It seems the problem is easy. It's legal to unlock a phone. But once you've modified the phone to do that, it becomes your problem. Don't install the new firmware. There are plenty of owners that stayed with 1.0.2 and had no problem. Apple doesn't secretly go around bricking phones -- they offer a new software update that's compatible with their operating system, not whatever modifications users made to it.
If I completely wiped the OS and then tried to install the firmware upgrade I'd be shocked if it _didn't_ brick. Once I've made the software my own, it becomes my problem to support it. The easiest way would be to just not install new firmware upgrades (or at least wait until there are new unlocks available).
It'd be nice if they had a "bring in your brick" program whereby they re-flashed phones that had been bricked, but I'm not convinced it's a legal requirement.
I disagree with how the parent (and OP) read the provision. The use of "conduct" says to me that the provision is so that they can cut off users who are taking actions that make AT&T look bad by association. For example, if a user were to host the NAMBLA website via an AT&T line. If somebody came along and alleged "AT&T is hosting NAMBLA, therefore AT&T supports NAMBLA" then AT&T would get to cut off the account. Of course you and I know as/. readers that hosting a website doesn't imply endorsement of it, but to the 80% of the country that doesn't read/. they might think that AT&T was somehow directly involved.
There are reasons to be concerned about AT&T retaining a veto over actions of that type, but it's very different from AT&T silencing criticism about its own service. Being paranoid about guilt-by-association in a contract that we've never even seen used to actually cut somebody off is a far cry from silencing those who would fairly disagree.
What does Congress have to do with this? Apple doesn't need a law from Congress to sell a phone. The closest thing they need is approval from the FCC, which just checks to make sure that the phone won't cause radio interference with other devices.
There's no "take" here. There's no law. Anyone can build a cell phone and sell it if they can get FCC approval. Contrary to popular belief, there are still some areas the government hasn't gotten its sticky fingers into. Thankfully, we don't yet need Congress to authorize every new mobile device.
How'd such a deal ever make it past any Congressional hearings or sub-committees?
No -- Apple offers a firmware upgrade and users choose whether to install it. There's no requirement to install the firmware upgrade. It's entirely optional. It's not being forced on the phone nor automatically installed. If you prefer to run your own software on the iPhone then don't install the new Apple software.
Apple doesn't have a duty to make sure its software is compatible with every other piece of software that could conceivably be run on the iPhone. If you want to use Apple software then use Apple software. If you want to use other software then use other software. But there's no way to get the best of both worlds -- to modify the OS and then expect Apple to support it.
Engadget is reporting that most phones are being re-locked, not bricked. Seems like that'd be the expected behavior: re-install the OS and it acts like a clean OS. Then if you want to hack it again you can hack it again.
No, he violated the "Material Transfer Agreement." This case had nothing to do with a warranty card. From your quotes from the TFA "the case will set a precedent that will mean that the Justice Department can drop a major felony on someone for filling out a warranty card incorrectly."
He is comparing his situation to that of a warranty card. He admits that he obtained the material by improper means. It's a question for reasonable debate whether that's fraud or not, but he does not claim that he's being prosecuted for a warranty card.
If you RTFA all he did was fill out a warranty card incorrectly.
It seems too easy to play the "OMG, government overeaching!" card here.
Look at what actually happened. He created an art project designed to look like a biological warfare project. His whole POINT was to make it look like it was dangerous. Having his house searched should be a sign that he succeeded in his goals. If the police walk in to find something that exactly replicates a biological warfare setup, I should hope that they stop and call the experts before casually dismissing it. The only difference between his project and something deadly was the fact that he used harmless bacteria. The difference in bacteria was completely invisible to an officer on the scene and possibly even to a biology expert without testing. He should take it as a compliment that his art project worked well enough to fool the police. The search of his house was definitely erring in the right direction, especially given that there have been biological attacks through the mail in the US.
The mail fraud charge is a closer case, but it's far from obvious based on a one-sided article that it's baseless. The American Type Culture Collection is a research system, not a toy. They provide cultures that range from harmless to deadly, and they understandably don't sell their wares to any idiot who walks in off the street. There's a reason why I can't just all up and place an order for 50 ml of HIV. Even something that's only mildly dangerous -- maybe E. coli -- can result in some nasty accidents if mis-handled. To order from the ATCC, "You must be able to demonstrate that your expertise and your institution's facilities are appropriate for handling biological materials." That seems like a pretty good common-sense restriction. If you don't have the appropriate facilities to handle biological materials the ATCC won't sell them to you. If our artist friend lied in order to trick the ATCC into thinking that he worked for a university that had biological facilities then that seems like mail fraud to me. Sure, in this case the whole thing got shut down before anybody got hurt, but that doesn't lessen the importance of maintaining the integrity of the ATCC system. Saying "he shouldn't be punished, nobody got hurt" is like saying "I shouldn't get a speeding ticket, I didn't hit anybody." The restriction on the ATCC is legitimate and he broke it, apparently by lying in an attempt to deceive them. That's fraud if true.
I think the point was that there's a video floating about on the Internet that's been labeled as a Meg White (of the White Stripes) sex tape, but it's a hoax. If it's a complete hoax, then it looks bad for Ms. White.
What if in some other case the information were completely false? If somebody posted your name and said that you were involved in perpetrating the abuses at Guantanamo Bay? And they made sure that the information was spread far enough over the Internet that a Google search on your name would bring it up?
Would you still be an "aggressive prick" (your words) for trying to correct the record? It's undoubtedly slander to knowingly falsely accuse somebody of that sort of heinous crime. But it's the sort of thing that a flat "I didn't do it" wouldn't work on. Most people aren't going to read far enough to find your denial, and even if they did why would they believe it?
That's the hard case. Think it over.
But by being an aggressive prick -- he gets worldwide exposure and confirmation that he is an aggressive prick.
How about potentially many megabytes, updated daily (if not more frequently) as zombies go up and down. Storing it on the client side would be a huge resource drain with infrequent hits. Spammers know well enough to keep changing URLs as soon as they start getting picked up by filters; the list would have to update as fast as the zombienet can find a new host.
It's possible, but it'd be a massive heavyweight way of doing things that'd require an always-on high-speed connection to work. If a user connects periodically it's quite possible that the user could end up at a phishing site before the entire list was updated to reflect the newest entries.
Google is the #1 company that has been fighting AGAINST government intrusion into search.
Google Rebuffs Government Subpoena -- Google went to court many times to stop the government from getting search queries. Yahoo and MSN gave the government what it wanted almost immediately.
Think about it -- Google requires users' trust to create new services. You wouldn't use Google Mail if you knew Google would sell you up the river for nothing. Whatever new service comes next I'm sure the same thing will be true; their market is all about collecting data and interconnecting it, but you won't give them that data unless you trust them. They have every incentive in the world to fight the government on your behalf so that they can keep the trust of their users.
Say it with me: data base. data base. database. database.
IT'S NOT AN EXECUTABLE.
I'm well aware of the difference between a database and an executable. But, as we have seen all too many times, errors in programs all too often allow content which appears to be data to be executed as code. Look at any buffer overflow exploit.
Is Apple trying to freeze-out Linux, or is Apple trying to fix a potential security hole, which hits Linux as a side-effect. The former is stupid, the latter suggests that there is hope of the condition being fixed in the future.
It sounds to me like there is a security problem in allowing any program to write to the iTunes database and have that code executed by the iPod or iPhone. If Microsoft Windows were to let just any program write into the system folder... oh, wait, they do that --- but we laugh at their utter lack of security as a result.
I highly suspect that Apple, a company that used *nix as the basis for its entire operating system, isn't trying to screw Linux users. Sounds like a security patch caused a problem and I hope that this outcry will fix it.
Did a US court or is there a phrase in US copyright law that says that a copy into RAM constitutes violation of copyright and as such needs permission from the copyright holder?
Yes. The copyright law says that a "copy" needs a license. The 9th Circuit (generally considered one of the leaders in high-tech law) interpreted "copy" to include copies onto drives and into RAM all the way back in 1993. For example, see MAI v. Peak, 991 F.2d 511 (9th Cir. 1993). Wikipedia describes it:
"The court determined that a copy of a program made into RAM was 'sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated for a period of more than transitory duration.'" You can agree or disagree with the court's conclusion that it's sufficiently fixed to count -- after all, a computer with sufficient RAM can and will leave lots of applications fully loaded into memory for a long time -- but there's no doubt that it's the law. In my eyes, a hard drive or a flash drive is definitely fixed (I could mail it to you and you could read the contents), L1 cache probably isn't, and RAM is somewhere in the fuzzy middle.
If I play a copyrighted song loud enough so all my neighbors can hear it and they enjoy it, is that a copyright violation?
Yes, but for different reasons. Copyright law limits your ability to copy creative works. It also limits your ability to publicly perform creative works. You would be violating the public performance right of the owner. That's why cover bands need to pay royalties to the original artists, even if nobody in the crowd is recording or otherwise fixing a copy.
By the reasoning that copying into RAM is a copyright violation, reading a book then could be construed as copying the pages into your brain, which is sort of a computer, at least in a sense.
Nice. Unless your memory is far greater than mine, you're not copying the book into your brain. You're taking bits and pieces and incorporating the ideas. Anyway, your brain isn't a tangible medium of expression -- I can place electrodes on your RAM and figure out what's inside, but not your brain. Even if the future provides us a way to perform a core dump of your brain, there's an implied license to read a book. I honestly like the creative argument, but it's not going to fly in court.
To be clear, I'm not saying that the above is the RIGHT solution or the best possible law. I'm just saying that it is what the law in the US is today. If you don't like it then Lawrence Lessig has just the movement for you. But, until he succeeds in repealing the copyright laws then you have to live by the system we have now.
(apologies to non-US residents, but most of the western world has similar laws anyway)
When I or even a ten year old go to the store and BUY a copy of *anything*, including software, they own THAT COPY to do with whatever they want
Right -- you own the copy that resides on the CD. You can spin it around on your finger, wash your car with it, whatever you want. The problem is that in order to actually run the program, you have to copy it into RAM or onto your hard drive (or both). That creates a "copy" in the eyes of the law. In order to make a copy of something that is copyrighted, you need permission (a "license") from the copyright holder.
The law might be in a technical sense wrong that you don't create a bit-wise copy of the contents of the CD when you run the program, but it's been the background presumption of electronic copyright law since the very early days: You can do whatever you want with the CD, but once you make a copy of the program by installing it you need permission from the copyright holder.
In contrast, you don't need to copy a book to read it. If you were to take a photocopier and copy each page of a book then you would also need a license from the copyright holder. It's your physical copy of the book and you may do what you wish with it, but you don't get to further copy it. That's what first sale is all about -- you can read the book, rip pages out of the book, scribble on the book, or do whatever you want to it, OTHER than copying it. If you do want to copy you need to either have a fair use defense or a license.
Simply clicking a picture on a screen does not meet the minimum requirements for a "legal and binding" agreement in my book. As a counter example, web sites like amazon.com do not ship a product to the buyer simply because someone clicks on a picture of a product. If they did, they would never be able to win a case against the buyer in court. There are certain requirements that should be met. I think we all agree that expecting payment for a product simply because someone clicked a picture on the computer screen is extremely naive and foolish. Why would we think any differently of clicking to agree to a EULA?
Doesn't that disprove your point? You can buy books by clicking on pictures on Amazon. The pictures say "add to cart" and "buy now" -- but they are pictures none the less. You don't have to sign anything by hand, you don't need to show up physically, and you don't even need to ever talk to a human.
Of course it wouldn't be a valid contract if they charged you just for clicking on the book without any warning. You never showed that you agreed to buy the book -- no reasonable person would expect that clicking on a book would result in buying the book. But Amazon makes it pretty clear that clicking "buy it now" does commit you to buy it. Even in just one click.
Same for the Microsoft EULA. If you click "I AGREE" -- which is typed in big bold letters -- there's little doubt that you knew what you were getting yourself into. Maybe you chose not to read the whole agreement, but it didn't come as some surprise that you just agreed to something. It's not like you looked at the package the wrong way and Microsoft showed up with a bill. You clicked a big old button that says "I AGREE". There are lots of other reasons why it might not be enforceable (and other people in the thread have mentioned some good ones), but failure to clearly agree is not one of them.
By Microsoft making the requirements so ridiculously easy, the company seems to imply that they don't care if people break the agreement. Otherwise, there would be more strict requirements.
What would a better solution be? You call Microsoft, have them fax you a contract, you sign the contract, have it notarized, mail it back, and then wait for Microsoft to ship you a Windows CD? If you want to download software then you have to sign? If you want to buy off Amazon you have to mail them a consent form?
There are a lot of reasons why it's a very good thing to be able to agree to contracts online. Maybe Microsoft mis-used its power here, but let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater.
The court never clarified, nor is there a law that says clicking a mouse constitutes an agreement.
The law does not require a signature for there to be an agreement. All it takes is an objective manifestation of assent. Actions often speak louder than words -- using a product or service can serve as a manifestation of assent. If I say "you can borrow my car anytime, but leave $10 when you do" then you have shown that you agree to that deal when you put your keys in the ignition. You don't have to say "yes" to my face.
If I walk into Starbucks and ask for a cup of coffee then I have agreed to pay for it, even if I have never signed anything. If I hand the McDonalds cashier my credit card then I have agreed to pay for the McMuffin I ordered, even if they don't make me sign the receipt (which is now common under $20).
And there are lots of cases saying that clicking on "I agree" is a meaningful form of assent. If the software won't install without clicking on "I agree" and the software is installed on your computer then there is at least some evidence that you agreed. See Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clickwrap. Your arguments about children could be useful as a defense in a particular case (you could argue that you didn't click "agree" but your kid did), but they don't eliminate the agreements generally (after all, a kid can also forge your signature on paper).
Please provide a cite for consumer software (not custom stuff that gets negotiated beforehand).
The ProCD case I linked already is exactly that. ProCD sold a piece of software -- I think it was a CD filled with names and phone numbers for marketing -- at retail. The license agreement said the data on the CD could be used for limited purposes only. The court held that the license agreement bound the buyer. End of story.
If you don't trust me, trust a major law firm: "Within the U.S. legal community, these agreements have come to be generally considered valid and enforceable contracts. The analysis of click-wrap agreements follows that of so-called "shrink-wrap" agreements in which users of software products are deemed to accept license terms by opening or using packaged software. Shrink-wrap agreements have been found to be enforceable in a series of major U.S. court cases following the Pro CD v. Zeidenberg 1 case." From http://www.wilmerhale.com/publications/whPubsDetail.aspx?publication=2031
Or look at the cases of Groff v. America Online ("the Rhode Island Superior Court affirmed the validity of AOL's click-wrap agreement which was entered into by a customer") or Tony Brower v. Gateway 2000, Inc. ("the court followed the ProCD decision in holding that when contract terms shipped to a consumer along with computer products clearly state that they will be binding on the consumer if she retains the products for 30 days, and the consumer so retains the products, the supplier and consumer formed a valid and enforceable contract"). Both from http://www.wilmerhale.com/publications/whPubsDetail.aspx?publication=2031
They sell software like they sell CDs, so I would expect the doctrine of first sale to apply.
That's a reasonable expectation. It just happens to be wrong.
Last I heard, Larry and Sergey bought the plane with their own personal money and the AP story, http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gbqVOej9Cr2S_GYOFg6m6_PUn4jw makes it sound like they are paying for parking out of their own personal money as well. Therefore there's no direct impact to Google shareholders -- Google is not paying for the parking or the jet. If Larry and Sergey want to buy nice toys (and a place to put their toys) with their fortune then that's all up to them.
Well, I can anyhow. You've apparently bought into the entirely retarded idea that criminal organizations are free to impose any sort of demands on you at a whim and you're somehow magically bound by them. The fact is that nobody is bound by the deluded crap MS puts in their EULAs unless they choose to bind themselves.
Ratchet back the aggression level there.
And there are plenty of cases that hold that you are free to enter into a license agreement with a company when you pay them money for software. See the long list of "shrinkwrap agreement" cases. For example, ProCD v. Zeidenberg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProCD_v._Zeidenberg ("The issue presented to the court was whether a shrink wrap license was valid and enforceable. Judge Easterbrook wrote the opinion for the court and found such a license was valid and enforceable."). In other words, software companies make their product available according to the license. If you buy it, you've voluntarily chosen to enter into those terms and you are bound by them.
It's the same as buying a car. Yes, you are free to go buy a car from a dealer with no terms and conditions attached if you can negotiate that deal with the dealer. Or, if the dealer says "look, this is a brand new concept car that's not available for sale yet -- you can buy it, but you have to keep it in a closed garage and you can't take the bib and diaper off it until we tell you" then that's also a completely legal contract if you agree to buy that car. You don't get to tell the dealer "yes, I'll follow your terms" and then turn around and say "I own the car, I can do whatever I want." You entered into an agreement with the dealer and you are bound by it.
The courts have said the same is true for software. If you don't like the license terms then don't buy the software. You can argue that copyright should trump contract, but that's not how the law has worked so far. Maybe your argument is even the better one -- but it's just not how the US courts have worked. Find a client and try to change the law.
Re:It Ends Long Before That.
on
Republic.com 2.0
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
Want to swear . . . in public? Well then sorry pal, you're shit out of luck.
Didn't you just prove yourself wrong there?
Your free speech is subject to "public opinion" approving of what you have to say
Oh, please. The Supreme Court just held that high school students have a constitutional right to hold up a sign reading "Bong Hits for Jesus". I'm really not sure what part of the supposed majority believes in that position, but they have a right to say it none the less.
If "public opinion" doesn't agree then they might not support you in saying it -- don't expect the New York Times come running to you do to a story on your beliefs -- but you're free to say it none the less.
If you're lucky you might still be speaking, but you can be damn sure that no one will be able to hear.
There's no constitutional right to make people listen to you. If nobody's listening after you start talking, it's probably because they think you're wrong and/or a jackass (there's the swearing thing again). They might even be on to something.
How is the different from any other point in recorded human history?
Because the speed at which people now move away from the middle has increased. It's always been happening, from the dawn of the printing press until today, but it's happening faster than ever before. The Internet has a tremendous ability to allow self-segregation along political lines.
Sure, people have always had friends with similar interests and political tastes. But it wasn't that long ago that there were only 3 TV channels that showed news programs: ABC, CBS, NBC. If you wanted news you had to watch one of those few channels. Each of the channels tried to grab as much of an audience as possible by staying moderately centrist. The cable revolution destroyed this model. Now you can watch CNN, Fox News, ABC, MSNBC, or whatever else you want.
Same thing for newspapers. In Washington DC there was once the Washington Post and the Washington Times. If you wanted print news you read one of the two major rags and that was that. They definitely had their slants -- Post to the left and Times to the right -- but didn't slant too far. Now, I can read DailyKos or LGF or Drudge. I can even read IndyMedia if I think DailyKos is too centrist.
It used to be that we all -- using "we all" to mean "US residents", apologies to the rest of the world -- shared at least some of the same news. Maybe two ideological opponents would see the same story on 60 Minutes. They might have a different take on the story -- one might see US presence in Vietnam as bad, the other as good -- but they saw the same images and events to form their opinions. They could rationally talk to each other since they agreed on the underlying facts and could debate the interpretation from common ground.
Now they don't share the same news at all. The right-winger might read about the Hillary fundraising scandal, and the left-winger might read about some Halliburtin hijinks. It's no longer possible to have a dialog: Neither side shares the same facts so there's no way to debate. They see such distorted views about the world that informed democracy may break down.
That's his argument, at least -- you can debate whether it's right or not, but it's definitely "different from any other point in recorded human history."
Slashdot Mirror
It seems the problem is easy. It's legal to unlock a phone. But once you've modified the phone to do that, it becomes your problem. Don't install the new firmware. There are plenty of owners that stayed with 1.0.2 and had no problem. Apple doesn't secretly go around bricking phones -- they offer a new software update that's compatible with their operating system, not whatever modifications users made to it.
If I completely wiped the OS and then tried to install the firmware upgrade I'd be shocked if it _didn't_ brick. Once I've made the software my own, it becomes my problem to support it. The easiest way would be to just not install new firmware upgrades (or at least wait until there are new unlocks available).
It'd be nice if they had a "bring in your brick" program whereby they re-flashed phones that had been bricked, but I'm not convinced it's a legal requirement.
I disagree with how the parent (and OP) read the provision. The use of "conduct" says to me that the provision is so that they can cut off users who are taking actions that make AT&T look bad by association. For example, if a user were to host the NAMBLA website via an AT&T line. If somebody came along and alleged "AT&T is hosting NAMBLA, therefore AT&T supports NAMBLA" then AT&T would get to cut off the account. Of course you and I know as /. readers that hosting a website doesn't imply endorsement of it, but to the 80% of the country that doesn't read /. they might think that AT&T was somehow directly involved.
There are reasons to be concerned about AT&T retaining a veto over actions of that type, but it's very different from AT&T silencing criticism about its own service. Being paranoid about guilt-by-association in a contract that we've never even seen used to actually cut somebody off is a far cry from silencing those who would fairly disagree.
What does Congress have to do with this? Apple doesn't need a law from Congress to sell a phone. The closest thing they need is approval from the FCC, which just checks to make sure that the phone won't cause radio interference with other devices.
There's no "take" here. There's no law. Anyone can build a cell phone and sell it if they can get FCC approval. Contrary to popular belief, there are still some areas the government hasn't gotten its sticky fingers into. Thankfully, we don't yet need Congress to authorize every new mobile device.
How'd such a deal ever make it past any Congressional hearings or sub-committees?
No -- Apple offers a firmware upgrade and users choose whether to install it. There's no requirement to install the firmware upgrade. It's entirely optional. It's not being forced on the phone nor automatically installed. If you prefer to run your own software on the iPhone then don't install the new Apple software.
Apple doesn't have a duty to make sure its software is compatible with every other piece of software that could conceivably be run on the iPhone. If you want to use Apple software then use Apple software. If you want to use other software then use other software. But there's no way to get the best of both worlds -- to modify the OS and then expect Apple to support it.
Engadget is reporting that most phones are being re-locked, not bricked. Seems like that'd be the expected behavior: re-install the OS and it acts like a clean OS. Then if you want to hack it again you can hack it again.
No, he violated the "Material Transfer Agreement." This case had nothing to do with a warranty card. From your quotes from the TFA "the case will set a precedent that will mean that the Justice Department can drop a major felony on someone for filling out a warranty card incorrectly."
He is comparing his situation to that of a warranty card. He admits that he obtained the material by improper means. It's a question for reasonable debate whether that's fraud or not, but he does not claim that he's being prosecuted for a warranty card.
If you RTFA all he did was fill out a warranty card incorrectly.
It seems too easy to play the "OMG, government overeaching!" card here.
Look at what actually happened. He created an art project designed to look like a biological warfare project. His whole POINT was to make it look like it was dangerous. Having his house searched should be a sign that he succeeded in his goals. If the police walk in to find something that exactly replicates a biological warfare setup, I should hope that they stop and call the experts before casually dismissing it. The only difference between his project and something deadly was the fact that he used harmless bacteria. The difference in bacteria was completely invisible to an officer on the scene and possibly even to a biology expert without testing. He should take it as a compliment that his art project worked well enough to fool the police. The search of his house was definitely erring in the right direction, especially given that there have been biological attacks through the mail in the US.
The mail fraud charge is a closer case, but it's far from obvious based on a one-sided article that it's baseless. The American Type Culture Collection is a research system, not a toy. They provide cultures that range from harmless to deadly, and they understandably don't sell their wares to any idiot who walks in off the street. There's a reason why I can't just all up and place an order for 50 ml of HIV. Even something that's only mildly dangerous -- maybe E. coli -- can result in some nasty accidents if mis-handled. To order from the ATCC, "You must be able to demonstrate that your expertise and your institution's facilities are appropriate for handling biological materials." That seems like a pretty good common-sense restriction. If you don't have the appropriate facilities to handle biological materials the ATCC won't sell them to you. If our artist friend lied in order to trick the ATCC into thinking that he worked for a university that had biological facilities then that seems like mail fraud to me. Sure, in this case the whole thing got shut down before anybody got hurt, but that doesn't lessen the importance of maintaining the integrity of the ATCC system. Saying "he shouldn't be punished, nobody got hurt" is like saying "I shouldn't get a speeding ticket, I didn't hit anybody." The restriction on the ATCC is legitimate and he broke it, apparently by lying in an attempt to deceive them. That's fraud if true.
Let's see a more balanced source.
I think the point was that there's a video floating about on the Internet that's been labeled as a Meg White (of the White Stripes) sex tape, but it's a hoax. If it's a complete hoax, then it looks bad for Ms. White.
What if in some other case the information were completely false? If somebody posted your name and said that you were involved in perpetrating the abuses at Guantanamo Bay? And they made sure that the information was spread far enough over the Internet that a Google search on your name would bring it up?
Would you still be an "aggressive prick" (your words) for trying to correct the record? It's undoubtedly slander to knowingly falsely accuse somebody of that sort of heinous crime. But it's the sort of thing that a flat "I didn't do it" wouldn't work on. Most people aren't going to read far enough to find your denial, and even if they did why would they believe it?
That's the hard case. Think it over.
But by being an aggressive prick -- he gets worldwide exposure and confirmation that he is an aggressive prick.
Potentially large?
How about potentially many megabytes, updated daily (if not more frequently) as zombies go up and down. Storing it on the client side would be a huge resource drain with infrequent hits. Spammers know well enough to keep changing URLs as soon as they start getting picked up by filters; the list would have to update as fast as the zombienet can find a new host.
It's possible, but it'd be a massive heavyweight way of doing things that'd require an always-on high-speed connection to work. If a user connects periodically it's quite possible that the user could end up at a phishing site before the entire list was updated to reflect the newest entries.
Your link is broken (extra slash). Here perhaps?
Google is the #1 company that has been fighting AGAINST government intrusion into search.
Google Rebuffs Government Subpoena -- Google went to court many times to stop the government from getting search queries. Yahoo and MSN gave the government what it wanted almost immediately.
Think about it -- Google requires users' trust to create new services. You wouldn't use Google Mail if you knew Google would sell you up the river for nothing. Whatever new service comes next I'm sure the same thing will be true; their market is all about collecting data and interconnecting it, but you won't give them that data unless you trust them. They have every incentive in the world to fight the government on your behalf so that they can keep the trust of their users.
Say it with me: data base. data base. database. database.
IT'S NOT AN EXECUTABLE.
I'm well aware of the difference between a database and an executable. But, as we have seen all too many times, errors in programs all too often allow content which appears to be data to be executed as code. Look at any buffer overflow exploit.
Is Apple trying to freeze-out Linux, or is Apple trying to fix a potential security hole, which hits Linux as a side-effect. The former is stupid, the latter suggests that there is hope of the condition being fixed in the future.
It sounds to me like there is a security problem in allowing any program to write to the iTunes database and have that code executed by the iPod or iPhone. If Microsoft Windows were to let just any program write into the system folder... oh, wait, they do that --- but we laugh at their utter lack of security as a result.
I highly suspect that Apple, a company that used *nix as the basis for its entire operating system, isn't trying to screw Linux users. Sounds like a security patch caused a problem and I hope that this outcry will fix it.
Yes. The copyright law says that a "copy" needs a license. The 9th Circuit (generally considered one of the leaders in high-tech law) interpreted "copy" to include copies onto drives and into RAM all the way back in 1993.
For example, see MAI v. Peak, 991 F.2d 511 (9th Cir. 1993). Wikipedia describes it: "The court determined that a copy of a program made into RAM was 'sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated for a period of more than transitory duration.'" You can agree or disagree with the court's conclusion that it's sufficiently fixed to count -- after all, a computer with sufficient RAM can and will leave lots of applications fully loaded into memory for a long time -- but there's no doubt that it's the law. In my eyes, a hard drive or a flash drive is definitely fixed (I could mail it to you and you could read the contents), L1 cache probably isn't, and RAM is somewhere in the fuzzy middle.
If I play a copyrighted song loud enough so all my neighbors can hear it and they enjoy it, is that a copyright violation?
Yes, but for different reasons. Copyright law limits your ability to copy creative works. It also limits your ability to publicly perform creative works. You would be violating the public performance right of the owner. That's why cover bands need to pay royalties to the original artists, even if nobody in the crowd is recording or otherwise fixing a copy.
By the reasoning that copying into RAM is a copyright violation, reading a book then could be construed as copying the pages into your brain, which is sort of a computer, at least in a sense.
Nice. Unless your memory is far greater than mine, you're not copying the book into your brain. You're taking bits and pieces and incorporating the ideas. Anyway, your brain isn't a tangible medium of expression -- I can place electrodes on your RAM and figure out what's inside, but not your brain. Even if the future provides us a way to perform a core dump of your brain, there's an implied license to read a book. I honestly like the creative argument, but it's not going to fly in court.
1) Buy software from eBay
2) Copy onto hard drive
3) Re-sell on eBay
4) Profit!
Easy enough for me!
To be clear, I'm not saying that the above is the RIGHT solution or the best possible law. I'm just saying that it is what the law in the US is today. If you don't like it then Lawrence Lessig has just the movement for you. But, until he succeeds in repealing the copyright laws then you have to live by the system we have now.
(apologies to non-US residents, but most of the western world has similar laws anyway)
When I or even a ten year old go to the store and BUY a copy of *anything*, including software, they own THAT COPY to do with whatever they want
Right -- you own the copy that resides on the CD. You can spin it around on your finger, wash your car with it, whatever you want. The problem is that in order to actually run the program, you have to copy it into RAM or onto your hard drive (or both). That creates a "copy" in the eyes of the law. In order to make a copy of something that is copyrighted, you need permission (a "license") from the copyright holder.
The law might be in a technical sense wrong that you don't create a bit-wise copy of the contents of the CD when you run the program, but it's been the background presumption of electronic copyright law since the very early days: You can do whatever you want with the CD, but once you make a copy of the program by installing it you need permission from the copyright holder.
In contrast, you don't need to copy a book to read it. If you were to take a photocopier and copy each page of a book then you would also need a license from the copyright holder. It's your physical copy of the book and you may do what you wish with it, but you don't get to further copy it. That's what first sale is all about -- you can read the book, rip pages out of the book, scribble on the book, or do whatever you want to it, OTHER than copying it. If you do want to copy you need to either have a fair use defense or a license.
Simply clicking a picture on a screen does not meet the minimum requirements for a "legal and binding" agreement in my book. As a counter example, web sites like amazon.com do not ship a product to the buyer simply because someone clicks on a picture of a product. If they did, they would never be able to win a case against the buyer in court. There are certain requirements that should be met. I think we all agree that expecting payment for a product simply because someone clicked a picture on the computer screen is extremely naive and foolish. Why would we think any differently of clicking to agree to a EULA?
Doesn't that disprove your point? You can buy books by clicking on pictures on Amazon. The pictures say "add to cart" and "buy now" -- but they are pictures none the less. You don't have to sign anything by hand, you don't need to show up physically, and you don't even need to ever talk to a human.
Of course it wouldn't be a valid contract if they charged you just for clicking on the book without any warning. You never showed that you agreed to buy the book -- no reasonable person would expect that clicking on a book would result in buying the book. But Amazon makes it pretty clear that clicking "buy it now" does commit you to buy it. Even in just one click.
Same for the Microsoft EULA. If you click "I AGREE" -- which is typed in big bold letters -- there's little doubt that you knew what you were getting yourself into. Maybe you chose not to read the whole agreement, but it didn't come as some surprise that you just agreed to something. It's not like you looked at the package the wrong way and Microsoft showed up with a bill. You clicked a big old button that says "I AGREE". There are lots of other reasons why it might not be enforceable (and other people in the thread have mentioned some good ones), but failure to clearly agree is not one of them.
By Microsoft making the requirements so ridiculously easy, the company seems to imply that they don't care if people break the agreement. Otherwise, there would be more strict requirements.
What would a better solution be? You call Microsoft, have them fax you a contract, you sign the contract, have it notarized, mail it back, and then wait for Microsoft to ship you a Windows CD? If you want to download software then you have to sign? If you want to buy off Amazon you have to mail them a consent form?
There are a lot of reasons why it's a very good thing to be able to agree to contracts online. Maybe Microsoft mis-used its power here, but let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater.
The court never clarified, nor is there a law that says clicking a mouse constitutes an agreement.
The law does not require a signature for there to be an agreement. All it takes is an objective manifestation of assent. Actions often speak louder than words -- using a product or service can serve as a manifestation of assent. If I say "you can borrow my car anytime, but leave $10 when you do" then you have shown that you agree to that deal when you put your keys in the ignition. You don't have to say "yes" to my face.
If I walk into Starbucks and ask for a cup of coffee then I have agreed to pay for it, even if I have never signed anything. If I hand the McDonalds cashier my credit card then I have agreed to pay for the McMuffin I ordered, even if they don't make me sign the receipt (which is now common under $20).
And there are lots of cases saying that clicking on "I agree" is a meaningful form of assent. If the software won't install without clicking on "I agree" and the software is installed on your computer then there is at least some evidence that you agreed. See Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clickwrap. Your arguments about children could be useful as a defense in a particular case (you could argue that you didn't click "agree" but your kid did), but they don't eliminate the agreements generally (after all, a kid can also forge your signature on paper).
Please provide a cite for consumer software (not custom stuff that gets negotiated beforehand).
The ProCD case I linked already is exactly that. ProCD sold a piece of software -- I think it was a CD filled with names and phone numbers for marketing -- at retail. The license agreement said the data on the CD could be used for limited purposes only. The court held that the license agreement bound the buyer. End of story.
If you don't trust me, trust a major law firm: "Within the U.S. legal community, these agreements have come to be generally considered valid and enforceable contracts. The analysis of click-wrap agreements follows that of so-called "shrink-wrap" agreements in which users of software products are deemed to accept license terms by opening or using packaged software. Shrink-wrap agreements have been found to be enforceable in a series of major U.S. court cases following the Pro CD v. Zeidenberg 1 case." From http://www.wilmerhale.com/publications/whPubsDetail.aspx?publication=2031
Or look at the cases of Groff v. America Online ("the Rhode Island Superior Court affirmed the validity of AOL's click-wrap agreement which was entered into by a customer") or Tony Brower v. Gateway 2000, Inc. ("the court followed the ProCD decision in holding that when contract terms shipped to a consumer along with computer products clearly state that they will be binding on the consumer if she retains the products for 30 days, and the consumer so retains the products, the supplier and consumer formed a valid and enforceable contract"). Both from http://www.wilmerhale.com/publications/whPubsDetail.aspx?publication=2031
They sell software like they sell CDs, so I would expect the doctrine of first sale to apply.
That's a reasonable expectation. It just happens to be wrong.
This is BAD for Google shareholders
Last I heard, Larry and Sergey bought the plane with their own personal money and the AP story, http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gbqVOej9Cr2S_GYOFg6m6_PUn4jw makes it sound like they are paying for parking out of their own personal money as well. Therefore there's no direct impact to Google shareholders -- Google is not paying for the parking or the jet. If Larry and Sergey want to buy nice toys (and a place to put their toys) with their fortune then that's all up to them.
Well, I can anyhow. You've apparently bought into the entirely retarded idea that criminal organizations are free to impose any sort of demands on you at a whim and you're somehow magically bound by them.
The fact is that nobody is bound by the deluded crap MS puts in their EULAs unless they choose to bind themselves.
Ratchet back the aggression level there.
And there are plenty of cases that hold that you are free to enter into a license agreement with a company when you pay them money for software. See the long list of "shrinkwrap agreement" cases. For example, ProCD v. Zeidenberg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProCD_v._Zeidenberg ("The issue presented to the court was whether a shrink wrap license was valid and enforceable. Judge Easterbrook wrote the opinion for the court and found such a license was valid and enforceable."). In other words, software companies make their product available according to the license. If you buy it, you've voluntarily chosen to enter into those terms and you are bound by them.
It's the same as buying a car. Yes, you are free to go buy a car from a dealer with no terms and conditions attached if you can negotiate that deal with the dealer. Or, if the dealer says "look, this is a brand new concept car that's not available for sale yet -- you can buy it, but you have to keep it in a closed garage and you can't take the bib and diaper off it until we tell you" then that's also a completely legal contract if you agree to buy that car. You don't get to tell the dealer "yes, I'll follow your terms" and then turn around and say "I own the car, I can do whatever I want." You entered into an agreement with the dealer and you are bound by it.
The courts have said the same is true for software. If you don't like the license terms then don't buy the software. You can argue that copyright should trump contract, but that's not how the law has worked so far. Maybe your argument is even the better one -- but it's just not how the US courts have worked. Find a client and try to change the law.
Want to swear . . . in public?
Well then sorry pal, you're shit out of luck.
Didn't you just prove yourself wrong there?
Your free speech is subject to "public opinion" approving of what you have to say
Oh, please. The Supreme Court just held that high school students have a constitutional right to hold up a sign reading "Bong Hits for Jesus". I'm really not sure what part of the supposed majority believes in that position, but they have a right to say it none the less.
If "public opinion" doesn't agree then they might not support you in saying it -- don't expect the New York Times come running to you do to a story on your beliefs -- but you're free to say it none the less.
If you're lucky you might still be speaking, but you can be damn sure that no one will be able to hear.
There's no constitutional right to make people listen to you. If nobody's listening after you start talking, it's probably because they think you're wrong and/or a jackass (there's the swearing thing again). They might even be on to something.
How is the different from any other point in recorded human history?
Because the speed at which people now move away from the middle has increased. It's always been happening, from the dawn of the printing press until today, but it's happening faster than ever before. The Internet has a tremendous ability to allow self-segregation along political lines.
Sure, people have always had friends with similar interests and political tastes. But it wasn't that long ago that there were only 3 TV channels that showed news programs: ABC, CBS, NBC. If you wanted news you had to watch one of those few channels. Each of the channels tried to grab as much of an audience as possible by staying moderately centrist. The cable revolution destroyed this model. Now you can watch CNN, Fox News, ABC, MSNBC, or whatever else you want.
Same thing for newspapers. In Washington DC there was once the Washington Post and the Washington Times. If you wanted print news you read one of the two major rags and that was that. They definitely had their slants -- Post to the left and Times to the right -- but didn't slant too far. Now, I can read DailyKos or LGF or Drudge. I can even read IndyMedia if I think DailyKos is too centrist.
It used to be that we all -- using "we all" to mean "US residents", apologies to the rest of the world -- shared at least some of the same news. Maybe two ideological opponents would see the same story on 60 Minutes. They might have a different take on the story -- one might see US presence in Vietnam as bad, the other as good -- but they saw the same images and events to form their opinions. They could rationally talk to each other since they agreed on the underlying facts and could debate the interpretation from common ground.
Now they don't share the same news at all. The right-winger might read about the Hillary fundraising scandal, and the left-winger might read about some Halliburtin hijinks. It's no longer possible to have a dialog: Neither side shares the same facts so there's no way to debate. They see such distorted views about the world that informed democracy may break down.
That's his argument, at least -- you can debate whether it's right or not, but it's definitely "different from any other point in recorded human history."