The safeguard, as I understand it, is the ability for anyone to FTP themselves a copy of the FreeDB database and software, and to set up shop on their own.
I've written a JavaScript:CueCat decoder that you can download/use/modify/etc... that you can get here. The program will output both the full translated barcode AND just the barcode value. If I'm bored, I will look into the various barcode types and implement type detection as well. Currently, for the purposes of validating the barcode, I have just assumed it is UPC. If you are scanning other types of codes, just ignore the Check Digit Valid/Invalid box. Have fun!
Yeah... vqf got screwed because the standard was closed. It made small files, but the encoder was slow and sucked big-time, and for years, there was no way to skip around in the track. Even now, fast-forward is implemented (apparently) by muting the sound and playing the track as fast as the CPU can handle, and rewinding is done by muting the sound, starting at the beginning of the track, and applying the fast-forward algorithm until you reach the point you want to rewind to. This sort of horrible support will be avoided by Vorbis simply because it will be open. People couldn't write their own stuff to work with vqf, and so the format went to hell in a handbasket. Even if Vorbis doesn't catch on, you can *at least* be assured that you will always have a player you can port to your new OS.
It may not go mainstream, but it will not be defeated like vqf was.
And if we get hardware players, you can bet I'll be moving all my music to vorbis!
Vorbis sounds awesome!! The one thing I am most interested in, though, is the ability to have a hardware player, similar to the Genica or Pine models, and my trusty Apex DVD player. People aren't using mp3 just on their computers anymore-- it's moving into "real life", and I suspect the format will have a hard time unless there is real, tangible, non-vapor hardware available.
When we get the first wavelet-enabled version, I would love to see Ars Technica (or somebody else) do an independent technical review of the audio quality vs. mp3 (and maybe vqf, aac, windows media, and whatever else there is...)
I want a do-it-your-damn-self TiVo sort of thing. All one would really need is a good video capture card and the ability to tell it when and what to record. It would be trivial to make it as good as an internet-controllable VCR, but getting a database to pull from for better info would be more difficult. It might be possible to use the GuidePlus+ signal from Gemstar that televisions are starting to support-- someone with better signal analysis equipment than me will have to decode their signal, though.
There are some similarities and differences between TiVo/Replay and Napster, but what we really need instead of Napster is some version of TiVo/Replay for radio. Although there are none (to my knowledge) in my area, I understand that some radio stations broadcast song/artist names that can be read by receivers-- so most of the infrastructure needed is already in place. Your radio simply has to scan the airwaves for artist/songnames that you like, and record them to a hard disk. Perfectly legal timeshifting, just like recording radio broadcasts always has been.
Now, granted, most of the music *I* want to listen to is not available on the radio in this area *ever*, but for people who are interested in more popular music selections, this sort of device would be absolutely awesome. Want the latest Madonna track for free? Set your radio to grab it next time it comes on.
In fact... it seems like it wouldn't take much modification work to get something like the empeg set up to do exactly this. (I don't know if it supports the song title system, but I'm sure it wouldn't be difficult, and the rest would just be software mods.)
Additionally, there are sources like the categorized all-music digital channels you get from DSS providers, as well as sources like MTV.
Obviously, there are some kinks to work out, but I think it's just as doable as TiVo, and unlike napster, it's legal AND free.
I've got email confirmation, too-- but no snail mail. They were almost certainly unprepared for the load (wusses) and either:
A. They're just behind on snail mail, or
B. Their registration system managed to get us in, but failed to get us in the queue for snail mail, or
C. They just don't like us.
How do you avoid the drastically increased magnetic noise that a fan like the one in the PVC case must generate? I would expect that a motor like the one in most of our window fans (about the size of a large sandwich) could probably throw off enough interference to erase your hard drive! Is the fan shielded, or is it a low-noise motor, or what? This would be truly awesome, but I'm hesitant to try it because of the noise issue.
Most new CD-ROM drives have tabs at the edges of the disc tray to support the CD if the drive is sideways. I have my definitely-not-intended-for-it IBM workstation at work on its side under my desk, and the drive works fine. Just look for little tabs.
Be careful though-- if they aren't there and the disc slides off the tray, it can jam the mechanism closed. I did this once to an old 486!
Circumventing access control devices ought to be legal. There is nothing illegal about picking or smashing or melting a lock, unless by doing so you violate some other law. (trespass, theft, etc...) There should NOT be laws against breaking access control mechanisms in the computer world, either-- it would remove a right that we have otherwise. If you break the encryption on a DVD you own for watching in a manner that is consistent with fair use guidelines (in your house, with a couple of friends, no public showings, don't redistribute it, etc...) there is nothing wrong with it.
The distinction between a marketing control device and an access control device is a good one, but breaking both should be legal, so long as no other laws are violated. If I want to hack the living crap out of my linux box, breaking every access control device I can find along the way, I should be perfectly within my rights to do so. To declare otherwise legally would be silly.
Both this player and the Apex will do automatic conversion form PAL to NTSC. I have an Apex, and it nicely plays the 3 or 4 UK DVDs I've purchased. If you're not into anime, foreign films, or finding special, uncut editions not available here in the US due to censorship or laziness-- there's probably no reason for you to care. On the other hand, i just like knowing that I can play whatever the heck I want, should I ever want to.
I live in Indy. Although I'm 23, this really sucks. What is a recall petition, and where should I start to put one together? Any info you've got would be great.
I didn't say it was an injustice. Perhaps I shouldn't have called it a "repeat"... my apologies if the post came off like a "how dare slashdot post an old article!" post. I thought people would be curious to see the older article and the comments that people posted. Why not have twice the info?
Pulse Transmission, which uses synchronized transmitter/receiver pairs that act essentially like a serial bus will help. It transmits pulses rather than a modulated-carrier signal, so it interferes very little (if one is to believe the articles about it) with existing carrier-based transmitters, or other pulse-based transmitters. Power requirements are lower, too.
This should stretch out how long we have before we need another breakthrough idea to stuff data through our airwaves a little better!
The researcher I believe you are looking for's name is Adrian Thompson. His web page is here. There is also an article on Discover's web site, if you go to their archives section and search for "FPGA" in the _body_ of the article. The article is called "Evolving a concious machine" and is by Gary Taubes. (Surprisingly it is the only article that contains the word FPGA in its body!)
I haven't looked at his work in a while, but I'm sure he has done some cool things with his evolving hardware since 1998. I always thought that the most interesting part was that he didn't limit the evolution to digital-only solutions-- resulting in incredibly efficient circuit designs that make *use* of crosstalk and interference!
You are quite correct. The worst part is, I actually tacked that on *after* I mailed the letter to AMPAS, so that it would look more "letter-like" when I posted it here. I am a retard.:)
This is the letter that I emailed to AMPAS at ampas@oscars.org. Feel free to copy/modify/reuse this letter to complain about this ridiculous restriction. The method of distribution of a film obviously has no bearing on its quality.
Dear Sirs,
I am amazed by the shortsightedness of your organization in refusing to consider films released on the internet for Academy awards. While it may be true that currently no internet-released film has reached the necessary popularity to earn one of your awards, this will surely change in the not-so-distant future. Digital distribution is the way of the future, and no amount of wishful thinking or ludicrous regulation on your part (for whatever unfounded reasons) stand even a slight chance to stop it.
Beyond basic requirements like reasonable picture quality, the quality of a great picture has no dependence whatsoever on what media it is recorded and distributed on, or what channels it is shown through. This should be obvious to anyone-- but especially a group that claims it is qualified to judge motion pictures.
I have lost any and all respect for your organization. I no longer consider such a shortsighted and closed-minded organization capable of judging anything at all-- least of all what constitues a great film.
I would very much *like* to believe the above post that claims that the article was mistranslated to nearly the exact opposite of its actual meaning. If anyone other Swedish-speaking people would like to confirm this, I would be very grateful.
Alternatively, if anyone can point me to a translation service that does any one of the following:
Swedish -> English Swedish -> Spanish Swedish -> Japanese
That would help me out as well. (Some americans DO know other languages!:)
It seems to me that this system is just as easily censored as the existing internet. Somebody has to host the information that tells which pads are put together to make the real data, right? It wouldn't be any harder to censor this "list of pads" than it would be to censor the unencoded file itself in the first place.
It appears that all this method does is move the point of censorship from the document contents to the "list of pads" required to build the document from the random data stored on various servers.
Unless I'm missing something when I read through the document, I don't think that this really gains us anything and at the same time it makes it really freaking difficult to put a file out there. Maybe if it were automated, it would make a nice extension to an anonymous DFS system for file sharing, but you shouldn't rely on it to prevent censorship.
One more for the road, guys. This paragraph bothers me because if the software is "likely to become" the subject of an infringement claim "in their opinion", they can revoke your license. These two conditions combined add up to "whenever sun wants", since you don't have to be either actually infringing at the present time or actually planning to infringe in the future. They merely have to say that you are to take your Java away. The paragraph in question is below, and comes from sun's web site when downloading the Java 2 SDK, Standard Edition 1.3.0.
7. Termination. Sun may terminate this Agreement immediately should any Software become, or in Sun's opinion be likely to become, the subject of a claim of infringement of a patent, trade secret, copyright or other intellectual property right.
This is not nearly as bad as Apogee's recent license mess, but there are some interesting points I noticed in this license while installing.
The first critical issue is that it does not appear that I am allowed (as is protected by fair use laws, if I understand them) to make a backup copy of the software. If the CD is not required to run, I have to keep the CD itself as my only backup. This is hardly a "backup"-- I don't think that keeping only the original of something could be construed by anyone to constitute a backup. The paragraph in question:
5. BACKUP COPY. After installation of one copy of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT pursuant to this EULA, you may keep the original media on which the SOFTWARE PRODUCT was provided by Microsoft solely for backup or archival purposes. If the original media is required to use the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on the COMPUTER, you may make one copy of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT solely for backup or archival purposes. Except as expressly provided in this EULA, you may not otherwise make copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT or the printed materials accompanying the SOFTWARE PRODUCT.
And, of course, there is also the disclaimer that Microsoft is not liable for anything that should go wrong with their product. This application is simply a document set for training, and as such should be very straightforward. The *ONLY* thing I can think of that could go wrong with something so simple is an "interruption of business" if it fails to function as advertised-- yet Microsoft disclaims any liability for this! I couldn't help laughing (morbid humor, I guess...) at the section that restricts Microsoft's entire liability in this matter to US $5.00 or the cost of the software. My earlier post about an IBM license agreement pointed out a similar restriction, but at least IBM set their bar at $100,000.00. The section I am referring to:
LIMITATION OF LIABILITY. TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, IN NO EVENT SHALL MICROSOFT OR ITS SUPPLIERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF BUSINESS PROFITS, BUSINESS INTERRUPTION, LOSS OF BUSINESS INFORMATION, OR ANY OTHER PECUNIARY LOSS) ARISING OUT OF THE USE OF OR INABILITY TO USE THE SOFTWARE PRODUCT OR THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE SUPPORT SERVICES, EVEN IF MICROSOFT HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. IN ANY CASE, MICROSOFT'S ENTIRE LIABILITY UNDER ANY PROVISION OF THIS EULA SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE GREATER OF THE AMOUNT ACTUALLY PAID BY YOU FOR THE SOFTWARE PRODUCT OR U.S.$5.00; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, IF YOU HAVE ENTERED INTO A MICROSOFT SUPPORT SERVICES AGREEMENT, MICROSOFT'S ENTIRE LIABILITY REGARDING SUPPORT SERVICES SHALL BE GOVERNED BY THE TERMS OF THAT AGREEMENT. BECAUSE SOME STATES/JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION OR LIMITATION OF LIABILITY, THE ABOVE LIMITATION MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU.
While not the worst I've seen, these two paragraphs appear to waive your right to pursue any sort of legal action against IBM even for situations where IBM knew about the problem in advance and did nothing. (Note that the first paragraph does allow a MAX of $100,000 if the software kills somebody. Unlikely for an e-commerce package, but I suppose anything's possible. In any event, you are still waiving your right to sue for more than the pitiful $100,000 they will give you in the event their product causes death. Also "tangible personal property" is covered under the same $100,000 umbrella, something of which there is very little of in the software industry. Everything at work here that we do is quite intangible.)
Circumstances may arise where, because of a default on IBM's part or other liability, you are entitled to recover damages from IBM. In each such instance, regardless of the basis on which you may be entitled to claim damages from IBM, (including fundamental breach, negligence, misrepresentation, or other contract or tort claim), IBM is liable for no more than 1) damages for bodily injury (including death) and damage to real property and tangible personal property and 2) the amount of any other actual direct damages up to the greater of U.S. $100,000 (or equivalent in your local currency) or the charges for the Program that is the subject of the claim.
IBM WILL NOT BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, OR INDIRECT DAMAGES OR FOR ANY ECONOMIC CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING LOST PROFITS OR SAVINGS), EVEN IF IBM, OR ITS RESELLER, HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. SOME JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION OR LIMITATION OF INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, SO THE ABOVE LIMITATION OR EXCLUSION MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU.
Slashdot Mirror
I wrote a Javascript :CueCat decoder-- is it illegal? I certainly do not have the legal resources or time to stand up to a challenge like this at all-- if I get a letter of some sort like this down the road, what can I do short of going to court? If there aren't any other options, I will have to take it down when the letter comes. I thought I was being a general nice guy, and providing a useful tool for people. What is wrong with decoding the output of a barcode reader? Does this make cash registers illegal? Libraries?
for Content UnScrambling System. :) Makes more sense than DeCSS anyway.. De Content Scrambling System?
The safeguard, as I understand it, is the ability for anyone to FTP themselves a copy of the FreeDB database and software, and to set up shop on their own.
I've written a JavaScript :CueCat decoder that you can download/use/modify/etc... that you can get here. The program will output both the full translated barcode AND just the barcode value. If I'm bored, I will look into the various barcode types and implement type detection as well. Currently, for the purposes of validating the barcode, I have just assumed it is UPC. If you are scanning other types of codes, just ignore the Check Digit Valid/Invalid box. Have fun!
Yeah... vqf got screwed because the standard was closed. It made small files, but the encoder was slow and sucked big-time, and for years, there was no way to skip around in the track. Even now, fast-forward is implemented (apparently) by muting the sound and playing the track as fast as the CPU can handle, and rewinding is done by muting the sound, starting at the beginning of the track, and applying the fast-forward algorithm until you reach the point you want to rewind to. This sort of horrible support will be avoided by Vorbis simply because it will be open. People couldn't write their own stuff to work with vqf, and so the format went to hell in a handbasket. Even if Vorbis doesn't catch on, you can *at least* be assured that you will always have a player you can port to your new OS.
It may not go mainstream, but it will not be defeated like vqf was.
And if we get hardware players, you can bet I'll be moving all my music to vorbis!
Vorbis sounds awesome!! The one thing I am most interested in, though, is the ability to have a hardware player, similar to the Genica or Pine models, and my trusty Apex DVD player. People aren't using mp3 just on their computers anymore-- it's moving into "real life", and I suspect the format will have a hard time unless there is real, tangible, non-vapor hardware available.
When we get the first wavelet-enabled version, I would love to see Ars Technica (or somebody else) do an independent technical review of the audio quality vs. mp3 (and maybe vqf, aac, windows media, and whatever else there is...)
I want a do-it-your-damn-self TiVo sort of thing. All one would really need is a good video capture card and the ability to tell it when and what to record. It would be trivial to make it as good as an internet-controllable VCR, but getting a database to pull from for better info would be more difficult. It might be possible to use the GuidePlus+ signal from Gemstar that televisions are starting to support-- someone with better signal analysis equipment than me will have to decode their signal, though.
There are some similarities and differences between TiVo/Replay and Napster, but what we really need instead of Napster is some version of TiVo/Replay for radio. Although there are none (to my knowledge) in my area, I understand that some radio stations broadcast song/artist names that can be read by receivers-- so most of the infrastructure needed is already in place. Your radio simply has to scan the airwaves for artist/songnames that you like, and record them to a hard disk. Perfectly legal timeshifting, just like recording radio broadcasts always has been.
Now, granted, most of the music *I* want to listen to is not available on the radio in this area *ever*, but for people who are interested in more popular music selections, this sort of device would be absolutely awesome. Want the latest Madonna track for free? Set your radio to grab it next time it comes on.
In fact... it seems like it wouldn't take much modification work to get something like the empeg set up to do exactly this. (I don't know if it supports the song title system, but I'm sure it wouldn't be difficult, and the rest would just be software mods.)
Additionally, there are sources like the categorized all-music digital channels you get from DSS providers, as well as sources like MTV.
Obviously, there are some kinks to work out, but I think it's just as doable as TiVo, and unlike napster, it's legal AND free.
I've got email confirmation, too-- but no snail mail. They were almost certainly unprepared for the load (wusses) and either:
A. They're just behind on snail mail, or
B. Their registration system managed to get us in, but failed to get us in the queue for snail mail, or
C. They just don't like us.
How do you avoid the drastically increased magnetic noise that a fan like the one in the PVC case must generate? I would expect that a motor like the one in most of our window fans (about the size of a large sandwich) could probably throw off enough interference to erase your hard drive! Is the fan shielded, or is it a low-noise motor, or what? This would be truly awesome, but I'm hesitant to try it because of the noise issue.
Most new CD-ROM drives have tabs at the edges of the disc tray to support the CD if the drive is sideways. I have my definitely-not-intended-for-it IBM workstation at work on its side under my desk, and the drive works fine. Just look for little tabs.
Be careful though-- if they aren't there and the disc slides off the tray, it can jam the mechanism closed. I did this once to an old 486!
Circumventing access control devices ought to be legal. There is nothing illegal about picking or smashing or melting a lock, unless by doing so you violate some other law. (trespass, theft, etc...) There should NOT be laws against breaking access control mechanisms in the computer world, either-- it would remove a right that we have otherwise. If you break the encryption on a DVD you own for watching in a manner that is consistent with fair use guidelines (in your house, with a couple of friends, no public showings, don't redistribute it, etc...) there is nothing wrong with it.
The distinction between a marketing control device and an access control device is a good one, but breaking both should be legal, so long as no other laws are violated. If I want to hack the living crap out of my linux box, breaking every access control device I can find along the way, I should be perfectly within my rights to do so. To declare otherwise legally would be silly.
Both this player and the Apex will do automatic conversion form PAL to NTSC. I have an Apex, and it nicely plays the 3 or 4 UK DVDs I've purchased. If you're not into anime, foreign films, or finding special, uncut editions not available here in the US due to censorship or laziness-- there's probably no reason for you to care. On the other hand, i just like knowing that I can play whatever the heck I want, should I ever want to.
I live in Indy. Although I'm 23, this really sucks. What is a recall petition, and where should I start to put one together? Any info you've got would be great.
Thanks!
I didn't say it was an injustice. Perhaps I shouldn't have called it a "repeat"... my apologies if the post came off like a "how dare slashdot post an old article!" post. I thought people would be curious to see the older article and the comments that people posted. Why not have twice the info?
Pulse Transmission, which uses synchronized transmitter/receiver pairs that act essentially like a serial bus will help. It transmits pulses rather than a modulated-carrier signal, so it interferes very little (if one is to believe the articles about it) with existing carrier-based transmitters, or other pulse-based transmitters. Power requirements are lower, too.
This should stretch out how long we have before we need another breakthrough idea to stuff data through our airwaves a little better!
Here is the link to the previous (nearly identical) article on Slashdot from a long time ago.
The researcher I believe you are looking for's name is Adrian Thompson. His web page is here. There is also an article on Discover's web site, if you go to their archives section and search for "FPGA" in the _body_ of the article. The article is called "Evolving a concious machine" and is by Gary Taubes. (Surprisingly it is the only article that contains the word FPGA in its body!)
I haven't looked at his work in a while, but I'm sure he has done some cool things with his evolving hardware since 1998. I always thought that the most interesting part was that he didn't limit the evolution to digital-only solutions-- resulting in incredibly efficient circuit designs that make *use* of crosstalk and interference!
You are quite correct. The worst part is, I actually tacked that on *after* I mailed the letter to AMPAS, so that it would look more "letter-like" when I posted it here. I am a retard. :)
This is the letter that I emailed to AMPAS at ampas@oscars.org. Feel free to copy/modify/reuse this letter to complain about this ridiculous restriction. The method of distribution of a film obviously has no bearing on its quality.
Dear Sirs,
I am amazed by the shortsightedness of your organization in refusing
to consider films released on the internet for Academy awards. While
it may be true that currently no internet-released film has reached
the necessary popularity to earn one of your awards, this will surely
change in the not-so-distant future. Digital distribution is the
way of the future, and no amount of wishful thinking or ludicrous
regulation on your part (for whatever unfounded reasons) stand even
a slight chance to stop it.
Beyond basic requirements like reasonable picture quality, the quality
of a great picture has no dependence whatsoever on what media it is
recorded and distributed on, or what channels it is shown through.
This should be obvious to anyone-- but especially a group that claims
it is qualified to judge motion pictures.
I have lost any and all respect for your organization. I no longer
consider such a shortsighted and closed-minded organization capable
of judging anything at all-- least of all what constitues a great film.
You should be ashamed of yourselves.
I would very much *like* to believe the above post that claims that the article was mistranslated to nearly the exact opposite of its actual meaning. If anyone other Swedish-speaking people would like to confirm this, I would be very grateful.
:)
Alternatively, if anyone can point me to a translation service that does any one of the following:
Swedish -> English
Swedish -> Spanish
Swedish -> Japanese
That would help me out as well. (Some americans
DO know other languages!
It seems to me that this system is just as easily censored as the existing internet. Somebody has to host the information that tells which pads are put together to make the real data, right? It wouldn't be any harder to censor this "list of pads" than it would be to censor the unencoded file itself in the first place.
It appears that all this method does is move the point of censorship from the document contents to the "list of pads" required to build the document from the random data stored on various servers.
Unless I'm missing something when I read through the document, I don't think that this really gains us anything and at the same time it makes it really freaking difficult to put a file out there. Maybe if it were automated, it would make a nice extension to an anonymous DFS system for file sharing, but you shouldn't rely on it to prevent censorship.
One more for the road, guys. This paragraph bothers me because if the software is "likely to become" the subject of an infringement claim "in their opinion", they can revoke your license. These two conditions combined add up to "whenever sun wants", since you don't have to be either actually infringing at the present time or actually planning to infringe in the future. They merely have to say that you are to take your Java away. The paragraph in question is below, and comes from sun's web site when downloading the Java 2 SDK, Standard Edition 1.3.0.
7. Termination. Sun may terminate this Agreement immediately should any Software become, or in Sun's opinion be likely to become, the subject of a claim of infringement of a patent, trade secret, copyright or other intellectual property right.
The first critical issue is that it does not appear that I am allowed (as is protected by fair use laws, if I understand them) to make a backup copy of the software. If the CD is not required to run, I have to keep the CD itself as my only backup. This is hardly a "backup"-- I don't think that keeping only the original of something could be construed by anyone to constitute a backup. The paragraph in question:
And, of course, there is also the disclaimer that Microsoft is not liable for anything that should go wrong with their product. This application is simply a document set for training, and as such should be very straightforward. The *ONLY* thing I can think of that could go wrong with something so simple is an "interruption of business" if it fails to function as advertised-- yet Microsoft disclaims any liability for this! I couldn't help laughing (morbid humor, I guess...) at the section that restricts Microsoft's entire liability in this matter to US $5.00 or the cost of the software. My earlier post about an IBM license agreement pointed out a similar restriction, but at least IBM set their bar at $100,000.00. The section I am referring to:
While not the worst I've seen, these two paragraphs appear to waive your right to pursue any sort of legal action against IBM even for situations where IBM knew about the problem in advance and did nothing. (Note that the first paragraph does allow a MAX of $100,000 if the software kills somebody. Unlikely for an e-commerce package, but I suppose anything's possible. In any event, you are still waiving your right to sue for more than the pitiful $100,000 they will give you in the event their product causes death. Also "tangible personal property" is covered under the same $100,000 umbrella, something of which there is very little of in the software industry. Everything at work here that we do is quite intangible.)
Circumstances may arise where, because of a default on IBM's part or other liability, you are entitled to recover damages from IBM. In each such instance, regardless of the basis on which you may be entitled to claim damages from IBM, (including fundamental breach, negligence, misrepresentation, or other contract or tort claim), IBM is liable for no more than 1) damages for bodily injury (including death) and damage to real property and tangible personal property and 2) the amount of any other actual direct damages up to the greater of U.S. $100,000 (or equivalent in your local currency) or the charges for the Program that is the subject of the claim.
IBM WILL NOT BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, OR INDIRECT DAMAGES OR FOR ANY ECONOMIC CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING LOST PROFITS OR SAVINGS), EVEN IF IBM, OR ITS RESELLER, HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. SOME JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION OR LIMITATION OF INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, SO THE ABOVE LIMITATION OR EXCLUSION MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU.