People have been forced to drop lawsuits against Paypal and/or been forced into arbitration due to a clause in the license you agree to on their website.
Violators of the GPL have lost their cases and been forced to release source code.
As I have said more than once, people have been forced to pay termination fees on cell phone contracts they agreed to online.
Microsoft has been forced to pay taxes in India based on the contents of its software licenses.
Those are just a few examples.
No solid legal foundation? Sorry, that's not so true anymore.
If it's possible to get out of them, then why keep using them? There are a lot of stupid things that big business does, but not covering their asses against everything that could get people out of being nickel and dimed isn't one of them. Yes, I've heard stories about them being tenuous in the early days, but I have also seen a lot of things online that seem to indicate that that has changed.
Scrolling through a contract without reading it and agreeing to it anyway, then complaining because you didn't take advantage of the chance you had to read it doesn't mean you can get out of it. You had the chance to review it and didn't but signed it anyway. Too bad -- you're still bound by your agreement.
Cell phone contracts aren't written in any plainer language than software licenses are, either.
But feel free to violate a software EULA that you had the chance to read or reject, after you agree to it, and see what happens when you get sued. Those copies of BigBusinessApp you gave away? Too bad the license said you can't do that.
Negligent homicide, involuntary manslaughter, and similar are all very illegal. Plus, it doesn't change the fact that she did violate some rules. You're saying she shouldn't be charged for that?
That's precisely why my cell phone is charged in full each night, even though most days I have barely dipped into the battery charge. Every morning I have a fully charged phone, and if the power goes out, I still have the charge from the previous day. I also have my previous phone which is constantly plugged in (as I never take it with me anymore) so that if needed I can use it to call 911, or I can swap the SIM card from my active phone to the backup phone.
Batteries that last for several days with no recharge are fine, but I'd rather not take the risk of not being able to make calls if needed. Served me well a while back during the nasty winter and summer storms that hit St. Louis a few years ago.
No, but there are laws against unauthorized computer/network access. You'd better adhere to the wishes of the owner of a computer or network if you don't want to run afoul of them, and she didn't. She's getting penalized for that. She had every opportunity to read the terms of service and back out of her scheme or register under her real name. She didn't, so she's in violation of the rules.
Side rant: I am honestly surprised that so many people here seem to have the attitude of "Rules? Those don't apply to ME". They apply to you, me, and everyone else, and none of us are special unless we own those networks or systems. I don't think any of us do, though.
At least I gave it a try before I decided it wasn't for me. It's hard to know for sure til you do. But, now I'm tempted to go make some toast. Mmmm, sliced bread.
So, the state they're in needs to pass a new law, saying that creating a false identity for the express purpose of harassing someone else is illegal. BOOM, problem solved for the future. Does it suck that she gets off? Yeah, it does, but that's how law is supposed to work.
Then why is it that it'll be impossible to prosecute telecoms for illegally spying on their customers in violation of the law? If the law retroactively applies to things that happened in the past to change their legal/illegal status, then yes, this bitch can get thrown in jail.
Looks like there's already precedent that the law can reach back in time. Do I like it? No, I don't, but we need to at least be consistent here. And it looks like the law now can be a retroactive thing.
So how will you prosecute a dead person who wouldn't be dead if it weren't for someone else's deliberate, meant to hurt, heinous actions? Good luck with that, unless you plan a seance in which you'll reanimate her and then throw her ghostly ass in prison.
Here's (part of) the problem: since when is a click-through EULA legally binding?
Try getting out of a cell phone provider ETF two months after you sign one of those "click through" agreements for a two-year contract (example: the one you agree to via itunes when activating an iphone).
All of a sudden, you'll find out just how binding that click-through really was.
Who's laughing now? The cell phone company, all the way to the bank.
Idiot gets drunk, slams his car into a tow truck trying to remove a disabled car from the road. Idiot father refuses to admit that his son is less than the perfect goody-two-shoes that everyone wants their kid to be, figures someone else MUST be responsible, somehow. The asshole not only sued the bar, when the guy chose of his own free will to buy booze and then drive despite it being suggested that he call a cab; he also sued the tow truck driver and the guy whose car broke down. Apparently, you can now be dragged into court for having your car break down on the side of the road. As if people CHOOSE to have their car break down on the side of the road!
The kicker? The idiot was on his cell phone at the time he drunkenly plowed into the stopped tow truck and car and didn't even TRY to brake.
Stupid dies as stupid does. Good riddance.
Thankfully, the case was thrown out, I believe, and an investigation showed that the restaurant had done nothing wrong.
There are many who would argue that basically driving someone to kill themselves is illegal. I think you just made your own point. Besides, the terms of service state that you have to register under your real name (which is not a requirement of all sites). She broke the rules, therefore she was not compliant with the terms of use, therefore she wasn't an unauthorized user.
So does snailmail. Congress conveniently set up a huge pit that eats snailmail sent to them and spits it out weeks later, by which time it is no longer relevant. They don't give a shit about their comstituents. They even have responded to messages I've sent them thanking me for my support -- when I'd written in AGAINST the issue at hand!
So don't go there, don't click on links to it, and stop bitching about it. It only annoys you if you let it.
Or do you just like to whine?
Yes, they got a mention, because they can't fucking make the damn thing stop dying. If you want to be that prominent you need to get your shit together, or take the flak.
They need to be really careful with the names, since some believe that naming a ship after one that sank is an ill omen, or so I have heard. Enterprise is sitting in the Smithsonian as is the Voyager aircraft, the first to fly nonstop around the world (another Rutan design), and Cook's Discovery is famous (but as far as I know, no longer exists) but they'd best tread carefully around Columbia and Challenger. Seems to me it would be a nice honor for the astronauts who died, but some potential customers might steer clear.
Except, they've already built one ship there already for quite a bit less than has been required in the past. Not everything requires clean-room conditions. But I'm sure if you asked really nicely, they might tune up your Pinto in between working on their flight-proven (in full public view, no less) spacecraft. Appearances can be, and are, deceiving.
Care to tell us how he did it? You could build a spacecraft and launch it on a Titan II-class rocket if you so chose, but you can't make the drive work with the technology we have right now and our current understanding of physics. Once the tech improves, sure, you could build a spaceship in a shed -- that's essentially what these guys are doing here.
You won't use a Titan for it, though -- the last Titans have already been used up.
That was an excellent show. It was called "The Little Big Chill", I believe. If anyone reading this sees it pop up as a rerun (it's rerun two or three times that I know of), it's worth a viewing.
I have personally heard from people who have been billed for not living up to an agreement, then tried to dispute the charge, and were told that the agreement they signed states that their behavior automatically incurs a charge. They lost the chargeback dispute.
Not if Amazon then sends the agreement you signed when you signed up for service that includes "you will be charged $1000 if you violate these terms". The bank will turn around and say "Sorry, you lose, charge stands."
Slashdot Mirror
People have been forced to drop lawsuits against Paypal and/or been forced into arbitration due to a clause in the license you agree to on their website.
Violators of the GPL have lost their cases and been forced to release source code.
As I have said more than once, people have been forced to pay termination fees on cell phone contracts they agreed to online.
Microsoft has been forced to pay taxes in India based on the contents of its software licenses.
Those are just a few examples.
No solid legal foundation? Sorry, that's not so true anymore.
If it's possible to get out of them, then why keep using them? There are a lot of stupid things that big business does, but not covering their asses against everything that could get people out of being nickel and dimed isn't one of them. Yes, I've heard stories about them being tenuous in the early days, but I have also seen a lot of things online that seem to indicate that that has changed.
I don't think we are.
Scrolling through a contract without reading it and agreeing to it anyway, then complaining because you didn't take advantage of the chance you had to read it doesn't mean you can get out of it. You had the chance to review it and didn't but signed it anyway. Too bad -- you're still bound by your agreement.
Cell phone contracts aren't written in any plainer language than software licenses are, either.
But feel free to violate a software EULA that you had the chance to read or reject, after you agree to it, and see what happens when you get sued. Those copies of BigBusinessApp you gave away? Too bad the license said you can't do that.
Negligent homicide, involuntary manslaughter, and similar are all very illegal. Plus, it doesn't change the fact that she did violate some rules. You're saying she shouldn't be charged for that?
That's precisely why my cell phone is charged in full each night, even though most days I have barely dipped into the battery charge. Every morning I have a fully charged phone, and if the power goes out, I still have the charge from the previous day. I also have my previous phone which is constantly plugged in (as I never take it with me anymore) so that if needed I can use it to call 911, or I can swap the SIM card from my active phone to the backup phone.
Batteries that last for several days with no recharge are fine, but I'd rather not take the risk of not being able to make calls if needed. Served me well a while back during the nasty winter and summer storms that hit St. Louis a few years ago.
No, but there are laws against unauthorized computer/network access. You'd better adhere to the wishes of the owner of a computer or network if you don't want to run afoul of them, and she didn't. She's getting penalized for that. She had every opportunity to read the terms of service and back out of her scheme or register under her real name. She didn't, so she's in violation of the rules.
Side rant: I am honestly surprised that so many people here seem to have the attitude of "Rules? Those don't apply to ME". They apply to you, me, and everyone else, and none of us are special unless we own those networks or systems. I don't think any of us do, though.
At least I gave it a try before I decided it wasn't for me. It's hard to know for sure til you do. But, now I'm tempted to go make some toast. Mmmm, sliced bread.
So, the state they're in needs to pass a new law, saying that creating a false identity for the express purpose of harassing someone else is illegal. BOOM, problem solved for the future. Does it suck that she gets off? Yeah, it does, but that's how law is supposed to work.
Then why is it that it'll be impossible to prosecute telecoms for illegally spying on their customers in violation of the law? If the law retroactively applies to things that happened in the past to change their legal/illegal status, then yes, this bitch can get thrown in jail.
Looks like there's already precedent that the law can reach back in time. Do I like it? No, I don't, but we need to at least be consistent here. And it looks like the law now can be a retroactive thing.
So how will you prosecute a dead person who wouldn't be dead if it weren't for someone else's deliberate, meant to hurt, heinous actions? Good luck with that, unless you plan a seance in which you'll reanimate her and then throw her ghostly ass in prison.
Eh, not to me. Tried the free trial and didn't care for it, so I never got an account.
Here's (part of) the problem: since when is a click-through EULA legally binding?
Try getting out of a cell phone provider ETF two months after you sign one of those "click through" agreements for a two-year contract (example: the one you agree to via itunes when activating an iphone).
All of a sudden, you'll find out just how binding that click-through really was.
Who's laughing now? The cell phone company, all the way to the bank.
It's happened, once again here in St. Louis:
ESPN - Suit claims restaurant kept giving intoxicated pitcher drinks - MLB
Idiot gets drunk, slams his car into a tow truck trying to remove a disabled car from the road. Idiot father refuses to admit that his son is less than the perfect goody-two-shoes that everyone wants their kid to be, figures someone else MUST be responsible, somehow. The asshole not only sued the bar, when the guy chose of his own free will to buy booze and then drive despite it being suggested that he call a cab; he also sued the tow truck driver and the guy whose car broke down. Apparently, you can now be dragged into court for having your car break down on the side of the road. As if people CHOOSE to have their car break down on the side of the road!
The kicker? The idiot was on his cell phone at the time he drunkenly plowed into the stopped tow truck and car and didn't even TRY to brake.
Stupid dies as stupid does. Good riddance.
Thankfully, the case was thrown out, I believe, and an investigation showed that the restaurant had done nothing wrong.
Missouri ATC clears Shannon's | StLCardinals.com: News
... WAS an unauthorized user. Hence, the charges.
There are many who would argue that basically driving someone to kill themselves is illegal. I think you just made your own point. Besides, the terms of service state that you have to register under your real name (which is not a requirement of all sites). She broke the rules, therefore she was not compliant with the terms of use, therefore she wasn't an unauthorized user.
That was true 20 years ago. Not anymore.
Now, the Internet is vital to many peoples' livelihoods, and therefore their ability to stay off of public assistance programs, or off the streets.
What is more necessary than being able to live a decent life and have somewhere to live and food to eat?
I'm not sure what you're getting at. I also like Star Trek, and I'm not sure what that makes me in this context.
So does snailmail. Congress conveniently set up a huge pit that eats snailmail sent to them and spits it out weeks later, by which time it is no longer relevant. They don't give a shit about their comstituents. They even have responded to messages I've sent them thanking me for my support -- when I'd written in AGAINST the issue at hand!
So don't go there, don't click on links to it, and stop bitching about it. It only annoys you if you let it.
Or do you just like to whine?
Yes, they got a mention, because they can't fucking make the damn thing stop dying. If you want to be that prominent you need to get your shit together, or take the flak.
They need to be really careful with the names, since some believe that naming a ship after one that sank is an ill omen, or so I have heard. Enterprise is sitting in the Smithsonian as is the Voyager aircraft, the first to fly nonstop around the world (another Rutan design), and Cook's Discovery is famous (but as far as I know, no longer exists) but they'd best tread carefully around Columbia and Challenger. Seems to me it would be a nice honor for the astronauts who died, but some potential customers might steer clear.
Except, they've already built one ship there already for quite a bit less than has been required in the past. Not everything requires clean-room conditions. But I'm sure if you asked really nicely, they might tune up your Pinto in between working on their flight-proven (in full public view, no less) spacecraft. Appearances can be, and are, deceiving.
Care to tell us how he did it? You could build a spacecraft and launch it on a Titan II-class rocket if you so chose, but you can't make the drive work with the technology we have right now and our current understanding of physics. Once the tech improves, sure, you could build a spaceship in a shed -- that's essentially what these guys are doing here.
You won't use a Titan for it, though -- the last Titans have already been used up.
That was an excellent show. It was called "The Little Big Chill", I believe. If anyone reading this sees it pop up as a rerun (it's rerun two or three times that I know of), it's worth a viewing.
True.
I have personally heard from people who have been billed for not living up to an agreement, then tried to dispute the charge, and were told that the agreement they signed states that their behavior automatically incurs a charge. They lost the chargeback dispute.
So how did she get to her precious AOL after she didn't have any service?
Not if Amazon then sends the agreement you signed when you signed up for service that includes "you will be charged $1000 if you violate these terms". The bank will turn around and say "Sorry, you lose, charge stands."