Imagine if somebody based their opinions about Slashdot based upon somebody's signature. It's stupid and hypocritical.
No, it's not.
The Diebold employee is a representative of the damn company. By not doing anything about it, Diebold is saying "it's OK to make a farce out of our mainstay."/. is a community. We each represent ourselves. We do not represent/.
You'll be able to see them in Principal Skinner's kitchen.
Chalmers: What's that glow coming from your kitchen? Skinner: That's just the Aurora Borealis. Chalmers: The Aurora Borealis? Skinner: Yes. Chalmers: The Aurora Borealis, at this time of year, at this time of day, in this part of the country, located entirely within your kitchen? Skinner: Yes. Chalmers: May I see it?
While reading the Groklaw article, I finally figured out what SCO is trying to do with this submission..
They're trying to kill IBM's lawyers!
We've all seen the Monty Python sketch, where the Allies use the world's funniest joke to kill the Axis forces - this is SCO's attempt to do the same thing to IBM's lawyers!
The problem is, of course, that while it is side-splittingly funny, it's not funny enough to cause someone to die laughing.
When I bought a digital camera, I could suddenly see the results of my photographs immediately.
Which has nothing to do with my post.
This feedback allowed me to understand what the effect of various changes were, and made me suddenly a much better photographer
No, it didn't - it gradually made you a much better photographer. You didn't pick it up for the first time and start taking better photos - you had to learn.
It made the learning faster, but it didn't magically transform you into a better photographer. (Which was what I said.)
also much more likely to try to take photos.
This is what proves my comment - it wasn't "this camera makes me a better photographer, so therefore I take more pictures" - it was "this camera helped me to become a better photographer by allowing me to take more pictures"
the tool is so much better that it makes the trade easier to learn.
This is pretty much just a summary of the last paragraph of my post. As I said, you become a better photographer by taking lots of pictures (it's learned) - and a digital camera makes that easy.
The tool did not suddenly make you a better photographer. Proof: if you went back to your old camera, all the things that you learned would not suddenly vanish, and you'd be at the same skill level you were before. Instead, you'd take those skills back to the old gear.
The EULA that you click through establishes the terms of the sale.
No, it most certainly doesn't.
The purchase establishes the terms of the sale. You give the money to the store, the store gives the product to you, and the sale is over.
what bothered me about the original post is that incorrect information was being given with confidence.
No, correct information was being given with confidence. It's just that you don't like the information.
I think he's an idiot, but not because he's not a lawyer. (I even conceded that he might be a lawyer, and even if he was, I think he's still an idiot)
That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. If I was a lawyer, then I would (by definition) have better information than you do. So you're saying that you know more than lawyers do?
You just don't like the fact that I disagree with you, and have sound arguments.
a nice camera like a digital SLR might allow me to take better pictures, which might in turn inspire me to take more pictures.
I think you've got that backwards.
A camera is just a tool, and just like any tool, the results will depend on the skill of the person who weilds it, not on the cost/quality of the tool itself.
A professional carpenter with $10 worth of old hand tools will always produce better furniture than an amateur with $1,000 worth of power tools. Cameras are no different.
Learn to be a better photographer, and you'll get better pictures. As for how you become a better photographer? - by taking lots of pictures. The more you practice, the better you become. And that's the great thing about digital cameras - they make it easy to take lots of pictures.
Actually, whether it's a device or not has no bearing on whether it can be sold or licensed.
What matters is how it's sold or licensed.
If the customer signs a contract at the point of sale that says that it's licensed, then the contract would be binding (barring some points that would be legally onerous, but the contract would probably stipulate that the rest of the contract is still binding.)
Note that they would probably have to sign this contract with the manufacturer, or the manufacturer would have to have a separate contract with the hardware store, which would enable the store to legally act on behalf of the manufacturer.
On the other hand, if the customer buys the device from the hardware store, and isn't presented with the contract before they buy it, then the 'license' is meaningless, as you can't modify a contract after it's been executed. (A sale is a contract between buyer and seller.)
Note that this is no different from software. If an 'EULA' is presented after you buy it (say, when you go to install it) it's not enforceable.
This is due to the fact that as the consumer you hold the right to waive any implied warranties, including those contained in the First Sale Doctrine.
This is beside the point. It has nothing to do specifically with software, which is NOT exempt from first sale doctrine, at all.
So when you click on "I Agree" in that EULA, you are agreeing to that expressed warranty
Actually, no. The only thing that says "clicking 'I agree' means you agree" is the EULA itself. So, if you don't agree, you can happily click "I agree" without, in fact, agreeing.
as long as it's spelled out in the contract, and you used the item therefore agreeing to the terms, it can be upheld in court.
And if you don't agree, you're free to use the software anyway.
What's interesting is that regardless of whether the end user agrees or not, such a contract (presented after the sale) is invariably illegal, and wouldn't hold up in court, because it's an attempt to change the terms of another contract that has already been executed (purchasing the software is a contract, and the EULA is attempting to modify the contract after it's been executed, which is illegal.)
In order to be upheld in court, an EULA would have to be presented to the purchaser before they buy it, not afterwards (at which point, it doesn't matter whether the user clicks "I agree" or not.)
Every customer must sign an agreement (essentially EULA) which establishes that they will not reclaim GMO seeds for planting, farmers must instead go through a seed company, like us, so they pay the royalties.
The difference between this and the "EULA"s in the article is that these are legally binding - they're presented before the sale, and they're signed by the purchaser.
I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just that the Monsanto contracts are legally binding.
First of all, this law doesn't "fix" spam - which would be pretty difficult, as spam isn't really broken.
Second of all, a properly-worded anti-spam law is a great idea - it's a necessary step that will officially recognize that spam is both theft of service, and harrassment.
Just let the technology fix its self.
The problem is that the technology isn't broken. Spam exists because spammers want something for nothing, and don't care who they annoy or steal from. Technology can't "fix" that. We solve social problems with laws. Spam is a social problem.
The battle on spam must be fought on all available fronts, and providing penalties which can be levied against the company that hired the spammers is an important front.
Agreed - but an even more important front is the official recognition that spam is not acceptable behaviour (which a properly worded law would be.) Remember - a lot of spammers hide behind the "I'm not doing anything illegal" mask - a law against spam would remove that excuse from their arsenal, and give the average person some assurance that their feelings about spam are justified.
what good are they if nobody wants to actually ENFORCE them?
Well, if you'd been paying attention, you'd notice that the anti-spam laws in most states make it a civil penalty, not a criminal one. So enforcement would be up to the victim.
And (again, if you'd been paying attention, you'd also realize) these spammers are cracking machines - so the submitter is not trying to get them prosecuted under anti-spam laws, but under computer crime laws.
You could get a copy from Red Hat and still be liable to SCO.
Actually, no you couldn't.
In that scenario, Red Hat would be the ones that are liable. As Eben Moglen put it - if someone charges the Wall Street Journal with copyright infringement, it doesn't mean that the WSJ subscribers are liable, it means that the newspaper is.
In the increasingly impossible event that SCO is right, and could prove it in court, and wouldn't have to disclose 'their' code, the only entities they would be allowed to sue (in your example) would be Red Hat, not the end user.
I think of spam the way I think of pornography or any other offensive speech: if you don't like it, don't fucking listen. But don't infringe on other's rights to expression.
Spam is not speech of any kind. It's harrassment, and it's theft.
Spam filtering does not infringe on _ANYONE'S_ right to 'expression' - they are perfectly free to express themselves in any way they want, but they are not allowed to force anyone else to pay for their right to 'express' themselves.
ISPs have no business taking upon themselves the role of censor.
As an ISP, I am not 'censoring' anything - I am protecting my bandwidth from people who are stealing from me.
I did that when I installed the software - which is the proper time and place for it. If/when you install new software, you update the list. (Good record-keeping is an essential part of being a good sysadmin.)
For servers that I didn't set up, I check the documentation when I take over the admin duties - or (if the previous admin didn't keep proper documentation), I "worked it out" when I took over adminning the machine.
That's what is keeping me busy.
If you can't remember the software you admin, and it's "keeping you busy" then you need to keep better documentation.
Slashdot Mirror
Imagine if somebody based their opinions about Slashdot based upon somebody's signature. It's stupid and hypocritical.
/. is a community. We each represent ourselves. We do not represent /.
No, it's not.
The Diebold employee is a representative of the damn company. By not doing anything about it, Diebold is saying "it's OK to make a farce out of our mainstay."
How far south are we going to able to see them ?
You'll be able to see them in Principal Skinner's kitchen.
Chalmers: What's that glow coming from your kitchen?
Skinner: That's just the Aurora Borealis.
Chalmers: The Aurora Borealis?
Skinner: Yes.
Chalmers: The Aurora Borealis, at this time of year, at this time of day, in this part of the country, located entirely within your kitchen?
Skinner: Yes.
Chalmers: May I see it?
He's wrong - at least about spam.
If Spam is truly caused by "abundance", then it wouldn't have existed without it, right?
If that's so, why did fax spam cause enough of an uproar that congress passed a law banning it?
Spam is caused by sociopaths that want something for nothing, and don't care who they harrass/steal from to get it.
For further proof that he knows as much about spam as he does about Y2K, here's this littl gem:
The ability to send sales pitches via e-mail at a negligible cost means it is economical and good business practice to send-millions of e-mails
I'm sorry, but alienating potential customers is never "good business practice."
How is ending up broken into a dozen pieces considered doing "suprisingly well"???
:o)
Maybe they're using the "space shuttle" scale?
It's jus too funny.
Nope..
While reading the Groklaw article, I finally figured out what SCO is trying to do with this submission..
They're trying to kill IBM's lawyers!
We've all seen the Monty Python sketch, where the Allies use the world's funniest joke to kill the Axis forces - this is SCO's attempt to do the same thing to IBM's lawyers!
The problem is, of course, that while it is side-splittingly funny, it's not funny enough to cause someone to die laughing.
They and their lawyers are clearly dyslexic.
:o)
I realize you were probably just making a joke, but according to PJ (the guy who runs Groklaw), Jim Boies actually is dyslexic.
In that light, I'm not sure if your comment is ironic, or in bad taste - but then, I'm a horrible judge of whether something is in bad taste or not
This is 100% false.
No, it's not - and your comment proves it.
When I bought a digital camera, I could suddenly see the results of my photographs immediately.
Which has nothing to do with my post.
This feedback allowed me to understand what the effect of various changes were, and made me suddenly a much better photographer
No, it didn't - it gradually made you a much better photographer. You didn't pick it up for the first time and start taking better photos - you had to learn.
It made the learning faster, but it didn't magically transform you into a better photographer. (Which was what I said.)
also much more likely to try to take photos.
This is what proves my comment - it wasn't "this camera makes me a better photographer, so therefore I take more pictures" - it was "this camera helped me to become a better photographer by allowing me to take more pictures"
the tool is so much better that it makes the trade easier to learn.
This is pretty much just a summary of the last paragraph of my post. As I said, you become a better photographer by taking lots of pictures (it's learned) - and a digital camera makes that easy.
The tool did not suddenly make you a better photographer. Proof: if you went back to your old camera, all the things that you learned would not suddenly vanish, and you'd be at the same skill level you were before. Instead, you'd take those skills back to the old gear.
So if I buy a power drill, it's going to offer me no actual benefit over the hand drill I've been using all these years.
Did I say that? No. Where did I say that there was no benefit to using better equipment?
What I said was: USING A BETTER TOOL WILL NOT MAGICALLY MAKE YOU A BETTER ARTIST
Of course there is a difference, but being a better artist is not one of them.
Perhaps you should work on your reading comprehension before you respond.
Congratulations. Never before have I witnessed anyone so completely incapable of grasping a point.
It's very normal for contracts and agreements to be changed after an initial contract has been signed.
Only if both parties agree to it. Which (as I pointed out) isn't the case with EULAs.
For example, last week I received a notice from the local phone company notifying me of changes in the billing terms.
Actually, if you look at your initial agreement, you'll find that you gave them this right.
Another example - your credit card company changes the interest rate, up or down.
Again, they reserved this right under the initial contract.
How is this substantially different than a EULA?
Well, as I said before, it's different BECAUSE YOU DID NOT AGREE TO IT WHEN YOU MADE THE INITIAL CONTRACT
As I said, the contract in question is the SOFTWARE PURCHASE. The EULA is an attempt to modify that contract after it's been executed.
The EULA that you click through establishes the terms of the sale.
No, it most certainly doesn't.
The purchase establishes the terms of the sale. You give the money to the store, the store gives the product to you, and the sale is over.
what bothered me about the original post is that incorrect information was being given with confidence.
No, correct information was being given with confidence. It's just that you don't like the information.
I think he's an idiot, but not because he's not a lawyer. (I even conceded that he might be a lawyer, and even if he was, I think he's still an idiot)
That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. If I was a lawyer, then I would (by definition) have better information than you do. So you're saying that you know more than lawyers do?
You just don't like the fact that I disagree with you, and have sound arguments.
a nice camera like a digital SLR might allow me to take better pictures, which might in turn inspire me to take more pictures.
I think you've got that backwards.
A camera is just a tool, and just like any tool, the results will depend on the skill of the person who weilds it, not on the cost/quality of the tool itself.
A professional carpenter with $10 worth of old hand tools will always produce better furniture than an amateur with $1,000 worth of power tools. Cameras are no different.
Learn to be a better photographer, and you'll get better pictures. As for how you become a better photographer? - by taking lots of pictures. The more you practice, the better you become. And that's the great thing about digital cameras - they make it easy to take lots of pictures.
You don't license a device, you sell it
Actually, whether it's a device or not has no bearing on whether it can be sold or licensed.
What matters is how it's sold or licensed.
If the customer signs a contract at the point of sale that says that it's licensed, then the contract would be binding (barring some points that would be legally onerous, but the contract would probably stipulate that the rest of the contract is still binding.)
Note that they would probably have to sign this contract with the manufacturer, or the manufacturer would have to have a separate contract with the hardware store, which would enable the store to legally act on behalf of the manufacturer.
On the other hand, if the customer buys the device from the hardware store, and isn't presented with the contract before they buy it, then the 'license' is meaningless, as you can't modify a contract after it's been executed. (A sale is a contract between buyer and seller.)
Note that this is no different from software. If an 'EULA' is presented after you buy it (say, when you go to install it) it's not enforceable.
This is due to the fact that as the consumer you hold the right to waive any implied warranties, including those contained in the First Sale Doctrine.
This is beside the point. It has nothing to do specifically with software, which is NOT exempt from first sale doctrine, at all.
So when you click on "I Agree" in that EULA, you are agreeing to that expressed warranty
Actually, no. The only thing that says "clicking 'I agree' means you agree" is the EULA itself. So, if you don't agree, you can happily click "I agree" without, in fact, agreeing.
as long as it's spelled out in the contract, and you used the item therefore agreeing to the terms, it can be upheld in court.
And if you don't agree, you're free to use the software anyway.
What's interesting is that regardless of whether the end user agrees or not, such a contract (presented after the sale) is invariably illegal, and wouldn't hold up in court, because it's an attempt to change the terms of another contract that has already been executed (purchasing the software is a contract, and the EULA is attempting to modify the contract after it's been executed, which is illegal.)
In order to be upheld in court, an EULA would have to be presented to the purchaser before they buy it, not afterwards (at which point, it doesn't matter whether the user clicks "I agree" or not.)
Every customer must sign an agreement (essentially EULA) which establishes that they will not reclaim GMO seeds for planting, farmers must instead go through a seed company, like us, so they pay the royalties.
The difference between this and the "EULA"s in the article is that these are legally binding - they're presented before the sale, and they're signed by the purchaser.
I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just that the Monsanto contracts are legally binding.
Well maybe not, but (like most of the rest of the industrialized world,) we're socialist, and most American's don't know the difference.
better economics - then people aren't so desperate to spew garbage to sell garbage so they can eat
A better economy won't stop spam.
The social part of the spam problem is that spammers want something for nothing, and don't care who they annoy or steal from.
Spammers aren't desperate, they're sociopaths. Even if a job is available for them, they'd rather spam, because then they don't have to work.
Once spam is illegal, the spammers will move to another, less public, get-rich-quick scheme.
Passing a law to fix spam is a bad Idea
First of all, this law doesn't "fix" spam - which would be pretty difficult, as spam isn't really broken.
Second of all, a properly-worded anti-spam law is a great idea - it's a necessary step that will officially recognize that spam is both theft of service, and harrassment.
Just let the technology fix its self.
The problem is that the technology isn't broken. Spam exists because spammers want something for nothing, and don't care who they annoy or steal from. Technology can't "fix" that. We solve social problems with laws. Spam is a social problem.
The battle on spam must be fought on all available fronts, and providing penalties which can be levied against the company that hired the spammers is an important front.
Agreed - but an even more important front is the official recognition that spam is not acceptable behaviour (which a properly worded law would be.) Remember - a lot of spammers hide behind the "I'm not doing anything illegal" mask - a law against spam would remove that excuse from their arsenal, and give the average person some assurance that their feelings about spam are justified.
the CNN one is unrequested by still necessary
So, you're saying that Mozilla's popup blocking sucks because it can't read your mind?!?!
Yeah, I'm sure that the developers will get right on that one.
what good are they if nobody wants to actually ENFORCE them?
Well, if you'd been paying attention, you'd notice that the anti-spam laws in most states make it a civil penalty, not a criminal one. So enforcement would be up to the victim.
And (again, if you'd been paying attention, you'd also realize) these spammers are cracking machines - so the submitter is not trying to get them prosecuted under anti-spam laws, but under computer crime laws.
You could get a copy from Red Hat and still be liable to SCO.
Actually, no you couldn't.
In that scenario, Red Hat would be the ones that are liable. As Eben Moglen put it - if someone charges the Wall Street Journal with copyright infringement, it doesn't mean that the WSJ subscribers are liable, it means that the newspaper is.
In the increasingly impossible event that SCO is right, and could prove it in court, and wouldn't have to disclose 'their' code, the only entities they would be allowed to sue (in your example) would be Red Hat, not the end user.
I think of spam the way I think of pornography or any other offensive speech: if you don't like it, don't fucking listen. But don't infringe on other's rights to expression.
Spam is not speech of any kind. It's harrassment, and it's theft.
Spam filtering does not infringe on _ANYONE'S_ right to 'expression' - they are perfectly free to express themselves in any way they want, but they are not allowed to force anyone else to pay for their right to 'express' themselves.
ISPs have no business taking upon themselves the role of censor.
As an ISP, I am not 'censoring' anything - I am protecting my bandwidth from people who are stealing from me.
And you never had to work that out?
I did that when I installed the software - which is the proper time and place for it. If/when you install new software, you update the list. (Good record-keeping is an essential part of being a good sysadmin.)
For servers that I didn't set up, I check the documentation when I take over the admin duties - or (if the previous admin didn't keep proper documentation), I "worked it out" when I took over adminning the machine.
That's what is keeping me busy.
If you can't remember the software you admin, and it's "keeping you busy" then you need to keep better documentation.
I love http://www.reg.ca/.
They are cheap, and it's easy to get in touch with a real, live human being if problems arise.
you cannot name one lie the president told
Wrong. I can, and I will.