Erp? How does that help anything? If you're not providing your password each time you authenticate, then somewhere it exists in an accessible form to some automated system. Using keys? You need to encrypt them (with a password). There's no getting around it. A password is at the heart of all proper authentication schemes because it is the only method that is even possible to be secure. It is the secret, the "something you know", that exists only in your head. Nothing changes if you use it to encrypt a key or a keychain or a password database or whatever else.
It may not be a private key in a public/private key pair. But it's a secret (key) that is known only to you (private). It may or may not be used in the same crytographic manner (hashing vs. encryption) as, a public/private key pair. But it's a secret (key) that is known only to you (private).
If you're always signing into something like that, then you should have already setup a public/private key solution for yourself, fool.
Seriously. This is why our computing experience sucks; we've got fools like "fluffernutter" running things.
Work smart, not hard.
Many systems don't support such a setup. Most systems (servers, networking gear, UPS, building/infrastructure management, etc.) still require a simple password as the lowest level authentication mechanism.
And how the FUCK would a key pair help? You still need to present the private key somehow. Carry it with you? Gee, better not carry it in plaintext, so you better encrypt it in some sort of reversible way. With a password.
DERP.
And finally, working smart doesn't mean you don't have to work hard. Why not work smart and hard?
Clear violation of the constitution. Getting the truth out hurts them far more than they could ever hope to sue your for in many cases. No such law would ever stop me, and I would never convict a person under any such law.
All the Crimea/Ukraine/Georgia shit was Russia taking back its own shit. It's just that the west determined Russia was the bad guy because fuck Russia. Yet with Spain, the west is all for it?
The copyright infringement takes place on the users end. Using those codes without having possession of the license IS illegal.
Disney / the provider behind the streaming service is the one making the copy. Not the user. The user is doing nothing illegal by using a code for a movie they don't own. They're just violating Disney's private EULA/ToS. Disney is free to find these users and remove the offending titles from their libraries or block them from using the service in the future.
"The redemption of a digital code sold or transferred separate from the original physical product is prohibited."
If someone can in fact redeem a code without owning the disc, then it's not actually prohibited, is it?
Lisa: You can't drive, dad. He's got your license. Homer Simpson: Well, I'm gonna try anyway. [starts the car] Homer Simpson: It worked! It's a miracle!
Further, buy the disc + code, redeem the code, sell the disc under the first sale doctrine (back to Redbox by slotting it into any Redbox kiosk and having the $X hold on your credit card removed).
The disc and code go wherever the owner wants them to, via the first sale doctrine. This has already been decided by the Supreme Court. Will Disney be able to get their way? Probably. Those pieces of shit usually do.
From what I've gathered, there are a few issues at play: 1) Redbox neither purchased a digital copy, nor are they selling a digital copy. They purchased and are selling a code that can be used to redeem a digital copy. That said, to actually redeem the digital copy, one needs to agree to Disney's license.
2) Redbox is almost certainly aware that it won't be legal for their customers to redeem those digital copies without also owning a physical copy, since the fine print in these sorts of licenses almost always requires that the person also owns a physical copy. As such, those codes are worthless without the physical copy.
3) Redbox is apparently selling the codes as if they are a standalone means to purchase a digital copy, even though they can't be used that way. In doing so, there's an argument to be made that they're either engaging in fraud by portraying the product as something other than it is, or else that they're inducing others to engage in illegal behavior by selling an item that they have every reason to believe will be used illicitly.
Yes, the first-sale doctrine means that Disney exhausted their rights to the items included in the purchase at the time of sale, but the digital copy wasn't included in the purchase. The code to redeem it was. And while it's likely perfectly legal to sell the code, portraying it as a standalone item that can be legally used by others without any additional purchase is exactly the sort of thing that I'd expect to see end up in court.
Even if you want to pretend Disney's terms are enforceable:
Buy retail movie + code package. Sell code and movie together to customer. Buy movie back from customer.
They sell the slip of paper. Have you ever been on eBay looking at software codes, video game / dlc codes, etc.? This has been going on for decades and the lawyers for the software and video game industries gave up shutting down listings once people claimed to be selling the slips of paper and not the codes.
Except that transmission of that fact induces copyright infringement. And you can read it before you buy, the outside of the box clearly states, twice, that the codes can not be sold or transferred.
Someday I'll stop bothering to correct the knee-jerk anti-IP mindset around here, but I guess it's more fun to be right than it is to read a bunch of other people not being wrong and having nothing in particular to add to it.
We've been doing this for 2 decades or more with codes for software and video games.
You sell the actual slip of paper, which is a physical thing protected by the first sale doctrine, not the code. You can immediately send a photo of the code via email so the person knows what to expect (and immediately toss) via snail mail in 7-10 days.
There has to be opportunity to negotiate to meet the legal "meeting of the minds" requirement. If there's no opportunity to negotiate, there's no contract. A mere purchase is not a contract. A sale (with a bill of sale, etc.) often is.
One sided contracts hold some weight, but not much, because there's no indication that a person was informed of, understood, or agreed to the egregious bullshit hidden deep within. This is why you sign and initial multiple times on a rental agreement, purchase agreement for a vehicle, gym membership, etc. underneath specific clauses.
This is why shysty shops have a sign saying "ALL SALES FINAL" posted somewhere in view of the counter. The shop owner can spout his bullshit about how he'll treat you right, but he'll lie about what he said if you take him to court. Instead, he'll bring a photo of that sign as seen from where you stood at the counter, and a copy of the dated receipt which has similar language on the bottom / back. Proceeding with the transaction despite that clear and obvious sign and the ability to ask the shop owner about it counts. Shrink wrap licenses don't count. Printing terms on the box may count, if they're big enough and obvious enough that a person would see and read them before deciding to make a purchase.
Too this date, I've only seen small print, summary terms and conditions on the box of most products. That's not going to convince anyone that someone agreed to them.
They do go through a distributor. They just don't have a contract with Disney.
Redbox would love to have a contract with Disney like they do with other studios. But Disney either said "fuck you" or said "sure, for $$$$$$$$$$, and 2 months after retail availability, and you have to pull everything once we put it in the vault 2 weeks after that". Redbox, not being cucks, saw that it made more sense to buy DVDs/BluRays directly and rent/sell those, with no strings attached to Disney.
Now Disney wants those strings and is crying that Redbox didn't accept their assrape deal.
R buys product X. R sells part of X to U. D, creator of X, cries foul.
R has no agreement with D. D has no legal claim to X once R buys X. D has no right to interfere with transactions between R and U.
Redbox is buying the discs at retail, pulling the discs and codes, renting/selling the discs and selling the codes. They have every right to do this under the first sale doctrine. Disney cannot impose any limitation on what Redbox does with the discs or code slips once Redbox buys them. Redbox is free to do whatever the fuck they want. Worst case, Disney will claim copyright over the code and Redbox will email a picture of the slip of paper immediately and then ship the slip of paper via snail mail for a few cents more. It's the same deal with game download / DLC / demo / etc. access codes given as bundles / swag / promos.
Besides, if violating causality is impossibly, why reserve and lock away a word to only be used to describe an impossible process, when a slightly broader use is actually applicable to something that exists?
Precisely because there's a hard, definitive line between what's possible and what isn't (as far as we know). It's the same reason Tachyons have a name that isn't bastardized and used for other random fast particles.
Teleportation is instantaneous spatial transference. Anything else (such as encoding, destroying and rebuilding) is not teleportation. Teleportation is impossible without violating causality. And that's why it's important to keep the definition clear, just as Tachyons are not merely "really fast particles".
He signed it, you fool. A legal document doesn't need signatures anyway. It just has to be true. Signatures are one way of establishing that they are true.
There is always one altruistic person in the group that is concerned about this. The answer to how you deal with an uncooperative conscious victim is, you wait until they pass out, implied consent kicks in, and you can help them. The fact they said "no" before was based on them being conscious. Going unconscious changes the situation.
Nope. If they said "no" while conscious, that counts as "no" while unconscious. Don't apply your personal sex life to this.
Slashdot Mirror
Erp? How does that help anything? If you're not providing your password each time you authenticate, then somewhere it exists in an accessible form to some automated system. Using keys? You need to encrypt them (with a password). There's no getting around it. A password is at the heart of all proper authentication schemes because it is the only method that is even possible to be secure. It is the secret, the "something you know", that exists only in your head. Nothing changes if you use it to encrypt a key or a keychain or a password database or whatever else.
Every password is a private key.
It may not be a private key in a public/private key pair. But it's a secret (key) that is known only to you (private).
It may or may not be used in the same crytographic manner (hashing vs. encryption) as, a public/private key pair. But it's a secret (key) that is known only to you (private).
If you're always signing into something like that, then you should have already setup a public/private key solution for yourself, fool.
Seriously. This is why our computing experience sucks; we've got fools like "fluffernutter" running things.
Work smart, not hard.
Many systems don't support such a setup. Most systems (servers, networking gear, UPS, building/infrastructure management, etc.) still require a simple password as the lowest level authentication mechanism.
And how the FUCK would a key pair help? You still need to present the private key somehow. Carry it with you? Gee, better not carry it in plaintext, so you better encrypt it in some sort of reversible way. With a password.
DERP.
And finally, working smart doesn't mean you don't have to work hard. Why not work smart and hard?
Clear violation of the constitution. Getting the truth out hurts them far more than they could ever hope to sue your for in many cases. No such law would ever stop me, and I would never convict a person under any such law.
All the Crimea/Ukraine/Georgia shit was Russia taking back its own shit.
It's just that the west determined Russia was the bad guy because fuck Russia.
Yet with Spain, the west is all for it?
The copyright infringement takes place on the users end. Using those codes without having possession of the license IS illegal.
Disney / the provider behind the streaming service is the one making the copy. Not the user.
The user is doing nothing illegal by using a code for a movie they don't own. They're just violating Disney's private EULA/ToS. Disney is free to find these users and remove the offending titles from their libraries or block them from using the service in the future.
"The redemption of a digital code sold or transferred separate from the original physical product is prohibited."
If someone can in fact redeem a code without owning the disc, then it's not actually prohibited, is it?
Lisa: You can't drive, dad. He's got your license.
Homer Simpson: Well, I'm gonna try anyway.
[starts the car]
Homer Simpson: It worked! It's a miracle!
Further, buy the disc + code, redeem the code, sell the disc under the first sale doctrine (back to Redbox by slotting it into any Redbox kiosk and having the $X hold on your credit card removed).
Accomplice? What crime was committed? Not agreeing to a private EULA / ToS is not a crime, nor is breaking it.
The disc and code go wherever the owner wants them to, via the first sale doctrine. This has already been decided by the Supreme Court.
Will Disney be able to get their way? Probably. Those pieces of shit usually do.
From what I've gathered, there are a few issues at play:
1) Redbox neither purchased a digital copy, nor are they selling a digital copy. They purchased and are selling a code that can be used to redeem a digital copy. That said, to actually redeem the digital copy, one needs to agree to Disney's license.
2) Redbox is almost certainly aware that it won't be legal for their customers to redeem those digital copies without also owning a physical copy, since the fine print in these sorts of licenses almost always requires that the person also owns a physical copy. As such, those codes are worthless without the physical copy.
3) Redbox is apparently selling the codes as if they are a standalone means to purchase a digital copy, even though they can't be used that way. In doing so, there's an argument to be made that they're either engaging in fraud by portraying the product as something other than it is, or else that they're inducing others to engage in illegal behavior by selling an item that they have every reason to believe will be used illicitly.
Yes, the first-sale doctrine means that Disney exhausted their rights to the items included in the purchase at the time of sale, but the digital copy wasn't included in the purchase. The code to redeem it was. And while it's likely perfectly legal to sell the code, portraying it as a standalone item that can be legally used by others without any additional purchase is exactly the sort of thing that I'd expect to see end up in court.
Even if you want to pretend Disney's terms are enforceable:
Buy retail movie + code package.
Sell code and movie together to customer.
Buy movie back from customer.
They sell the slip of paper. Have you ever been on eBay looking at software codes, video game / dlc codes, etc.? This has been going on for decades and the lawyers for the software and video game industries gave up shutting down listings once people claimed to be selling the slips of paper and not the codes.
Such terms are unenforceable twatsnot. See the first sale doctrine, you clown.
Except that transmission of that fact induces copyright infringement. And you can read it before you buy, the outside of the box clearly states, twice, that the codes can not be sold or transferred.
Someday I'll stop bothering to correct the knee-jerk anti-IP mindset around here, but I guess it's more fun to be right than it is to read a bunch of other people not being wrong and having nothing in particular to add to it.
We've been doing this for 2 decades or more with codes for software and video games.
You sell the actual slip of paper, which is a physical thing protected by the first sale doctrine, not the code.
You can immediately send a photo of the code via email so the person knows what to expect (and immediately toss) via snail mail in 7-10 days.
There is wording on that slip of paper stating that it cannot be transferred or sold.
Such wording violates the first sale doctrine. You can absolutely sell that piece of paper all day long.
There has to be opportunity to negotiate to meet the legal "meeting of the minds" requirement.
If there's no opportunity to negotiate, there's no contract. A mere purchase is not a contract. A sale (with a bill of sale, etc.) often is.
One sided contracts hold some weight, but not much, because there's no indication that a person was informed of, understood, or agreed to the egregious bullshit hidden deep within. This is why you sign and initial multiple times on a rental agreement, purchase agreement for a vehicle, gym membership, etc. underneath specific clauses.
This is why shysty shops have a sign saying "ALL SALES FINAL" posted somewhere in view of the counter. The shop owner can spout his bullshit about how he'll treat you right, but he'll lie about what he said if you take him to court. Instead, he'll bring a photo of that sign as seen from where you stood at the counter, and a copy of the dated receipt which has similar language on the bottom / back. Proceeding with the transaction despite that clear and obvious sign and the ability to ask the shop owner about it counts. Shrink wrap licenses don't count. Printing terms on the box may count, if they're big enough and obvious enough that a person would see and read them before deciding to make a purchase.
Too this date, I've only seen small print, summary terms and conditions on the box of most products. That's not going to convince anyone that someone agreed to them.
They do go through a distributor. They just don't have a contract with Disney.
Redbox would love to have a contract with Disney like they do with other studios. But Disney either said "fuck you" or said "sure, for $$$$$$$$$$, and 2 months after retail availability, and you have to pull everything once we put it in the vault 2 weeks after that". Redbox, not being cucks, saw that it made more sense to buy DVDs/BluRays directly and rent/sell those, with no strings attached to Disney.
Now Disney wants those strings and is crying that Redbox didn't accept their assrape deal.
Fuck you, Mickey.
Well, they claim to have printed twice on the outside of the box "Codes are not for sale or transfer."
So? That's not enforceable. No one agrees to that.
That's not an argument.
R buys product X.
R sells part of X to U.
D, creator of X, cries foul.
R has no agreement with D.
D has no legal claim to X once R buys X.
D has no right to interfere with transactions between R and U.
Redbox is buying the discs at retail, pulling the discs and codes, renting/selling the discs and selling the codes.
They have every right to do this under the first sale doctrine. Disney cannot impose any limitation on what Redbox does with the discs or code slips once Redbox buys them. Redbox is free to do whatever the fuck they want. Worst case, Disney will claim copyright over the code and Redbox will email a picture of the slip of paper immediately and then ship the slip of paper via snail mail for a few cents more. It's the same deal with game download / DLC / demo / etc. access codes given as bundles / swag / promos.
Yes, they can. Unfortunately, Disney's lawyers will surely win out.
Besides, if violating causality is impossibly, why reserve and lock away a word to only be used to describe an impossible process, when a slightly broader use is actually applicable to something that exists?
Precisely because there's a hard, definitive line between what's possible and what isn't (as far as we know).
It's the same reason Tachyons have a name that isn't bastardized and used for other random fast particles.
Teleportation is instantaneous spatial transference.
Anything else (such as encoding, destroying and rebuilding) is not teleportation.
Teleportation is impossible without violating causality. And that's why it's important to keep the definition clear, just as Tachyons are not merely "really fast particles".
Going to? Obama was jerking off every night with the hand-me-down drones.
This is a complex issue and calling this just a tactic to gain more money in billable services is simplifying the issue into the absurd.
Nope, it's pretty simple. It's about the money.
If someone expresses their desire to not be treated, either directly or through documentation or representation, you don't treat them.
He signed it, you fool. A legal document doesn't need signatures anyway. It just has to be true. Signatures are one way of establishing that they are true.
There is always one altruistic person in the group that is concerned about this. The answer to how you deal with an uncooperative conscious victim is, you wait until they pass out, implied consent kicks in, and you can help them. The fact they said "no" before was based on them being conscious. Going unconscious changes the situation.
Nope. If they said "no" while conscious, that counts as "no" while unconscious.
Don't apply your personal sex life to this.