Those are taxes on "specific" activities. However, they are not taxes on speach based on its content.
It is not hard to think of examples of why we do not allow content specific taxes on speach. Imagine if a city government, upset by the criticism heaped on it by a local government, decided to impose a heavy tax on all newspapers that carried "political" news. Or all newspapers that ran editorials? Or how about a $100/image tax on Pr0n? Or . . .
An excellent point. U.S. courts generally scrutinize "form contracts" more carefully than individually bargained for contracts. However, it would be somewhat surprising if there was a provision of U.S. contract law that governs whether a "clickwrap" license can authorize a software vendor to uninstall software on your computer. Whether there are "general" provisions of U.S. law that might authorize such a thing is another matter. I suspect not, but I wouldn't be terribly surprised if there were.
This post does not constitute legal advice. If you need legal advice, see a lawyer, not slashdot.
The only person who can go to court to dispute a contract is the one who thinks the contract was not adhered to. But the contract was adhered to when Adaware was forcibly removed.
True, but misleading. If the contract was invalid, then uninstalling Adaware would be unauthorized. You might have a tort claim (trespass, trespass to chattels, etc. etc.) against Redlight.
This post does not constitute legal advice. If you need legal advice, see a lawyer, not slashdot.
Rubish. Only contracts that require you to give up an inalienable right are illegal. You and I could contract away my right to post to slashdot, for example, and such a contract would be enforceable in court in the country (or probably in any common law country, for that matter).
This post does not constitute legal advice. If you need such advice, see a lawyer, not slashdot.
Bad example. Trading children for a software license is illegal, and you cannot contract around the prohibition. Uninstalling software from a user's computer is not illegal. Even if it were, I can't see any reason that you cannot contract around the prohibition.
Here is an example: suppose I tell you that I take particular delight in formatting hard drives, and we agree that for $10,000, you'll let me format yours. [no: this is not intended to have some crude sexual double meaning.] Hard to see why that contract would be unenforceable. Or how you'd have a cause of action against me if I formatted your drive according to the contract. How is this different from what the EULA in this case is doing -- it says, in essence: as a condition for you using this software, we require the right to uninstall certain software from your computer. You agreed.
This post is not legal advice; if you need such advice, see a lawyer, not slashdot.
How useful is this feature? Is it really that helpful to know that your car is being stolen -- after someone has already managed (presumably) to drive away with it? Imagine the conversation with the Mercedes customer service operator:
Mercedes: Hello sir, I am calling to let you know that a few minutes ago, your car was stolen. It is possible that it was towed, but given the neighborhood where you parked it . ..
Me: Crap. You mean that someone is breaking into my car?
Mercedes: No. Our system doesn't trigger an alert until your car is actually in motion. Someone has already broken into your car. Now they are driving away with it.
Me: Crap.
Mercedes: Have a nice day. In the event that you don't recover your car, you might consider our all new 2002 Mercedes models.
If you want to take a drug that no one knows how it works, go for it. However, I will not be taking a drug that scientists are clueless about
It is not unusual for a drug to be approved by the FDA, even when scientists (read: the drug company) does not know its mechanism of action. I am not a drug expert, but IIRC drugs are approved as safe and effective only after empirical trials, and not on the basis of a theoretical understanding of how the drug works. One of the reasons for this is that knowing how a drug works does not always allow scientists to predict whether it will have any side effects.
OCLC offers much less expensive databases of books. Their WorldCat database includes 47 million bibligraphic records. Based on a quick look at their site, it that only member libraries who share their databases with OCLC have access to to WorldCat. However, I suspect that free, publicly available book database could negotiate membership.
Note: for participating libraries, the cost of WorldCat is much less than $30K. (I don't know how much, but I know that the public library where I used to work could never afford a $30K subscription to anything, but we did have WorldCat access.)
Cooperation among competitors is an easier antitrust case to make than the present one (IMHO). It is a traditional anti-trust case, and there are fewer arguments about consumer benefit and so forth.
Look at the long list of Amicus Curaie (literally "friends of the court" -- non-parties who file a brief in the case). I wouldn't be too surprised if one or more of them did a lot of the heavy lifting in the case. For example, Thomas Kelley of Faegre and Benson is a leading First Amendment attorney in Denver.
Would an underwater laser cannon work? Are there wavelengths of light that (a) won't scatter under water, (b) can be generated by today's laster technology? (A gama ray laser might penetrate the water, but I don't believe that you can buy one of those to bolt onto the side of a sub).
The problem here is that lawyers cost money - a minimum of 1/3 the settlement amount.
As a soon to be lawyer, let me add a bit of clarification to this. You don't have to pay the lawyer on a contingency fee basis (i.e. where the lawyer gets a percentage of the recovery if you win/settle, and nothing if you don't). You can always negotiate a flat fee or pay the lawyer by the hour. Most large businesses use the latter two methods.
The constitution sets up the patent system sure, but changing the details (like how long a patent is valid) is a matter of statutory, not Constitutional law. Compare the area of Copyright, where Congress has had no difficulty changing (read: extending) the term of the copyright. [Constitutionally, copyrights and patents are treated similarly -- they are both provided for in the same clause.]
I suspect that the copying in question was not wholesale, but rather copying of limited portions of the work, which would (probably) constitute fair use.
This is not legal advice, and IANAL. If you want legal advice,/. is not the place.
5. Highways with different decks for different speeds
Near miss? In Boston one of the (two) tunnels connecting Boston with the airport is "commercial traffic only."
Hit:It is a crime to burn raw coal and pollute air with smoke and soot. Ok, so there is still a lot of air polution, but there are some significant restrictions on burining coal and releaseing the unfiltered smoke into the atmosphere. Clean Air Act anyone?
I don't think consumers will be dumb enough to allow the record and movie industries to move from selling copies to selling licenses.
You are mistaken -- purchase of a "copy" is the purchase of a license. When you buy a compact disk or a DVD or whatever, you don't get ownership of the copyrighted work. You get a license to use the work (plus you own the physical object). There is no separate category "copy"; the categories of ownership are outright ownership of the copyright or license to same.
Indeed, this is why you can make "fair use" of a copyrighted work. The license to the intellectual property embodied on a CD includes the right to transfer the work to another medium, or use a portion of it in a critical work or whatever. Of course the "fair use" part of the license is an mandatory implied term, but that doesn't mean that it is part of the license.
Now, if you mean that consumers won't accept restrictively licensed music or movies, I hope you are correct, though I have my doubts.
Slashdot Mirror
Those are taxes on "specific" activities. However, they are not taxes on speach based on its content.
It is not hard to think of examples of why we do not allow content specific taxes on speach. Imagine if a city government, upset by the criticism heaped on it by a local government, decided to impose a heavy tax on all newspapers that carried "political" news. Or all newspapers that ran editorials? Or how about a $100/image tax on Pr0n? Or . . .
Should read "enforceable in any court in the country"
An excellent point. U.S. courts generally scrutinize "form contracts" more carefully than individually bargained for contracts. However, it would be somewhat surprising if there was a provision of U.S. contract law that governs whether a "clickwrap" license can authorize a software vendor to uninstall software on your computer. Whether there are "general" provisions of U.S. law that might authorize such a thing is another matter. I suspect not, but I wouldn't be terribly surprised if there were.
This post does not constitute legal advice. If you need legal advice, see a lawyer, not slashdot.
The only person who can go to court to dispute a contract is the one who thinks the contract was not adhered to. But the contract was adhered to when Adaware was forcibly removed.
True, but misleading. If the contract was invalid, then uninstalling Adaware would be unauthorized. You might have a tort claim (trespass, trespass to chattels, etc. etc.) against Redlight.
This post does not constitute legal advice. If you need legal advice, see a lawyer, not slashdot.
Rubish. Only contracts that require you to give up an inalienable right are illegal. You and I could contract away my right to post to slashdot, for example, and such a contract would be enforceable in court in the country (or probably in any common law country, for that matter).
This post does not constitute legal advice. If you need such advice, see a lawyer, not slashdot.
Bad example. Trading children for a software license is illegal, and you cannot contract around the prohibition. Uninstalling software from a user's computer is not illegal. Even if it were, I can't see any reason that you cannot contract around the prohibition.
Here is an example: suppose I tell you that I take particular delight in formatting hard drives, and we agree that for $10,000, you'll let me format yours. [no: this is not intended to have some crude sexual double meaning.] Hard to see why that contract would be unenforceable. Or how you'd have a cause of action against me if I formatted your drive according to the contract. How is this different from what the EULA in this case is doing -- it says, in essence: as a condition for you using this software, we require the right to uninstall certain software from your computer. You agreed.
This post is not legal advice; if you need such advice, see a lawyer, not slashdot.
Now that would be useful, assuming that MB is good about promptly notifying you that the alarm is going off or that the incline of the car changed.
How useful is this feature? Is it really that helpful to know that your car is being stolen -- after someone has already managed (presumably) to drive away with it? Imagine the conversation with the Mercedes customer service operator:
.
Mercedes: Hello sir, I am calling to let you know that a few minutes ago, your car was stolen. It is possible that it was towed, but given the neighborhood where you parked it . .
Me: Crap. You mean that someone is breaking into my car?
Mercedes: No. Our system doesn't trigger an alert until your car is actually in motion. Someone has already broken into your car. Now they are driving away with it.
Me: Crap.
Mercedes: Have a nice day. In the event that you don't recover your car, you might consider our all new 2002 Mercedes models.
It is not unusual for a drug to be approved by the FDA, even when scientists (read: the drug company) does not know its mechanism of action. I am not a drug expert, but IIRC drugs are approved as safe and effective only after empirical trials, and not on the basis of a theoretical understanding of how the drug works. One of the reasons for this is that knowing how a drug works does not always allow scientists to predict whether it will have any side effects.
Second sentence should read "it appears that only", not "it that only". Sorry.
OCLC offers much less expensive databases of books. Their WorldCat database includes 47 million bibligraphic records. Based on a quick look at their site, it that only member libraries who share their databases with OCLC have access to to WorldCat. However, I suspect that free, publicly available book database could negotiate membership.
Note: for participating libraries, the cost of WorldCat is much less than $30K. (I don't know how much, but I know that the public library where I used to work could never afford a $30K subscription to anything, but we did have WorldCat access.)
Cooperation among competitors is an easier antitrust case to make than the present one (IMHO). It is a traditional anti-trust case, and there are fewer arguments about consumer benefit and so forth.
It's not like the resulting two companies won't cooperate on things like policy, price fixing, blacklisting uncooperative companies etc.
Except that would be a slamdunk, run-of-the-mill antitrust violation. Much easier case (IMHO) to make than product tying or integration.
This post does not constitute legal advice. If you need legal advice, see a lawyer.
When he starts promoting cold fusion, then you can back away slowly.
Unless he really is performing cold fusion, in case you should run away quickly or put on some lead pants.
Disclaimer: just speculation on my part
No. Justice bender is a he. here is his bio.
how do you stop a submarine without blowing it up?
Why stop the sub? Wait until it surfaces and arrest those inside.
Would an underwater laser cannon work? Are there wavelengths of light that (a) won't scatter under water, (b) can be generated by today's laster technology? (A gama ray laser might penetrate the water, but I don't believe that you can buy one of those to bolt onto the side of a sub).
Even a few cm of water will effectively block GPS signals.
As a soon to be lawyer, let me add a bit of clarification to this. You don't have to pay the lawyer on a contingency fee basis (i.e. where the lawyer gets a percentage of the recovery if you win/settle, and nothing if you don't). You can always negotiate a flat fee or pay the lawyer by the hour. Most large businesses use the latter two methods.
Yes, but is the number of stupid people on the Internet finite? Somebody is using all those AOL disks.
IANAL - don't look for legal advice on /.
This is not legal advice, and IANAL. If you want legal advice, /. is not the place.
Near miss? In Boston one of the (two) tunnels connecting Boston with the airport is "commercial traffic only."
Hit:It is a crime to burn raw coal and pollute air with smoke and soot.
Ok, so there is still a lot of air polution, but there are some significant restrictions on burining coal and releaseing the unfiltered smoke into the atmosphere. Clean Air Act anyone?
You are mistaken -- purchase of a "copy" is the purchase of a license. When you buy a compact disk or a DVD or whatever, you don't get ownership of the copyrighted work. You get a license to use the work (plus you own the physical object). There is no separate category "copy"; the categories of ownership are outright ownership of the copyright or license to same.
Indeed, this is why you can make "fair use" of a copyrighted work. The license to the intellectual property embodied on a CD includes the right to transfer the work to another medium, or use a portion of it in a critical work or whatever. Of course the "fair use" part of the license is an mandatory implied term, but that doesn't mean that it is part of the license.
Now, if you mean that consumers won't accept restrictively licensed music or movies, I hope you are correct, though I have my doubts.
IANAL