DVDs are not sold with click-wrap licenses. Both parties must give consent in order for a contract to be formed. Since there are not terms explicitly given to the consumer, he can not give consent to those terms. In other words, there is no license!
DVDs are sold with the same copyright restrictions that come with the purchase of a book. The First Sale concept prevents the copyright holder from dictating how I may use the copy I purchased. If I want to view it on a Linux box, I legally can.
The way I read the article, it is pretty much a done deal.
The Maryland legislature passed the bill and is no longer in session until next year. The only requirement left for it to become law is to get Glenndennings signature. The article implies that Glenndenning wil sign it.
It is done all the time. It is perfectly legal to include a How-To video with a paint set. The store is under no obligation to remove the video and give you a discount for not taking the video.
Bundling, in and of itself, is not illegal. I have pointed out in a previous post why the "Windows included" is not the same as the video example I gave above.
I have not idea if that is part of the lawsuit. It is my bitch with the retail software industry's (not just Microsoft) EULA practices.
and the facts are as you relate them
Check any mail order catelogue. You will see no mention of contract or license.
At least one case was decided on the similar issue. (Too lazy to look up the actual cite right now. Email me if you are interested in reading it.) A judge ruled that the PO, not the EULA, was the contract. The EULA was not enforceable since it materially modified the terms of the contract.
But this is very different from the more general claim that you're "forced" to purchase Windows
I wasn't the original poster who claimed I was forced to buy windows. However, I took exception to the "bundled sound card" analogy.
But I agree with you
Damn, another perfecftly good flame war missed because of a reasonable poster.;)
1) A consumer buys a computer from a catalogue that only has a notation "Windows included". No mention that the user will have to sign a contract in order to use the software. Nor, is he given an oppurtunity to read the contract before paying for the compuer.
2) Consumer reads the contract and does not want to sign it.
3) He contacts the seller to receive a refund for returning the product (as instructed to by the contract).
4) Seller says that their contract with Microsoft prohibits them from reinbursing them.
5) Consumer can not legally sell the unwanted software to recoup some of his lost money.
6) The consumer now has something he paid for that he can't use; but, can't resell.
That is a big difference from buying a bundled sound card.
Will it make a difference in court? I don't know. I am not a laywer. But, it sounds like their was some misrepresentation since the computer was sold without any mention of a contract.
The fact that the particular system you wanted didn't come without Windows doesn't mean you were "forced" to purchase it. It just meant that you got a component you didn't want in with the components you did. If you didn't like the whole package, go elsewhere.
By this logic you should be able to demand any component of the computer removed-- you don't want any memory or a sound card-- and get a discount for it. Computers are package-deals. There are dozens of components, and different companies put different parts in. You are free to pick those you want.
Only one problem with this logic: My "rights" with the sound card are not the same as with the software. If the "package deal" includes a sound card, I am legally allowed to remove the sound card and resell it to recoup some of the money. According to Microsoft's EULA, this is not allowed with their software since it was licensed to that particular machine. You can not resell your copy of Windows to recoup some of the money you spent on it.
If you are interested, you can find a copy of the letter I sent to my representatives when it was under consideration in Maryland. It is not consise and it didn't change a single vote. However, it did earn me a call from AOL's lobbiest two days before the vote.
Supporters of UCITA always point to the "Right of Return" clause saying that it gives greater protection to the consumers than they currently have.
Last year, Maryland passed UCITA which went into effect in October. I noticed that all the major software retailers (Best Buy, Staples, Office Max, etc.) still have signs saying that there is no returns allowed on opened software. Has anyone in Maryland or Virginia tried to return software because they disagreed with the license? What were your experiences?
Well, the retailer is not part of the "contract" between you and the software producer. Does Microsoft still claim that you can get a refund from the retailer if you don't like the EULA?
Of course they do! It says so right in the EULA.
And that is why the software vendors like it. They have to have a refund clause in order to be considered a contract. However, they know that it is meaningless because no store will honor it.
Even MS does not (yet) have a long enough arm to sweep unsuspecting third parties into forced participation in their "contracts".
Actually, the retalor is not an unspecting third party. They have a contract with software vendors to resell the software. If the software vendors meant to be "honorable" about the refund clause, they would make it a condition that the reseller would have to give refunds if they wanted to sell the product.
For example, the Mainframe and Unix markets have been leasing software for years.
True, but there were several differences between the mainframe licenses and the current EULAs.
It was a signed before money changed hands.
It was a negotiated contract. If a company did not like a particular term, they could pressure the software vendor to change the term. If you don't like a term of the EULA, tough! Your only choice is to accept it or throw out the software/ (see point 1)
It was a negotiation between equals. The companies were large companies with their own stable of lawyers to check the contract for gotchyas A consumer would go broke if he took every EULA to a lawyer to see if there were any dangerous clauses.
Service was part of the licenseing contract. If it didn't work as the software vendor stated, the software vendor would supply programmers to fix the problem. If they didn't, it was breach of contract. Almost every EULA I have read states that the software is sold AS-IS and they disavow any claims made by their advertisements or salesmen.
The software vendors have the final word. Some go as far as reserving the right to unilaterally changing the license, e.g. McAfee. It is the consumer's responsibility to constinently check their web site to see if any terms have changed. Don't like the new terms, your only option is to stop using the software. Under normal contract law, any marterial changes to the terms must be explicitly agreeded to by both parties.
Seems to me like most of the people here would be mostly OK with the UCITA and EULAs as long as there were a procedure in place to get a refund if you don't agree with the EULA on the software.
It is a major reason why I dislike EULAs, but not the only reason. The 'no refund' policy just aggrevates the situation.
The software vendors are cherrypicking the parts of contract law and product law that favor them. They want the advantages of both while sidestepping the disadvantages.
They want the benifits of mass markets (lower distribution costs, bigger markets, etc.) without any of the disadvantages that come with retail sales (implied warrenty, refunds, etc.) They want the benifits of contract law (waiver of rights) without the cost of actually getting a signed contract before collecting the money.
Perhaps with a slight tweak so that it was required that either the place of purchase or the software manufacturer were required to give you a refund upon request, that might be enough.
One provision of MUCITA is that the right to refund can not be waived. It went into effect the beginning of this month. However, I noticed that none of the retailers have changed their return policies.
My (crappy) understanding of contract law is that the store would be required to refund your money if you choose not to agree to the EULA after "purchasing" it.
This is the biggest problem with EULAs. It mixes several different areas of law together. You are correct in your understanding of contract law. And, it would be valid if you bought the software directly from the software company. However, most purchaes are made from retail stores which are covered under a different set of laws. The retail stores have the right to whatever conditions they want on refunds.
The store's are covered under contract law because contracts can not bind third parties. The EULA states that it is a contract between the software manufacturer and you. The store is not a party to the contract.
Personally, I think that this is a way to get an EULA declared null & void in non-UCITA states. Buy the software, disagree with the license, unsuccessfully attempt to obtain a refund, do whatever you want with the software (as long as it is legal under copyright laws.)
what if my wife installs something on my system? Am I liable to uphold the EULA?
An interesting question. No case has come up with those circumstances; however, I think that according to the current case law, the answer would be no.
In a case that upheld a click-wrap license, the opinion said that it was treated as a license instead of a purchase because the buyer of the software was aware of the fact that their was a license included with the software. (It was printed on the box). The opinion did state that the court would not reach the same conclusion if a person found the software lying on the street.
They refused to nullify the initial purchase contract (implied by you giving them money
One minor problem with this theory. Every retail store has a sign posted that states that they will not give a refund for opened software. Stores have the right to set their return policy. You therefore waived your right to a refund when you purchased the software.
MUCITA went into effect at the beginning of this month in Maryland. Staple's, Best Buy, WalMart, and OfficeMax still have signs saying that they will not give refunds on opened software.
A question you do not address is why the stores have a no refund policy. According to a lawyer at Staple's headquarters, the reason is that the software companies will not reimburse the store for any returns. If the store gives you the refund, they have to eat the cost.
This allows software companies to have it both ways. They can put the refund clause in the EULA so they can argue it is a contract while they know full well that the store can legally refuse to honor it. If the software comanies want the EULA to be a binding contract, they should include a clause in their reseller's license that says the retailer will honor the refund clause.
stop whining and get a lawyer.
Great idea! If you have been involved in a legal action, you would realize that it is not as simple as that.
Hire a lawyer for $100/hour to get a refund for software that cost $80. No lawyer will touch the case.
My girlfriend was involved in legal dispute over a $1650 claim. No lawyer would touch it or talk to her about it. One lawyer (who agreed that her case had merit) said that even if she won the lottery and was willing to pay his $200/hour fee, he would still decline the case. His reason was that he felt the judges and other lawyers, who he has to work with on a daily basis, would hold it against him for bringing such a trivial (the amount, not the merits) claim to court.
She handled the case pro se. For seven years, the opposing side fought to keep her from having her day in court. Two weeks before it was to actually go to trial, the other side settled for twice the amount of the original claim. (She had an unfair advantage. She had both the law and the facts on her side and it still took seven years.)
If you think it is so easy, why don't you try it and report back the results.
agreed to the license of my own free will, knowing the terms of it.
I would agree with this except for the fact that you typically can not read the EULA until after you have paid for the software and can not get a refund if you opened the software which is a necessary condition in order to read the EULA.
Because of this practice, your choices if you do not agree with the EULA is to accept the EULA or throw out the software.
Another problem with this is that there is no requirement for EULAs to be in plain english. Most are in legelese. The typical consumer wouldn't understand the restrictions even if he read the EULA. If they have a question about the meaning of the term, who are they supposed to ask? Most contracts must be signed before you pay the money. This gives the signer a chance to clarify any ambiguous terms before signing. With EULAs, there is no one to ask. Are they supposed to take the EULA to a lawyer?
It was reported that Gore literally said things he did not AND that he lied.
Exactly how many of Agre's examples were actually in quotes. There is a difference between saying:
Al Gore said that he invented the internet.
and:
Al Gore said "he invented the internet". The first is paraprasing. The second is quoting. In the first example, you can argue about the accuracy of the paraprasing; but, you can't claim it is "fabricated" since it is a paraphrase of his actual "took the inititive in the creation of the internet" quote.
In the second case, you can say that the quote was fabricated. Many examples that Agre uses are in the former rather then the later category.
Are there examples of this happening to Republicans?
I saw something similar on tonight's PBS program about the Clinton-Lazio race. During their debate, Lazio said that Buffalo's economay "turned the corner". Clinton and some newspapers in upper New York pillored him for claiming that Buffalo's economy was doing great.
Check out AIM and FAIR. Both organizations have the same goal: disclaim inaccuracies in the medias reporting. One comes from the conservative viewpoint, the other a liberal viewpoint. It is interesting reading to compare to their two sites since they never complain about the same stories.
But this is not an example of people who doubt his word, but of people accusing him in print of lying outright, when in fact he hadn't and this was easy to confirm. I don't think that makes this a selective example, but rather a further piece of
evidence contributing to a picture of pathology.
The convention speech is a perfect example of Agre's selecting facts that support his arguement while ignoring those that do not. In the convenction speech, he used the story of his sister's death to illustrate how from "that day" he vowed to fight big tobacco interests. Mr. Agre focuses on the claims of Gore's presence, or lack, at his sister's death bed. He ignores the fact that Gore's voting records calls into doubt whether he made the vow that day.
And as I hope is clear, this rarely reaches the point of fabricating considerable numbers of untrue examples (not characterizations, but reported 'facts': "Gore said...") to back up the stereotype. That is something very differnet
The only difference is it is happening to Gore instead of a republican. Many of the 'fabrications' that Mr. Agre complains about can be considered paraphrases instead of direct quotes. "Took the inititive in the creation of the internet" is not that far off from "invented the internet". Many of Mr. Agre's defenses have the "definition of the word is is" feel to them. They appear to be post-mortem attempts to spin the statement.
If you think this is anything new, you should do some research into newspaper articles about candidates during the first 100 years of american history.
BTW This is not a defense of Bush or an attack on Gore (I am not voting for either). It is merely the recognition, from a non-partisen viewpoint, that both sides do the same thing.
is there anything in the article that is unfair or untrue?
I didn't follow every link to verify his claims. However, I did notice that he was selective in his examples. For example, his narrative of his sister's death.
Mr. Agre focused on those who doubt whether he was present during her death. However, most of the articles I have read that cited that speech didn't question whether he was present. They pointed out his statement about being opposed to big tobacco ever since that day. Then they point to his pro-tobacco votes after his sister's death.
Mr. Agre also ignores the fact that many of his supporters also feel that Gore exaggerates.
Agre's discussed this in some other articles. It's a tough case to make for this being new, agreed, but perhaps new watersheds are being crossed...
Since no links were pointed to this discussion, I can't evaluate it. However, I seriously doubt that any new height has been reached. As others have pointed out, the sad but true fact is that the press tends to sterotype candidates. Bush's intellegence, Ford's clumsiness, etc. By focusing on the 'exageration' question, Mr. Agre can truthfully claim that no other candidate has had the same scrutiny as Gore. However, it is not true that other candidates have not had their positions or attributes distorted to a greater degree by the press.
If I remember correctly from government class, it was orginally created because those in charge of the government did not trust the common people with little or no education to be able to vote responsibly, so they implented this as a system of
being able to override that. This way, the wealthy few were in charge of the rest of the nation.
If you were really taught that in government class, your teacher was misrepresenting the purpose of the electorial college.
The "uneducated common" people were already prevented from voting. One requirement to vote was that you were required to own Real Property. Since they uneducated seldomly owne property, they were not a large factor in election results.
The electorial college was a comprimise to balance the various state interests.
The big debate at the time of the constitutional convention was whether the president should be elected directly by the states or by popular vote. The smaller states, e.g. Rhode Island, were worried that their interests would not be represented if the President was voted by popular vote since their populations were dwarfed by the larger states, e.g. Pennsylvania. The smaller states wanted each state to have only one vote.
Since the constitution needed to be ratified by 2/3 of the state (One state, one vote), the writers of the constitution had to make a comprimise. If they picked one method over the other, they could not get the 2/3 majority required.
Their comprimise was to give one electorial vote for each member of congress. Since Representitives are alloted based on population, the larger states would have more votes. However, since each state has two senators, the small states had larger influence on the outcome of the election then warrented by their population.
As for overriding the voters choice, only two members (IIRC) of the electoral college voted against the way they were supposed to based on the election's outcome of their states. One voted against George Washington because he felt that no president should have been elected unaminously. He felt that lead to too large of a temptation to establish a monarchy. The second voted against Nixon in Nixon's relection. He felt that he could not vote for Nixon in good consionsious after the Watergate scandel broke. Neither effected the outcome of the election.
Aso, I don't think any president was elected if he didn't have most of the votes. There were a couple of close calls, e.g. the Kennedy election. However, most of the discussion is that theoritically, a president could still be elected by the electoral college even if he lost the popular election.
divide the electoral votes up percentage wise among candidates in each state
Nothing prevents states from doing this now. There is no federal requirement that they must use the 'winner takes all' rule. They do this to give their state more clout in the election.
You are assuming, as are most of the other posters here, that you are buying a copy of the software.
You are not.
It depends on what state you live in. Some jurisdictions have upheld click-wrap licenses. Others have not.
Actually, click-wrap's standing may be questionable even in jurisdicitons that rely on ProCD.
ProCD held that the EULAs were valid contracts because the customer had the option to return the software for a refund if the customer disagreed with the EULA. There was no judicial notice taken of the fact that the majority of retail stores will not give refunds if the software package has been opened.
Having read the ProCD opinion, I am under the impression, that had it been brought to the court's attention that there is no oportunity to read the EULA before paying and that both the software manufactorer and the retailer refuse to refund the money after reading the EULA, the court would have ruled differently.
Then there is also the question of fraud. According to the lawyer at Staple's headquarters, the reason Staples will not give refunds for opend software is that the manufactorers will not give them a refund for opened software.
Recently, I have been considering getting a DSL connection from a non-telco provider. This article raises some issues for me. If I get a 1.5mb/sec DSL connection, I don't have any guarantee of getting 1.5mb/sec of useable bandwidth. Likewise,
if I get a 512k DSL, will I even be guranteed that much?
The same holds true if you get a T1. All ISPs oversubscribe their bandwidth. If everyone maxed out their T1 connection at the same time, the ISPs connection would be saturated and individual customers would get less then they are paying for.
The ISPs can do this because most T1 users do not use their full bandwidth at the same time: Law of Large Numbers. The difference in quality between ISPs is the amount that they will oversubscribe the available bandwidth.
Slashdot Mirror
DVDs are not sold with click-wrap licenses. Both parties must give consent in order for a contract to be formed. Since there are not terms explicitly given to the consumer, he can not give consent to those terms. In other words, there is no license!
DVDs are sold with the same copyright restrictions that come with the purchase of a book. The First Sale concept prevents the copyright holder from dictating how I may use the copy I purchased. If I want to view it on a Linux box, I legally can.
The way I read the article, it is pretty much a done deal.
The Maryland legislature passed the bill and is no longer in session until next year. The only requirement left for it to become law is to get Glenndennings signature. The article implies that Glenndenning wil sign it.
You could call or write the Governer's office.
I find that hard to believe based on my understanding of copyright law. Do you have a reference?
How is this different from a movie reviewer giving a plot summary?
It is done all the time. It is perfectly legal to include a How-To video with a paint set. The store is under no obligation to remove the video and give you a discount for not taking the video.
Bundling, in and of itself, is not illegal. I have pointed out in a previous post why the "Windows included" is not the same as the video example I gave above.
I have not idea if that is part of the lawsuit. It is my bitch with the retail software industry's (not just Microsoft) EULA practices.
and the facts are as you relate them
Check any mail order catelogue. You will see no mention of contract or license.
At least one case was decided on the similar issue. (Too lazy to look up the actual cite right now. Email me if you are interested in reading it.) A judge ruled that the PO, not the EULA, was the contract. The EULA was not enforceable since it materially modified the terms of the contract.
But this is very different from the more general claim that you're "forced" to purchase Windows
I wasn't the original poster who claimed I was forced to buy windows. However, I took exception to the "bundled sound card" analogy.
But I agree with you
Damn, another perfecftly good flame war missed because of a reasonable poster. ;)
1) A consumer buys a computer from a catalogue that only has a notation "Windows included". No mention that the user will have to sign a contract in order to use the software. Nor, is he given an oppurtunity to read the contract before paying for the compuer.
2) Consumer reads the contract and does not want to sign it.
3) He contacts the seller to receive a refund for returning the product (as instructed to by the contract).
4) Seller says that their contract with Microsoft prohibits them from reinbursing them.
5) Consumer can not legally sell the unwanted software to recoup some of his lost money.
6) The consumer now has something he paid for that he can't use; but, can't resell.
That is a big difference from buying a bundled sound card.
Will it make a difference in court? I don't know. I am not a laywer. But, it sounds like their was some misrepresentation since the computer was sold without any mention of a contract.
By this logic you should be able to demand any component of the computer removed-- you don't want any memory or a sound card-- and get a discount for it. Computers are package-deals. There are dozens of components, and different companies put different parts in. You are free to pick those you want.
Only one problem with this logic: My "rights" with the sound card are not the same as with the software. If the "package deal" includes a sound card, I am legally allowed to remove the sound card and resell it to recoup some of the money. According to Microsoft's EULA, this is not allowed with their software since it was licensed to that particular machine. You can not resell your copy of Windows to recoup some of the money you spent on it.
Supporters of UCITA always point to the "Right of Return" clause saying that it gives greater protection to the consumers than they currently have.
Last year, Maryland passed UCITA which went into effect in October. I noticed that all the major software retailers (Best Buy, Staples, Office Max, etc.) still have signs saying that there is no returns allowed on opened software. Has anyone in Maryland or Virginia tried to return software because they disagreed with the license? What were your experiences?
Of course they do! It says so right in the EULA.
And that is why the software vendors like it. They have to have a refund clause in order to be considered a contract. However, they know that it is meaningless because no store will honor it.
Even MS does not (yet) have a long enough arm to sweep unsuspecting third parties into forced participation in their "contracts".
Actually, the retalor is not an unspecting third party. They have a contract with software vendors to resell the software. If the software vendors meant to be "honorable" about the refund clause, they would make it a condition that the reseller would have to give refunds if they wanted to sell the product.
True, but there were several differences between the mainframe licenses and the current EULAs.
It is a major reason why I dislike EULAs, but not the only reason. The 'no refund' policy just aggrevates the situation.
The software vendors are cherrypicking the parts of contract law and product law that favor them. They want the advantages of both while sidestepping the disadvantages.
They want the benifits of mass markets (lower distribution costs, bigger markets, etc.) without any of the disadvantages that come with retail sales (implied warrenty, refunds, etc.) They want the benifits of contract law (waiver of rights) without the cost of actually getting a signed contract before collecting the money.
Perhaps with a slight tweak so that it was required that either the place of purchase or the software manufacturer were required to give you a refund upon request, that might be enough.
One provision of MUCITA is that the right to refund can not be waived. It went into effect the beginning of this month. However, I noticed that none of the retailers have changed their return policies.
This is the biggest problem with EULAs. It mixes several different areas of law together. You are correct in your understanding of contract law. And, it would be valid if you bought the software directly from the software company. However, most purchaes are made from retail stores which are covered under a different set of laws. The retail stores have the right to whatever conditions they want on refunds.
The store's are covered under contract law because contracts can not bind third parties. The EULA states that it is a contract between the software manufacturer and you. The store is not a party to the contract.
Personally, I think that this is a way to get an EULA declared null & void in non-UCITA states. Buy the software, disagree with the license, unsuccessfully attempt to obtain a refund, do whatever you want with the software (as long as it is legal under copyright laws.)
IANAL and this has never been tested in court.
An interesting question. No case has come up with those circumstances; however, I think that according to the current case law, the answer would be no.
In a case that upheld a click-wrap license, the opinion said that it was treated as a license instead of a purchase because the buyer of the software was aware of the fact that their was a license included with the software. (It was printed on the box). The opinion did state that the court would not reach the same conclusion if a person found the software lying on the street.
One minor problem with this theory. Every retail store has a sign posted that states that they will not give a refund for opened software. Stores have the right to set their return policy. You therefore waived your right to a refund when you purchased the software.
MUCITA went into effect at the beginning of this month in Maryland. Staple's, Best Buy, WalMart, and OfficeMax still have signs saying that they will not give refunds on opened software.
A question you do not address is why the stores have a no refund policy. According to a lawyer at Staple's headquarters, the reason is that the software companies will not reimburse the store for any returns. If the store gives you the refund, they have to eat the cost.
This allows software companies to have it both ways. They can put the refund clause in the EULA so they can argue it is a contract while they know full well that the store can legally refuse to honor it. If the software comanies want the EULA to be a binding contract, they should include a clause in their reseller's license that says the retailer will honor the refund clause.
stop whining and get a lawyer.
Great idea! If you have been involved in a legal action, you would realize that it is not as simple as that.
Hire a lawyer for $100/hour to get a refund for software that cost $80. No lawyer will touch the case.
My girlfriend was involved in legal dispute over a $1650 claim. No lawyer would touch it or talk to her about it. One lawyer (who agreed that her case had merit) said that even if she won the lottery and was willing to pay his $200/hour fee, he would still decline the case. His reason was that he felt the judges and other lawyers, who he has to work with on a daily basis, would hold it against him for bringing such a trivial (the amount, not the merits) claim to court.
She handled the case pro se. For seven years, the opposing side fought to keep her from having her day in court. Two weeks before it was to actually go to trial, the other side settled for twice the amount of the original claim. (She had an unfair advantage. She had both the law and the facts on her side and it still took seven years.)
If you think it is so easy, why don't you try it and report back the results.
I would agree with this except for the fact that you typically can not read the EULA until after you have paid for the software and can not get a refund if you opened the software which is a necessary condition in order to read the EULA.
Because of this practice, your choices if you do not agree with the EULA is to accept the EULA or throw out the software.
Another problem with this is that there is no requirement for EULAs to be in plain english. Most are in legelese. The typical consumer wouldn't understand the restrictions even if he read the EULA. If they have a question about the meaning of the term, who are they supposed to ask? Most contracts must be signed before you pay the money. This gives the signer a chance to clarify any ambiguous terms before signing. With EULAs, there is no one to ask. Are they supposed to take the EULA to a lawyer?
Exactly how many of Agre's examples were actually in quotes. There is a difference between saying:
Al Gore said that he invented the internet.
and:
Al Gore said "he invented the internet". The first is paraprasing. The second is quoting. In the first example, you can argue about the accuracy of the paraprasing; but, you can't claim it is "fabricated" since it is a paraphrase of his actual "took the inititive in the creation of the internet" quote.
In the second case, you can say that the quote was fabricated. Many examples that Agre uses are in the former rather then the later category.
Are there examples of this happening to Republicans?
I saw something similar on tonight's PBS program about the Clinton-Lazio race. During their debate, Lazio said that Buffalo's economay "turned the corner". Clinton and some newspapers in upper New York pillored him for claiming that Buffalo's economy was doing great.
Check out AIM and FAIR. Both organizations have the same goal: disclaim inaccuracies in the medias reporting. One comes from the conservative viewpoint, the other a liberal viewpoint. It is interesting reading to compare to their two sites since they never complain about the same stories.
The convention speech is a perfect example of Agre's selecting facts that support his arguement while ignoring those that do not. In the convenction speech, he used the story of his sister's death to illustrate how from "that day" he vowed to fight big tobacco interests. Mr. Agre focuses on the claims of Gore's presence, or lack, at his sister's death bed. He ignores the fact that Gore's voting records calls into doubt whether he made the vow that day.
And as I hope is clear, this rarely reaches the point of fabricating considerable numbers of untrue examples (not characterizations, but reported 'facts': "Gore said...") to back up the stereotype. That is something very differnet
The only difference is it is happening to Gore instead of a republican. Many of the 'fabrications' that Mr. Agre complains about can be considered paraphrases instead of direct quotes. "Took the inititive in the creation of the internet" is not that far off from "invented the internet". Many of Mr. Agre's defenses have the "definition of the word is is" feel to them. They appear to be post-mortem attempts to spin the statement.
If you think this is anything new, you should do some research into newspaper articles about candidates during the first 100 years of american history.
BTW This is not a defense of Bush or an attack on Gore (I am not voting for either). It is merely the recognition, from a non-partisen viewpoint, that both sides do the same thing.
I didn't follow every link to verify his claims. However, I did notice that he was selective in his examples. For example, his narrative of his sister's death.
Mr. Agre focused on those who doubt whether he was present during her death. However, most of the articles I have read that cited that speech didn't question whether he was present. They pointed out his statement about being opposed to big tobacco ever since that day. Then they point to his pro-tobacco votes after his sister's death.
Mr. Agre also ignores the fact that many of his supporters also feel that Gore exaggerates.
Agre's discussed this in some other articles. It's a tough case to make for this being new, agreed, but perhaps new watersheds are being crossed...
Since no links were pointed to this discussion, I can't evaluate it. However, I seriously doubt that any new height has been reached. As others have pointed out, the sad but true fact is that the press tends to sterotype candidates. Bush's intellegence, Ford's clumsiness, etc. By focusing on the 'exageration' question, Mr. Agre can truthfully claim that no other candidate has had the same scrutiny as Gore. However, it is not true that other candidates have not had their positions or attributes distorted to a greater degree by the press.
No amendment. It is defined in Article II section 1.
The 'winner take all' is not a constitutional requirement. The states picked that one on their own.
being able to override that. This way, the wealthy few were in charge of the rest of the nation.
If you were really taught that in government class, your teacher was misrepresenting the purpose of the electorial college.
The big debate at the time of the constitutional convention was whether the president should be elected directly by the states or by popular vote. The smaller states, e.g. Rhode Island, were worried that their interests would not be represented if the President was voted by popular vote since their populations were dwarfed by the larger states, e.g. Pennsylvania. The smaller states wanted each state to have only one vote.
Since the constitution needed to be ratified by 2/3 of the state (One state, one vote), the writers of the constitution had to make a comprimise. If they picked one method over the other, they could not get the 2/3 majority required.
Their comprimise was to give one electorial vote for each member of congress. Since Representitives are alloted based on population, the larger states would have more votes. However, since each state has two senators, the small states had larger influence on the outcome of the election then warrented by their population.
As for overriding the voters choice, only two members (IIRC) of the electoral college voted against the way they were supposed to based on the election's outcome of their states. One voted against George Washington because he felt that no president should have been elected unaminously. He felt that lead to too large of a temptation to establish a monarchy. The second voted against Nixon in Nixon's relection. He felt that he could not vote for Nixon in good consionsious after the Watergate scandel broke. Neither effected the outcome of the election.
Aso, I don't think any president was elected if he didn't have most of the votes. There were a couple of close calls, e.g. the Kennedy election. However, most of the discussion is that theoritically, a president could still be elected by the electoral college even if he lost the popular election.
divide the electoral votes up percentage wise among candidates in each state
Nothing prevents states from doing this now. There is no federal requirement that they must use the 'winner takes all' rule. They do this to give their state more clout in the election.
Andrew Tobias defined IPO as "It's Probably Overpriced".
You are not.
It depends on what state you live in. Some jurisdictions have upheld click-wrap licenses. Others have not.
Actually, click-wrap's standing may be questionable even in jurisdicitons that rely on ProCD.
ProCD held that the EULAs were valid contracts because the customer had the option to return the software for a refund if the customer disagreed with the EULA. There was no judicial notice taken of the fact that the majority of retail stores will not give refunds if the software package has been opened.
Having read the ProCD opinion, I am under the impression, that had it been brought to the court's attention that there is no oportunity to read the EULA before paying and that both the software manufactorer and the retailer refuse to refund the money after reading the EULA, the court would have ruled differently.
Then there is also the question of fraud. According to the lawyer at Staple's headquarters, the reason Staples will not give refunds for opend software is that the manufactorers will not give them a refund for opened software.
The same holds true if you get a T1. All ISPs oversubscribe their bandwidth. If everyone maxed out their T1 connection at the same time, the ISPs connection would be saturated and individual customers would get less then they are paying for.
The ISPs can do this because most T1 users do not use their full bandwidth at the same time: Law of Large Numbers. The difference in quality between ISPs is the amount that they will oversubscribe the available bandwidth.
Your filter needs some tweeking. A quick search found several links. Two are:
Pipeline (It is a long article so you may want to search on girl scout.)
Bizjourna ls