The basic defense from them is.. how ARE they liable?
Kickstarter's claim is that they're merely providing a platform, that they conditionally charge for the use of that platform, but that what it's actually used for is not really any of their concern. They also carefully word that backers aren't really investing, that they're basically just throwing money at a person at the hopes of getting something - while at the same time saying that getting that something is required, but that they're no party in it and that backers will just have to fall back to plain ol' contract law with the contract being between the backers and the project creators. ( Also keep in mind that recently they actually dropped a bunch of their rules - though that's more from pressure of other crowdfunding sites and all the bad press Kickstarter has gotten lately for actually policing their rules, than that they wanted to. )
I can think of 3 lawsuits that have happened that involved KickStarter in one way or another:
1. Hanfree - a sort of iPad stand, in which a backer who also happened to be an attorney sued on principle because the project creator burnt through the money (on what? no idea), stopped communicating, and then buggered off. I don't think Kickstarter was named as a defendant. If I recall correctly, that lawsuit also went nowhere fast because the project creator defaulted into bankruptcy. http://venturebeat.com/2013/01...
2. The WA AG's case (complaint handling) against a project creator. That's ongoing, but as far as I know Kickstarter hasn't been named a defendant there either. http://www.pcworld.com/article...
3. The 3D Systems case. This was a patent case brought against Formlabs, but initially also named Kickstarter as a defendant because Kickstarter took a 5% cut and promoted the project through their site. Kickstarter was later dropped as a defendant, however. http://www.insidecounsel.com/2...
So I'm afraid your 5-step program probably isn't going to work on account of Kickstarter absolving themselves from any responsibility, and apparently having the law on their side (until proven otherwise).
On the up side, your 5-step program really only needs to be 3 steps. 1. post not entirely obviously crap Kickstarter but just something that's popular.. like wallets, multitools, iThing covers, 3D printers, custom pens, etc. for which you already know there exists an eager audience. 2. make goal (helps setting it to a realistic level) 3. run off with the money aka profit!!!
Or even two steps, if you don't mind setting up a crowdfunding website and going head-to-head with Kickstarter/indiegogo/rockethub/etc.
The founding documents of the United States guarantee certain rights--even to rapists, terrorists, and pedophiles--to its citizens
I think it's amendments that guarantee those rights - not sure if that invalidates the 'founding documents' bit.
But my question was specifically with regard to the "to its citizens" part. What makes "its citizens" all the more special, when it's rather difficult to see what qualifies a person as a "citizen" given the circumstances outlined.
So perhaps my interest should be more directed toward what makes somebody a citizen - and what can undo that making (apparently somebody suggested that in this case, the person had forfeited their citizenship by effectively having committed one or more acts of treason) - given that the interests appear to be at odds.
the minute we started destroying our own constitution
Are those parts, perhaps, untenable in some situations?
Example: If you're some sort of murdering loon with a predisposition to blow up schools in not-Americania where you have been living for several years, then...
If you're a "U.S. citizen", you should be captured alive and tried properly - in the U.S., of course - enjoy all the protections provided by the law, and if you're very lucky you get to be relatively comfortable while waiting to hear if you get to escape death row or - better yet - somebody messes up on a procedural element and you can be on your merry way entirely, with the general population hailing the virtues of the amendments that make this possible.
If you're not, then please enjoy these last few moments of Slashdot while we drop a bomb on you, no questions asked, with the general population shrugging or applauding once announced.
I find the whole "he was a U.S. citizen on paper, so he was more specialer" angle rather fascinating.
I thought theaters were part of the outdated business model that everybody suggests 'Hollywood' should change?
People have a great many options for self-publishing online. And quite a few people do. Just how much that has displaced consumption of Hollywood fare (legal or otherwise, and whether that's based on it being a better product or out of principle) is a different question.
Yeah, this was more about a film that doesn't need any more free press - but in terms of weapons, U.S. law itself is funky (imagine that), so inconsistency happens.
They're tired of getting flak for projects appearing on their site that people have issues with, raise a stink about on twitter, and then complain when it's still there 1 hour later - or getting flak for removing projects that use questionably language, get buckets of crap dumped on them by thousands of people alleging them of having a political agenda, and that decision being exploited for the benefit of the project getting launched at a different site.
Speaking of which...
They're probably not fond of all the attention that IndieGoGo has been getting as the 'more accessible, lower barrier, and less stuck up Kickstarter.
Regarding one specific other rule change, they probably realized that project creators - when faced with the "you can't set up pledges for multiples of a perk!" rule, simply told people to pledge more than what the tier requires, or - worse yet for Kickstarter - hit their website and use the online storefront (often using PayPal) as a pledge mechanism instead. When that happens, they might as well try winning back that slice of the pie and shrug off any scams that involve multiples (part of the reason why the rule was instated in the first place - under the guise of protecting project creators from themselves in case their project can't scale) the same way that scams involving single items have been shrugged off. The PR defense on that one is pretty strong by now, with more than half the backers toeing the company line that they're only a facilitator (who just happen to take a % of the take, scam project or otherwise) and so do not get involved in disputes ( except where there's enough negative press to warrant a statement ).
Re:Lead is mentioned some 16 times
on
How LEDs Are Made
·
· Score: 1
A lot of 'American Solder' is actually also available as RoHS, simply because it ends up getting used for the manufacture of items that need to be exported outside the U.S. Similarly, I can walk into a local electronics store in Europe and get plain ol' 63/37 just fine for my own hobby use
Not that the lead in the article has anything to do with the lead we're discussing here.
if Somebody gave you the code only under the original GPL
That's the part that I'm wondering about, though.
Did Somebody actually give me code under the GPL - or did they just... give me code? At which point, should one assume it is just a gift (which you can do with as you please), that it was implied that it would be under the GPL because the project it's intended for is under the GPL, or that in fact I couldn't do anything with that code other than as stipulated in any particular communication surrounding that code contribution; e.g. if it's sent by e-mail and the e-mail only says "try this, I think it speeds things up about 20%" - does that mean I should only try it, or that I'm free to include it in the distribution and put the GPL license on it, etc.?
Thus why I said in GGGP(?) post that it should be made explicitly clear what license it's being contributed under - rather than any implied licensing - and I have no idea if Wiki had/has any such clauses.
Per your sig I understand you're probably better informed than I am on these matters.
I do wonder though whether or not you are correct in this case.
Let's say I've got a piece of software and I decide to publish that under the GPL.
Somebody sends me a piece of code to include in the software.
I add it, and release it, still under the GPL. Then later on, I decide to release the code under, say, the BSD license - including the bit that was contributed by Somebody.
Whether or not I can do so depends on what license that Somebody gave me when they handed me the code. While it might seem obvious that they contributed to something that's under the GPL license and should therefore also be GPL, what they actually did was contribute to a codebase - a codebase under my control, and one that I can slap any which license on that I like.
At least, that's my understanding. So my questions would be: 1. what license did authors actually give Wikia for their contributed content (explicitly or implicitly), 2. does the license of the greater work at that time trump the license on the contribution and 3. why?
I think there's a bit of confusion with these sites that I agree should be cleared up.
It's not that the authors are licensing the content to the service under the CC-BY-NC license - more often than not, they're just giving the content to the service with no strings attached whatsoever.
The service then applies a CC-BY-NC license to that content for third parties to make use of, but that doesn't mean the service can't change the license around at a later time.
Because authors just gave the content away freely and willingly (albeit perhaps not knowingly, in terms of the extent), they don't really have grounds for complaint other than moral grounds.
Anyone expected pressure-senility [sic] and tilt support for under $2k?
But rather:
Anyone expected pressure-sensitivity and tilt support on the level of a Wacom using Wacom's technology for under $2k?
You're right, I must brush up on my reading comprehension.
The answer is still 'yes'. Be that through alternative techniques (accelerometer/gyroscope/magnetometer all in one handy little monolithic package / detecting the magnetic field off of a magnet at the other end of the pen / whatever people can come up with), or through thinking that if Wacom can throw their 'low end' Cintiq on the market for $1k, another $999 should easily be able to put a decent computer behind that.
Are you saying that accelerometers have nothing to do with calculating the tilting angle of a device, or that the tilting referred to in a pen+tablet combination such as the Wacoms is a wholly different type of tilting?
Yes, and what I'm saying is, they don't necessarily need to use that same technology - but perhaps the patents cover the general use case. If not - make it a powered pen, tech's come far enough that that shouldn't be an issue other than a negative review point of "pen's a bit heavier than I'd like", but with the positive review point of "has tilt support".
Maybe there's patents at play when it comes to 'a hand-held input device as used on a rectangular surface', but tilting things is pretty commonplace ever since the smartphone. Hell, my flashlight has tilt support via a 3-axis accelerometer.
Though there are more fundamental issues for those who would use it for drawing, though - check out the short opinion piece on the Surface Pro 3 at Penny Arcade. tl;dr: The new main (windows logo) button tends to get bumped into fairly easily by right-handed people, and turning the screen around 180 degrees hampers the use of the kickstand.
As you will probably have read, Slashdot readers in general are not a fan of the DMCA (and rightly so).
However, the DMCA also has the Safe Harbor provision, which essentially means a service can say "it wasn't me", drop the content being complained about, and have that be the end of it unless the user decides to challenge the claim - which is either quickly granted if it's reasonable (e.g. 'fair use') or the user just shrugs it off and re-uploads the video (using a new account, if their existing account gets blocked), thus ensuring that while copyright holders may try to keep content off of these services, they ultimately will fail, without exception for popular content - from songs to full movies to sports events to leaked tapes'o'naughtiness.
I have several questions on this phenomenon, unfortunately I can ask only one, so I will ask this: Was that the expected/intended consequence of the Safe Harbor provision all along?
While I agree with the sentiment that thinking of somebody like McVeigh as an absolute hero, I don't think the reason for that should be hinging on the fact that children died in the attack. It's a bomb. It's about as non-discriminatory as weapons go.
Assume no children died, would that somehow qualify him as being a hero after all? What about teenager Cartney McRaven, age 19?
What about Kathy Cregan, Rheta Long, Laura Garrison, LutherTreanor, Olen Bloomer, Calvin Battle, Norma Johnson, Donald Burns Sr., Donald Fritzler, Eula Mitchell, Anna Hurlburt, John Vaness III, and Charles Hurlburt - who were all probably looking forward to their retirement or were otherwise just at the wrong place at the wrong time?
What about the 135 other people who don't fit the criteria of child, teen or 60+?
Timothy McVeigh was a murderer, period. Read that, and tell me again about his heroism.
While we're at it - let's not start thinking of weev as a hero either. His mentioning of McVeigh could just as well be part of his usual trolling, which borders on the distasteful at best.
However, personally I would not want one of these. The main reason being that it is another point of possible failure or breakdown that could keep my gun from firing in the event I need to use it. [...] There is no time to be fiddling with some gizmo or something that might prevent the gun from firing.
Do your guns have safeties? If yes, is that because it is a lower barrier, a less error-prone mechanism (specifically being, generally, mechanical in nature rather than electronic), or because you have little choice?
If you read the article.. then could you point to the exact article that states that selling the software was illegal?
All I'm reading is raids at people who used the software.
Though I wouldn't blame them for going after the authors/sellers, given that it's got a template "we encrypted your files, send payment here for decryption key" letter included. That rather sways things well away from the "it's just a network security testing tool" suggestion.
If Firefox did not support DRM directly, the content providers would offer a custom (closed source) tool that did.
Why would they even bother? I think it far more likely that they would simply put in a "We're sorry, but your browser is not supported at [service] at this time. Please consider using Google Chrome, Microsoft's Internet Explorer or Apple Safari. Our apologies for the inconvenience."
Given the choice between e.g. watching the latest episode of a show, or.. well.. not, guess what most people are going to do, even if you have made the dangers of DRM clear to them.
The reason is apathy... those dangers have simply not yet materialized in any way that it has truly affected people. DRM server for an 8-year old game goes down? "Well I wasn't really playing it anymore anyway." Can't save/record Netflix content and after a while you find out that the show they used to have, they no longer have, and so you can't continue watching it? "Oh well, what else is on..."
The FSF can, and should, condemn Mozilla all they want for being pragmatic; the FSF cannot be thus. But Mozilla can, and should, lest FireFox becomes increasingly marginalized. Now if the FSF could convince Apple, Google, Microsoft to not include DRM schemes...
Do you have to stay 15-90 days in the restaurant after you've paid with a credit card before you can go?
After all, nothing's stopping you from later calling up your bank/credit card company and getting the charge taken off for reasons ranging between fraud and "I didn't like the way that waiter looked at me, but I paid anyway, but after some more thinking I believe he was staring at my ass".
Bitpay is a bit like the credit card companies in this - they actually deal very little 'in' Bitcoin, they just exchange it, and they give vendors some guarantee that they in fact get paid, even in the unlikely event of a customer trying to perform a double spend.
Similarly, it's in merchants' best interest to take the money and run the small risk of fraud - same with credit cards. Of course, if you're selling a car, house, yacht, private jet.. you may want to wait those 10 minutes.. or maybe a day, just in case.
Slashdot Mirror
The basic defense from them is.. how ARE they liable?
Kickstarter's claim is that they're merely providing a platform, that they conditionally charge for the use of that platform, but that what it's actually used for is not really any of their concern. They also carefully word that backers aren't really investing, that they're basically just throwing money at a person at the hopes of getting something - while at the same time saying that getting that something is required, but that they're no party in it and that backers will just have to fall back to plain ol' contract law with the contract being between the backers and the project creators.
( Also keep in mind that recently they actually dropped a bunch of their rules - though that's more from pressure of other crowdfunding sites and all the bad press Kickstarter has gotten lately for actually policing their rules, than that they wanted to. )
I can think of 3 lawsuits that have happened that involved KickStarter in one way or another:
1. Hanfree - a sort of iPad stand, in which a backer who also happened to be an attorney sued on principle because the project creator burnt through the money (on what? no idea), stopped communicating, and then buggered off. I don't think Kickstarter was named as a defendant. If I recall correctly, that lawsuit also went nowhere fast because the project creator defaulted into bankruptcy.
http://venturebeat.com/2013/01...
2. The WA AG's case (complaint handling) against a project creator. That's ongoing, but as far as I know Kickstarter hasn't been named a defendant there either.
http://www.pcworld.com/article...
3. The 3D Systems case. This was a patent case brought against Formlabs, but initially also named Kickstarter as a defendant because Kickstarter took a 5% cut and promoted the project through their site. Kickstarter was later dropped as a defendant, however.
http://www.insidecounsel.com/2...
So I'm afraid your 5-step program probably isn't going to work on account of Kickstarter absolving themselves from any responsibility, and apparently having the law on their side (until proven otherwise).
On the up side, your 5-step program really only needs to be 3 steps.
1. post not entirely obviously crap Kickstarter but just something that's popular.. like wallets, multitools, iThing covers, 3D printers, custom pens, etc. for which you already know there exists an eager audience.
2. make goal (helps setting it to a realistic level)
3. run off with the money aka profit!!!
Or even two steps, if you don't mind setting up a crowdfunding website and going head-to-head with Kickstarter/indiegogo/rockethub/etc.
I think it's amendments that guarantee those rights - not sure if that invalidates the 'founding documents' bit.
But my question was specifically with regard to the "to its citizens" part. What makes "its citizens" all the more special, when it's rather difficult to see what qualifies a person as a "citizen" given the circumstances outlined.
So perhaps my interest should be more directed toward what makes somebody a citizen - and what can undo that making (apparently somebody suggested that in this case, the person had forfeited their citizenship by effectively having committed one or more acts of treason) - given that the interests appear to be at odds.
Are those parts, perhaps, untenable in some situations?
Example: If you're some sort of murdering loon with a predisposition to blow up schools in not-Americania where you have been living for several years, then...
If you're a "U.S. citizen", you should be captured alive and tried properly - in the U.S., of course - enjoy all the protections provided by the law, and if you're very lucky you get to be relatively comfortable while waiting to hear if you get to escape death row or - better yet - somebody messes up on a procedural element and you can be on your merry way entirely, with the general population hailing the virtues of the amendments that make this possible.
If you're not, then please enjoy these last few moments of Slashdot while we drop a bomb on you, no questions asked, with the general population shrugging or applauding once announced.
I find the whole "he was a U.S. citizen on paper, so he was more specialer" angle rather fascinating.
I thought theaters were part of the outdated business model that everybody suggests 'Hollywood' should change?
People have a great many options for self-publishing online. And quite a few people do. Just how much that has displaced consumption of Hollywood fare (legal or otherwise, and whether that's based on it being a better product or out of principle) is a different question.
Yeah, this was more about a film that doesn't need any more free press - but in terms of weapons, U.S. law itself is funky (imagine that), so inconsistency happens.
More like:
They're tired of getting flak for projects appearing on their site that people have issues with, raise a stink about on twitter, and then complain when it's still there 1 hour later - or getting flak for removing projects that use questionably language, get buckets of crap dumped on them by thousands of people alleging them of having a political agenda, and that decision being exploited for the benefit of the project getting launched at a different site.
Speaking of which...
They're probably not fond of all the attention that IndieGoGo has been getting as the 'more accessible, lower barrier, and less stuck up Kickstarter.
Regarding one specific other rule change, they probably realized that project creators - when faced with the "you can't set up pledges for multiples of a perk!" rule, simply told people to pledge more than what the tier requires, or - worse yet for Kickstarter - hit their website and use the online storefront (often using PayPal) as a pledge mechanism instead. When that happens, they might as well try winning back that slice of the pie and shrug off any scams that involve multiples (part of the reason why the rule was instated in the first place - under the guise of protecting project creators from themselves in case their project can't scale) the same way that scams involving single items have been shrugged off. The PR defense on that one is pretty strong by now, with more than half the backers toeing the company line that they're only a facilitator (who just happen to take a % of the take, scam project or otherwise) and so do not get involved in disputes ( except where there's enough negative press to warrant a statement ).
Haven't you heard? Don't put your dick in crazy.
A lot of 'American Solder' is actually also available as RoHS, simply because it ends up getting used for the manufacture of items that need to be exported outside the U.S.
Similarly, I can walk into a local electronics store in Europe and get plain ol' 63/37 just fine for my own hobby use
Not that the lead in the article has anything to do with the lead we're discussing here.
That's the part that I'm wondering about, though.
Did Somebody actually give me code under the GPL - or did they just... give me code? At which point, should one assume it is just a gift (which you can do with as you please), that it was implied that it would be under the GPL because the project it's intended for is under the GPL, or that in fact I couldn't do anything with that code other than as stipulated in any particular communication surrounding that code contribution; e.g. if it's sent by e-mail and the e-mail only says "try this, I think it speeds things up about 20%" - does that mean I should only try it, or that I'm free to include it in the distribution and put the GPL license on it, etc.?
Thus why I said in GGGP(?) post that it should be made explicitly clear what license it's being contributed under - rather than any implied licensing - and I have no idea if Wiki had/has any such clauses.
Per your sig I understand you're probably better informed than I am on these matters.
I do wonder though whether or not you are correct in this case.
Let's say I've got a piece of software and I decide to publish that under the GPL.
Somebody sends me a piece of code to include in the software.
I add it, and release it, still under the GPL. Then later on, I decide to release the code under, say, the BSD license - including the bit that was contributed by Somebody.
Whether or not I can do so depends on what license that Somebody gave me when they handed me the code. While it might seem obvious that they contributed to something that's under the GPL license and should therefore also be GPL, what they actually did was contribute to a codebase - a codebase under my control, and one that I can slap any which license on that I like.
At least, that's my understanding. So my questions would be: 1. what license did authors actually give Wikia for their contributed content (explicitly or implicitly), 2. does the license of the greater work at that time trump the license on the contribution and 3. why?
I think there's a bit of confusion with these sites that I agree should be cleared up.
It's not that the authors are licensing the content to the service under the CC-BY-NC license - more often than not, they're just giving the content to the service with no strings attached whatsoever.
The service then applies a CC-BY-NC license to that content for third parties to make use of, but that doesn't mean the service can't change the license around at a later time.
Because authors just gave the content away freely and willingly (albeit perhaps not knowingly, in terms of the extent), they don't really have grounds for complaint other than moral grounds.
So the question wasn't:
But rather:
You're right, I must brush up on my reading comprehension.
The answer is still 'yes'. Be that through alternative techniques (accelerometer/gyroscope/magnetometer all in one handy little monolithic package / detecting the magnetic field off of a magnet at the other end of the pen / whatever people can come up with), or through thinking that if Wacom can throw their 'low end' Cintiq on the market for $1k, another $999 should easily be able to put a decent computer behind that.
Are you saying that accelerometers have nothing to do with calculating the tilting angle of a device, or that the tilting referred to in a pen+tablet combination such as the Wacoms is a wholly different type of tilting?
Point 2 may hinge on the above.
Could you 1. explain what part of GP's question I failed to comprehend and 2. explain what part of my reply came across as trying to be a smartass?
Yes, and what I'm saying is, they don't necessarily need to use that same technology - but perhaps the patents cover the general use case. If not - make it a powered pen, tech's come far enough that that shouldn't be an issue other than a negative review point of "pen's a bit heavier than I'd like", but with the positive review point of "has tilt support".
Well, to be honest.... yes?
Maybe there's patents at play when it comes to 'a hand-held input device as used on a rectangular surface', but tilting things is pretty commonplace ever since the smartphone. Hell, my flashlight has tilt support via a 3-axis accelerometer.
Though there are more fundamental issues for those who would use it for drawing, though - check out the short opinion piece on the Surface Pro 3 at Penny Arcade. tl;dr: The new main (windows logo) button tends to get bumped into fairly easily by right-handed people, and turning the screen around 180 degrees hampers the use of the kickstand.
As you will probably have read, Slashdot readers in general are not a fan of the DMCA (and rightly so).
However, the DMCA also has the Safe Harbor provision, which essentially means a service can say "it wasn't me", drop the content being complained about, and have that be the end of it unless the user decides to challenge the claim - which is either quickly granted if it's reasonable (e.g. 'fair use') or the user just shrugs it off and re-uploads the video (using a new account, if their existing account gets blocked), thus ensuring that while copyright holders may try to keep content off of these services, they ultimately will fail, without exception for popular content - from songs to full movies to sports events to leaked tapes'o'naughtiness.
I have several questions on this phenomenon, unfortunately I can ask only one, so I will ask this: Was that the expected/intended consequence of the Safe Harbor provision all along?
Remember, Remember, November 5th.
This day, July 4th, is our Independence Day.
Hm, no, just don't have the same ring to them that way. Consistency is certainly not one of the strong points of how dates are enunciated in English.
But at least when dealing with the written form and not as part of prose, yyyy-MM-dd will always have my vote.
While I agree with the sentiment that thinking of somebody like McVeigh as an absolute hero, I don't think the reason for that should be hinging on the fact that children died in the attack. It's a bomb. It's about as non-discriminatory as weapons go.
Assume no children died, would that somehow qualify him as being a hero after all?
What about teenager Cartney McRaven, age 19?
What about Kathy Cregan, Rheta Long, Laura Garrison, LutherTreanor, Olen Bloomer, Calvin Battle, Norma Johnson, Donald Burns Sr., Donald Fritzler, Eula Mitchell, Anna Hurlburt, John Vaness III, and Charles Hurlburt - who were all probably looking forward to their retirement or were otherwise just at the wrong place at the wrong time?
What about the 135 other people who don't fit the criteria of child, teen or 60+?
Timothy McVeigh was a murderer, period. Read that, and tell me again about his heroism.
While we're at it - let's not start thinking of weev as a hero either. His mentioning of McVeigh could just as well be part of his usual trolling, which borders on the distasteful at best.
Yeah, fuck the police!
I say we hit them where it apparently hurts!
Let's all take a month and not speed. That'll teach 'm!
Do your guns have safeties? If yes, is that because it is a lower barrier, a less error-prone mechanism (specifically being, generally, mechanical in nature rather than electronic), or because you have little choice?
Ha, there it is - thanks for the follow-up!
If you read the article.. then could you point to the exact article that states that selling the software was illegal?
All I'm reading is raids at people who used the software.
Though I wouldn't blame them for going after the authors/sellers, given that it's got a template "we encrypted your files, send payment here for decryption key" letter included. That rather sways things well away from the "it's just a network security testing tool" suggestion.
Why would they even bother? I think it far more likely that they would simply put in a "We're sorry, but your browser is not supported at [service] at this time. Please consider using Google Chrome, Microsoft's Internet Explorer or Apple Safari. Our apologies for the inconvenience."
Given the choice between e.g. watching the latest episode of a show, or.. well.. not, guess what most people are going to do, even if you have made the dangers of DRM clear to them.
The reason is apathy... those dangers have simply not yet materialized in any way that it has truly affected people. DRM server for an 8-year old game goes down? "Well I wasn't really playing it anymore anyway." Can't save/record Netflix content and after a while you find out that the show they used to have, they no longer have, and so you can't continue watching it? "Oh well, what else is on..."
The FSF can, and should, condemn Mozilla all they want for being pragmatic; the FSF cannot be thus. But Mozilla can, and should, lest FireFox becomes increasingly marginalized. Now if the FSF could convince Apple, Google, Microsoft to not include DRM schemes...
Do you have to stay 15-90 days in the restaurant after you've paid with a credit card before you can go?
After all, nothing's stopping you from later calling up your bank/credit card company and getting the charge taken off for reasons ranging between fraud and "I didn't like the way that waiter looked at me, but I paid anyway, but after some more thinking I believe he was staring at my ass".
Bitpay is a bit like the credit card companies in this - they actually deal very little 'in' Bitcoin, they just exchange it, and they give vendors some guarantee that they in fact get paid, even in the unlikely event of a customer trying to perform a double spend.
Similarly, it's in merchants' best interest to take the money and run the small risk of fraud - same with credit cards. Of course, if you're selling a car, house, yacht, private jet.. you may want to wait those 10 minutes.. or maybe a day, just in case.