Actually, it's simpler than that. The legal enforceability of EULAs is questionable to begin with (see Adobe vs. Softman), but if the licence agreement is invalidated, then your use of the previous version is governed solely by Title 17, which means you have the fair use right to do pretty much whatever you want with your paid for copy, except make copies of it to give to others.
Courts have also ruled that a software sale for a single payment, with no specific limit to term of use, is a "sale of goods," and governed by copyright law, not contract law. Therefore, contracts which limit the buyer's fair use rights are unenforceable. Adobe got spanked by California on that in their lawsuit against Softman over reselling bundled software. Clickwrap licenses or no. The issue of the enforceability of clickwrap licenses is far from settled.
I know that Google is the darling fo the techworld, and all, with their "don't get caught doing evil" mantra, but this sounds disturbingly like Microsoft's "embarace and extend" stragety to conquer the world. Make your stuff work mostly like everybody else's, but call everything by different names. Next step is adding in new features that aren't quite compatible with the experimental stuff everyone else is doing.
I thought that you always had the right to be heard in court.
One way or another, yes, you do. If you sign a contract that gives up the right to sue, you can sue to challenge the validity of the contract. The Uniform Commercial Code includes provisions for voiding contracts (or portions thereof) that are manifestly unfair. And it does happen, from time to time.
Why is the British government worried about robots demanding legal rights? I mean, sure, it's likely to happen someday, but this is the British government! Why would robots expect rights they don't even give their subjects? They have the answer down pat, and it's "No".
Dueterium is present in all water, and can be refined fairly easily with electrolysis. All that's needed is some electricity and some fairly common instruments.
I don't buy computers without a Windows install disk. With cheapass computers, you may well have to pay a few bucks extra for it (Dell charges $10), but the computer is useless without it.
In all seriousness, the Windows install CD is your friend. Repartition the drive, and start from scratch. Fuck Macafee and their malware Security Center that can't be uninstalled without booting in to safe mode.
Fingerprint scanners are trivial to spoof, using a variety of techniques. It's not all that hard to covertly get someone to handle a hard, smooth object (like a glass), and collect their fingerprint. A little scanning, some photo-etching plates and a little make-up quality latex, and it would probably pass even a cursory visual exam by a live security guard.
Only an incompetent manager cares whether or not their employees are goofing off, cruising the internet. A competent manager measures employee performance by measuring the employee's performance. In other words, give them work to do, and measure how well and how timely it is done.
If you give all your people the same amount of work to do, and one of them doesn't do it as well or as quickly as the rest, it doesn't matter why. He's a substandard employee, and needs to improve or leave.
By the same token, if you give all your employees the same amount of work to do, and one of them does it better and faster than the rest, and has time to goof off, does it really matter why? If he's got time to goof off, but his work is all done, give him a raise - and more work to do.
Real managers care only about results, not methods.
A comedian pretending to be someone else is obviously not them. If it weren't obvious, it wouldn't be very funny. (Not that most comedian are very funny, mind you.)
Pretending to be someone else in a way that leads others to believe you are that person is identify theft. The kid belongs in jail for that criminal offense.
Whatever the odds are, they aren't so high that it isn't inevitable that somehwere, there is an office with 12 people, five of whom have birthdays next to each other. It has to happen somewhere; you just happen to be it.
In America, profit is the *only* reason for copyright.
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
Do you think that Google's 'sneak peak' search access increases sales or violates copyrights on intellectual property?"
Why does everyone think this is an "or" question? Copyright isn't about generating profits, for the copyright holder or anyone else. It's about control of making copies. Money is a common motive for wanting such control, but is almost irrelevant to the law.
Slashdot Mirror
I disagree. The largest enterprise customers employ end users.
Actually, it's simpler than that. The legal enforceability of EULAs is questionable to begin with (see Adobe vs. Softman), but if the licence agreement is invalidated, then your use of the previous version is governed solely by Title 17, which means you have the fair use right to do pretty much whatever you want with your paid for copy, except make copies of it to give to others.
I wonder if Microsoft has realized this.
Courts have also ruled that a software sale for a single payment, with no specific limit to term of use, is a "sale of goods," and governed by copyright law, not contract law. Therefore, contracts which limit the buyer's fair use rights are unenforceable. Adobe got spanked by California on that in their lawsuit against Softman over reselling bundled software. Clickwrap licenses or no. The issue of the enforceability of clickwrap licenses is far from settled.
I know that Google is the darling fo the techworld, and all, with their "don't get caught doing evil" mantra, but this sounds disturbingly like Microsoft's "embarace and extend" stragety to conquer the world. Make your stuff work mostly like everybody else's, but call everything by different names. Next step is adding in new features that aren't quite compatible with the experimental stuff everyone else is doing.
I like the idea. How much of a discount to I get if I don't opt for the DRM package?
I think they did that already, in season 15.
I thought that you always had the right to be heard in court.
One way or another, yes, you do. If you sign a contract that gives up the right to sue, you can sue to challenge the validity of the contract. The Uniform Commercial Code includes provisions for voiding contracts (or portions thereof) that are manifestly unfair. And it does happen, from time to time.
Most states have some sort of SLAPP statute. Barratry is a crime in California.
The sad thing is, that would probably make a better movie that what we're likely to actually get.
Why is the British government worried about robots demanding legal rights? I mean, sure, it's likely to happen someday, but this is the British government! Why would robots expect rights they don't even give their subjects? They have the answer down pat, and it's "No".
Dueterium is present in all water, and can be refined fairly easily with electrolysis. All that's needed is some electricity and some fairly common instruments.
Becoming more accessible? Electrostatic fusion was first demonstrated in the 20s.
For some reason, Steve Jackson Games vs. the Secret Service comes to mind.
You could've been slimmed instead of spammed!
Given how fat Americans are becoming, I'd think a little slimming would do us some good.
Oh, you meant slimed!
I don't buy computers without a Windows install disk. With cheapass computers, you may well have to pay a few bucks extra for it (Dell charges $10), but the computer is useless without it.
In all seriousness, the Windows install CD is your friend. Repartition the drive, and start from scratch. Fuck Macafee and their malware Security Center that can't be uninstalled without booting in to safe mode.
Whoa, you have to ask permission from the NSA?
Technically, in Califorina at least, yes, you do.
Particularly since, in some states, recording a conversation (on the phone or otherwise) without permission from all parties is a felony.
Fingerprint scanners are trivial to spoof, using a variety of techniques. It's not all that hard to covertly get someone to handle a hard, smooth object (like a glass), and collect their fingerprint. A little scanning, some photo-etching plates and a little make-up quality latex, and it would probably pass even a cursory visual exam by a live security guard.
p rint-door-lock-defeated-by-photocopied-print/
Plus, as I recall, Mythbusters fooled one of the more expensive, brand new design, "never been cracked" fingerprint scanne with a xerox of a fingerprint. http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/22/digital-finger
They spent $400 million dollars for this:
10 PRINT "Customer is annoyed"
20 GOTO 10
Only an incompetent manager cares whether or not their employees are goofing off, cruising the internet. A competent manager measures employee performance by measuring the employee's performance. In other words, give them work to do, and measure how well and how timely it is done.
If you give all your people the same amount of work to do, and one of them doesn't do it as well or as quickly as the rest, it doesn't matter why. He's a substandard employee, and needs to improve or leave.
By the same token, if you give all your employees the same amount of work to do, and one of them does it better and faster than the rest, and has time to goof off, does it really matter why? If he's got time to goof off, but his work is all done, give him a raise - and more work to do.
Real managers care only about results, not methods.
A comedian pretending to be someone else is obviously not them. If it weren't obvious, it wouldn't be very funny. (Not that most comedian are very funny, mind you.)
Pretending to be someone else in a way that leads others to believe you are that person is identify theft. The kid belongs in jail for that criminal offense.
Whatever the odds are, they aren't so high that it isn't inevitable that somehwere, there is an office with 12 people, five of whom have birthdays next to each other. It has to happen somewhere; you just happen to be it.
In America, profit is the *only* reason for copyright.
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
Article I, Section 8, US Constitution.
I see no reference to profit whatsoever.
But thanks for playing.
Do you think that Google's 'sneak peak' search access increases sales or violates copyrights on intellectual property?"
Why does everyone think this is an "or" question? Copyright isn't about generating profits, for the copyright holder or anyone else. It's about control of making copies. Money is a common motive for wanting such control, but is almost irrelevant to the law.