"(1) You received an unsolicited PlayStation Vitas."
[emphasis mine] No, you didn't, under U.S. law. IANAL, but I am pretty familiar with this law.
"You can't combine (1) and (2) into some made up concept of "shipping mistake" to get away from your responsibilities."
I am not "combining" anything. You are failing to combine the conditions that are necessary for something to be "unsolicited". You DID "solicit" merchandise from that company. You just got the wrong thing. That is a far, far different thing from someone just sending you something out of nowhere and demanding money for it.
If it could be shown that the company did it intentionally, and they demanded payment for it, then yes it would be unsolicited merchandise. But the law doesn't punish people for honest mistakes.
"A company sends you a gift in the mail â" a tie, a good luck charm, or a key chain. You didnâ(TM)t order the gift."
That is a DIFFERENT thing. This wasn't a "gift" sent in the mail (what the law calls "unsolicited merchandise"). This was a mistake on a legitimate order (solicited merchandise).
Because it isn't "unsolicited" (something sent to you out of the blue), different laws apply. The law you cite simply does not apply to the situation here. (As long as we're talking about U.S. law... I won't speak for the laws in other countries.)
The main thing here -- which I did not point out in my original comment because I did not think it was necessary -- is that in the U.S., a mistake on an order like this is not "unsolicited merchandise". The "unsolicited merchandise" law others have kept mentioning only applies when someone sent you something without any prior contact or agreement at all. "Out of the blue" as they say.
But when it is a mistake on an order, the "unsolicited merchandise" law does not apply, and you cannot quite treat it as a gift as you could in the other situation. You can hang on to it, but as mentioned if they request its return you can charge fees.
"it applies in cases where no product was ordered, not cases where the wrong product was sent."
I don't know who you were replying to, but it doesn't seem to be me.
The point here is that a mistake on an order -- the wrong product sent -- is NOT "unsolicited merchandise". In the U.S., the law about unsolicited merchandise applies in cases where you received something in the mail completely out of the blue. You did not order anything.
A mistake on an order is covered under different laws. (Again keep in mind I'm talking about U.S.) When a company makes a mistake on an order, they can request their merchandise back. They cannot, however, make you pay for it.
" I wonder if we will start to see terms of use/purchase including an obligation to return erroneous deliveries."
Sigh. This is already covered in the law. I will repeat it for everybody's benefit.
First, this is not "unsolicited merchandise", because you did order something. So it's not a "gift" (as it would be if it were truly "unsolicited").
Second, even though it is not a "gift", you you are not required to pay for it, and you can keep it... unless the company specifically requests that you return it.
Third, if they do request it back, they are responsible for the shipping and you can charge them a "reasonable" storage fee for the time it was in your custody.
Fourth, I am not positive but I do not think "terms of service" can override this law.
"Anything you didn't ask for is unsolicited by definition.
dumb ass."
Nope. Wrong. DrXym's comment is correct.
There is a difference between "unsolicited merchandise", and a mistake on a legitimate order. Unsolicited merchandise (regardless of the literal meaning of "unsolicited") is something that was sent to you out of the blue, i.e., you had no contact with the sender and weren't expecting anything at all.
Mistakes on legitimate merchandise orders are something entirely different. You DID order something. You DID expect something to be delivered. It was just the wrong thing.
"In the United States getting stuff in the mail unsolicited is considered a gift and is not required to be returned...for the exact reason you specified; I can mail everyone on my block an Ubuntu cd and then claim they owe me $10 for accepting it."
That's not quite true. You are not required to pay for un-ordered merchandise, but you are required by law to return the product if they request it. However, they are responsible for the shipping cost, and you can charge them a "reasonable" storage and maintenance feel for the period of time the product was in your custody.
For that reason, companies do not usually request their products back. It's just not worth their while. And what constitutes a "reasonable" fee can only be determined on a case-by-case basis.
In the U.S., if you receive merchandise you did not order, there are several rules that apply. I believe these are probably the most relevant:
A) You can keep it, unless (or until) the provider requests that you return it.
B) If whoever sent it to you does request its return, they are liable for the shipping cost, and you can charge a "reasonable" storage and maintenance fees for the product while it was in your custody.
"As I always say^H^H^Hask: point me to the word Linux on any of Canonical's web pages."
My point was that the word "canonical" has a meaning: "In simplest or standard form."
In the beginning, Ubuntu could at least lay some claim to being a "canonical" Linux distro. It was plain, simple, and had few frills, but had everything needed to make it usable.
Since then, it has deviated ever farther from "canonical" Linux. Now it's hardly recognizable. Ubuntu appears to be about as much Linux as OS X is BSD. (I'm exaggerating a bit, but not really that much.)
"Prove it. Point to a pro-union comment by you made before now."
Why does it have to be "before now"? You don't get to define "proof" any way you want. What was wrong with "Unions have their place," which I wrote yesterday?
"Which was the fucking point. Unions had nothing to do with Detroit's demise no matter what Koch's teabaggers tell you."
No, it wasn't. It might have been YOUR point, but as I already told you, my point was not the one you seemed to think it was.
"Prove it. Point to a pro-union comment by you made before now."
I don't have any obligation to "prove" anything to you, numbnuts. And what you read here does not necessarily represent my personal philosophy. I have been known to play "devil's advocate" at times.
The point I made above is that unions aren't perfect and CAN cause problems when they become too strong. You appear to be denying that they have any imperfections, or that they can cause problems. Ever.
Which is more likely to be truth? I'd give you a hint but as much as you deny it, you already know the answer.
"For me, their desire to monetize our searches and undermine our privacy is what is marking the end of Canonical."
For me, it's both. There is that, AND the fact that Canonical has been becoming ever less and less "canonical" Linux.
In fact it's getting rather difficult to even call it legitimate Linux anymore. I suppose it is, but in a way that hasn't been pleasing very many people.
"He's also not guilty of 'identity theft' unless he actually tried to impersonate those women using their data."
Yeah, that's a little weird, isn't it?
My theory is that they want to charge him for egregiously violating the privacy of those people, but because corporations have managed to weaken privacy laws, they had to dream up something else to charge him with.
But this is just more proof that we do, indeed, need strong privacy laws.
"... second only to Texas in it's zest for trying to co-opt, twist, and otherwise manipulate federal law. See also: 'This product is known to cause cancer in the State of California.'"
Don't misunderstand me; I am no great fan of the State of California. But if any Federal agency deserves to get its ass kicked up to its vocal chords, it's the FDA. Although I admit that the list has now grown rather large.
They also have the highly controversial three strikes law that results in infinite prison.
On this one, though, I would go further: it's not "controversial" at all. It's just plain bad, and everybody but politicians seem to know it.
"... a prison sentence in excess of what I would get if I poured gasoline on this man and set him on fire for posting a naked picture of me on his website, I do not feel is fair."
Again, agreed. He should definitely be dealt with harshly for his "identity theft" (if that's what you can honestly call it... I'd call it privacy violation), and extortion. But more than for murder? That's just bizarre.
"This is just about incremental removal of rights, the irrational 3D gun 'craze' is easy pickings for them to eliminate them from the legal market."
They've used just about every excuse they could think of. Remember the "plastic gun" scare when the Glock first came out? It was complete BS, of course. A Glock has 20+ ounces of good hard steel in it... it's not getting through any metal detectors except maybe those bogus dowsing things that British guy sold in Iraq.
Personally I think the latter thing you describe is good. I am not sure I agree with the former idea, however.
The U.S. survived just fine -- thrived even -- when the source of money was completely private. Certainly it kept the size of government down, but other than that it most certainly did NOT have much effect on government.
The government most definitely has ways to get you to pay taxes (if, that is, they are taxes you can afford to pay), regardless of the kind of currency commonly used.
I do basically agree with your second point, except that I think you grossly underestimate how easy it is to make a functioning firearm. A few dollars worth of parts at the hardware store, and a few rubber bands, and you have yourself a viable (and even reusable) firearm. Even if personal metal-forming processes become common, it will probably be quite a while before that becomes both better and cheaper than just going to the hardware store.
(...personally, I think if we trust someone with a driver's license, we should trust them with a firearms license. If that seems extreme or scary, maybe we shouldn't be so liberal with handing out drivers' licenses.....)
I think even drivers' licenses are too restricted. Especially in recent years, in which some states have adopted a "graduated" method of licensing, with teenagers only allowed to drive certain hours, for example.
That's pretty silly when you consider that is exactly the time when you want to make them grow up. I also feel that if it's legal to make you go fight a war, it should very definitely be legal for you to drink.
"You are correct, but there are still broad classes of people who are unable to own firearms... As 3D printing becomes more commonplace, these people will be able to obtain firearms for themselves."
Yes, but they are prohibited anyway. This has little or no bearing on their situations. They can make a firearm more easily by simply going to the hardware store. I don't see this as a valid argument. More on this below.
"I am personally not worried about it, as long as law-abiding citizens are able to legally own and carry firearms. There will be no epidemic of violence as long as this remains the case."
I agree completely.
We are adding whole classes of "mental illnesses" to prohibited categories.
You should view this as a big problem, not a good thing. Have you heard about "The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition" (often called "DSM-5"), which came out this year? It is used as the standard for diagnosis by psychiatrists. According to the manual, YOU are probably mentally ill (and that could conceivably be used as a reason to deny you access to weapons).
According to the manual, nearly all women suffer from Premenstrual Dysphoric Disorder. It has expanded the definition of "autism" to a ridiculous degree... to the extent that just about anybody could be said to be autistic.
If this doesn't bother you, it should, for the reasons at hand if for no other reason. If everybody is a criminal, nobody may have guns. If everybody has a mental disorder, nobody may have guns. Etc.
"You kids are ignorant of history. The unions were more powerful then than ever."
No, I'm not. I didn't say it was before unions. I wrote that it was "before Detroit caved itself in" via unions. Not the same thing.
The decline didn't happen with unions, it happened when management decided to build cheap, shitty but expensive gas guzzlers in the 1970s when Japan was building well-built, quality, inexpensive transportation.
It was a combination of both. I do admit that it wasn't just unions that caused the problems. They did form a part of it, though.
"unlike today with your stupid anti-union sentiment"
I'm not anti-union. But I call it as I see it. Unions have their place, but when they become too strong they cause problems.
That's why I predict that the Open Source protocol will be a bit player in a market dominated by an inferior protocol that does require internet access (it will be called "cloud access" soon enough), is completely insecure, and the developers of which are more interested in data harvesting than making it work better.
This brings up the point I was going to cover: security. Without robust encryption, even if consumers did want this (they don't, at least today), if these devices and protocols did not have robust encryption built in, it would soon become "the internet of other peoples' things."
There is a lot of potential for societal disaster here. Let's definitely not forget that.
"Firearms are about to become a lot more available to a lot more people."
They'll only become "more available" in those areas where they're already restricted. Elsewhere, they are already available anyway. (And by the way: statistically, the places where they're restricted tend to be the places with the highest firearms-related crime.)
I predict that over the next 10 years, we will see crime continue to drop as guns do become more available, especially in areas where they were not. Criminals don't like it when people shoot back.
"It has always been possible to make crude weapons quickly and easily. Laws won't stop that."
Not only that. It has always been legal in the U.S. to make your own guns, just not to sell them to others.
But more to the point here: the Feds (Democrats in particular) seem to think that regulating a technology will stop the manufacture of firearms out of synthetics. False. It would just mean that someone else would do it.
They tried this same "let's suppress technology internally" bullshit in the field of cryptography back around the turn of the century. It didn't work then, either.
All suppression of the technology would do is make the U.S. less competitive internationally. IT DOESN'T WORK.
Restricting cryptography exports did not work for its intended purpose.
Restricting attempts to "defeat" DRM did not work for its intended purpose.
Restricting research and development of new firearms manufacturing techniques will not work for its intended purpose.
Slashdot Mirror
"No."
Yes.
"(1) You received an unsolicited PlayStation Vitas."
[emphasis mine] No, you didn't, under U.S. law. IANAL, but I am pretty familiar with this law.
"You can't combine (1) and (2) into some made up concept of "shipping mistake" to get away from your responsibilities."
I am not "combining" anything. You are failing to combine the conditions that are necessary for something to be "unsolicited". You DID "solicit" merchandise from that company. You just got the wrong thing. That is a far, far different thing from someone just sending you something out of nowhere and demanding money for it.
If it could be shown that the company did it intentionally, and they demanded payment for it, then yes it would be unsolicited merchandise. But the law doesn't punish people for honest mistakes.
"A company sends you a gift in the mail â" a tie, a good luck charm, or a key chain. You didnâ(TM)t order the gift."
That is a DIFFERENT thing. This wasn't a "gift" sent in the mail (what the law calls "unsolicited merchandise"). This was a mistake on a legitimate order (solicited merchandise).
Because it isn't "unsolicited" (something sent to you out of the blue), different laws apply. The law you cite simply does not apply to the situation here. (As long as we're talking about U.S. law... I won't speak for the laws in other countries.)
The main thing here -- which I did not point out in my original comment because I did not think it was necessary -- is that in the U.S., a mistake on an order like this is not "unsolicited merchandise". The "unsolicited merchandise" law others have kept mentioning only applies when someone sent you something without any prior contact or agreement at all. "Out of the blue" as they say.
But when it is a mistake on an order, the "unsolicited merchandise" law does not apply, and you cannot quite treat it as a gift as you could in the other situation. You can hang on to it, but as mentioned if they request its return you can charge fees.
"it applies in cases where no product was ordered, not cases where the wrong product was sent."
I don't know who you were replying to, but it doesn't seem to be me.
The point here is that a mistake on an order -- the wrong product sent -- is NOT "unsolicited merchandise". In the U.S., the law about unsolicited merchandise applies in cases where you received something in the mail completely out of the blue. You did not order anything.
A mistake on an order is covered under different laws. (Again keep in mind I'm talking about U.S.) When a company makes a mistake on an order, they can request their merchandise back. They cannot, however, make you pay for it.
It is NOT false. A mistake on an order is not "unsolicited merchandise". You DID solicit something. Just not that.
"This is literally why I come to Slashdot. Nothing warms my heart like an unsolicited insult."
Especially when it is delivered to the wrong person (cymbal crash).
" I wonder if we will start to see terms of use/purchase including an obligation to return erroneous deliveries."
Sigh. This is already covered in the law. I will repeat it for everybody's benefit.
First, this is not "unsolicited merchandise", because you did order something. So it's not a "gift" (as it would be if it were truly "unsolicited").
Second, even though it is not a "gift", you you are not required to pay for it, and you can keep it... unless the company specifically requests that you return it.
Third, if they do request it back, they are responsible for the shipping and you can charge them a "reasonable" storage fee for the time it was in your custody.
Fourth, I am not positive but I do not think "terms of service" can override this law.
"Anything you didn't ask for is unsolicited by definition.
dumb ass."
Nope. Wrong. DrXym's comment is correct.
There is a difference between "unsolicited merchandise", and a mistake on a legitimate order. Unsolicited merchandise (regardless of the literal meaning of "unsolicited") is something that was sent to you out of the blue, i.e., you had no contact with the sender and weren't expecting anything at all.
Mistakes on legitimate merchandise orders are something entirely different. You DID order something. You DID expect something to be delivered. It was just the wrong thing.
"In the United States getting stuff in the mail unsolicited is considered a gift and is not required to be returned...for the exact reason you specified; I can mail everyone on my block an Ubuntu cd and then claim they owe me $10 for accepting it."
That's not quite true. You are not required to pay for un-ordered merchandise, but you are required by law to return the product if they request it. However, they are responsible for the shipping cost, and you can charge them a "reasonable" storage and maintenance feel for the period of time the product was in your custody.
For that reason, companies do not usually request their products back. It's just not worth their while. And what constitutes a "reasonable" fee can only be determined on a case-by-case basis.
"I'd keep it."
In the U.S., if you receive merchandise you did not order, there are several rules that apply. I believe these are probably the most relevant:
A) You can keep it, unless (or until) the provider requests that you return it.
B) If whoever sent it to you does request its return, they are liable for the shipping cost, and you can charge a "reasonable" storage and maintenance fees for the product while it was in your custody.
"As I always say^H^H^Hask: point me to the word Linux on any of Canonical's web pages."
My point was that the word "canonical" has a meaning: "In simplest or standard form."
In the beginning, Ubuntu could at least lay some claim to being a "canonical" Linux distro. It was plain, simple, and had few frills, but had everything needed to make it usable.
Since then, it has deviated ever farther from "canonical" Linux. Now it's hardly recognizable. Ubuntu appears to be about as much Linux as OS X is BSD. (I'm exaggerating a bit, but not really that much.)
"Prove it. Point to a pro-union comment by you made before now."
Why does it have to be "before now"? You don't get to define "proof" any way you want. What was wrong with "Unions have their place," which I wrote yesterday?
"Which was the fucking point. Unions had nothing to do with Detroit's demise no matter what Koch's teabaggers tell you."
No, it wasn't. It might have been YOUR point, but as I already told you, my point was not the one you seemed to think it was.
"Prove it. Point to a pro-union comment by you made before now."
I don't have any obligation to "prove" anything to you, numbnuts. And what you read here does not necessarily represent my personal philosophy. I have been known to play "devil's advocate" at times.
The point I made above is that unions aren't perfect and CAN cause problems when they become too strong. You appear to be denying that they have any imperfections, or that they can cause problems. Ever.
Which is more likely to be truth? I'd give you a hint but as much as you deny it, you already know the answer.
"For me, their desire to monetize our searches and undermine our privacy is what is marking the end of Canonical."
For me, it's both. There is that, AND the fact that Canonical has been becoming ever less and less "canonical" Linux.
In fact it's getting rather difficult to even call it legitimate Linux anymore. I suppose it is, but in a way that hasn't been pleasing very many people.
"He's also not guilty of 'identity theft' unless he actually tried to impersonate those women using their data."
Yeah, that's a little weird, isn't it?
My theory is that they want to charge him for egregiously violating the privacy of those people, but because corporations have managed to weaken privacy laws, they had to dream up something else to charge him with.
But this is just more proof that we do, indeed, need strong privacy laws.
"... second only to Texas in it's zest for trying to co-opt, twist, and otherwise manipulate federal law. See also: 'This product is known to cause cancer in the State of California.'"
Don't misunderstand me; I am no great fan of the State of California. But if any Federal agency deserves to get its ass kicked up to its vocal chords, it's the FDA. Although I admit that the list has now grown rather large.
They also have the highly controversial three strikes law that results in infinite prison.
On this one, though, I would go further: it's not "controversial" at all. It's just plain bad, and everybody but politicians seem to know it.
"... a prison sentence in excess of what I would get if I poured gasoline on this man and set him on fire for posting a naked picture of me on his website, I do not feel is fair."
Again, agreed. He should definitely be dealt with harshly for his "identity theft" (if that's what you can honestly call it... I'd call it privacy violation), and extortion. But more than for murder? That's just bizarre.
"This is just about incremental removal of rights, the irrational 3D gun 'craze' is easy pickings for them to eliminate them from the legal market."
They've used just about every excuse they could think of. Remember the "plastic gun" scare when the Glock first came out? It was complete BS, of course. A Glock has 20+ ounces of good hard steel in it... it's not getting through any metal detectors except maybe those bogus dowsing things that British guy sold in Iraq.
"Is that a good thing, or a bad thing?"
Personally I think the latter thing you describe is good. I am not sure I agree with the former idea, however.
The U.S. survived just fine -- thrived even -- when the source of money was completely private. Certainly it kept the size of government down, but other than that it most certainly did NOT have much effect on government.
The government most definitely has ways to get you to pay taxes (if, that is, they are taxes you can afford to pay), regardless of the kind of currency commonly used.
I do basically agree with your second point, except that I think you grossly underestimate how easy it is to make a functioning firearm. A few dollars worth of parts at the hardware store, and a few rubber bands, and you have yourself a viable (and even reusable) firearm. Even if personal metal-forming processes become common, it will probably be quite a while before that becomes both better and cheaper than just going to the hardware store.
(...personally, I think if we trust someone with a driver's license, we should trust them with a firearms license. If that seems extreme or scary, maybe we shouldn't be so liberal with handing out drivers' licenses.....)
I think even drivers' licenses are too restricted. Especially in recent years, in which some states have adopted a "graduated" method of licensing, with teenagers only allowed to drive certain hours, for example.
That's pretty silly when you consider that is exactly the time when you want to make them grow up. I also feel that if it's legal to make you go fight a war, it should very definitely be legal for you to drink.
"You are correct, but there are still broad classes of people who are unable to own firearms... As 3D printing becomes more commonplace, these people will be able to obtain firearms for themselves."
Yes, but they are prohibited anyway. This has little or no bearing on their situations. They can make a firearm more easily by simply going to the hardware store. I don't see this as a valid argument. More on this below.
"I am personally not worried about it, as long as law-abiding citizens are able to legally own and carry firearms. There will be no epidemic of violence as long as this remains the case."
I agree completely.
We are adding whole classes of "mental illnesses" to prohibited categories.
You should view this as a big problem, not a good thing. Have you heard about "The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition" (often called "DSM-5"), which came out this year? It is used as the standard for diagnosis by psychiatrists. According to the manual, YOU are probably mentally ill (and that could conceivably be used as a reason to deny you access to weapons).
According to the manual, nearly all women suffer from Premenstrual Dysphoric Disorder. It has expanded the definition of "autism" to a ridiculous degree... to the extent that just about anybody could be said to be autistic.
Even professional psychologists think it's ridiculous.
Just about every bad mood can now be called a "mental disorder".
If this doesn't bother you, it should, for the reasons at hand if for no other reason. If everybody is a criminal, nobody may have guns. If everybody has a mental disorder, nobody may have guns. Etc.
"You kids are ignorant of history. The unions were more powerful then than ever."
No, I'm not. I didn't say it was before unions. I wrote that it was "before Detroit caved itself in" via unions. Not the same thing.
The decline didn't happen with unions, it happened when management decided to build cheap, shitty but expensive gas guzzlers in the 1970s when Japan was building well-built, quality, inexpensive transportation.
It was a combination of both. I do admit that it wasn't just unions that caused the problems. They did form a part of it, though.
"unlike today with your stupid anti-union sentiment"
I'm not anti-union. But I call it as I see it. Unions have their place, but when they become too strong they cause problems.
That's why I predict that the Open Source protocol will be a bit player in a market dominated by an inferior protocol that does require internet access (it will be called "cloud access" soon enough), is completely insecure, and the developers of which are more interested in data harvesting than making it work better.
This brings up the point I was going to cover: security. Without robust encryption, even if consumers did want this (they don't, at least today), if these devices and protocols did not have robust encryption built in, it would soon become "the internet of other peoples' things."
There is a lot of potential for societal disaster here. Let's definitely not forget that.
"Firearms are about to become a lot more available to a lot more people."
They'll only become "more available" in those areas where they're already restricted. Elsewhere, they are already available anyway. (And by the way: statistically, the places where they're restricted tend to be the places with the highest firearms-related crime.)
I predict that over the next 10 years, we will see crime continue to drop as guns do become more available, especially in areas where they were not. Criminals don't like it when people shoot back.
I love that term "growing prevalence".
Yes, isn't it funny? Since they aren't "prevalent" at all, what does this mean? What is growing?
A million times zero still equals zero.
"It has always been possible to make crude weapons quickly and easily. Laws won't stop that."
Not only that. It has always been legal in the U.S. to make your own guns, just not to sell them to others.
But more to the point here: the Feds (Democrats in particular) seem to think that regulating a technology will stop the manufacture of firearms out of synthetics. False. It would just mean that someone else would do it.
They tried this same "let's suppress technology internally" bullshit in the field of cryptography back around the turn of the century. It didn't work then, either.
All suppression of the technology would do is make the U.S. less competitive internationally. IT DOESN'T WORK.
Restricting cryptography exports did not work for its intended purpose.
Restricting attempts to "defeat" DRM did not work for its intended purpose.
Restricting research and development of new firearms manufacturing techniques will not work for its intended purpose.
You're talking about a time when there were no "rice burners" on the road to stick. Before Detroit caved itself in via unions.