"attempting to play the latest Celine Dion CD in a new iMac will result in the machine having to be sent for repair"
"capable of damaging the PC's firmware. It seems that this is definitely the case, as once the CD is inserted into a new iMac it cannot be removed and the machine cannot be restarted"
Score 4 insightful? "Microsoft reacted the way that any business would when confronted with angry customers." Yet the point is obviously not that they had angry customers, but the pattern of behavior they (continue to) exhibit that has angered this group.
Interestingly DuPont was used in exactly this way during the ethics lecture of a summer polymer materials science class I took while participating in an NSF REU program.
Well consider that what MS did was illegal, and they were convicted for their crime. Compare using said criminal activity as a fact for forming an opinion to what you list, "best" is at best subjective. A conviction is not subjective. Obviously you need help in critical thinking. Perhaps you were busy "blocking" the educators "opinion" on logical argumentation?
Would you *really* like to see children coming out of an ethics class believing that (convicted) illegal monopolist practices is ethical? Are you suggesting that examples of ethical and unethical behavior be forbidden because of cultural relativism? That road leads to the morality of a mugging.
I would go so far as to suggest that students who "BLOCK" their instructors opinions just don't get it. You seem to have a black/white view point re: an opinion. The point is to enable free, open, and (logically) critical discussion. I sense fear in your position. Perhaps you've been in a position where someone with authority over you has browbeaten you for an opinion you've held?
You are the one saying it's OK to expose them to only your point of view.
This is where I feel you've lost credibility by losing track of reality.
You assume the students already have critical reasoning skills. If students express opinions that are not soundly based, the teacher should probe their reasoning. This is true regardless of the merits of the opinion itself. If the students know *what* the teachers opinion is, and also *why*, that is appropriate. To try to teach ethics while only discussing situations that are both ethical and unethical (as demonstrated by the teacher making sure the playing field is even) will result in students learning that ethics means that "nothing can be either ethical or unethical, there is only the gray fog of marketing perception." If the students come away thinking its ok to have any opinion (because reasons must exist for any side), the teacher has failed.
I read your post as: If *they* cared about Wine (the way that *I* cared about Wine) they would do whats best for the Wine users (*me*), and thats to have as much code completed as possible under ANY license, because all I want to do is play games, and I don't care how.
"so if there is nothing to circumvent, you can not break the law" Except that what this would *really* do is allow us to make backups, and watch DVDs on Linux, while still sending people making a living out of counterfiting CDs and DVDs to jail. This would let us enjoy our "fair use" rights, while truely criminal action would remain actionable.
"Fairly often," the examiner said, motorists bring in separate speeding tickets showing their vehicles were cited at two different places in the city -- at the same time. "Those ones we don't even delve into," she said. "We just dismiss."
They don't delve into instances of their system reporting a physical impossibility? Isn't that even worse than "B. Recalabrates the machine (or light) and marks it as being ok."
Perhaps we need to rethink the layout of our intersections. An earlier post refered to European "round abouts", which I assume are thier circular intersections. Rather than "controlling" intersections, perhaps we could improve the design?
Judge says: "Prove it! I know you have that data, now hand it over!"
*Wrong! The judge gives them 60 days to write the software that will collect more information than they have ever collected before. The fact that you think they are already collecting this data indicates you didn't read, or can't understand, the articles mentioned. Yet you suggest/. readers don't understand their rights? You misconstrue the context, creating a "straw man". The facts are that discovery is being used to generate *new* data that exceeds the privacy policy as put forth when the devices were sold.
"It can't be hard for SonicBlue to gather the data in aggregate, so I bet the court will think thats ok."
Instead of "betting", read the articles. The judge specified that individual users behavior be tracked, and linked to an anonomous ID. This is *not* aggregate data collection. Somewhere there would be a record of every movie you watch, and how often, and when, and every keystroke you use with their machine.
Central District Court Magistrate Charles F. Eick told SonicBlue to gather ``all available information'' about how consumers use the Santa Clara company's latest generation ReplayTV 4000 video recorders, and turn the information over to the film studios and television networks suing it for contributing to copyright infringement.
Also:
The plaintiffs asked SonicBlue to turn over information on how individuals use the recording devices. SonicBlue said it does not track that information. The magistrate, who is supervising discovery, ordered the company to write software in the next 60 days that would record every ``click'' from every customer's remote control.
So how would, say, IBM go about becoming Jewish? Would you circumcise the mainframe? Its silly to grant "rights" to an organization as though said organization were a human citizen. Else, the corporation itself *should* have the right to vote in elections. Either it is, or it isn't, an individual.
Wrong. They used to collect data. They quit. They never used a unique ID. They have a time limit to implement *new* software that will provide user behavior data with said unique user ID. This isn't about "you are already doing it, share the data". This can't even be about, "we want to know what percentage are doing it, because we want to shut your business down". The *only* reason to tag the consumer is to be able to come back latter and say, "Judge, we have proof that user #abc123 violated our copyright, and we now want to nail his/her/their ass to a prison cell wall." Be afraid. Be very afraid. Next step: tap every phone/ethernet/cable modem?
Want legislation that will reduce piracy? Make copyright last for one year and one day. The amount of piracy would approach zero. Those who still pirated would have the majority of the public against them instead of for them.
With conventional, commercial information distribution, one typically must pay for every copy made -- often whether the copy is sold or not.
Fair use copies excluded, of course:-)
And it was especially well written. I enjoyed the read as much for the presentation of the topic as the content. Its good to see slashdot linking to well written articles:-)
You only have to make the sources available to people you give the binaries to...
If you don't distribute the source with the binaries, then you have to give the source to anybody who requests it. That specificly includes third parties.
:-)
Re:Saw something similar about EULAs in general
on
GPL's Strength
·
· Score: 2
My opinion is that the typical single licence EULA *is* rendered unenforcable
even if a shrinkwrap licence can create an enforcable contract. Assuming for
the sake of argument this very debateable point, you would have to look at the
context of the negotiation to identify whether the elements of a contract are
present. When the transfer of ownership is a first sale, I believe the garden
variety EULA would fail the consideration test because such a licence generally
does not offer anything that is not a recognized right of ownership per 17 USC
117. Specifically, the right to make an adaptation of the program for use in a
machine is a right the owner already possesses and typically a EULA does
nothing other than provide this.
However, and this is important, when the licence in question purports to offer
rights to install on multiple machines, then it DOES provide something that is
not provided by first sale to the media owner. I believe that the Microsoft v.
Harmony case actually pertains to OEM style multiple installation licencing,
and is often misinterpreted by the "software is licenced" advocates.
The sad thing about all of this is that if software publishers had simply
written their licences as "family" licences or "one home, one work
installation" as actually reflects what people do and want, then they could
have a very sound footing for their licence restrictions.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah but if its a firmware crash through design, it doesn't matter how good your driver software is...remember achiles and the tortoise in G.E.B? ;-)
paper-clip?
"attempting to play the latest Celine Dion CD in a new iMac will result in the machine having to be sent for repair"
"capable of damaging the PC's firmware. It seems that this is definitely the case, as once the CD is inserted into a new iMac it cannot be removed and the machine cannot be restarted"
Score 4 insightful? "Microsoft reacted the way that any business would when confronted with angry customers." Yet the point is obviously not that they had angry customers, but the pattern of behavior they (continue to) exhibit that has angered this group.
Interestingly DuPont was used in exactly this way during the ethics lecture of a summer polymer materials science class I took while participating in an NSF REU program.
Well consider that what MS did was illegal, and they were convicted for their crime. Compare using said criminal activity as a fact for forming an opinion to what you list, "best" is at best subjective. A conviction is not subjective. Obviously you need help in critical thinking. Perhaps you were busy "blocking" the educators "opinion" on logical argumentation?
Ah ha! Now I see where you are coming from: Never forget that standing at the podium gives you a privileged position that it shouldn't.
Would you *really* like to see children coming out of an ethics class believing that (convicted) illegal monopolist practices is ethical? Are you suggesting that examples of ethical and unethical behavior be forbidden because of cultural relativism? That road leads to the morality of a mugging.
I would go so far as to suggest that students who "BLOCK" their instructors opinions just don't get it. You seem to have a black/white view point re: an opinion. The point is to enable free, open, and (logically) critical discussion. I sense fear in your position. Perhaps you've been in a position where someone with authority over you has browbeaten you for an opinion you've held?
You are the one saying it's OK to expose them to only your point of view.
This is where I feel you've lost credibility by losing track of reality.
You assume the students already have critical reasoning skills. If students express opinions that are not soundly based, the teacher should probe their reasoning. This is true regardless of the merits of the opinion itself. If the students know *what* the teachers opinion is, and also *why*, that is appropriate. To try to teach ethics while only discussing situations that are both ethical and unethical (as demonstrated by the teacher making sure the playing field is even) will result in students learning that ethics means that "nothing can be either ethical or unethical, there is only the gray fog of marketing perception." If the students come away thinking its ok to have any opinion (because reasons must exist for any side), the teacher has failed.
I read your post as: If *they* cared about Wine (the way that *I* cared about Wine) they would do whats best for the Wine users (*me*), and thats to have as much code completed as possible under ANY license, because all I want to do is play games, and I don't care how.
"so if there is nothing to circumvent, you can not break the law"
Except that what this would *really* do is allow us to make backups, and watch DVDs on Linux, while still sending people making a living out of counterfiting CDs and DVDs to jail. This would let us enjoy our "fair use" rights, while truely criminal action would remain actionable.
"Fairly often," the examiner said, motorists bring in separate speeding tickets showing their vehicles were cited at two different places in the city -- at the same time. "Those ones we don't even delve into," she said. "We just dismiss."
They don't delve into instances of their system reporting a physical impossibility? Isn't that even worse than "B. Recalabrates the machine (or light) and marks it as being ok."
Perhaps we need to rethink the layout of our intersections. An earlier post refered to European "round abouts", which I assume are thier circular intersections. Rather than "controlling" intersections, perhaps we could improve the design?
Judge says: "Prove it! I know you have that data, now hand it over!"
/. readers don't understand their rights? You misconstrue the context, creating a "straw man". The facts are that discovery is being used to generate *new* data that exceeds the privacy policy as put forth when the devices were sold.
*Wrong! The judge gives them 60 days to write the software that will collect more information than they have ever collected before. The fact that you think they are already collecting this data indicates you didn't read, or can't understand, the articles mentioned. Yet you suggest
"It can't be hard for SonicBlue to gather the data in aggregate, so I bet the court will think thats ok."
Instead of "betting", read the articles. The judge specified that individual users behavior be tracked, and linked to an anonomous ID. This is *not* aggregate data collection. Somewhere there would be a record of every movie you watch, and how often, and when, and every keystroke you use with their machine.
Central District Court Magistrate Charles F. Eick told SonicBlue to gather ``all available information'' about how consumers use the Santa Clara company's latest generation ReplayTV 4000 video recorders, and turn the information over to the film studios and television networks suing it for contributing to copyright infringement.
Also:
The plaintiffs asked SonicBlue to turn over information on how individuals use the recording devices. SonicBlue said it does not track that information. The magistrate, who is supervising discovery, ordered the company to write software in the next 60 days that would record every ``click'' from every customer's remote control.
I do support the ACLU's purpose. I am disheartened that they see Nike's position as promoting "civil liberty" rather than as evil propaganda.
So how would, say, IBM go about becoming Jewish? Would you circumcise the mainframe? Its silly to grant "rights" to an organization as though said organization were a human citizen. Else, the corporation itself *should* have the right to vote in elections. Either it is, or it isn't, an individual.
Wrong. They used to collect data. They quit. They never used a unique ID. They have a time limit to implement *new* software that will provide user behavior data with said unique user ID. This isn't about "you are already doing it, share the data". This can't even be about, "we want to know what percentage are doing it, because we want to shut your business down". The *only* reason to tag the consumer is to be able to come back latter and say, "Judge, we have proof that user #abc123 violated our copyright, and we now want to nail his/her/their ass to a prison cell wall." Be afraid. Be very afraid. Next step: tap every phone/ethernet/cable modem?
Want legislation that will reduce piracy? Make copyright last for one year and one day. The amount of piracy would approach zero. Those who still pirated would have the majority of the public against them instead of for them.
Only if your ISP is the Federal Government. Else, the 2nd amendment doesn't apply.
A contract requires reciprication. A license may be granted for free.
With conventional, commercial information distribution, one typically must pay for every copy made -- often whether the copy is sold or not. :-)
Fair use copies excluded, of course
And it was especially well written. I enjoyed the read as much for the presentation of the topic as the content. Its good to see slashdot linking to well written articles :-)
You only have to make the sources available to people you give the binaries to...
If you don't distribute the source with the binaries, then you have to give the source to anybody who requests it. That specificly includes third parties.
:-)
My opinion is that the typical single licence EULA *is* rendered unenforcable even if a shrinkwrap licence can create an enforcable contract. Assuming for the sake of argument this very debateable point, you would have to look at the context of the negotiation to identify whether the elements of a contract are present. When the transfer of ownership is a first sale, I believe the garden variety EULA would fail the consideration test because such a licence generally does not offer anything that is not a recognized right of ownership per 17 USC 117. Specifically, the right to make an adaptation of the program for use in a machine is a right the owner already possesses and typically a EULA does nothing other than provide this. However, and this is important, when the licence in question purports to offer rights to install on multiple machines, then it DOES provide something that is not provided by first sale to the media owner. I believe that the Microsoft v. Harmony case actually pertains to OEM style multiple installation licencing, and is often misinterpreted by the "software is licenced" advocates. The sad thing about all of this is that if software publishers had simply written their licences as "family" licences or "one home, one work installation" as actually reflects what people do and want, then they could have a very sound footing for their licence restrictions.