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.
There is no law that says that you have to read "every single page" of a book you buy. You just say: I skipped those pages (I had a headache or something) They're going to ask why you skipped them, and you'll say: "It looked boring" to which there is of course no reply, because that would be the go-awful truth.
"Piter, too, is dead."
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.
Okay, let me see. Assume that I am a doctor. OmniCare sends me one of these hefty tomes. I see the sticker on the front mentioning the shrinkwrap license, unwrap the book, read the license, shrug and toss the book in a dumpster on my way to lunch.
1) How can OmniCare prove it was me who opened it? (They can't.)
2) How can they prove it even arrived unless they send it certified mail? (They really can't.)
3) How can they prove that I unwrapped the book? (Again, they can't.)
Seems to me that they (OmniCare) is going to extreme lengths in order to try and ensure that the doctors who receive these books keep them. Big deal. I could always use another doorstop.
Kierthos
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
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
I'd make sure #1 was:
Thou shalt not threaten litigation prior to having evidence of illegal activity by the defendant.
The way I see it, ignorance of the law is exactly how these folks get away with it. Most people dont know theres no law that says these things are legally binding, so the threats themselves become the law. Making threats that are not backed up by law should be illegal, as one is simply plying on the fact that customers have 24 hours in their days, and we cannot all hire personal lawyers to vet the threats we are presented with every single day.
You're not allowed to threaten somebody with their life; whats the difference if you threaten to make somebody so poor through litigation that their life would never be the same? I really dont see a functional difference unless you claim that having your wealth erased through litigation is infintesimally smaller a threat than ones life.
"Old man yells at systemd"
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.
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.
Look up the Barratry statutes in your jurisdiction and you'll find this is already there. It's a disbarrable offense for a lawyer to engage in that kind of conduct.
You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are.
-- Colonel Adolphus Busch
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!
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
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
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
Before you do that, notice the following lines from the USPS citation in the prior posting -- "You, the consumer, may only legally be sent two types of merchandise through the mail without your consent or agreement:
Free samples which are clearly and conspicuously marked as such.
Merchandise mailed by a charitable organization that is soliciting contributions.
And in these two cases, you can consider the merchandise a gift if you wish. In all other situations, it is illegal to send merchandise to someone, unless that person has previously ordered or requested it."
This book fits neither the clearly marked nor from charitable organization categories. They have therefore performed an illegal act. USPS likely implies Federal jurisdiction. Sic the Feds on the bastards. Your violation of the license agreement should quickly become the least of the sender's problems.
It'd be interesting to see what Omnicare's response would be if a large number of recipients of this book would donate it to their local library. If that ended up in court, what a delicious case, no?
... 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!