that corporations aren't taking away our freedoms.
Once again, this is another case of "You want ice cream. You need ice cream. Your existence is meaningless without ice cream."
Karma: Non-Heinous
http://www.usps.com/websites/depart/inspect/merch. htm
If I recall correctly, isn't there a law that says no one can send you anything without your approval and that if they did, you cannot be bound by any terms to purchase regardless of what any print on the item might say?
In short, if you recieve something in the mail, you have full rights to the article.
This was put into effect when many magazine publishers would start sending magazines to a customer and later charge him for a subscription rate. I see no fundamental difference in this case.
It's not absolute - you don't get to keep misdelivered mail. (E.g., that guy who got a prototype X-box a while back.) That includes things like the mail going into the wrong box, being sent to the wrong "J Smith", etc.
But in these cases the sender has to cover the cost of pickup and re-delivery.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
Please correct me if I'm wrong but the article seems to imply that the book was unsolicited. If this is the case, I thought there was a law that said you could keep it and not pay them back. Hanson Publications is bad to send you books you didn't order and then bill an unsuspecting office manager a huge fee. I think it's a scam.
EULA television/radio programs (you may not discuss what you view with anyone)
EULA cars (must use brand X gas and only brand X gas)
EULA hardware (only MS products or MS approved products may be stored on this hard disk)
EULA sex dolls (end user agrees not to share doll with anyone)
EULA phones (only approved subjects may be discussed on these phones)
http://www.gamedev.net/reference/articles/article
I have long been interested in Omnicare products and had hoped this book would have assisted me in becoming a customer, however, since the licensing terms forbid me from reading it (not being a current Omnicare customer) I am returning the book to you unopened . . .
===== Murphy's Law is recursive. =====
Its not as bad as funding terrorism
(not these are my thoughts only not those of ...)
It's likely that the book had a CD with pharmacy related software (as that is one of the companies primary functions, provide drugs and the systems to control the distribution of said drugs).
However, if it is just for the book and you didn't request/pay for it, simply trash the book. Who cares?
Every month I would send a new invoice for the elapsed period, less payments, plus any late payment fees and interest.
When the total amount owed exceeded the local small-claims limit, I would confiscate the licensors' property for auction and file suit to recover the debt.
The only thing bigger than an idiot is somebody who acts like nobody else is capable of identifying them.
"Old man yells at systemd"
According to Lumburgh, Hawaiian shirt day is on Friday. You can wear jeans if you want.
I thought they died out during the World War I...
Remember basic physics. The pendulum will never swing back as far. It would work the same way with our rights. We will never get back to where we are now, much less 50 years ago.
Write your national reps and complain. Use intelligent arguments and allow for competing thought. This is the only way to avoid a society run by corporate interests with no basic human rights.
Bah
If the book was sent in the USA, and the reciever did not request it. Anything this Omnicare company tries to enforce is null and void. That book is the exclusive property of the persons who recieved it.
I dont care what a scumbag lawyer writes or says.. if it goes against a federal law it's worthless drivel...
Come to think of it, Most everything a lawyer says is drivel....
nevermind.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Damn... I'm gonna have to sue his ass then for breaching my Clothing EULA with destructive intent... because, well, he's outright violating and distributing encouragement of violation of my license. That's harsh abuse of my signed EULA...
Either that or I'll just install the superman III virus on their computer systems....
Karma: Non-Heinous
Books with EULAs. This is a very strange planet.
O.K.!
All bad precedents begin with justifiable measures." - Julius Ceasar
"player 4 hit player 1 with 0 stroms"
Mark the book "Refused - return to sender", and put it back in the mail box. The USPS will return the book to the sender and charge them for doing so, thus costing the sender more money. Plus, they now have all these books to get rid of.
www.eFax.com are spammers
This is inevitable. Anything with someone's "intellectual property" in it (i.e., pretty much everything you buy, in some cases a lot of the stuff you make yourself) is subject to this nonesense.
Examples of shrink-licensable stuff:
So pretty much everything. All they have to do is hinge it on the fact that they never explicitly authorized you to display that trademark in public, or allowed you to use the patented pen in your place of business. Ignoring the fact that they actually sold it to you.
The only recourse seems to be: don't buy it and hope that you can function in the world without it.
I'd just trash it and forget it.
To passive. We need a clear message to publishers/lawyers that this is unacceptable, and we will fight back.
It has come to our attention that you are delinquent in paying your bill for offsite media storage service. By sending us your disks, you agreed to pay $1 per disk per day to keep this electronic data media in our storage facility. As of the last day of last month, your account has been in arrears for the sum of US$1,837.00 and is past due. Please submit payment as soon as possible or we will be forced to refer this matter to a collection agency.
Thank you and please enjoy your Mars bar."
Height: 38U, Weight: 0 Newtons, Eyes: #0000FF, OS: Gray Matter 1.0 (Alpha)
You do NOT need a license to use or read a physical book. Copyright law does NOT restrict the use or reading of copyright material. Copyright only restricts your ability to copy and redistribute a copyrighted work.
The issue of licensing only becomes important with PC software because as a part of its use copying is usually inherently required (i.e., the installation process onto the harddrive).
Unless you are planning to make copies of the book and redistributing it, you can throw that license in the trash where it belongs.
If you receive something in the mail unsolicited, you are under no obligation to pay for it or to return it. So by extension (and IANAL), if he is not a member of the organization that sent the book and thus not bound by any restrictive bylaws, he should be under NO obligations to them whatsoever and may use the book however he sees fit -- the shrink-wrap license be damned.
- If the license is clearly printed on the front of the book such that you have no trouble reading it, then what's wrong with putting a special license on the book? Think of it this way: I'd rather have these licenses that I can disagree with and return the book than arbitrary copyright laws that I can't simply ignore...
- As for the pharmacy company in this case, I don't think their license really matters that much as they sent the books unsolicited. The doctors who got them should simply throw out the books if they do not agree with the license
Really people, what's wrong with putting obvious licenses on things? That way people would see the real terms they are agreeing to when they buy CDs and DvDs. Then they could put those products down and go looking for other things. The law didn't have to change and standard breach of contract law can apply to those nasty pirates who choose to ignore their shrink wrapped licenses. As for the rest of us, we can go on with our lives knowing that our freedoms are protected...One day, I get a bill in the mail, saying I owed them for the subscription, and that if I didn't pay they'd forward it to Collections.
I wrote back, informing them that
<voice font="Jim Nabors">Sur-Prize Sur-Prize Sur-Prize!</voice> I got a mail back from them saying "Uhhh, we checked our records, and we can find no evidence you ever signed up for this. Our collections is purely internal, and never would have shown up on your report. We're sorry, please don't kill us!". I figure it was the old "send them crap and bill them" scam, and when they found out that I wasn't going to play, they backpedaled faster than BillG on Palladium being DRM....
www.eFax.com are spammers
I dont know about you, but I never pay any attention to EULA be they on a book, hardware, software or whatever...
Unless of course it is a Micro$oft product; In that case I always check for the "The user herein releases all rights to their soul to the Micr$oft Corp."
_______
Death wish, n.:
The only wish that always comes true, whether or not one wishes it t
Your real name is "Oliver Wendell Jones", I take it?
If not, does that mean you're gay? By your logic, yes! ...not that there's anything wrong with that.
Now that I've "proven" you to be homosexual, does that prove that your post is idiotic? As a matter of fact, no, it doesn't. It's a non sequitur. Fortunately, the idiocy of your post can be demonstrated quite easily by other means, so it's not a big issue.
I do have one question, though: Were you born that stupid, or did you have to get surgery?
If I ever receive anything like this I swear I'll burn it and ship them back the ashes. Shrinkwrapped of course, with thier liscence stuck right on the front.
Just by reading something, you become infected!
For example,
By reading this book:
You agree to subscribe unconditionally to the ideas contained therein (hence "those ideas"), without possibility of doubt. You agree not to criticise those ideas, publically or within your own mind, or to find in them any fault, including inconsistencies or errors of fact or of logic. You agree to subsrcibe unconditionally to any interpretation or alteration of those ideas put forth by the publisher, in the same fashion.
You agree to incorporate those ideas into your world view, and that those ideas will be reflected in your activities within the public sphere, including but not limited to: voting, participation in public discourse, and donations to political causes, parties or campaigns.
You agree that those ideas will be reflected in your decisions in the economic sphere, including but not limited to: choice of business associates, choice of place of employment and purchasing decisions, either on your own part or on behalf of any persons or corporate entity which you represent, in any capacity.
You agree to engage in missionary activities to spread those ideas, and to encourage other persons who have not read this book and agreed to this license to do so, as directed by the publisher.
You agree to assist in any way possible with the publisher's efforts to punish those who violate the terms of this license, as directed by the publisher, without regard to the legality or morality of the directives of the publisher. You agree not to even consider violating this license as a possibility. You agree never to disclose embarassing or legally compromising information about the publisher, even if compelled to do so in a court of law.
You agree not to associate socially with those who do not ascribe to the ideas contained herein, except as necesarry to fulfill your obligations detailed previously.
If you do not agree to the terms of this license, return the book, without reading it, along with a point by point refutation of all ideas contained therein, within 30 days of receipt.
The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
What's next, can I just put a EULA on this post?
Reading Material License Agreement
-----
By having read this post, you agree NEVER to vote for any laws that give creedence to this nonsense and not to vote for any politician who does. Further, you agree to send a post with these 'viral' conditions to every politician you possibly can.
If you are unable or unwilling to fulfill this contract, you can terminate it by sending a contribution to the EFF. On the other hand, if this contract is ruled unenforceable, so much the better.
Stallman's Right to Read essay comes closer to becoming reality every day.
All movements for social change begin as missions, evolve into businesses, and end up as rackets.
When common sense goes out the window, what else is left but uncommon nonsense?
In both scenarios, the only people who benefit are the lawyers.
Something should be done to restore common sense in our daily lives. When you get a book, what you can do with the book should follow common sense and not be governed by some stupid license agreement. The recepient should not be able to sue the publisher if he tries to flush the book down and floods his own house. On the hand, the sender should not try and dictate what the consumer does with the book. "Do what you want, but remember that you are responsible for doing it."
All your favorite sites in one place!
Well, books down at a local 7-11 (Cityplace Station) (Dallas, Texas) are shrinkwrapped. There's no license on these books, but I still find it to be sort of odd.
The only thing bigger than an idiot...
Yeah, but how much bigger? ...and how big is "an idiot", anyway? Idiots come in all sizes. Do you mean one specific idiot? If so, you'll have to tell us which one, so we'll know what you mean. If it's you, c'mon, 'fess up! We won't hold it against you. Outta the closet with ye! Let that dim light in your unfocused little eyes shine, boy! Of course, we still won't know what you weigh, but it'd be a start. Call it a gesture of good will, if you like.
Well, I guess the real issue here is that your whole post is gibberish.
So if I share the book or let someone else look inside do I need to buy additional licenses? :)
As always, it's the lawyers who make their money both ways. They tend to craft these sorts of things, then cash in on them again when they get fought in court. Quite a nice little system they've got going for themselves...
with the congressional record. Or 1040 forms. Etc.
What about other products? Can i take a car and smack a shrinkwrap license on it removing all rights for the owner to sue me if i forget something important like brakes etc? It sounds really strange if this would be true. I would like to see some of theese shrinkwrap licenses tried in court. Only then will we know if they are any good. Anyone want me to perform benchmarks on Microsoft NET? Im all game for som time in the bunk for this one. Time somebody tested them already.
HTTP/1.1 400
and there's nothing we can do. I don't have any power. Do you have any power? If you think you do, the three orders of magnitude greater #s of people out there who _are_ susceptible to sneaky advertising/subliminal messages/political announcements are going to vote you down so fast it'll make your head swim. I dare any of you out there to prove me wrong, or suggest how to avoid this.
We're going to lose all rights to any and all IP we may or may not own (or think we own), we can kiss the public domain goodbye, and unless you've got a well-paid lawyer in your pocket (or up your sleeve for those w/ long sleeves!) get ready to be sued.
Now, my friend thinks that there's no way any of this is really enforceable, but seriously, they could imprison all the people who commit IP crimes (or a significant fraction) and as long as they can prove that they've got Your Number, it'll keep the rest of the sheep in line (I admit, I'm a sheep. Baa.) "what? we can't keep crime down as it is. They're not going to spend milloins chasing down warez/script kiddiez. and besides, these people support the National Infrastructure! They won't lock them all up!" The hell they won't. In case no one's noticed, there's a shortage of jobs, they can pull our livelihood and someone willing to keep their mouth shut and tow the line will be perfectly willing to fill our "criminal" asses' place in the job market.
Like I said, we're all fscked, and there's nothing we can do about it.
That's how my bible arrived in the mail when I became a priest online. Kept that new bible smell fresh and the anthrax out.
** Curb Your Enthusiam **
I bought Wolfram's A New Kind of Science after reading the /. review of it. On the "copyright" page there is a license agreement that basically reads, "I invented all these ideas and they belong to me. Just because I published them in a widely distributed book doesn't mean you can use them." (I'm paraphrasing. I don't have the book at hand. The actual text is much worse in tone.)
This disturbed me because I thought the book was a work of scientific scholorship. To require me to agree to some sort of non-disclosure to read about what he claims is a fundamental scientific discovery seems at odds with the scientific method to me. How can I carry forward Wolfram's research, in the grand tradition of scientific inquiry, if I'm crippled by his "protection of Intellectual Property?"
What other books have micro-printed license agreements that we never noticed?
AFAIK, this is correct. In Lessig's _The Future of Ideas_, he states that some adversaries of shrink-wrap licenses claim that these are only valid if you purchase the item, since a contract is, of course, between customer and seller. Thus, he says, if you find a peice of software "in the street", or somesuch, you may use it without having to agree to the license. While this supposedly applies in the case of Cyber Patrol vs CPHack, that one never was argued in court, so I dont know if it would hold up.
N407ER
Write your national reps and complain.
I don't have one.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
for their toner cartridges. If you don't agree to the terms, basically you can't recycle the cartridge with anybody except them, you can exchange it for a cartidge without a EULA which you pay extra for.
Even if he wanted to keep the book, as a non-Omnicare customer the license prohibited him from doing so. And since Omnicare claimed to retain ownership of his copy, he couldn't destroy it either. If the license agreement was to be taken seriously, he either had to go to the trouble of trying to ship the book back or he had to become an Omnicare customer somehow.
There is a third option: Put the book on your bookshelf, and send a monthly bill for storage. If they don't pay, then turn the bill over to bill collectors.
i dont know about other states, but unsolicited materials in ma. at least, become the property of the recipient. period. otherwise, i could send you a house that would be too expensive for you to return, and thus obligate you to unnecessary expense, in the extreme example. this would grant the doctor in the article full ownership but, of course, do little for users not receiving by mail. However, because the package must be opened to be examined as to 'suitability for use' and other warranty issues, forcing acceptance (by requiring 'breaking the seal' before being able to see the full product would be of questionable defensibility. but its toooo bad things have got even this far in this ludicrous scheme of things! jon
"There are 11 kinds of people: those who know binary, those who don't, and those who could not care less!"
I once threw a party in which I put signs up everywhere that read, "Party at your own risk - you accept full responsibility for your own actions." I hadn't really mitigated my own liability with those notices - they were not legally binding and would not stand up in court.
In the case of EULA's for books I think the same principle applies - I can post whatever the hell legal notices that I want, but it doesn't mean that there is any enforcability or legality to it. If this crap was to withstand a court-test then I am going to start taking out ads in my local newspaper that say, "My house is proprietary property. Looking at my property constitutes acceptance of the user license posted in the front yard." Of course, the sign on the front yard reads, "Looking at this house obligates you to a nominal 'usage' fee. Please deposit $100.00 in the cast iron box to avoid prosecution and litigation."
Just because I told you to doesn't mean your not smart enough not to.
SmR
smr@mayanproductions.com
While Omnicare claims their guidelines aren't based on drug prices, their marketing (which is to nursing homes, not patients) emphasises cost reduction.
It's thus more like a manual for a proprietary service than a published book. I'd worry more about the service than the book.
By reading this book, you agree to the following terms:
1) This book and all material contained herin is property of the publisher and may not be copied, reproduced or redistributed in any form without the written consent of the publisher, the publisher's wife and his dog (here after refered to as publisher and co.)
2) All ideas, thoughts, philosophies and like products developed during the reading of this book are property of the publisher. They may not be patented, copied or distributed without concent of the publisher and co.
3) The reading of this book aloud to any person, the quoting of passages or the display of the book in a public place is expressly forbidden.
4) If you do not agree to these terms you may not read the book. You must reshrikwrap it (at your own cost). Include the official holographic seal of authenticity and return it to the publisher with a $50 restocking fee.
5) By accepting this agreement, you also agree to pay a $20 monthly charge for the continued licence to read the book
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
Of course, damn near everyone I know at work also gets spam e-mail to buy toner supplies for our d getting them two months after being hired. (Yeah, like the most recent hire automatically has purchasing control. *plonk*)
There was a phone scam something like that maybe 20 years ago - back when the long-distance rate wars were just starting.
Company on the west coast named itself "The Supply Room". In the morning (when night rates were still in effect on the west coast) they'd war-dial the office phones of businesses in the Eastern time zone. If they got a human (no doubt groggy in the morning) they'd say something like:
"This is 'The Supply Room'. Do you need any supplies? Xerox paper? Toner? Pens?"
If the poor sap at his desk said yes they'd ship some stuff to his office, and a large bill to the company's accounts-payable. (I hear they recorded the call as proof that the stuff had been "ordered", too.)
(I got one of those calls when consulting at an auto company's process automation department. Told 'em they were talking to the wrong person. Found out what they were when the company sent warnings around a few days later.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
This is the only circumstance that would make me want to burn a book. Seems to me the Burning Man happening is near, perhaps we could arrange for a media event where we all burn our shrinkwrapped and unopened books. Probably good for our 15 seconds of fame...
The book in question was reportedly received unsolicited in the U.S. mail. Shrink wrap or not, U.S. postal regulations make it clear that such an item can be considered a gift, and need not be returned. It certainy does not stay the property of the publisher. This would be a great test case, they have set themselves up to fail.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
If someone wants to license their IP to you, instead of just giving it to you, that's their business. Repeat after me: "I am not required to spend my money on someone's Intellectual Property". If you don't like shinkwrapped licenses, don't by the product. I haven't purchased a Microsoft product in 10 years. What's the big friggin' deal?
I've noticed a steady encroachment of demands on people's behavior. In this case "Here is our book, , and here is how you will behave in regards to our book."
Little messages popping up everywhere that demand our attention. Do this, don't do this, and buckle up, because it's the law!
We aren't free anymore. Our freedom consists of picking from a narrow set of fabricated choices. To choose anything else is to violate an encyclopediac set of rules. You can't simply use software anymore, you have to use it in a specific way set forth in the EULA. You can't just marry a girl, you have to buy her a diamond ring worth an amount set by the diamond industry. You can't park your car in driveway because of your homeowners association.
The boundries that seperate our independant lives and freedoms from the constraints of society are collapsing down upon us. Perhaps there is still some room left to breathe.
However, there is a very real need for personal space that is necessary for people to remain healthy. Take away enough of people's ability to move around freely within their own lives and they will crack just as surely as walnuts under a sledgehammer.
I'm guessing you haven't read any romance novels recently? Some of the thing in there would put a soft-core pr0n book to shame.
(They're my wife's books! Really!)
-Ed
docbrown.net
Graphic Design, Web Design, Role-Playing Games...all the good stuff
Ed Wedig
Graphic design services
docbrown.net
I have often wondered; Why can't you just say "I don't agree to this license".
You don't agree to it, plain and simple. That INCLUDES the part where they say "you must agree to this or send it back". How can they force you to agree to *any* license or any part therein? You have not agreed to be bound by that clause, nor any other clause. You are still sitting there with the object which you purchased or whatnot, but you have not bound yourself to anything they may have written simply by holding it, or arguably even using it.
Now with software they *may* have some sort of claim if you clicked on 'I Accept' during installation - although even that could be debated.
But with these books you have in no way agreed to anything. "by opening you agree to...", basically say "no I don't", or cross out the line, etc.
Looks like this shrink-wrap mentality is becoming a problem.
.sig
Here's my proposal.
Let's make shrink-wrap licenses illegal.
No, I do not mean "unenforceable".
I mean, a law that makes putting a shrink-wrap license on something punishable by a large fine.
-- this is not a
Elect Moses To Congress
The point is that the licensing demands a fundamental shift from traditional book usage. We are not complaining about the practice of putting licenses on things, we are complaining that these licenses are trying to strip us of rights we have enjoyed for generations. This book license is absurd, and it is hard for me to accept a world in which a company thinks they can get away with such a thing.
Where the hell does that come from? Because I use the name of a fictional cartoon character I'm gay?
You claimed ("at least he's man enough blah blah blah...") that using one's own name correlates with manhood. I puckishly chose an appropriately moronic definition of "manhood", and then took note of the fact that you're not using your own name either, Beavis. From behind a pseudonym, you attack me for... using a pseudonym!
It's funny. Laugh.
My post is not idiotic
See above. I just checked, and your post is given in the OED as the canonical, definitive example of idiocy in the English language.
Oh, Jesus, you'll probably take that literally and go look... and then come back squealing "IS NOT! IS NOT!" Okay, I've got a big heart, so I'll save you an hour of research asking the other kids in the group home what the "OED" is, and another hour tottering off on your round little retard shoes down to the public library in search of a copy (and then a third hour learning the hard way that "I" doesn't come between "B" and "C" after all): It's a joke, son. Your post isn't really in the OED. I was joking. Just havin' a little fun with ya there, kid.
But hey, whatever, right? The idiot who wrote the article is still a cretin, you still haven't said anything meaningful about that issue, and you still can't comprehend simple English (not even if you wrote it yourself, frighteningly enough).
I'd just trash it and forget it. It's illegal to send unsolicited items and then try to collect for it - just because they slap a boilerplate on something that arrives unsolicited in your mail you can still just treat it like any bulk business mail, crapcan it.
The law in the USA goes even further (unless the last fifteen years of anti-consumer legislation has repealed it, I admit I don't keep current on all the latest consumer news): if someone sends you an item in the mail unsolicited it belongs to you.[1] Not only can they not tack on restrictions a la this EULA nonsense, they can't even demand you return it.
It is yours, to keep, to shitcan, to donate to a public library (if it is a book), in short, to do with whatever you want.
[1]There are obvious exceptions, such as when it is addressed to someone else and mailed to your address by accident. But, in cases where it is addressed to "Current Occupant", your name, or no name at all, and your address, the item in question is a non-refundable gift to you, with no legal obligation attached whatsoever.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
There goes Borland's "No-Nonsense" "Like a book" license agreement!
And, yes, AFAICT, they did restore it for C++Builder 5.
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
Nevertheless, it shows bad faith on the part of Sun when it comes to promoting Java as an "open" language standard. In reality, Sun appears to be worse than Microsoft--at least Microsoft put parts of C# through ECMA, resulting in the kinds of open documents and guarantees that standards go with (not perfect, but a whole lot better than what Sun is doing).
If I am housing their property on my property, then I think it's only fair that they pay me monthy storage fees. Quality heated and air conditioned storage facilities are not cheap, and it's my facility so my prices.
It would be funny if this got to court and they had to argue that since they sent the book unsolicited that they actually no longer owned the book (per, apparently, US Postal regulations) and thus were not liable for any storage fees.
Reminds me of the situation M$ was apparently almost forced into 5 or 6 years ago when it turned out someone else owned the trademark to the word Windows, and they went to court over it. The guy caved and settled out of court (he only got $5M when it was worth at least $50M to M$ to not have to change the name, but he had a daughter with leukemia or the like and needed sure money). I read that M$ was prepared to argue that the word Windows was too generic to be a valid trademark, so that the guy would not have any trademark claims on them.
The Real TB
: No great Religion requires you to believe in it.
I have wondered why it is considered permissible, or legal, to present an individual with the terms of an EULA AFTER purchasing the product. It seems logical that the potential purchaser must be presented with all conditions of the acquisition before making the acquisition.
It appears to be analagous to these department stores which post their return policy on the back of the receipt of the product which you purchased. Under these circumstances, I know for certain that the return policy is legally void.
The same logic should follow for shrinkwrapped/electronic EULA: if the purchaser has been presented with the agreement after the purchase, the EULA is void.
It is illegal for a anyone to charge somone for a unsolicited good. HOWEVER by putting the contract on the cover it creates a gray area, meaning that they can still charge the victim...err, customer and get away wiith it.
All you can do is send it back unopened.
Recently I downloaded the eBook Glimmers (the Prologue to Robert Jordan's latest addition to his Wheel of Time series.) Since I ride the bus to and fro work so I tried to print the book out to read enroute. No such luck. I was not authorized to print it! I then tried to move it to my home computer so I could read it at home. No luck there either.
Publisher's are every bit as fastidious about limiting use as anyone else. Unfortunately the trend will continue until it effects enough of the general populace that they are forced to confront it.
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
or give it as a gift to your 1 year old child who can't read
and when he gives it back to you *opened*
your license is void.
I'm a big retard who forgot to log out of Slashdot on Mike's computer! LOOK AT ME.
The case for software licences is lame, but well set-out. The argument is that by making a copy of the software to have it run on your computer, you're making a copy of the whole piece of software, beyond fair-use rights. So you're breaking copyright law if you install or run the software. The license agreement allows you to install or run the software, so if you don't abide by the license agreement, you're in violation of copyright law and Bad Things can be done to you.
That argument is clearly bogus, but that's the state of Copyright case law at the moement.
But what could you possibly be in violation of if you shred the license on a book? For the license to be valid, it has to be giving *you* something as part of the deal. (IANAL, etc.) What could the book license possibly grant you that you can't get just by owning the book? The right to read it? No. You get to keep the book? No -- I either bought it, or in this case it arrived free; I own it, tough. So how could a book shrinkwrap possibly be valid?
Now, the DMCA puts some enforcable provisions in if its an e-book (hiss, spit). And signing an agreement before being given a book -- NDAs, or something -- that's a different story entirely. But I am having trouble imagining what legal leg these book-wrap licenses could possibly be standing on.
IAAL.
1. The unsolicted book is a gift. keep it.
2. The EULA terms are not valid insofar as they purport to resrict your right to use the information in the book or to transfer it it to a third party.
3. whether or not there is a EULA, the text of the book is copyrighted and you may not plagarize it.
4. Take two asprin and call me in the morning.
Everybody loves to hate lawyers until their neighbors dog bites their kid. Then it's "Bring me his fucking head, kill him and his tribe !!!"
Or better yet, get your drunk ass into a custody fight with your ex trailer bride. You'll be demanding your lawyer personally piss on them.
Is not, is not!
Ok, my browser apparently didn't properly render the sarcasm or humor tags in your first reply...
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing -- Emo Phillips
It's already been said only dozens of times above, but it must be said again:
If you get something unsolicited in the mail blah-blah, and U.S. Postal Service code number blah-blah, and blah-blah scams have blah-blah, and blah-blah blah-blah!
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
Giving into despair doesn't help; think of hope as a modified Pascal's Wager.
Or to put it another way: "I know everything is futile, but what good would it do to give up?"
Write 'refused' conspicuously on the package and leave it behind, let the post office deal with it/return to sender...
This is out of line, but he has no obligation to deal with the book at all, you can refuse shipment and it goes back into the void from which it came.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
About 3 months ago my wife received a FedEx package (or maybe UPS but not USPS). She signed for it not knowing who it was from or what was in it. We have been married less than a year so it is not uncommon to still be receiving gifts not knowing who the sender is or what the contents are. Well, she opened the box and inside was a cell phone and an agreement from a company called 4freewireless (or something like that - shoot I wish I could remember the name!). The agreement said something like thank you for choosing to sign up with us - but my wife NEVER signed up with them. The agreement said that if she didn't send the cell phone back in 60 days that that would mean she accepted a year long contract with this company. There were other details in there too - like if the phone was ever used then the 60 day return policy was null and void. I said ignore them - there's nothing they can do - you didn't sign up with them. Throwing the phone away wasn't a good option because if someone found it and activated it then the company could maybe enforce it's "contract". Well, after ignoring it for awhile may wife was still worried and unbeknownst to me she sent the phone back to them at her/our expense. We have since got several letters saying pay up, pay up, you never sent the phone back, pay up or we'll send a collection agency after you! Before sending back the phone she tried calling the company up but she got the response that she must have signed up with them otherwise they never would have sent the phone. Again let me say, this isn't true my wife never signed up for cell phone service with them. I've noticed a few suggestions here that could help us but should we continue to ignore them or do something more about this? Please help! I don't know if USPS fraud laws apply here since they didn't use USPS. Thanks in advance for any help.
Most Sport Events end with some fancy mumbo jumbo about your not alowed to even talk about the sporting event without express permission ov xyz. Anyone know the exact wording?
Ahah! But what do you own? Software EULAs generally say that you own the media but can only use the software under terms of the license. By analogy the unsolicited book is owned by the receiver, but he can only read it by accepting the license terms. Ludicrous? Of course, but that's how lawyers argue (and often succeed).
Does this mean if someone received a "Free Trial Version" of some software through the mail, the recipient would have an unlimited license to install it on as many systems he wanted? Since the recipient now owns the product (not a license to use it), could he then legally circumvent any protection that would limit the products use (ie: 30 day trial periods, etc)?
Insert evil grin here.
www.sguil.net
The Analyst Console for NSM
In Illinois, the law is simple: if you are sent an unsolicited piece of merchandise, you are under NO obligation to pay the sender anything. That book is no longer Omnicare's, it is the doctor's. He can tell them to go blow.
As for the license, I'd wad it up and use it for wiping up cat barf, or something similarly useful.
Maybe he can have a Eula for his next book that prevents the reader from making death threats.
It has too many different lines to be a Wesley Willis lyric. Observe how it's properly done:
Steve Jobs is a shemale.
You should fist him in the ass.
Bitch slap that bitch woman.
Break his glasses in half and shove them up his rectum.
STEEEEEEEEEEVE JOBS
STEEEEEEEEEEEEEEVE JOBS
STEEEEEEEEEEEEVE JOBS
STEEEEEEEEEEEVE JOBS
most books go this way? Would you recommend being illiterate instead?
The license probably would not stop determined spammers, but could possibly provide firmer legal basis for suing those who abuse the privacy of those in the directory.
... in "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress".
to paraphrase from a dim memory, basically, require Congress to have 2 separate houses. In one, laws are passed, requiring a 2/3 majority. In the other, laws are repealed, requiring a 1/3 minority. If a law cannot be supported by 2/3 of the people, what good is it? And if 1/3 of the people cannot tolerate its existence, why have it?
my own view would be very similar to the above, except that repealing a law would take a simple 1/2 majority, to prevent "thrashing".
anyway, what do I know? I'm just a stupid WC3-nicked troll.
MORTAR COMBAT!
1) I keep suggesting that McDonald's, etc. put a shrinkwrap type license on their coffee and other hot beverages stating something like:, "By openning this container the consumer acknowledges that the contents are hot and may cause injury if spilled." Although, they'd probably have to use really fine print if they used the same idea for all of their food with something like, "The consumer acknoledges that fast food can make you fat."
2) Actually, the second example in Ed's column wasn't all that bad. Someone had also sent him a membership directory that had a restrive use clause. If the restriction was something like, "...only for personal, private or professional use within the organization...", I don't think I'd complain. That says that somebody using the directory for spamming could get busted for violating the use restriction. Might be interesting to add something like that a web site that has contact information.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
Shrinkwrapped licenses for books are clearly a violation of the doctrine of first sale (you do not own the rights to distribute the content of a book, but you completely own your copy of the the physical book, and may distribute that any way you please).
If someone voluntarily gives up certain rights to obtain the book, how can this be a violation of the doctrine of first sale? I think thats the whole point of having the contract. If you don't like the terms, you don't have to license the book.
Isn't this a little similar to things like deed-restrictions on the purchase of a house? If you don't agree to the terms, don't buy the house.
"Be careful what you wish. Believe me, you don't want that kind of political party in your country."
Uhh, I want ALL kinds of parties. Any kind under the sun should be allowed. Then, the voters should vote the best one in.
In the USA, that just can't happen. No wonder they're getting closer to a facist/totalitarian/ warlike state every day. Most voices in the USA just can't be heard because the parties to aggregate and articulate those opinions are prevented from existing. The bar is raised too high for in the USA for any kind of new party to ever get decent exposure.
Because of this, the USA is basically screwed, and will eventually end up being ruled by the corporate elite, and enter into wars that the people don't approve of.
BORK!
I don't recall if there was a /. article about this or not, but I remember awhile back reading a website about a custom car shop that was building replicas of Speed Racer's Mach 5. They had a license agreement that said you owned the car, but your use was restricted. You were not allowed to use the car for promotional purposes, and anyone you sold it to would have to agree to the same terms. It didn't sound like a very good deal, considering what the asking price was.
Carefully open the package, and replace the contents with a brick if it'll fit, though semi-dried cement works just as well. Reseal it, and mark it "Refused - return to sender". Put it back in the mailbox, and see how the company likes paying for sending a brick cross-country.
I don't know if this will still work, but it's worth a shot.
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
At the point where the copyright holder sells or gives you the book, that person may require a contract. Once the book has been obtained, however, you shouldn't have to give up any rights in order to use it. That's the way I see it, at least.
"By calling this number you agree not to buy, sell, or distribute any personal or demographic information about me to third parties. Furthermore, you agree not to buy or sell or distribute for any reason any information about me that may already exist in your database. You also agree to leave a freshly baked pumpkin pie on your back porch every Tuesday evening and not question what happens to it. If you agree to these terms, please stay on the line and I will be with you shortly. If you do not agree to these terms, hang up now and remove me from your calling list. Thank You for your cooperation." ... or something like that.
AC
The license is irrelevant, because by law the book
was a gift. If you send someone merchandise that
they didn't order, they don't just have a license,
they own it. At least in the USA. The law may be
different in other countries.
At the point where the copyright holder sells or gives you the book, that person may require a contract. Once the book has been obtained, however, you shouldn't have to give up any rights in order to use it. That's the way I see it, at least.
I agree with you. Shrink-wrap licenses are a poor way to try to create these contracts. The point- of-sale is the appropriate place.
Licenses for books is not a new concept; it is quite common for, say the Stanford Research Institute to publish a technology assesment or market study that is intended to be sold to a company for a pretty stiff fee. Ditto organizations like Gartner etc.
Generally these studies are delivered in the form os a book, but in addition to the normal copyright provisions goes a license that further restricts the use of the book or report - including that the contents are not to be disclosed to people unauthorized in the license. Sort of an NDA for the report.
What is new with this is the shrinkwrap aspect of the license, no doubt attempting to extend the concept of the software shrinkwrap.
Now, you are liable based on LAW, not english writing rules (standard, untill now) to pay, depending on how greedy the lawyers are.
IS THAT WHAT THIS IS COMMING TO?
Oh wait... Money... everyone is f-n greedy, and wants their money.
My hats are off to all the poeople that take their time to work on GPL software and public domain work. LDP for example, freely redistributed software.
The is all your fault, all this everything should be free, copying anything should be legal, and so on. All this basically socialist BS is forcing busineses to put this licensing crap on books and who knows what next to cover their ass when abused and they have to go after some one. Companies in the past alway tolerated reasonable use and making reasonable copies. But Napster and cracking encryptiong to copy copyrighted materials to share with the world, you brought these lawsuits and licenses about. Most of you whiners are in high school or college and don't know what work is. Well when you get out you'll realize paying for something means someone is getting paid to produce it, its not all corporate profit. You illegaly copy something somenoe is not getting a paycheck. That someone will end up being you at some point. Sorry but the world isn't free, and will never be. It's a nice thought, but reality is it don't work. Money makes the world go around, money is the mother of invention. Go read some Ayn Rand and grow up.
And I type this to get past the lameness filter.
After that, if they want you to agree to a license, it would have to be a separate transaction. And you would only have reason to give such a deal a second thought, if the offer included some sort of carrot (e.g. like the GPL gives permission to distribute copies and derivative works).
It wouldn't really any different than this case of the unsolicited book.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
A couple of things.....
1. It amazes me that the shrinkwrap licence didn't specifically state that the prospective user could not comment on the fact that the book had a shrink wrap licence attached.... Seems to make as much sense as attaching meaningless legal gobbledegook.... (Oh, I SEE, that clause WAS on the back of the licence... you just couldn't read it from the outside!)....
2. We should all form a lynch group and go and visit Seymour Rubenstein - the guy that used to run Micropro - he was "credited" with "inventing" the shrink wrap licence. Prior to him introducing this crap, you bought software, you owned your copy - similar to a book. You could use it, lend it to a friend, re-sell it, use it as toilet paper, etc....
It totally redefines the meaning of "Steal
This Book."
Annything that is mailed unsolicited to YOU becomes your property. If it's not addressed to you, it hasn't been mailed to you, regardless of if it happend to end up in your box. It is the property of the person it is addressed to. However if something shows up in your box, with your name on it, it's yours, period. Now if you agreed to pay for it beforehand, you now have to do that (you have a contract, even if only verbal), but if they sent it to you unsolicited, well it's yours to do with as you please, and they don't have any say in it.
CueCat got into this whole thing, they were claiming people weren't allowed to hack the CueCats to read other barcodes, but got struck down since the CueCats had been sent out unsolicited, and therefore the recipients hadn't agreed to any contract.
What about just ripping off the shrinkwrap from the back, and throwing it away? This is what I do all the time... if someone stuck a license on the front of it, I'd never even see it.
This sig is part of your complete breakfast.
I posted earlier and was pondering on what a suitable punishment for such a crime as a shrinkwrap EULA on a book would be and then realised .....
The book would never be read.....
That seemed to me to be punishment enough!
Going to the doctor's and hear him say:
"Well Mr. Smith, I've finally found out what's wrong with you, but I'm afraid I can't tell you"
A spark went across my neurons as I read this post, & I had an idea.
All software vendors zealously guard their ``intellectual property", looking for ways to not only protect their investment, but get the maximum return on it. At the same time, their lawyesrs are working overtime to avoid any responsibility for the effects of this software: if the results aren't correct, & a company loses money for buying & using the software, too bad so sad.
Now what makes me wonder is if the algorhythms & coding in the software is held on one hand to be of value -- e.g., ``pay us money to use this application" -- but on the other hand the creator of this software wants to be held blameless & without guarrantee, doesn't that suggest that there is *NO* value in this software? That the creator is trying to sell to people something that she/he simultaneously avows is of no useful value?
If there is no useful value to a given piece of software, then why should the creator be given any rights of ownership to something that is worthless?
It would be worth the price of admision to see the corporate lawyers for MS, Oracle, Network Associates, et alia, argue that down.
Geoff
P.S. -- I don't know if this argument is convincing in a court of law, so it is probably worthless. And if you try this at home, you implicitly hold me blameless for trying it.
I think I see a trend here. Maybe for them it really would be easier to muzzle the entire internet than to produce p
Won't anyone think of the children?!?!
That's the only thing that seems to work these days.
As a 17 year old, I've nothing to worry about for 6 more months. I can't legally enter into a binding contract as a minor, therefore the EULA doesn't apply to me. Rock.
:)
ps... IANAL
Their contact e-mail is
webadministrator@omnicare.com
So now the poor webadmin is going to be deluged with pointless flames about something he has no control over. When has it been common practice for MD's and legal persons to actually read complaints sent to the webmaster NOT about the website? I'm sure there's exceptions, but it's certainly not the best approach for contacting people.
If you're going to supply contact details, at least do the research to supply the correct ones... and that doesn't mean scanning the website for a "contact us" link.
If the contract isn't signed at the same time as the sale (or prior to the sale) then, there is no agreement, period. There is no such thing as an enforcable gift, and that's what an "agreement" made after a sale is.
I can understand why an association might want to release a shrinkwrapped members directory with a licence agreement. Many associations release membership directories for the use of their members (to facilitate intercommunication) and not for spammers. A shrinkwrap licence would help discourage the abuse of the directory and (theoretically!) prevent spammers from faxing/emailing/snail mailing association members with their sales crap. The accounting association I work for has a real problem with this. Our members directories are not available to the public, but sales people are constantly trying to scam copies. Fearless Froggie
Didn't Digital Convergence do something like this when they sent out their free barcode scanners, then tried to sue those who engaged in the practice of reverse engineering the scanner?
he can do with it as he damn well pleases...
provided it came USPS and not UPS or FEDEX
"I'm a college professor"
Well, I'm not a college professor, but I do play one on TV.
Sorry. I just needed to say that.
Carry on.
The Public Library is as American as Apple Pie. Imagine kids riding their bikes down the street to the library, checking out books, bringing them home to be read on summer vacation. Ahhh Memories...
If Publishing world starts wanting to restict fair use of dead-tree books, then they will find themselves on the wrong side of a backlash.
Come on Jack and Hilary, bring it on... I dare you.
My father is a blogger.
It is true - anything that someone sends to you, unsolicited, is to be considered a gift. So OmniCare can go screw themselves if they want their book back...
You sent it, I'm keeping it... thanks... it's mine. Any complaints - contact the USPS Inspectors, and the FTC... Both will be happy to set them straight.
Now on the other hand, if the Dr. *asked* for the book, and it was sent, and doesn't agree to the license, then back it goes... While I don't agree with the shrinkwrap license (ummm, it wasn't shrinkwrapped - prove it was... I never got a license...etc.), I'd also say that not informing one of the license BEFORE ordering and then making one pay to return ship AFTER receiving wouldn't pass the bogosity test either... IF they included a return tag that they paid for, that's one thing...
In case "all'y'all" forgot; the supreme court already ruled "shrinkwrapped licenses" unenforcable.
Now, here's thought, break the "license agreement," and see if anyone dares to do anything. I will ensure funds for court-costs, but not for breaking of actual laws (i.e. putting a copy on KaZaA or MusicCity or gnutella or whatever you choose) that is to say, copyright laws and anything else actually enforcable.
Go nuts! I dare you!
If its unenforcable for software, you can bet it ain't gonna happen on books!
You can link to the post, copy and paste, do what you wish; harrass me at my abi-address, I know this is an easy promise to keep!
"Yeah...it was the numbers that were irrational, not the murderous cult of vegetarians...." -- Hippasus of Metapontum
I've got a really fast one-commandment legal code, optimized to fit our society.
"...don't get caught!"
"We have to go forth and crush every world view that doesn't believe in tolerance and free speech." - David Brin
I remember my grandmother who was always into gardening one time came across a plant she bought at a nursery. When she got it home and looked at the label and said in bold letters "Propagation Prohibited". At first she was puzzled since she had never encountered anything like that before, then she was like WATCH ME!
http://www.livejournal.com/users/cixel
Nobody ever said that you couldn't send them a letter recorded delivery, stating "By not replying to this letter within seven days of receipt you are agreeing to revoke all terms in your license agreement", as long as you provide an envelope for return post :-)
Given the unsolicited-mail rule, we'll have to sucker them into buying something. But that shouldn't be too hard.
Write a shrink-wrap license that says, "If you are a member of the U.S. Senate or House of Representatives, by opening this package you agree to cast all future legislative votes according to the wishes of shrink-wrap license owner."
Either the courts have to decide shrink-wrap licenses are invalid, or we own the world. Either way we win. Heh heh.
LICENSE AGREEMENT /. post you agree that
CowboyNeal is the master of the
universe. You will also take off your pants
(if you are wearing any), kneel, and
bark like a little dog.
By reading this
I know we all enjoy going to to the bookstore and browsing books, but I've seen some new books on the shelves that are really torn apart from in-store reading, to the point of being unsellable. If the publishers or stores feel they need to shrink-wrap books to ensure that we get a "newish" looking book when we buy a new book, I'll support them.
I might be less likely to impluse buy books that look good if I can't peek inside first, but I'd rather not pay "new" prices for "used" books.
Omnicare's CEO and CFO didn't comply.
Most companies did. Many of the ones that didn't are known to be in trouble. Read the list.
Companies that do bad things in one area tend to do bad things in other areas, so this shrink-wrapped book wierdness might be viewed as an early warning indicator of management trouble.
Aaah, the good old days, when discrimination against minorities was not only rampant, but legally protected. When child labor was common. Before civil rights, before womens' suffrage (if you want to look back that far). Yes, those were the golden days of individual rights.
My point is that the pendulum analogy is invalid. There's no reason to believe that we can only lose rights and not gain them (back). History tells otherwise.