Slashdot Mirror
Who Owns Software?
SeeSp0tRun writes to remind us of Blizzard's lawsuit against MDY Industries over the Glider cheat. It seems that Blizzard is pushing it even further. They're trying out the legal theory that a software creator retains complete control over how a program is used, meaning that anyone who uses it in a different way could be found guilty of copyright infringement, at $750 a pop. The EFF and Public Knowledge are among the organizations trying to assure that the court doesn't set a really bad precedent here.
I do the second uTorrent is finished with it.
+1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
They want to keep the rights to how it is used? Hm. Does that mean they are responsible for how it is used, then? If someone uses it "wrong" and "hurts" me, does that mean I can sue the developer, since he is the one in charge of how it is used?
that if I open a paint can with a screwdriver, the screwdriver manufacturer can sue me?
I'm no lawyer, but even I recognize that what they're talking about is simply a matter of contract law. You have your EULA, enforce it. It's not a matter of copyright law, no matter how convenient that would make things for them thanks to the insane penalties that accompany it.
Retaining control of software usage is semantically identical to a book publisher claiming that using a book they published as a prop for an uneven table leg is violating copyright.
If a precedent is set to this effect, I would gladly advocate violating the "rights" of everyone involved in this decision. I really cannot understand why people like this are tolerated. Deport them. Imprison them. Kill them. But get rid of them.
A proper Slashdot 'question' title is a blatant assertion in the form of a question, i.e.
"Should Blizzard Really Control Everything You Do With WoW?"
If Blizzard wins this, then they are in effect responsible for all the deaths of WoW players from marathon gaming sessions. They would then need to prevent anyone from playing over a reasonable number of hours straight without breaks.
If someone dies playing it, then it's how they intended the game to function, with manslaughter charges to follow...
Granted, this is an extremist point of view, but if they are going to take charge of how the game is played, then they must take responsibility to all effects the game has on the gamer.
You cannot take the right without the responsibility.
Who is general failure, and why is he reading my hard drive?
17 U.S.C. Â 117(a)(1)
So, could they say no fat people not wearing pants can use their software? How about nobody under the age of 30? Black people? White people? Brown people?
At what point, does their assertion they can control "how it is used" completely break down and be outside of the realm of copyright law, beyond what you can do in an EULA, and just plain silly.
I would say they've basically gone into the plain silly category. But, who knows. Courts have upheld the damnedest things.
Cheers
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Diablo - now we know where Blizzard got the name for that game.
And what it cost them to get it. Poor fools.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
You cannot take the right without the responsibility.
"should not" and "cannot" are two very different words.
The wealthy can do all kinds of things they shouldn't be able to do. This business of suing you if you use "my" software in a way of which I disapprove, but being held blameless if you harm someone else by doing so, is a good example.
Build it into the licencing agreement. If people find your licence too restrictive, well they are welcome to go elsewhere.
...and remember kids a licence is just the right to use, not ownership, so this has nothing to do with buying a physical object and how you use that. AKA buying a jeep but not allowed to drive on dirt roads, or using a screw driver for non-screw related purposes.... Totally different. Though if a maker of a screw driver started puting said restrictions on their screw drivers, I would think that company would not be in business long, so its pretty much a moot point.
This is not a software issue, this is a licencing issue.
I know licences are used all the time to say you can use this a certain way, but not this way, or that way, etc. So long as both the Licencee and Licencor both have their eyes open as to the agreement, I fail to see much of an issue here.
It seems the article has a good point. Blizzard is trying to sue for what is a contract violation instead of a copyright violation. A copyright violation has a minimum penalty of $750 dollars because it usually deals with distribution of media and has real damage. Contract violation has no minimum because the damage dealt can vary so much.
In the case of Blizzard's WOW servers, I wouldn't even necessarily call what glider does "damage" to the server, but that will be up to the courts. If the judge has a head on his shoulder the most he'll hold contract violators responsible for is the cost to remove glider-users from the database split between all of the known glider users.
Well, back to rejecting software patent applications.
Unless it is clearly spelled out in a binding contract, this idea shouldn't even come up! Even if it is spelled in a contract, it would still be questionable to legal pass. And the contract needs to be entirely up front, and completely rejectable. Not something that you need to break the seal upon just to read, and can't get your money back for breaking the seal.
I can understand I can't do x,y,z on _your_ servers, but by the same token, you shouldn't be able to do a,b,c on what is rightfully mine!! Your control stops at your internet connection, mine starts at mine! It is really _that_ simple. And don't come crying to me about people cheating and crap! Don't crush my rights just cause you suck at your job.
Blizzard is also alleging the somewhat more sane claim of tortious contract interference, by saying that Blizzard is engaged in a contractual relationship with its customers, and MDY is willfully interfering, for profit, with that relationship.
The problem for Blizzard is that this claim is far more nebulous in terms of damages. Copyright law includes statutory damages, meaning that they don't actually have to prove that they were damaged, or by how much, if they win on the copyright claim.
Either way, getting injunctive relief against MDY is the most important thing, but if Blizzard can also get a monetary award, then it puts all the other cheat developers on notice that they could end up in very hot water if they don't close up shop. If all Blizzard manages to get is an injunction, however, cheat developers will likely just wait until they actually get sued before they bother to decide whether or not they will shut down their business.
So SCO can force you to ONLY use 'rm' with the following arguments: /;
-rf
Pay the extended license that allows unrestricted use, or lose your filesystems, sucka!
So, if this lawsuit actually succeeds, then as I read this, any time a computer program crashes because someone used it in a way that wasn't intended (ie, anticipated) by the developer, you can sue for copyright infringement.
Some big software companies are going to get even richer.
I *like* where this is going! </sarcasm>
I really don't like the idea that a copy of software in memory could be considered a copy for purposes of copyright law. Given that the copy only lasts as long as the software is in use, and cannot be readily separated from the copy on disk, and also that it is absolutely necessary to create to actually use the software, this should be considered purely part of the technological process of viewing the software.
Surely copyright law should only deal with those aspects of copying that affect distribution. Not use.
Perhaps Blizzard thinks that they can have a license somewhat like the GPL (but even more viral) --- a "work based upon or that makes use of" their product falls under their license and ownership?
Ummm...you obviously haven't bothered to actually read or find out a single fact about this case, have you?
I'll lay out the really pertinent facts. You're welcome to find out more on your own.
The woman was severely burned. Initially, she asked McD's for $20k to cover medical expenses for her medical treatments. McD's refused to even talk to her.
Here's the kicker: the coffee at McD's (not just that one, but every single one, as they all operate under the guidance of the corporate office, and had the same coffee makers) was found to be keeping coffee *FAR* above a reasonably hot temperature. This was corporate policy. McDonalds had a policy to keep coffee between 180 and 190 degrees, which is not too terribly far from boiling.
She had 3rd Degree burns, as well as severe 2nd degree burns, and spent over a week in the hospital and required skin grafts.
There was also over 700 reports of burns due to the temperature of McDonalds coffee in the decade preceeding this incident. McDonalds had actually settled with many of these, to the tune of over $500k paid.
It was also testified that drinking McD's coffee at the time given to the customer at that temperature would burn *ANYONE'S* mouth. I find this to be true today, although its rumored that in the time since the lawsuit, McD's has again jacked temperatures.
So, lets see: serving a substance you know can cause 3rd degree burns, where you have a decade of claims arising from the practice, refusing a request (which you had granted to *MANY* others) for covering of legitimate medical expenses.
If you actually read the facts of the case, you'll see that the media coverage has omitted most of the pertinent facts on this case. McD's deserved what they got. They should have choked up the $20k and been done with it.
I don't know about you, but I don't like to drink coffee that can give me 3rd degree burns.
At $750 per copy, this software is apparently worth $50 more than RIAA values songs. ($700 / song)
Would a ruling on this have a bearing on whether restrictions on other software are valid? You know, stupid stuff like database vendors trying to tell you that you cannot publish benchmarks of their software. If Blizzard looses, this could really hurt other companies -- which would be really nice.
Method of processing duck feet
"bots spend far more time in-game than an ordinary player would and consume resources the entire time."
So? You control the game. Limit the effectiveness, or boot people off (like they ALREADY DO in parts of SE Asia), when they've been on too long.
Or, you know, if your servers are accepting bogus input that lets people cheat, maybe you could validate the input first? (Or heck, if people a willing to pay to replace your "gameplay" with the use of a script, maybe that speaks to just how engaging your "gameplay" really is.)
Those who fail to understand communication protocols, are doomed to repeat them over port 80.
I think the gist of the argument is that if you load Glider into RAM along with the WoW client, and that it directly accesses the WoW client, then you are creating a derived work in RAM. Since you are not licensed to do so, then you are violating their copyright. It's very similar to the GPL.
By using this product (Microsoft Word, hereafter referred to as Word) you agree to never never ever write anything critical about The Microsoft Corporation, Mr. Bill Gates, Mr. Steve Ballmer's chair throwing...
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
in the wake of their messing up entire game, coming of age of conan and other major mmos, this shit of a stunt they are pulling with bastardizing the ages old concept of 'sale' will be great publicity for them, and will make wow subscriber numbers swell.
NOT.
idiots. you are living at the age of internet, and running an internet game service. you should have gone with listening to your subscriber base, rather than listening to your shithead lawyers. ask your lawyers to make up for your subscriber revenue losses now, in all your morondom.
Read radical news here
They also hate it when you complete the game sooner rather than later because all that grinding earns them additional months of revenue from you, sucker!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
I was one of the first people using bots and macros in Asheron's Call 1 then I was one of the most advanced bot makers in it. If your game is so simple that a bot can play it, maybe your game isn't really fun to play to begin with. If you have zones that a bot can play, maybe you should tool your game so bots can't play them. If your game is failing, it isn't because people are playing your game with bots.
God spoke to me.
... no really, I do.
come on fhqwhgads
And so everyone who ever bought a SECOND cup of coffee at McDonalds knew the temperature that it got served at. It's not a hidden hazard; as you say, it was a corporate policy. And, IMHO, everyone who ever bought a SECOND cup was taking responsibility for handling that cup cautiously. Was this the lady's first cup of McDonalds coffee? If so, she has a case. If not, I'm sorry for her accident. /frank
And the worms ate into his brain.
heh, after seeing all of this publicity i went out and got the mmo glider, great source of income for me now! just build up and sell lvl 70's THANKS BLIZZARD
I Also don't like drinking coffee that can give me 3rd degree burns, That is why Whenever I get a beverage that is traditionally severed hot I always test it to make sure I can tolerate it. I then cool it down to the temperature that I can tolerate before drinking it or sticking it between my legs in a moving vehicle. Whether or not the case had merit in the eyes of many people the proper use of common sense is a responsibility. And this case is a good example of it. Even if McDonalds was in the wrong people know that coffee is hot and care and proper safety must be followed when preparing, serving, and consuming it. For better or worse this case will always be argued because of that point.
If I prepay them $750, can I glider bot to my heart's content? I've got more money than time to grind.
When SCO claimed that the GPL was invalid, /.ers were perfectly content to use the same logic that Blizzard is busting out now.
Either you:
(A) agree the EULA is enforceable, and then Glider is a contract violation.
(B) claim the EULA is invalid, in which case you have no license to use the software, and then its a copyright violation.
This was the same with SCO, except the license in question was the GPL.
Can I still edit my .WTF without being sued?
Can I still have the right to do what I want with the software I OWN?
We can finally get back at all those business types who insist on using Excel as a database!
The McDonalds coffee thing is a very poor example. McDonalds fucked up, plain and simple. All the old dimwitted woman wanted was medical bills paid (so there would not have even been an issue in any civilized country like Canada or Britain). Had McDumbass paid the what, two hundred bicks? They would have saved their shareholders thousands.
There are really very few examples of egregious, scandalous lawsuits like that. Doctors squeal and whine about malpractice suits, but in reality unless the doctor really fcked up bad - left a sponge in the patient, sawed off the wrong leg, prescribed a lethal dose of drug, or whatever, juries are not inclined to go in favor of the patient.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
ALL YOUR SOFTWARE ARE BELONG TO US! You are on the way to destruction - You have no chance to survive make your time
Cause you know, having your coffee cold by the time you get to work makes it so much more enjoyable to drink. Just be careful. Or, for you youngins out there, don't hate the player, hate the game.
I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
This is the same problem with MPAA and movies. If they don't want me to watch the movie on my choice of player - and maybe even cut out scenes I don't like - they should make it available for rental only.
"I don't know about you, but I don't like to drink coffee that can give me 3rd degree burns."
They're not your baby sitters. If you find it too hot, don't buy coffee from them.
This is all find and dandy, except the ideal temp to hold coffee at is 180 to 185 degrees. Coffee isn't meant to be guzzled, it's meant to be sipped. Yes, she got burned. Yes, that sucks. Too bad, be more careful next time. And, here's an idea, don't drink coffee while driving!
They WERE, you illiterate cretin. And McDonald's knew it. Which is why it was a legit case. You're the lawyer fanboy here. You're the one making tort reform look bad.
Blizzard couldn't possibly care less if you installed their client, ran Glider, but never connected to Blizzard's servers. The issue is that using applications like Glider and extra-game behaviors like buying gold significantly and adversely affect the game-play and economics of the in-game economy for other subscribers, and to prevent those adverse effects, they have rules against them.
Blizzard's attempt to enforce these prohibitions using copyright may or may not be legally correct (IANAL), but it's far from "scary." It may not be copyright infringement, but you're definitely violating the terms and conditions when you load Glider and WoW at the same time. They have a right and an obligation to protect the rest of their subscribers.
You can pwn through hackery or through law. It's a never-ending arms race, but it's the law that fights in futility, and hackers who fight in utility.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
Will Apple try to use this to go after mac os X86 users as well?
It seems to be a common legal tactic these days for lawyers to automatically file for summary judgment on their legal claims and theories, no matter how shaky their foundation in logic or fact, in an attempt to win a quick decision which might have far reaching and very negative consequences and side effects. It is an extremely short sited thing for an officer of the court (and lawyers are technically officers of the court) to do in light of the damage it might cause to the practice of law in general. There ought to be , if there are not already, some sort of sanctions for abusing legal procedures in these ways and they need to be enforced for the ultimate benefit of all parties with an interest in the laws going forward (including possibly the short sited plaintiff and his attorney...one never knows when something that was initially useful might come back to bite one in the posterior when it is least expected).
Normally, coffee from your own coffee pot will just scald you not cause permanent injury.
You need to be hit over the head until it sinks in.
McDonalds was acting contrary to industry practice despite multiple
prior complaints. Not only were they acting with reckless disregard
and avarice, they were suppressing information about all of this.
Perhaps if the prior settlements weren't sealed, this shenanigan
might have come to light sooner.
McD's INVALIDATED "common sense" by doing something stupid that
no one else was doing. They INVALIDATED everyone's common
experience.
The extra 30 degrees in question are very relevant.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Basically, if Blizzard loses, then, they can't effectively stop cheating on their systems. That pretty much hoses their business. On the other hand, if Blizzard wins, then, software companies essentially get the right to decide who inter operates with them, and that's just a worldwide disaster.
So, unfortunately, online gamers, but, gaming has to the needs of humanity for a free market. So, there's always going to be cheaters and you'll never really have an honest online game experience with strangers. About the best that Blizzard could do would be to try and have a secure link of some sort to dissuade developers from writing cheat-bots.
This is my sig.
You guys are all rights but no duty...
I Really am hopping that Blizzard break the leg of any bot maker in their game. These cheaters got the fun out of many MMORPG i tried to play. As everyone has high level and many itens. At least, in this game you can't be outside the city killing all the newbies for fun. But, if the bot making go on, it would get much of my fun playing on the Battleground.
Blizzard is just fighting for the ones who play for fun. That, unfortunately, aren't the one who speak a lot in the forum. However, are a lot of their players.
The reason it caused third degree burns was because she was old and was wearing sweat pants and was holding the cup in her crotch. The vast majority of the burn cases for McDonalds were not third degree burns but first degree burns which can happen to any coffee drinker. Anyway, you're not supposed to drink your coffee immediately after you get it. So to testify that immediately drinking coffee after you get it would burn your mouth is meaningless. To some extent her case had merit, and in fact the liability was split. But most of the facts presented are frequently taken out of context or are wrong. She had a legitimate grievance but that does not mean that all testimony that was given in the trial is correct.
And you need to re-read my post. I wasn't arguing if they where in the right or wrong. I was stating that this case will always be used as a common sense argument because of its common perception. Perhaps I wasn't very clear on that.
So you think McD has the right to burn everyone -once- as long as its a learning experience? We've got a smart one here.
"Here's the scary part: Blizzard also insists that because the license agreement forbids using Glider with WoW, Glider users are committing copyright infringement when they load copies of WoW into RAM in order to play the game."
This has to be one of the stupidest attempts at trying to pin someone for copyright infringement ever.
I'm going to pretend that the quoted characterization is accurate. If so, then this sound very much like the GPL. The are both licenses. If you fail to comply with the terms of the GPL you are violating a copyright since the license is the only thing that grants permission to the copyrighted work, and if you fail to comply with the terms of the EULA you are violating a copyright since the license is the only thing that grants permission to the copyrighted work.
Blowing hot coffee to cool it down is part of the coffee drinking experience and that bitch ruined it. .... the Florida sun is hotter then the coffee served in Florida.
Coffee served in the USA is usually just above warm and will cool down to some nasty half warm liquid in no time
I call here a fucking bitch because I can get hotter coffee from my own coffee maker.
Because the Glider owner is going to Open Source the project.
This is Barbara Steisand syndrome, and it's only going to get worse for Blizzard.
On a positive note, I just hit level 70 (with Glider, I won't deny it), and now I can finally start enjoying the raiding and getting gear and whatnot, since before 70 it's no point to get good gear since it's replaceable so easily.
The price is always right if someone else is paying.
What kind of dumb stupid lawyers McD had to lose this case! The lawyers were incompetent or the company decided to lose the case on purpose.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
I think the bigest problem with this case is the exact detailed nature of it. Other courts will not have the technical grasp of what is going on here and will use the info incorrectly.
A 3rd party program is actualy making a copy of wow in ram, making a small change to it, then running it.
That is what they claim is copyright infringement.
Now look at this example
You run wow after loading it into ram, then start a 3rd party program that makes a small change to it.
That would not be covered under that copyright infringement claim. The difference is very small but it is very real and that is the detail the entire case depends on. The fear is that if blizzard wins this case, both examples will become copyright issues and that will have huge desasterous effects.
It is very rare that you would have a legal reason for running a program the way wow glider does when the main program is not designed that way.
The counter argument is this: does microsoft have a right to copy the program into ram and run it. That is basicly what the OS is doing when the user startes it. What if wow glider was 2 sepperate systems from 2 different groups. one that acts as a boot loader for wow and the other that patches it as an addon to the boot loader. If you remove the Hack from the case, would the case still have merrit?
Im a gamer, not a grammer major. This post is full of spelling and grammer mistakes.
Berne Convention.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
Ummm...you obviously haven't bothered to actually read or find out a single fact about this case, have you?
I'll lay out the really pertinent facts. You're welcome to find out more on your own.
Your facts are wrong in many cases.
The woman was severely burned. Initially, she asked McD's for $20k to cover medical expenses for her medical treatments. McD's refused to even talk to her.
Irrelevant. The only real question is if McD caused her injuries through causation or negligence.
Here's the kicker: the coffee at McD's (not just that one, but every single one, as they all operate under the guidance of the corporate office, and had the same coffee makers) was found to be keeping coffee *FAR* above a reasonably hot temperature.
Depends what you call reasonable. When they kept the coffee at lower temperatures they would get complaints. The coffee industry recommends keeping at that temperature for better taste.
She had 3rd Degree burns, as well as severe 2nd degree burns, and spent over a week in the hospital and required skin grafts.
Irrelevant. The only real question is if McD caused her injuries. The type of injury is not relevant. Did McD cause her injury?
There was also over 700 reports of burns due to the temperature of McDonalds coffee in the decade preceeding this incident. McDonalds had actually settled with many of these, to the tune of over $500k paid.
All the other injuries were caused by McD employees spilling coffee on people, or not attaching the lids. A much clearer case of direct causation.
It was also testified that drinking McD's coffee at the time given to the customer at that temperature would burn *ANYONE'S* mouth. I find this to be true today, although its rumored that in the time since the lawsuit, McD's has again jacked temperatures.
No, they just put stupid warnings on all the lids for you idiots who didn't know that coffee was hot, and prefer to spill coffee on yourselves.
So, lets see: serving a substance you know can cause 3rd degree burns, where you have a decade of claims arising from the practice, refusing a request (which you had granted to *MANY* others) for covering of legitimate medical expenses.
Did the woman drink coffee before? Yes. Did she ever make coffee herself? Yes. When she made coffee, did she boil water? Yes. Did she know coffee was hot? Yes.
At what point do you have to treat adults like adults? Seven hundred people injured by McD's coffee, all caused by McD's employees spilling the coffee and BILLIONS OF CUPS OF COFFEE DRUNK WITHOUT INCIDENT.
For every injury, 24 million people drink coffee without injury. Is there something special about all these 24 million people? Do they know something this woman doesn't?
Is the fault with the coffee? Or this woman who puts a cup of coffee between her legs, opens it, spills coffee on herself, then sits in the coffee.
Why didn't she open it more carefully? Why didn't she use one of the many cupholders in the vehicle?
If you actually read the facts of the case, you'll see that the media coverage has omitted most of the pertinent facts on this case. McD's deserved what they got. They should have choked up the $20k and been done with it.
Yes, McD's should have known that their case wouldn't be judged by things like "facts" and would instead be judged by 12 idiots not smart enough to get out of jury duty, who see a sad old lady on one side and a wealthy company on the other side.
I don't know about you, but I don't like to drink coffee that can give me 3rd degree burns.
You are supposed to sip coffee, numbnuts. If you prefer to chug your coffee, maybe another beverage would be better for you.
Leave the cost, but instead have the cost be a percentage of the annual revenue of the entity that holds it, or a higher percentage of the annual revenue the copyright brings, whichever is larger.
So a copyrighted work that is not bringing revenue is inherently cheaper... and it's cheaper for an individual to hold a copyright than a corporation.
180 degrees is what my boiler is set at in the winter in Wisconsin. Far far too hot for a cup of coffee. Most hot water heaters are set to 120 or below.
Do not feel guilty for downloading or sharing any of Blizzard's games from here on out (just like EA).
End Note.
You should really check out Overlawyered's take on the case.
http://www.overlawyered.com/2005/10/urban-legends-and-stella-liebe.html
The case truly is ridiculous.
First, let me say that I disagree with the direction that Blizzard is taking this case. I see why they're doing it, but I don't think it's a good idea. However, I don't think that this situation is as simple as some of the analogies that I have seen on here. It is definitely not the same as buying a book, using it in an unconventional way, and getting sued.
There are two big differences that I see between WoW and a regular piece of software.
First, even though you initially buy the software, you are playing it on an online service that is owned by Blizzard. WoW is, in some ways, more similar to your internet service than your copy of Windows. Much of the activity is taking place on their property, and they do have some say what you can and can't do.
Second, what you do in WoW can directly affect Blizzard's other customers, and, if you use something like Glide, it can actually degrade the quality of Blizzard's product for other customers.
Now, IANAL, so I'm not even going to pretend to know what kind of legal remedies are available to Blizzard. However, I just wanted to point out that, while Blizzard may be taking the wrong approach, they have legitimate and understandable reasons for wanting to stop Glide.
There is a very important legal distinction between what you get when you purchase software and what you get when you purchase a book or CD. When you buy a book or CD, you buy a copy of it, to use in whatever way you like. Copyright law restricts you from making unauthorized copies of the work and redistributing them, but that is the only restriction.
When you buy software, you don't actually buy a copy. What you buy is a license to use the software. All a license is, is a contractual right to do something. This is why Oracle can restrict you from running their software on more than one CPU if you only bought a single-cpu license. When you "bought" the software under a single-cpu license, you get a complete copy of the software on some media, cd or whatever. But what you paid for, and what you actually own, is the contractual right to use the software on a single CPU. The terms of that contract are governed by the license agreement (the EULA). You don't own the copy, and you can't use it in any way you see fit, like you would a book or CD. Therefore the company has the right to restrict you from running the software on more than one CPU, because the license that you bought only allows you to run it on one CPU. This is essentially indistinguishable from what Blizzard is trying to do.
The article is arguing that Blizzard is wrong because the people who bought the software are "owners" rather than "licensees" but from a strictly legal perspective, I don't believe the author is correct. Unfortunately, software isn't sold the way books and CDs are. You don't own the software, blizzard does, and they won't sell you the software. What they will sell you, is a license to use it.
To use a bad car analogy, buying software is like leasing car. If the lease says you can't go over a certain amount of milage without paying a penalty, the lease controls - it prevents you from doing whatever you want with the car. Same for Blizzard and its software license.
They don't need copyright infringement - In order to test Glider, the developer had to violate the terms and conditions for the game. Blizzard should be able to ask the court for compensation for any damages to them arising from that.
It shouldn't be that difficult to quantify the costs - compare average play time versus average for players using Glider.
What does her age have to do with it? Are sweat pants somehow relevant to the fact that the coffee was served at an unreasonably high temperature? The plaintiff's fashion sense is not on trial here, regardless of the merits of such a case. One might also ask whether McDonald's should not expect drivers to hold beverages between their thighs, which seems to be common practice in every country with cars with sufficient width and a lack of cupholders.
Anyway, you're not supposed to drink your coffee immediately after you get it.I wonder if you would mind terribly sharing with us precisely how many minutes one is required to wait for coffee to cool?
So to testify that immediately drinking coffee after you get it would burn your mouth is meaningless.I drink my morning coffee immediately after I get it and add cream to it. I don't know what you're doing wrong, but I'm less than impressed with your coffee-drinking abilities.
To some extent her case had merit, and in fact the liability was split. But most of the facts presented are frequently taken out of context or are wrong. She had a legitimate grievance but that does not mean that all testimony that was given in the trial is correct.Are you alleging perjury? And if so, could you please point at the specific instances, or at least provide some sort of relevant citation?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Lets just destroy your ill-informed argument that McDonald's was irresponsible in serving their hot coffee hot.
You say the woman was severely burned by the coffee which was between 180 and 190 degrees. That is a stipulated fact, McDonald's coffee is served hot. Is it dangerously hot? It caused severe damage, so it was obviously dangerous. Was it irresponsibly hot?
Anyone purchasing coffee can have a reasonable expectation that it will be dangerously hot. The recommended serving temperature of coffee is from 180-185 degrees Fahrenheit. This is not considerably less than the 180-190 degree temperature at which McDonald's is established to have served coffee.
She did suffer bodily injury as a result of spilling McDonald's coffee on herself, but the culpability here does not rest on McDonald's. Just as with a set of steak knives, coffee is inherently dangerous.
What of the claim that McDonald's had foreknowledge of the danger inherent in their product and did nothing to warn consumers of that danger? Contrary to a common misconception, McDonald's coffee cups already contained the CAUTION:HOT disclaimer that has become so ubiquitous these days. So we are left with a transaction that caused an injury forseeable to all parties involved, one which was a risk inherent to the use of the product. Was this risk known to be substantially higher for McDonald's coffee than, say, a power drill or a set of steak knives?
To determine if McDonald's coffee is irresponsibly dangerous, it is highly informative to look at the history of the product. You have already informed us that McDonald's had over 700 reports over the last decade of coffee inflicted burns requiring medical attention, for which they had already paid about $500k. This means that 1 person, every 5 days, over the period of 10 years, was burned badly enough to require medical attention. Over that same 5 days, selling an inherently dangerous item at or about industry standards, McDonald's would have sold 24 million cups of coffee. If I sell an inherently dangerous product that results in paying out a claim to 1 of every 24 million people I sell one to, I wouldn't expect to labeled as behaving irresponsibly.
In summation:
1) Coffee is dangerously hot.
2) Everyone knows the coffee is dangerously hot.
3) Despite serving a dangerously hot product to anyone who wanted it, McDonald's' product caused an injury they paid money for after every 23,999,999 cups.
I don't know about you, but I don't expect to drink coffee that I can dump on myself and not expect to be severely injured by.
My fellow Americans, let's restore the death penalty for child rapists. Let's do it . . . for the children.
Why don't you wish for a pony while you're at it?
Glider isn't a cheat. It automates key strokes - it isn't giving the player any way to bypass game mechanics.
After RTFAing, I'm wondering about broader effects, such as plugins and 3rd party helper apps for all sorts of software. Could we find ourselves restricted from installing any plugin not "approved" by the base-program's vendor??
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
... I believe Blizzard is evil just as Microsoft, the RIAA, the DVDCCA, the MPAA, the BSA and RAMBUS are evil.
Trying to tell people how they can use what they bought is an evil and dangerous concept. Imagine speeding down the freeway above the speed limit in your leased automobile, getting pulled over by the cops and slapped with a ticket... that'd be normal... but later that month, you receive a settlement offer from your car's manufacturer for having used your car in a way that is viewed as inconsistent with the manufacturer's intention.
What if you were sued for using the wrong fork to eat a salad?! How far does it go?
I might go along with an acceptable use provision of a service and being expelled from its use as a result of infractions. But expulsion is as far as it should be allowed to go. To actually fine or sue a customer for damages in a case of AUP? That truly puts the buyer at risk and represents a change of terms of use significant enough to warrant a signed contact or acknowledgment before it should be enforceable.
This opens up a door that should be slammed as quickly as possible.
Blizzard users should be warned of this danger and advised to discontinue use of their products and services immediately.
Except they consider it copyright infringement to copy the program into RAM ... Make sure to carefully read the bolded section.
Oh I saw the RAM bit, it just seemed irrelevant. Once you have voided your license the copy on your hard drive is infringing. Again, just like the GPL. Once you refuse to distribute source you have voided the license.
they were, and McD's were settling all those out of court. they just decided not to in that instance, for whatever reason.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
I call bullshit. ANYBODY who places a foam cup of a hot liquid between their legs in a moving car fails their own common sense. Regardless if the temperature is 150 or 180, it was her own negligent act that caused her burns, period. Anybody who orders coffee can and should expect that coffee to be served at a temperature up to 211 degrees Fahrenheit.
I am old enough to remember the days before Mr. Coffee and Starbucks. People actually used to BOIL water in a percolating coffee pot. Mrs. Liebeck, a 79-year-old in 1992, should have known better too. She was elderly and wearing form fitting sweatpants. The injury would not have been so substantial on a younger person or if she were wearing different clothes. It's unfortunate, but it doesn't mean that McDonalds was to blame for her misfortune.
Incidentally, the temperature spread was only twenty degrees, not thirty. details... details...
Wow, a clarion of legal analysis, here on slashdot! In case that wasn't clear: you don't know shit about law, or you'd be practicing it. The fact that McDonald's lawyers lost the case is probably /not/ due to McD's not being able to afford few or skilled lawyers. Unless the woman in question was in fact as rich as McDonald's Corporation, you can bet that they outspent her in lawyerosity. ...could it be that you misunderstand the case?
If software companies want to retain ownership of the software on my machine, let them pay inventory tax on it. If they still own it, perhaps it should be part of their capital, not mine.
To address a couple problems brought up by replies to yours (which is overall pretty reasonable):
Sale of copyright: This should be allowed, but only within the first copyright period (see below). I don't see that it makes any difference whether a *short term* copyright is owned by a natural person or by a corporation -- indeed, most of the time your best and perhaps only chance of making money on your copyrighted work is through publication by a corporate entity. Sometimes outright sale will net you more than waiting around for royalties (which could conceivably be much reduced by shorter copyrights).
Filing for copyright: someone pointed out, rightfully so, that the filing fee is prohibitive for many people. Okay, how about distinguishing between commercial and noncommercial copyright? Make noncommercial filing cheap or maybe even free (could be done online) but the moment you make significant money on it (let's put the threshold at say $1000, so really tiny pubs, fanfic, and the like, don't have to pay), you have to pay the filing fee for a commercial copyright. Occurs to me that this could also be used as the ONLY legit way to extend copyright -- noncom gets you NN years, and if you pay to file (meaning you're making some money from it so it's worth your while) then you get another NN years dating from the moment of the commercial copyright filing. But no more extensions after that.
Here is where sale of copyright comes into play: say you've filed noncommercial copyright, so you have legal protections, but are not making any real money (maybe cuz your marketing skilz suck). Along comes BigCorp and buys your work, and starts selling it. BigCorp must then file for commercial copyright, which automatically gives them that ONE extension -- sufficient time to recoup their investment and make some reasonable profit.
This scenario lets the creator get paid AND still allows commercial distribution (by persons or corps) without making it painful or not-worthwhile for either side of the equation. It would also allow work-for-hire where SomeCorp owns the output, without which some works (frex, textbooks) are not feasible to produce at all.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
No, there is a very important difference: the GPL covers deliberately making permanent and tangible copies in order to distribute the software, while Blizzard's EULA covers invisibly making temporary and intangible copies in order to use the software, which is a totally different kettle of fish.
The GPL argument is as you say: if you distribute copies of software without permission, you are violating copyright; the GPL gives you permission to do so within certain constraints, and if you don't follow those constraints you violate copyright. It's all about offering you extra rights that you normally wouldn't have.
Blizzard's EULA isn't like that. There's no question of granting you any special rights; far from it, Blizzard forbid you to distribute their software, period. The thing is that Blizzard are claiming that you also need their permission to run the software.
Do you need permission to run software? IANAL, but I can read, and this is what the law says:Hmm, looks to me like that's saying you don't need permission to run a program, and not just that, but that (note the word "adaptation") you don't even necessarily need permission to modify it! Doubtless there are subtleties of which I'm not aware, which is why we have lawyers and courts to debate this and tell us whether Blizzard is right or not. But it's pretty clear that it isn't a simple case of "if the EULA is invalid, you can't use the program without violating copyright", and therefore this is not a case of Slashdot having double standards at all.
elves with their magic numbers. next question.
But copyrighted works that don't bring in revenue, like abandonware, are some of the works it would be best to have in the public domain. And if the cost is a mere .0001% of the total revenue of the entity holding the copyright, then a newspaper, which might have individual copyrights on hundreds of millions of articles, would end up paying several hundred times it's annual revenue to maintain a copyright for long enough to publish an anthology every decade. Why not charge 1 dollar to copyright for, say, a year, 10 dollars for five years, 100 dollars for ten years, and a thousand dollars a year for the next ten. That way, works that are worth a significant amount to their creators can be copyrighted for long enough for the creator to take them as far as they like, and anyone can copyright something for long enough to determine if the work is profitable. Plus, if no entity bothers to pay the fee, anything that's abandoned automatically falls back into the public domain. Better yet, make the first year free and automatic, the way it is now, so the average citizen doesn't have to think about it until he's had some time to start making money off it. Add in the requirement that in order to make a copyright violation claim, a copy must be deposited at the Library of Congress, with no limiting conditions or technology. That keeps things from sinking into a black hole.
I agree totally. I have done that many times to get around the stupid hoops some companies make you go thru to get their stuff installed.
I remember one time with CA i had to actually photocopy all 6 sides of the box and the PO to get anew keycode ( previous IT guy lost them ). I gave up and got a keygen.
Same for windows, i had legit boxes for every workstation on NT4, but used one key for them all. It was just to much trouble to manage. If i ever got audited. 'oops, i i must have typed it wrong, but would you like to see the licenses i have here stored in the safe?'
---- Booth was a patriot ----
The urban legend is that this case is legitimate. Trial lawyers will love you for helping them obliterate common sense. Read some insights at http://www.overlawyered.com/2005/10/urban-legends-and-stella-liebe.html
What does her age have to do with it? Are sweat pants somehow relevant to the fact that the coffee was served at an unreasonably high temperature? The plaintiff's fashion sense is not on trial here, regardless of the merits of such a case.
By her own admission, after spilling it, she sat in the hot coffee for 90 seconds. That is pretty dumb.
One might also ask whether McDonald's should not expect drivers to hold beverages between their thighs, which seems to be common practice in every country with cars with sufficient width and a lack of cupholders.
Have you ever driven a car in the USA? They are full of cupholders. The vehicle in question had many cupholders. She chose not to use the cupholder. The coffee even had a lid that said "caution: hot". Should the coffee lid have said "do not pour on crotch" and "do not sit in coffee"?
For every injury caused by McDonald's coffee, 24 million people drink coffee without injury. What is the standard by which you judge a product to be safe?
At some point, adults are no longer children, and adults have to take responsibility for their own stupidity, or you have to treat everyone as if they as dumb as the bottom 0.000004% of the population (1 in 24 million).
Did the woman drink coffee before? Yes. Did she ever make coffee? Yes. When she made coffee, did she boil water? Yes. Did she know coffee was hot? Yes.
Coffee is made at 100 degree celcius. If you make it at a lower temperature it is not really coffee (and tastes like sh*t). People getting burned because they are too hasty drinking it are just lacking something in their education. If you order sate and you poke your eyes out with the pointy stick is the restaurant to blame?
:-(
I can image that you would sue McD for not having trained their staff on what to do when somebody gets burned, but to me it just looks like an accident wich is not really McD's fault (if the woman tripped over the doorstep and broke her spine it wouldn't be McD's fault either).
People winning these sort of court cases (even here in holland nowadays) are IMHO the main cause of the overregulated nanny states we live in. In a few years it will be forbidden for children to climb trees because they could fall out
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Read the EULA - ;-)
:-)
"If you dont like it, dont accept it." is what it says.
It would be great if EFF fought for a clause saying that paid-for software that puts such restrictions is subject to lots of types of damages if the software doesn't do its job at the "most needed time"- even if you "accepted" that you can bring no lawsuits - that is, that blanket waiver is voided.
Hehehe - then the fuckers will be fighting Murphy's Law - guess who wins....
If I were the judge or whatever, I would mandate that the only license that is free from damages claims is a freeDOM software license such as the GPL or any OSI-approved license.
That won't screw Microsoft, I know, but it'll make these bastards shit before sending legal poop to "soft targets".
Ever wondered why the US govt or military never got legal poop notices from anyone at any time for even a single "crime of serious infringement of intellectual property"?
If a couple of our friends from the defence forces just use this hack by, ya know, play-acting spy-versus-good-guy and get the fucking mafiAA to send legal notices to the right people, hehehehe, we'll have a spectacular turnaround in the company's stand as far as "suing govt offices goes" in the name of "national secuirty"
That'll be a game I'll pay every *day* for, if need be!
Hackers have long memories. It works both ways.
Actually her grandson had pulled over for the specific reason that she could safely add cream and sugar to the coffee. When she tried to remove the lid, she spilled the cup onto her pants and the seat. The pants soaked up the coffee, holding it against her legs causing 3rd degree burns over 6% of her body and 2nd degree burns over another 16%.
Sounds like she has a case, except that she also sat in the puddle of nearly boiling coffee for 90 seconds. I suspect (given her age at the time) that either she could not get up off the seat quickly or had reduced sensativity in the burned areas. If it had been someone younger they would probably have jumped up almost immediately, resulting in a much smaller burned area.
They were, but at what rate?
The case was hugely exaggerated, as I remember it the coffee was somewhere between 120 and 180 degrees Fahrenheit. The optimal serving temperature for coffee is usually above 150 degrees Fahrenheit and sometimes suggested to be above 180.
Please use google to find several references to that fact via coffee carafe dealers throughout the world. Please refer to the link below in the section regarding temperature of coffee brewing and serving.
http://www.ncausa.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=71
For a detailed review of the case and more links disputing your "urban legend" classification of this case:
http://www.overlawyered.com/2005/10/urban-legends-and-stella-liebe.html
Unfortunately, the lawyers won over the ignorant masses in this case, and now we reap the consequences. When the case went to trial, the first question I asked was, "What temp was the coffee?". When I heard 170degrees, I choffed. I had worked at a few coffee shops in the past and knew that coffee is served around this temperature at most places. It allows the coffee to be hot even to stay warm until it is finished, including adding milk, sugar, and possibly some drive time to it's destination.
Oh please, pretty please, let them win this one and set a precedent.
I'm just dying for writing interesting EULAs that disallow you from using my software during full moon on thursdays if there is a cat in the house, or to write any letters that are stupid, or to access any website that contains the word "republican".
Please. The more idiotic, stupid and obvious the rules get, the better our chances that they're reworked altogether, instead of simply being patched onto indefinitely.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
The coffee was 170 degrees. A very common serving temperature.
Thanks for playing "Exageration". Incidentally, 180 degrees is the preferred temperature of the coffee whilst it is in the carafe, to allow the coffee a little time to cool while in your cup to achieve optimal flavor temp 140-170 degrees.
Are you suggesting that she jump out of her SUV and take off her pants in the drive-through?
Should the coffee lid have said "do not pour on crotch" and "do not sit in coffee"?Perhaps it should have said "this coffee is hot enough to cause the cup to deform easily because we heat it beyond all reason".
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Did you read the article? It explicitly points out the same point that you're making and says that courts have found that for this specific provision the license is not the determining factor.
Except that the 30 degrees in question are actually recommended by most carafe manufacturers as the preferred temp to store the coffee before enjoying.
It is implied that the coffee will be decanted and cooled to taste before enjoying.
I prefer a extra-hot Americano, which nears 200 degrees. I take very small sips from the surface of the coffee until it cools at which time I increase the consumption rate as long as it is not harming me...
To imply that one should not have responsibility to treat a beverage that is made and served at high temperatures with care is ludicrous.
Strong region checking combined with strong, distributed proxy checking. Reduce the footprint down to a level easily managed.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
I don't think the liability was McD's but I think the decent thing to do would have been to pay her bills. Although, that may have set a dangerous precedent on McD's part. IANAL so I can't speak to what issues may arise out of such a payment, but implied liability might come up.
However, shareholders don't favor money used doing "decent" things.
If all Blizzard manages to get is an injunction, however, cheat developers will likely just wait until they actually get sued before they bother to decide whether or not they will shut down their business.
Or operate out of some country where their activities wouldn't raise a copyright or contractual issue.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
First of all, kudos to Public Knowledge for an excellent writeup.
The idea that it is impossible for an end-user to purchase any Blizzard software, seems preposterous on the surface, and is as wacky and radical as it seems. But it has been upheld in a previous Blizzard case. See Blizzard vs BNETD, and in particular, read the September 30, 2004 court order, because around page 19 it gets fucking amazing. The court really did agree with Blizzard that the users had never, ever purchase the software. The users walked into a store, paid money, never signed anything, were never informed they weren't buying the software, and yet they walked out of the store without having -- get this -- "title."
Yeah, title. I don't have a title or any other documentation that asserts that I own the socks that I'm currently wearing. Since the transaction for buying(???) my socks is in every way exactly identical to the transaction that Blizzard customers(?) make when they acquire that company's products, I must assume this scumbag court would be happy to take my clothes.
Blizzard's customers were ripped off, and didn't even know it. AFAIK no class action suite or fraud prosecutions never took place, so Blizzard got away with it. But that aside, the court ruled that the crime really had happened: Blizzard got the money and never transferred ownership of a copy of the software.
If Blizzard gets into the same court of dishonorable judges again, there is no reason to suspect the outcome will be any different. The judges will rule that Blizzard defrauded their customers fair'n'square, Blizzard still owns the copies of the software, and that the customers are only using the CDs that Blizzard owns but that are located within the customers' homes, by the terms that Blizzard set forth.
Needless to say, something needs to be done about this blatant fraudulent activity. Either that, or get honorable judges who see through the bullshit and say that Blizzard did what they appeared to do: they sold copies of the software.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
This whole copyright issue is getting way out of hand. To control how content that is created is used is just insane it is like buying food and saying you can only have white wine with seafood and chicken because thats how the vineyard that created it intended for it to be used. There should be no restriction of how it is used by the the person buying the content but the restriction should be on redistribution in any form. For instance taking a song and putting it through a mixer to create a different sound should be ok but taking that song (altered or not) and putting it on the web or selling CDs without permission or some kind of agreement with the copyright holder is wrong. So my general thought about copyright is that copyright should protect copyright holders from redistribution of their content and not give them the say about how it should be used.
Are you suggesting that she jump out of her SUV and take off her pants in the drive-through?
No, I think she should keep her clothes on.
First, it was a minivan. Second, having spilled coffee on herself and the seat, she should have gotten up out of the seat, which would have minimized her injuries.
Have you ever burned your hand on a stove or other hot object? Even if you are an idiot, there is an instinctive reaction to move your hand away from the stove.
Perhaps it should have said "this coffee is hot enough to cause the cup to deform easily because we heat it beyond all reason".
There was absolutely zero evidence that the cup was deformed at all. The coffee spill occurred after she put the cup between her legs and took off the lid. Why didn't she use one of the many cupholders in the vehicle?
Heat it beyond reason? Aside from being at the coffee industry's recommended temperature, for every injury with McDonald's coffee, 24 MILLION PEOPLE drink it without incident.
By any measure, McDonald's coffee is a very safe product. Who is being unreasonable?
Should 24 million people suffer with lukewarm coffee because of one klutz?
It is an INTERESTING response...almost word for word from the True Stella website. Now here's the rest of the facts (from True Stella) that you failed to include: #The resulting $640,000 isn't the end either. Liebeck and McDonald's entered into secret settlement negotiations rather than go to appeal. The amount of the settlement is not known -- it's secret! #The plaintiffs were apparently able to document 700 cases of burns from McDonald's coffee over 10 years, or 70 burns per year. But that doesn't take into account how many cups are sold without incident. A McDonald's consultant pointed out the 700 cases in 10 years represents just 1 injury per 24 million cups sold! For every injury, no matter how severe, 23,999,999 people managed to drink their coffee without any injury whatever. Isn't that proof that the coffee is not "unreasonably dangerous"? #Even in the eyes of an obviously sympathetic jury, Stella was judged to be 20 percent at fault -- she did, after all, spill the coffee into her lap all by herself. The car was stopped, so she presumably was not bumped to cause the spill. Indeed she chose to hold the coffee cup between her knees instead of any number of safer locations as she opened it. Should she have taken more responsibility for her own actions? And... # Here's the Kicker: Coffee is supposed to be served in the range of 185 degrees! The National Coffee Association recommends coffee be brewed at "between 195-205 degrees Fahrenheit for optimal extraction" and drunk "immediately". If not drunk immediately, it should be "maintained at 180-185 degrees Fahrenheit." (Source: NCAUSA.) SO YES...APPARENTLY, MOST PEOPLE APPARENTLY DO LIKE COFFEE THAT CAN GIVE THEM 3RD DREGREE BURNS Exactly what, then, did McDonald's do wrong? Did it exhibit "willful, wanton, reckless or malicious conduct" -- the standard in New Mexico for awarding punitive damages?
This is something that artists of various stripes have been pushing for some time. Others have mentioned cases like architects suing a building's owner for making alterations outside the original design. There are also various public works of art (e.g. the giant reflective metal "bean" in downtown Chicago, whose creator has attempted to forbid unlicensed photos).
/.), it's not all that far out to suggest that eventually everything we say or write will infringe someone else's copyright. Except, of course, for those of us who restrict our speech to only quotations from documents whose copyright has expired.
It could be especially fun to consider the effect of this extension of copyright to literature. It would end such practices as literary criticism and the discussion of literary works in college classrooms. After all, negative criticism and analyses contrary to the author's ideas would be a copyright violation.
Lest anyone thing this is too extreme a concept, I'd point out that I've read Microsoft EULAs which explicitly forbid publishing criticisms or the results of benchmarks that compare the software with other competing products. So far, I haven't actually read of any court decisions on the legality of such restrictions. Anyone know if this use of copyright has been tested in any courts?
Some time back, I read a prediction that here in the US, the First Amendment (which establishes freedom of speech, among other freedoms) will eventually become moot due to the gradual extension of copyright law. It's growing difficult to create a sentence that's not similar to one that has already been "published" somewhere. Now that everything you or I write is copyrighted as soon as we "publish" it (perhaps by posting it to a forum such as
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
That's not legal analysis, it's the facts of the case and my opinion. He presented half of the facts along with his opinion, and I showed where he was right and wrong. But thanks for filing me in, AC.
My fellow Americans, let's restore the death penalty for child rapists. Let's do it . . . for the children.
so was it a legitimate case or an urban legend?
>>I don't know about you, but I don't like to drink coffee that can give me 3rd degree burns.
Well then I suppose you also don't own any knives or hammers or maybe an oven or a fragile piece of glass?
And I KNOW that I would NEVER use electricity in my home that could KILL me! Lord no, I only use 9 volt batteries. Better safe than sorry. Except for when they leak acid.
Oh and McDonalds had better start serving everything as a puree, because we all know that you wouldn't want to eat food that could cause choking!
The McDonalds case, while unfortunate, really wasn't as cut-and-dried as you make it out to be. What if the case had been, "The woman choked on a stale french fry after the driver of the car hit a speed bump. The surviving family sued McD's for knowingly selling stale fries"? I don't think that the woman's injuries should affect McD's culpability. As much as I dislike them as a company, I just don't think it's their fault that the woman put the cup of hot coffee in her lap while driving. 170 degree coffee probably would have done the same thing.
-b
No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
"I don't know about you, but I don't like to drink coffee that can give me 3rd degree burns."
Let me tell you a little about me, then:
I know that to make coffee, you need to BOIL water.Note, I said boil.
I also know that boiling water is unavoidably hot (except in a vacuum), a fact you seem to have slept thru in grade school.
I also know that hot coffee will get cooler - also elementary school science.
I also know that WAITING before drinking will allow coffee to cool.
I also avoid putting HOT drinks between my legs.
Why do these things escape you?
For example, the old Borland licenses, and some others, state that you may not use the product in the development of a competing product. eg: you were not allowed to use the Borland compilers+libraries to make a competing IDE. If someone wanted to release software on the condition that it was not used on Sundays, or that you eat a burrito every day, that you use the software, or that it is not used in medical products, they can impose these conditions. Don't like them? Don't use their software.
Liability is also typically part of the agreement too. Don't like the conditions then don't buy the software.
That's part of why GPL has the "for whatever purpose" clauses ase well as the "no liability" clauses.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
> Am I still allowed to spin the CD on my finger when I'm bored?
No, please remit a payment of $150,000 to the RIAA for infringing upon their spinning rights.
I find it much easier and more efficient to just steal the stuff.
I find it much easier and mor effecient to find software that meets my needs.
If the developer wants to make crippleware and then try to get me to buy it, that's his choice. I make it very clear that doing this will kill sales. It's then up to the developer to balance the anal retentive need to prevent any piracy with the need to meet market demands to make sales.
Some prime examples.. Microsoft Office. One license, one machine and maybe a laptop by the same owner. Open Office. One license, free to install on any and all machines in your house and free to give away copies (following license terms to distribute source and the license intact). Same for Photoshop and the Gimp.
I picked up a copy of Light Factory. The original version had no copy protection other than encoding your user name into the installed product with an email registration. Your PC could be installed on your upgraded PC without phoning home. They then upgraded and used your hardware as a dongle like MS does with the WGA stuff. I didn't upgrade with Light Factory. I now use Freestyler.
Then there is the choice of OS. Needless to say, I'm not running anything with WGA. (I'm not pirating it either)
The truth shall set you free!
I see no one mentioning that, if idiot gamers did not give their money to this idiot company, the company would not be able to bring this idiot suit. Yes, the company is stupid. How stupid are the people who will continue to support it?
That is all.
You also forgot the other critical part which the cups that McD's used to serve coffee were structurally inferior, especially under such hot temperatures, and required the LID to provide rigidity. The cup that was handed to this lady from the McD's employee in the drive thru did not have the lid properly secured which resulted in the cup failing and was crushed in her hands as she brought it over her lap to put into her cup holder in the center console.
Read the rest of this rant...
It's incorrect to say "under copyright, you don't have a right to make any copies". Fair use is one case, and this is another: you don't need a license in order to make incidental copies that are necessary for running a program.
Specifically, according to 17 USC 117(a)(1), "it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
What is your source for this information?
Has been swift.
I have been watching numerous forum posts on the World of Warcraft Community site deleted within minutes (mine included).
As it stands, losing my rights as a consumer is not worth playing WoW. I sent an email to them stating QUITE clearly that I would be canceling my account unless they start rethinking their approach to this. Hopefully money talks still and enough players become aware of this and start talking with their wallets/purses.
Ehm, yes, it's coffee, of course it's meant to be at almost boiling temperature. If it's not it's crap. And it's even worse with tea, unless if it's *just boiled* it's not even drinkable. I have had just boiled tea fall on my legs before, it hurt one hell of a lot but it definitely didn't cause 3rd degree burns or required skin grafts. What next, fresh food is meant to be blistering hot, sue restaurants for serving it hot because if it falls on you you're screwed? Maybe they should stop serving food straight out of the oven then, they should wait for it to go cold and have a specially trained professional carry it to the table in a specially designed contraption that makes it impossible for the plate to fall down, smashing and possibly injuring someone, cut it to pieces and feed it straight into the mouth of the customer. Common sense people, common sense!
- Zardoz
"They're trying out the legal theory that a software creator retains complete control over how a program is used, meaning that anyone who uses it in a different way could be found guilty of copyright infringement, at $750 a pop." If they can state the different usage of a program without the creator's permission is copyright infringement, then I can say that their program operating in an improper way on my computer without my permission constitutes hacking or a faulty product, and demand damages in return.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
I must have been using it illegally for years, basically whenever I edited a JPG. Who knew that it was just for porn. ie) Going on a date with Mr. Slick-mittens.
What does her age have to do with it? Are sweat pants somehow relevant to the fact that the coffee was served at an unreasonably high temperature? The plaintiff's fashion sense is not on trial here, regardless of the merits of such a case. One might also ask whether McDonald's should not expect drivers to hold beverages between their thighs, which seems to be common practice in every country with cars with sufficient width and a lack of cupholders.
Yes, the fact that she was old does very much matter, old skin is sensitive and fragile. Cuts are worse, burns are worse. And driving with a hot beverage between your thighs is endangering your life and your passenger's lives. In fact, in many countries it's plainly illegal, just like talking on the phone while driving. Anyway, you're not supposed to drink your coffee immediately after you get it.I wonder if you would mind terribly sharing with us precisely how many minutes one is required to wait for coffee to cool?
Common sense indicates that. You take a tiny little sip and check how hot it is. At 85C off the pot, a tiny sip is not going to blister your tongue. Geeze.I drink my morning coffee immediately after I get it and add cream to it. I don't know what you're doing wrong, but I'm less than impressed with your coffee-drinking abilities.
Adding cream to your coffee will cool it down. Also, I take it that you've never prepared coffee for yourself, as that will invariably be bleeding hot. It will also be bleeding hot off a coffee dispensing machine, far hotter than the 80-85C McD's stores filter coffee in. Let's sue coffee machine makers for making evil contraptions that prepare coffee.Are you alleging perjury? And if so, could you please point at the specific instances, or at least provide some sort of relevant citation?
This little "fact" here, from the "facts" page someone posted: Reports also indicate that McDonald's consistently keeps its coffee at 185 degrees, still approximately 20 degrees hotter than at other restaurants. Third degree burns occur at this temperature in just two to seven seconds, Third degree burns happen "at this temperature" in x seconds, er, yes, but the liquid does not stay at that temperature when it falls on your lap, it rapidly dissipates thermal energy to you and the air around you, burning you and very very rapidly cooling down. Unless if it's *boiling* hot, which 80-85C is not, it's not going to have enough energy to keep boiling away your skin for 2-7 seconds, layer after layer. She was old and old people have very fragile skin.5 REM This program is not licensed to be used in conjunction with World of Warcraft, Microsoft Windows, or similar software. Use of this program or possession of it's source code in conjunction with such programs shall be considered a copyright violation with statutory damages of $750 per infraction.
10 Print "pwned"
20 goto 10
30 Print "Profit"
40 REM Copyright 2008 pugugly@slashdot.org All rights endured.
Dear Blizzard Software, I would like my money please. Thanks.
An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
Last I checked we wanted more flexibility, not less. I don't play WoW but I'll be damned if I can't pull a 12 hour gaming marathon (with food and drink, done it once before and I'm still here) on say Metal Gear Solid 4 when it comes out. This isn't a legal rights thing I understand, but if a precedent is set where developers/publishers can get in trouble for people dying out of stupidity from playing their games expect to see a 4-hour shutoff limit on every game from then on.
What Blizzard's lawyers are likely doing is the shotgun approach to legal filings, namely finding every damn thing they can possibly argue, and arguing it. This is mostly so they can say they did their due diligence and made every claim to protect their clients interests.
Now as far as it goes, I think Blizzard has both legal right to say how they're going to operate their servers regarding the use of bots, and a moral imperative to do so. I'm sorry, but I do not want to subscribe to a game where people are paying for others to do their work for them using outside resources, so I don't like goldfarmers, I don't like botters. I don't even like people who sell their accounts.
I am willing to accept instance runs and gearups, because they don't require going outside the game, and I don't think they'll serve to destabilize the system. Though personally, I wouldn't object to blocking instances to groups with disparate class levels if Blizzard did decide to implement it. Of course, given the level gaps that build up in the game, it would impact the fun. Oh well. It might be an issue, but for me, it's not as bad as the bot one.
Correction: She *had* a case. She won it. So I guess the courts didn't think it was her responsibility that she suffered that degree of burns through her own fault.
http://www.mmoglider.com/FAQ.aspx
Q: How does Glider work?
A: Glider works a lot like a regular player. It looks at your health, mana, energy, etc. It moves the mouse around and pushes keys on the keyboard. You tell it about your character, where you want to kill things, and what to kill. Then it kills for you, automatically. You can do something else, like eat dinner or go to a movie, and when you return, you'll have a lot more experience and loot.
this is why I will never purchase and play any of Blizzard's game, as they are acting like asshats.
That case was funny because, IMHO, it is reasonable to expect that fresh coffee is sold at 200 F, which happens to be the temperature of coffee that was just made. Why is it reasonable to expect anything lower? I do not presume that everyone here in US brews coffee by hand, but even anyone with a coffeemaker should guess something about about the temperature of coffee after having seen the steam. If you burn yourself with your coffee, you are just a dumbass, there is really not a lot of room for fudging here.
You also forgot the other critical part which the cups that McD's used to serve coffee were structurally inferior, especially under such hot temperatures, and required the LID to provide rigidity.
Bullshit. If the cups were structurally inferior at hot temperatures, you would be getting cups failing all the time. McD's sells millions of cups of coffee. They would have noticed cups failing by now. The injury rate for McD's coffee is one per 24 million cups.
The cup that was handed to this lady from the McD's employee in the drive thru
More bullshit. It was not handed to the lady. It was handed to the grandson, the driver. The lady was in the front passenger seat, not driving. That would be a hell of an arm to reach from the drive through window to the passenger seat.
did not have the lid properly secured which resulted in the cup failing and was crushed in her hands as she brought it over her lap to put into her cup holder in the center console.
More bullshit. The lid was secured, and she was in the passenger seat. By her own admission, her grandson, the driver, stopped the vehicle so she could put cream & sugar into the coffee. She put the cup between her legs (she did not use one of the many cupholders in the vehicle) and lifted the lid. Then she spilled it.
You really know nothing about this case and are talking out your ass.
Nice troll though.
By uttering my name you agree to abide by the terms of the Ignavus Name End-User Licence Agreement.
(1) The end user is absolutely barred from using my name in any negative fashion whatsoever.
(2) The end user will only use my name to say good things about me.
(3) The use of my name in any summons, charge, indictment or other coercive legal document is strictly forbidden without prior permission of the owner of the name.
(4) All the usual requirements of one-sided licences, such as your first-born belonging to me, are applicable to end users of my name.
I am anarch of all I survey.
I searched this thread for the word "bullshit", and did not find ANYWHERE NEAR enough of them!
I don't play a whole lot of games, and I'm not proud to say it, but the ones I have played I've either downloaded, borrowed from friends, or got it cheap at second-hand retailers. Mostly downloaded. In fact, the only three games I ever bought new were for friends.
I don't get a whole lot of money. I get SSI and I'm in college right now. I could save money to buy games, but I have more beneficial things I'll put my money towards until I do have a good paying job.
I'm not proud, but I also have no regrets. As the... 'industry' has changed, it's become too much of a gamble. I've seen really good reviews for games, downloaded them, played them all the way through, and thought to myself, "what an awful piece of shit that was, why did I choose to waste my time on it?".
I think Timeshock in particular was one game that made me angry. I heard good things, I saw some good reviews, so I downloaded it and played it, and it was just a completely terrible game. It makes me happy I didn't pay for the game. I don't want Sierra to get that 50 dollars for that garbage.
I suppose I could do what other people say they do and buy it after I decide I like it, but the only game I ever played more than once was Half Life 2, and my friend bought it for me on Steam so I could play HL2DM. Oh, and VTM Bloodlines, and that was also given to me.
There's some good games that stand up and make it and keep making it, but it's painful to see games, like Bloodlines, such incredibly awesome games by incredibly awesome designers go bankrupt or bought out by some horrid producer.
The real enemy to me in gaming is demographics. Unfortunately, the percentage of people I'm forced to share audience with is growing more and more into boneheads and action lusting morons who like gibs and explosions and cheap code tricks everyone and their pocket change label as "technology". I really hate that word, it's so disgusting to see how it's used.
I'm tired and I'm frustrated from typing on Qwerty. Whatever, I don't even know what the Hell I'm saying. I'm doped out on codeine and I had a nasal polypectomy yesterday.
"Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Supposing that AI gets a break and there can be programs that can play games successfully, will they be illegal in the future? even if their behavior is almost the same as that of human players?
I'm a wow player and a software developer. I've toyed around with their product/service in many many nasty ways, but I never used it for my financial benefit, only for my personal entertainment. 1. Try to look into the reason why is Blizzard forced to do this: because the black market has grown too much, and they are actually disturbing legitimate players. They are doing this to protect you (you are a legitimate player, right?). If you can find a better way, let them know. 2. The comparisons with 500-year old business models are out of place. They don't sell paint. They don't sell apples. They are even hardly selling a software product anymore, but a service. They can adjust the service any minute, and you have to agree if you want to use the service. Blizzard will actually only make changes for the benefit of the customers, to attract more of them, in fact. They don't try to ruin your fun. But people are not happy/satisfied not matter what you do, and thats simultaneously the beauty and origin of evolution. So please continue to whine, people who are providing the solutions will make money out of it, and you are paying. Thanks >:D
How long will they continue to allow the game to run? Will they give you back your money when they stop?
Please, remember, although you've had your enjoyment out of their game even if they stop it working, they've had the investment potential of your money for the same time. Sounds like a fair trade to me.
And when you sell your non-Steam game, the key goes with it and the new user can use your game. Steam? No.
Read the blurb at the beginning of a DVD. It says something like "this recording is licensed for home use only...".
Well, the only one who needed a license was the distributor, so if I were to misuse the DVD content (by decrypting or whatever) then the distributor is at fault for breech of license.
Bwahahahahaha!
A far better source of real information about what both sides are claiming in their summary judgement filings is here:
http://virtuallyblind.com/2008/03/23/mdy-blizzard-motions/
If you read the text from Blizzard's claim, then it's pretty clear that their lawyers are using the very common tactic of making a whole bunch of different accusations in the hope that one or more of them will be accepted by the judge. The bit about copyright violation is therefore (a) quite a small part, and (b) entirely predicated on a specific EULA prohibition of using unauthorised third party launchers to copy the software into memory, so it's by no means as broad as the writer of the blog being quoted claims it is.
Note that I'm not defending Blizzard, their tactics, or any claims they've made in their court documents.
I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
This is a reasonable point for some software. OpenOffice is, by and large, a pretty sufficient replacement for MSOffice or iWork for most users, and back when I was frequently actually using an office suite, I was using OpenOffice rather than MSOffice. While I don't care for Linux, the huge push for increased user-friendliness makes it a valid alternative to most people (I've opted for OS X which is best for what I do, which aside from the hardware restrictions has no activation or even a serial number).
However, The Gimp is not anything remotely close to a suitable substitute for Photoshop. I wish it was and I have tried it (several times), but there's a reason Adobe can get away with charging a thousand plus bucks for CS3. For what I generally do it's not worth the money, but I'd rather pay up more than it's worth to me than to deal with Gimp. It may work for some people and that's great for them, but it's useless to me and that's all I really care about. I really hope that Pixelmator and other Do Most Of What Photoshop Does For 10% Of The Price tools continue being heavily developed, and that Alex Lindsay follows through on his threat of making a PS replacement if CS4 keeps with the insane copy protection that doesn't do a damn thing against pirates anyways.
How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
Jane, you ignorant slut.
Here is the data from the original link:
McD sells 1 billion cups of coffee a year.
There have been 700 incidents of scalding coffee burns in the past decade
So McD sells 10 billion cups of coffee a in decade. Let's write that out:
10,000,000,000
And 700 people burn themselves. Let's write that out:
00,000,000,700
This tells us that 99.9999993% of people can drink McD coffee without getting hurt.
Any product can be used improperly. Someone can poke their eye out with a straw when they lean forward to get a drink. But nobody would say that it was McD's fault that they did it.
Let's talk about tort reform. Proponents of tort reform don't like that in our current system an accident or stupidity (or both) can cause someone to injure themselves and then sue and win the lottery. So proponents of tort reform want this changed so that people take responsibility for their actions.
Then the lawyers step in and say that we can't have tort reform because there really are companies out there that are producing dangerous products and only through the courts and substantial damages can they be encouraged to produce safe products. Which is probably true.
But the McD coffee lady is clearly not in that category. A product that is not harmful to 99.9999993% of its users is not a dangerous product. By muddying the waters and claiming that the McD coffee lady is a legitimate case, it makes tort reform look bad.
And finally, also from the original link, McD still sells coffee at the same temperature. Why? Because it is safe.
Now that I have your attention, lets look at facts. 1. Blizzard is not fining end users for use of their software, they are suing a company which SELLS software that runs in Blizzards UI language. There really is nothing else to say! Do you think Microsoft would not be suing the pants off of someone who wrote some hacks based on their private goods and then SOLD the hacks? Just so you don't think this is a big bad corporate policy.. think of the companies that SELL flash games. You think they do not pay licensing and royalties for flash? You think they would not be in court if they didnt? "Boo hoo, I cant run my ezmode farmzor bot" Oh well, man up and play the game like most people do.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Any chance you'd be willing to share any of the mix recipes? :-D I've taught myself the joys of making curries from scratch over the past few years, and very much enjoy the crazy alchemy of cooking. Anyway, drop a line at z33b0b [hyphen] sd at that Yahoo company if you're willing to share or swap recipes or anything.
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
Perhaps it was the one contorversial one that was in existence only briefly.
However you may be more correct in the case of Microsoft's license in development tools.
You're just as guilty of bias.
You can't "lay out the really pertinent facts" without mentioning that she tried to drive with a styrofoam cup of coffee between her legs.
Whether the coffee was too hot or not, that's just idiotic.
To be fair, brewing coffee or tea properly requires using boiling-hot water, so the problem wasn't with their coffee makers either. The problem is in their process.
I don't drink coffee, but I do drink tea. When I make tea at home, I heat water to boiling, then immediately pour this into a cup with a tea bag (or even better, loose tea). However, here's the key step: I then WAIT until it cools down some before drinking it!!!
It seems that McD's expected customers to do the same. That might be a reasonable expectation with some fancy at-home coffee maker, or even at a nice sit-down restaurant, but McD's is neither: they're a fast-food chain, and worse, a large portion of their business involves serving food to people directly in their cars. You can't assume that someone driving to work will be able to set aside their coffee for 5 minutes to cool down to the point where it's safe to drink, and worse, because of the conditions (moving vehicle, awkwardness of handing things to customers from drive-in window to vehicle, etc.), you certainly can't be handing people dangerous goods which can cause hospital stays upon mishandling.
McD's should have been smart enough to not give coffee to customers until it has cooled down. This should have been easy for them: they already make burgers and such BEFORE they're ordered, so that they can be immediately served to customers upon ordering, even though this may create some waste from unordered food. Coffee isn't nearly as valuable as burgers, so it should have been simple to have coffee brewed, poured, and then allowed to sit (probably on a warming tray or something to keep its temperature at a constant, warm, but safe temperature) until it's ordered. Just like they do with burgers, they can use statistical analysis to predict when customers tend to order certain items, and have enough prepared at those times.
I entirely agree with the verdict against McD's. I'm no food or restaurant expert, yet I can easily devise a solution to this whole mess that allows high quality while still making things safe as I just did here. If I can do that, a company as large as McD's should have done so a decade ago.
However, The Gimp is not anything remotely close to a suitable substitute for Photoshop.
I have never used photoshop. It's not in my price range. I ran across The Gimp as part of my finaly getting a stable Linux version. I was using some software that came with a camera that was good for touch-ups, red eye removal and other consumer grade stuff. I ran into The Gimp when I connected a flatbed scanner and I started learning it the hard way. It blew my socks off. The learning curve was steep. Working layers was new and as a result very frustrating for a newbie (can't just grab the pencil and draw lines! WTF???!!). The more I learned the more I liked it. Over the years the improvements have grown in leaps and bounds. If you haven't tried it lately, you are in for a treat. For the $1000, I'll take the time to learn the competition and see if it will function for me. In short, The Gimp does what I need in a photo editor and has lots of neat toys I'll likely never use.
Photoshop is like Mac vs Window for many. Windows is cheaper and does the job. Windows is getting worse. The Gimp on the other hand is getting better.
The truth shall set you free!
"anyone who uses it in a different way could be found guilty"
You mean I can't use my genuine copy of Quake3 Arena to kill people in the streets? Oh wait, that would be GTA!
Tomorrow I'm going to fight against my freedom and serenity too. Makes life a hell more snappier!
--- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..