Hell I regularly used tutorial code as a starting point when doing undergrad projects. Normally I'd add something like "some code based on tutorial code at: http....." and never once did a professor so much a blink.
Why people wouldn't just attribute stuff is beyond me. From a quick scan of it I too am not sure if they exclude attributed stuff.
oh but they advertised that they were selling a gaming system.
Are you saying that they only sold a useless chunk of silicon and gave the rest away free? absolutely blatant false advertising right there then. They claimed to be selling something they were not: namely a system which could play games.
and it doesn't matter if the EULA was on their website of if their chief executive went around with it printed on his T-Shirt. it wasn't printed on the outside of the box when it was sold and it wasn't agreed to before money and the goods were exchanged.
Reading further: I still see nothing whatsoever in sonys EULA binding sony in any way shape or form. isn't there some kind of requirement that to be binding at all a contract has to offer something concrete to both parties even if it's trivial but everything I've read so far of it is "we may do this... if we feel like it and we reserve the right to take it away at any time for any reason and we are not obligated in any way" which is exactly nothing.
ah I see. So they sold a functionless block of silicon (but advertised it as a games console) and then out of the goodness of their hearts included a completely separate free pile of software to go with it which the consumer in no way paid for.
really someone needs to sue them for absolutely blatant false advertising.
Really? so you're saying that should I draw a picture of a cat on page 57 of the book in front of me the author would be able to sue me and my only defence would be fair use? And not in the sense of "you can sue for anything" but rather that they'd have an actual case?
I feel the urge to pick at this like an oozing scab.
and still I have never once put my electronic signature to any agreement. I have one, I can sign emails with it to guarantee that they came from me. It could even be witnessed by a trusted third party or at least documented.
but all I ever see are those silly little "ok" or "I agree" buttons, no witness, no proof that it's not in fact my neighbour, 5 year old nephew or cat which agreed to it.
I'd be quite happy to accept an electronic contract as valid. Just have it witnessed, signed either with a public key or sign it with a touchpad and have it actually bind both parties to do something.
I'm curious but does their eula bind Sony to do anything whatsoever? I can't see anything that isn't prefixed with "may" from a quick read. as far as I can see it doesn't bind them at all.
well if you ask someone who desperately wants copyright to apply then they'll just tell you it doesn't count. although which step I'm not sure they can point to.
Copyright deals with making/distributing copies and editing a copyrighted work falls under it about as much as drawing breasts in the margins of books.
They'd probably waffle about how if you edited it out then you knew the agreement was there and by not agreeing to it you agreed to it.
And if they're really crazy they'll argue that displaying the bytecode on the screen is making a copy, or reading the file into memory to edit makes it a copyright issue or reading the bytecode with your eyes makes a copy in your brain thus bringing copyright into it.
And you see no problem with the fact that you would have to sue to get rid of those other terms?
my post was essentially what most EULAs are. A wishlist of things that the company would love with no reference at all to whether it's even vaguely legal.
And they all essentially say the same thing: "we can do anything at all we want, we have no obligation to you at all, you should be happy we allowed you to give us money,you can't do anything though we may not enforce our right to stop you from doing stuff if we feel like it" and plastered all over it because they know very well that most of what they write isn't even vaguely legal: something along the lines of "if any part or parts of this agreement are invalidated or illegal all the rest still binds you but not us"
I absolutely agree to abide by any contract I sign but the thing is that I've never in my life signed a contract for software. All I've ever done is click "OK" to company wishlists after I've already bought my property from them and our business is done.
Absolutely! Don't go signing any contracts saying you agree to such things. Stop and think before you put pen to paper! Once it's down in ink on paper it's serious!
On a related note now that you've read my post please retroactively agree to my conditions that you must send me all your Christmas presents next December. If you don't agree to this you are required to delete all copies of the data from your computer, from your ISP's buffers, from your own mind, from the fabric of space if you read this with your curtains open thus violating my copyright by creating a copy of the text moving through space at the speed of light and immediately relinquish all original thoughts you've had since reading my post.
it's like how I only have a licences to the words in the books I buy.
If I want to create a derivative work by doodling in the margins all I have to do to avoid a lawsuit from the author is remove all the copyrighted words from the book first using white spirits and bleach.
And don't get me started on those fucking photocopier manufacturers! supporting book piracy! death's too good for them!
When you took that pen and signed your name to the line at the bottom of the paper on that contract agreeing to the software license it became legally binding.
I'm neither of those yet I still think the op was an idiot. If he'd simply called it something not so similar to tetris he'd have had a good argument but this is pretty much what trademarks are for.
Good to know you're the kind of person who'd leave children starve to punish their parents.
(let me guess, despite having straightforwardly stated as such in the above you're now going to shout and scream about how you think you're a nice person yourself really so it's totally unfair to classify you accuratly)
And just to be clear, it's not someone with the same job at the same pay as you do. It's someone living in a semi-third world country with little medical care, poor access to birth control, no social security (so if at least one of your children doesn't make it to adulthood then once you're too old to work you starve) and crappy infrastructure.
I don't think you even understand why families in the third world have lots of children. it isn't some selfish mormon "I want to breed as much as possible" thing. if you don't have grown up kids to take care of you in your old age you die a begger. If they could be certain their children would live to adulthood and had easy access to birth control then they'd have less. It's not like the first world with at least a certain amount of social housing and medical care. You need to have kids when you get too old to work.
Well, congratulations, then. You have just encountered your first exception.
So what reasonable argument are you advancing? all you provided was a vague question that has nothing to do with the topic. So far I see no exception at all.
No, I actually had a point: if outsourcing is so great, why is our unemployment rate so high? I do not believe that claiming outsourcing has nothing to do with it would be valid.
It's like a feudal lord complaining that "if treating the peasents like humans is so good why are my estates smaller than they used to be" Not everything that's good for the most people overall long term is always going to benefit you personally right now.
Compared to other countries it's not spectacularly high. Spains unemployment rate is up around 20%. irelands is up at 14% now. In Estonia it's 19% now. Iran: 14% France is up at 10% it's a worldwide thing. unemployment is up almost everywhere because of the banking fuckup and it hit american banks hard.
but sure. blame it on outsourcing. blame it on the brown people who are taking the jobs you believe you have a god given right to because god forbid you should have to compete with brown people.
sure, but rarely starving ones. In the US death by starvation is so rare that it's not even tracked but the latest figure I could find was 2004 when 120 people total in a nation of over 300 million starved.
Compare that to Indias 7.5 million in a nation only 3 times the size.
The far less visible group are the old money, the ultra rich, the people who actually ended up owning the billions in question, the people who's worth to the economy would only be increased if they were to be replaced by a rock or other inanimate object which had been granted the legal right to own property.
Wanting to feed your child rather than helping your neighbours starving kid is one thing.
leaving your neighbours kid starve to death while you spend your money on giving your own child a swimming pool, a pony and a full set of diamond jewellery on the other hand may raise some eyebrows or at least it should.
If you convince youself that people living in the countries where the jobs are going are really almost as well off as you and stand to suffer no more than you from the loss of that job then favouring your own is justifiable.
On the other hand when there's as massive a difference as there tends to be in the real world then it's just tribalism,paranoia, greed and fear dressed up as patriotism.
So are you arguing that the massive and resource/money hungry status symbols, the expensive luxuries and the wasteful excesses that the richest few percent indulge in don't actually take any resources to provide or that they're trivial?
The economy isn't a zero sum game but you can still waste or destroy wealth on pointless things and divert resources from where they could be vastly better utilised.
India is the top country for outsourcing yet even in modern india something like 7.5 million people per year die of malnutrition in modern India.
So no. Countries where people still starve in huge nunbers do get outsourced jobs.
true shitholes like Somalia or Niger where the government is unstable enough that you can't even set up a buisness are even worse off but then they end up having little to do with outsourcing.
This "race to the bottom" is an article of faith. In reality as jobs are imported into a country people gain the education, the money and the means to set up their own businesses and build a local economy.
As for the second half, the same could be said for just leaving people to starve to death because if they survive and have 2 kids then now you have 2 starving people. Similarly if you kill everyone now then long term there will be less suffering overall. So I don't buy it.
The people employed selling things to the people who have the jobs which have been outsourced to india might disagree with you. Particularly since they face genuine, no jokes, the real possibility of starvation where the guy building the pool in america does not.
That last point of yours, I notice I only ever see that kind of "why don't you try telling that to X" when all reasonable arguments have been exhausted and the person is trying to justify something they know themselves is wrong.
Last time I heard it was when arguing that that vaccines don't cause autism and it ended with "why don't you tell that to the family next door with an autistic child"
it doesn't actually support your argument, it just adds emotional cruft.
Around 7.5 million people per year die of malnutrition in modern India. Starvation rates in the United States are generally not even recorded due to the relative infrequency of the occurrence though in 2004 120 people total died from lack of food.
it is extremely hard to starve to death in the USA, the same cannot be said of india.
So to answer a ridiculous challenge with a ridiculous challenge "Tell your protectionism justification to the 10.8% of indians" .
Every 2.43 seconds someone who potentially could have invented something, come up with a great idea or been the next Edison or stephen hawking dies from starvation.
yes there is a decent argument that flattening things totally might do more harm than good but you can't say with a straight face that wasting such an incredible number of working human minds can be good for the economy.
When the top few percent of the worlds population spend more on pet food than on food for starving people something is terribly wrong.
I wouldn't worry even a little for the economy if the top few percent of humanity didn't get to have swimming pools so that the bottom billion could perhaps not have to spend their time worrying about starving or trying to figure out how best to pick grains of rice from passing trucks off the road before the other scavengers do and instead use those working human minds to build things, understand things and make things
When the help in question vastly outweighs the harm. It's hard to actually starve to death in europe or america, no matter how poor you are.
The same could not be said for many third world countries. 1 job leaving america likely means a temporary hardship for a family. That families kids will still go to school, they'll still have food and they'll still have basic medical care and chances are good that the person in question will just find another job.
One job coming to a third world country can mean a family can send their children to school, keep them fed and get basic medical care, without the job chances are far worse that the person in question will find another.
so it's not just a matter of geography or nationalism. a job can do far more good for one person than another.
Slashdot Mirror
Hell I regularly used tutorial code as a starting point when doing undergrad projects.
Normally I'd add something like "some code based on tutorial code at: http....." and never once did a professor so much a blink.
Why people wouldn't just attribute stuff is beyond me.
From a quick scan of it I too am not sure if they exclude attributed stuff.
oh but they advertised that they were selling a gaming system.
Are you saying that they only sold a useless chunk of silicon and gave the rest away free?
absolutely blatant false advertising right there then.
They claimed to be selling something they were not: namely a system which could play games.
and it doesn't matter if the EULA was on their website of if their chief executive went around with it printed on his T-Shirt.
it wasn't printed on the outside of the box when it was sold and it wasn't agreed to before money and the goods were exchanged.
Reading further: I still see nothing whatsoever in sonys EULA binding sony in any way shape or form.
isn't there some kind of requirement that to be binding at all a contract has to offer something concrete to both parties even if it's trivial but everything I've read so far of it is "we may do this... if we feel like it and we reserve the right to take it away at any time for any reason and we are not obligated in any way" which is exactly nothing.
ah I see. So they sold a functionless block of silicon (but advertised it as a games console) and then out of the goodness of their hearts included a completely separate free pile of software to go with it which the consumer in no way paid for.
really someone needs to sue them for absolutely blatant false advertising.
Well isn't it nice that they already sold me a copy and took my money in exchange then.
They really should have told me they wanted to apply additional restrictions before they accepted my payment and gave me the goods shouldn't they.
well with the engine it would be patents you'd be infringing so unless you stuck some companies logo on it it wouldn't be counterfeiting.
Same with the clothes, they have every right to churn out the cheap suits as long as they don't stick an armani logo or brand name on them.
Really? so you're saying that should I draw a picture of a cat on page 57 of the book in front of me the author would be able to sue me and my only defence would be fair use?
And not in the sense of "you can sue for anything" but rather that they'd have an actual case?
I feel the urge to pick at this like an oozing scab.
and still I have never once put my electronic signature to any agreement.
I have one, I can sign emails with it to guarantee that they came from me.
It could even be witnessed by a trusted third party or at least documented.
but all I ever see are those silly little "ok" or "I agree" buttons, no witness, no proof that it's not in fact my neighbour, 5 year old nephew or cat which agreed to it.
I'd be quite happy to accept an electronic contract as valid.
Just have it witnessed, signed either with a public key or sign it with a touchpad and have it actually bind both parties to do something.
I'm curious but does their eula bind Sony to do anything whatsoever? I can't see anything that isn't prefixed with "may" from a quick read. as far as I can see it doesn't bind them at all.
well if you ask someone who desperately wants copyright to apply then they'll just tell you it doesn't count.
although which step I'm not sure they can point to.
Copyright deals with making/distributing copies and editing a copyrighted work falls under it about as much as drawing breasts in the margins of books.
They'd probably waffle about how if you edited it out then you knew the agreement was there and by not agreeing to it you agreed to it.
And if they're really crazy they'll argue that displaying the bytecode on the screen is making a copy, or reading the file into memory to edit makes it a copyright issue or reading the bytecode with your eyes makes a copy in your brain thus bringing copyright into it.
And you see no problem with the fact that you would have to sue to get rid of those other terms?
my post was essentially what most EULAs are.
A wishlist of things that the company would love with no reference at all to whether it's even vaguely legal.
And they all essentially say the same thing: "we can do anything at all we want, we have no obligation to you at all, you should be happy we allowed you to give us money ,you can't do anything though we may not enforce our right to stop you from doing stuff if we feel like it" and plastered all over it because they know very well that most of what they write isn't even vaguely legal: something along the lines of "if any part or parts of this agreement are invalidated or illegal all the rest still binds you but not us"
I absolutely agree to abide by any contract I sign but the thing is that I've never in my life signed a contract for software.
All I've ever done is click "OK" to company wishlists after I've already bought my property from them and our business is done.
Absolutely!
Don't go signing any contracts saying you agree to such things.
Stop and think before you put pen to paper! Once it's down in ink on paper it's serious!
On a related note now that you've read my post please retroactively agree to my conditions that you must send me all your Christmas presents next December.
If you don't agree to this you are required to delete all copies of the data from your computer, from your ISP's buffers, from your own mind, from the fabric of space if you read this with your curtains open thus violating my copyright by creating a copy of the text moving through space at the speed of light and immediately relinquish all original thoughts you've had since reading my post.
obviously!
it's like how I only have a licences to the words in the books I buy.
If I want to create a derivative work by doodling in the margins all I have to do to avoid a lawsuit from the author is remove all the copyrighted words from the book first using white spirits and bleach.
And don't get me started on those fucking photocopier manufacturers! supporting book piracy! death's too good for them!
When you took that pen and signed your name to the line at the bottom of the paper on that contract agreeing to the software license it became legally binding.
I mean it's clear as day to anyone!
erk: C0 CE FE 84 C2 27 F7 5B D0 7A 7E B8 46 50 9F 93 B2 38 E7 70 DA CB 9F F4 A3 88 F8 12 48 2B E2 1B
riv: 47 EE 74 54 E4 77 4C C9 B8 96 0C 7B 59 F4 C1 4D
pub: C2 D4 AA F3 19 35 50 19 AF 99 D4 4E 2B 58 CA 29 25 2C 89 12 3D 11 D6 21 8F 40 B1 38 CA B2 9B 71 01 F3 AE B7 2A 97 50 19
R: 80 6E 07 8F A1 52 97 90 CE 1A AE 02 BA DD 6F AA A6 AF 74 17
n: E1 3A 7E BC 3A CC EB 1C B5 6C C8 60 FC AB DB 6A 04 8C 55 E1
K: BA 90 55 91 68 61 B9 77 ED CB ED 92 00 50 92 F6 6C 7A 3D 8D
Da: C5 B2 BF A1 A4 13 DD 16 F2 6D 31 C0 F2 ED 47 20 DC FB 06 70
I'm neither of those yet I still think the op was an idiot.
If he'd simply called it something not so similar to tetris he'd have had a good argument but this is pretty much what trademarks are for.
Good to know you're the kind of person who'd leave children starve to punish their parents.
(let me guess, despite having straightforwardly stated as such in the above you're now going to shout and scream about how you think you're a nice person yourself really so it's totally unfair to classify you accuratly)
And just to be clear, it's not someone with the same job at the same pay as you do.
It's someone living in a semi-third world country with little medical care, poor access to birth control, no social security (so if at least one of your children doesn't make it to adulthood then once you're too old to work you starve) and crappy infrastructure.
I don't think you even understand why families in the third world have lots of children.
it isn't some selfish mormon "I want to breed as much as possible" thing. if you don't have grown up kids to take care of you in your old age you die a begger.
If they could be certain their children would live to adulthood and had easy access to birth control then they'd have less.
It's not like the first world with at least a certain amount of social housing and medical care.
You need to have kids when you get too old to work.
Well, congratulations, then. You have just encountered your first exception.
So what reasonable argument are you advancing?
all you provided was a vague question that has nothing to do with the topic.
So far I see no exception at all.
No, I actually had a point: if outsourcing is so great, why is our unemployment rate so high? I do not believe that claiming outsourcing has nothing to do with it would be valid.
It's like a feudal lord complaining that "if treating the peasents like humans is so good why are my estates smaller than they used to be"
Not everything that's good for the most people overall long term is always going to benefit you personally right now.
Compared to other countries it's not spectacularly high.
Spains unemployment rate is up around 20%.
irelands is up at 14% now.
In Estonia it's 19% now.
Iran: 14%
France is up at 10%
it's a worldwide thing. unemployment is up almost everywhere because of the banking fuckup and it hit american banks hard.
but sure. blame it on outsourcing. blame it on the brown people who are taking the jobs you believe you have a god given right to because god forbid you should have to compete with brown people.
sure, but rarely starving ones.
In the US death by starvation is so rare that it's not even tracked but the latest figure I could find was 2004 when 120 people total in a nation of over 300 million starved.
Compare that to Indias 7.5 million in a nation only 3 times the size.
actually I have little beef with executives.
The far less visible group are the old money, the ultra rich, the people who actually ended up owning the billions in question, the people who's worth to the economy would only be increased if they were to be replaced by a rock or other inanimate object which had been granted the legal right to own property.
It's a matter of degrees.
Wanting to feed your child rather than helping your neighbours starving kid is one thing.
leaving your neighbours kid starve to death while you spend your money on giving your own child a swimming pool, a pony and a full set of diamond jewellery on the other hand may raise some eyebrows or at least it should.
If you convince youself that people living in the countries where the jobs are going are really almost as well off as you and stand to suffer no more than you from the loss of that job then favouring your own is justifiable.
On the other hand when there's as massive a difference as there tends to be in the real world then it's just tribalism,paranoia, greed and fear dressed up as patriotism.
So are you arguing that the massive and resource/money hungry status symbols, the expensive luxuries and the wasteful excesses that the richest few percent indulge in don't actually take any resources to provide or that they're trivial?
The economy isn't a zero sum game but you can still waste or destroy wealth on pointless things and divert resources from where they could be vastly better utilised.
India is the top country for outsourcing yet even in modern india something like 7.5 million people per year die of malnutrition in modern India.
So no.
Countries where people still starve in huge nunbers do get outsourced jobs.
true shitholes like Somalia or Niger where the government is unstable enough that you can't even set up a buisness are even worse off but then they end up having little to do with outsourcing.
This "race to the bottom" is an article of faith.
In reality as jobs are imported into a country people gain the education, the money and the means to set up their own businesses and build a local economy.
As for the second half, the same could be said for just leaving people to starve to death because if they survive and have 2 kids then now you have 2 starving people.
Similarly if you kill everyone now then long term there will be less suffering overall.
So I don't buy it.
The people employed selling things to the people who have the jobs which have been outsourced to india might disagree with you. Particularly since they face genuine, no jokes, the real possibility of starvation where the guy building the pool in america does not.
That last point of yours, I notice I only ever see that kind of "why don't you try telling that to X" when all reasonable arguments have been exhausted and the person is trying to justify something they know themselves is wrong.
Last time I heard it was when arguing that that vaccines don't cause autism and it ended with "why don't you tell that to the family next door with an autistic child"
it doesn't actually support your argument, it just adds emotional cruft.
Around 7.5 million people per year die of malnutrition in modern India.
Starvation rates in the United States are generally not even recorded due to the relative infrequency of the occurrence though in 2004 120 people total died from lack of food.
it is extremely hard to starve to death in the USA, the same cannot be said of india.
So to answer a ridiculous challenge with a ridiculous challenge "Tell your protectionism justification to the 10.8% of indians" .
Every 2.43 seconds someone who potentially could have invented something, come up with a great idea or been the next Edison or stephen hawking dies from starvation.
yes there is a decent argument that flattening things totally might do more harm than good but you can't say with a straight face that wasting such an incredible number of working human minds can be good for the economy.
When the top few percent of the worlds population spend more on pet food than on food for starving people something is terribly wrong.
I wouldn't worry even a little for the economy if the top few percent of humanity didn't get to have swimming pools so that the bottom billion could perhaps not have to spend their time worrying about starving or trying to figure out how best to pick grains of rice from passing trucks off the road before the other scavengers do and instead use those working human minds to build things, understand things and make things
When the help in question vastly outweighs the harm.
It's hard to actually starve to death in europe or america, no matter how poor you are.
The same could not be said for many third world countries.
1 job leaving america likely means a temporary hardship for a family.
That families kids will still go to school, they'll still have food and they'll still have basic medical care and chances are good that the person in question will just find another job.
One job coming to a third world country can mean a family can send their children to school, keep them fed and get basic medical care, without the job chances are far worse that the person in question will find another.
so it's not just a matter of geography or nationalism.
a job can do far more good for one person than another.