I agree - I was going to suggest that people also respond to the consultation that's planned this spring, but it seems they've already made up their mind!:
A creative industries strategy paper published on Friday commits the government to consulting on anti-piracy legislation this spring with a view to implementing it by April 2009.
We will consult on legislation that would require internet service providers and rights holders to co-operate in taking action on illegal file sharing with a view to implementing legislation by April 2009. Finding voluntary, preferably commercial solutions, remains the ideal, but the Government will equip itself to introduce legislation swiftly if suitable arrangements between ISPs and relevant sectors are not forthcoming or prove insufficient.We will also explore tougher penalties for copyright infringement. These actions signal the Governments strong support for the creative industries as we move towards a fully digital world.
The document also makes claims as to the supposed "costs" of piracy:
The cost of pirate audio-visual goods and illegal downloads amounted to £460 million in 2006 alone.
A 10% reduction in software piracy in the UK would generate 30,000 jobs and contribute £11 billion to the official economy.
Aside from the flaw that a downloaded copy is not always a lost sale, I feel there is another flaw here - people who don't spend money on CDs will then have that money to spend money on other things. Don't get me wrong, it's ethically wrong if companies have lost out on money they have received, but it is an economic fallacy to suggest that this is a loss to the economy as a whole. That money will be spent elsewhere - and it will also create jobs elsewhere. It's the same misunderstanding of economics as exists in the broken window fallacy.
I'll still reply to the consultation anyway, as I hope many other people will, just to make a point - but writing to MPs will be better still.
Basically, they *fully* and *with in-store, in-person assistance*, support everything you need hardware-wise
You can argue this the other way round - Microsoft support Windows running on any hardware, whilst Apple only support OS X running in their own machines (and might even claim it's illegal to do otherwise). It's not clear to me why Apple are getting the credit here.
There are suicidal cults and suicide websites all over the internet which promote and even describe how to commit suicide. Are these sites cyber-bullying people? Should these sites be banned?
Many people commit group suicide in Japan. Should the websites where these people meet up be banned?
Shhh, don't give them ideas! (Every few years, someone commits suicide "on the Internet", and we get the inevitable uproar of "the Internet must be banned"...)
I'm not saying it's right, but these arguments are rather dubious:
A: It's theft. The theif gets something they want and they value it, yet do not pay.
By that logic, me reading Slashdot is theft, because I get something I want, I value it, yet I do not pay. Clearly there is more to something being "theft". Your argument is a logical fallacy - just because something shares some properties with something else does not make it the same as that thing.
The major excuse "there isn't a legal alternative" is lost by point B. since ripping for ones own personal use has not been solidly confirmed as illegal.
It is in the UK at least. OTOH there are some countries where downloading is not illegal, I believe.
1: The content developers/distributors lose sales since the people downloading have at least once claimed in court under oath that they didn't think it was illegal and would have purchased the cd if they thought it was.
This is hardly proof, because it is countered by people "at least once" claiming that they went on to buy things after downloading.
The users that download the songs must activly be searching for ways not think of it as theft.
It's not theft because it's copyright infringment. Simple as that. That doesn't make it right, but I don't understand why people insist on conflating different laws - if copyright infringement is so bad, shouldn't it be sufficient to call it that, rather than pretending it's something else?
The only "effort" involved is using the dictionary, or having basic knowledge of language and legal terms. I find it worrying if this is now viewed as too much "effort".
I agree, theft is theft - and copyright infringement is copyright infringment.
I'm curious why this didn't come under some child predator/grooming laws - I mean, impersonating an underage person so you can form a relationship with an underage girl? Does this mean that men who do the same can now get off by saying "Oh, I was only pretending to make her upset"?
But yes, I fully agree with your post. Social relationships are not and should not be a matter for legislation, no matter how much someone is upset from being dumped, even if someone is malicious and pretends to fancy someone. The only thing that might be special in this case is that it regards a (pretend) relationship between an adult and an underage child.
Well, if assault is meant to cause physical harm, then this prank was certainly meant to cause emotional harm
This still misses the point - causing someone emotional harm in this manner, even intentionally, isn't and shouldn't be illegal. Because otherwise, anyone who has ever dumped someone is guilty of the same crime.
Does it make a difference that you were never interested in them and planned to dump them all along? I don't know - but this isn't comparable to assault.
Either way, the Lenovo X300 is still under an inch thick, apparently.
Is heavier than MacBook Air. Winner: MacBook Air.
But in fact, the Lenovo is 2.93lbs, whilst the Air is 3lbs! Whilst this does mean less battery life, this is the weight category, not the battery life category, so it's a bit misleading to ignore the option of the light model (the fact that it has no DVD drive is, of course, irrelevant).
Doesn't use Mac OS X Leopard. Winner: MacBook Air.
Either you want to run OS X, in which case you're restricted to Apple anyway, or you don't, in which case this point isn't an advantage.
Such a contract might be invalid, but I presumed if you are in a state where you can be fired for any reason, they don't need that contract. They don't say they're firing you for breathing, they just say you're fired...
It is important to note, a theory can NEVER be proven as fact. What we do is find lots of evidence, as much as you can. And then do tests to support your findings and evidence. We can also take the findings of others, and do the same tests to ideally get the same results.
When you've supported your side over and over and over again, it's common that, in the vernacular, it becomes "fact". That's not quite what he was saying though. Yes, a "fact" is something that, even though we can't be 100% sure, is something that has overwhelming evidence. But in science, "theory" is not a word for "not yet a fact", rather, a theory explains the facts.
The fact of gravity might be that things fall. The theory of gravity explains why and how this happens.
The fact of evolution is that life as we see it today developed from simpler lifeforms. The theory of evolution explains how this happened.
To quote http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html : It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms.
Yes, we can't prove it 100%, but as you say, we refer to it as a fact if we have enough evidence. But the fact that there is a theory of evolution does not mean that these things aren't yet facts - on the contrary, these things are considered facts.
When IDers propose that evolution only be taught as a theory, they are not acknowledging the scientific usage of evolution being a theory - I fear their intent is to claim that these facts are not actually facts, and they push the myth that "theory means it isn't a fact".
There is a theory of Evolution just like there is a theory of Gravity, each explaining the factual phenomena for which they are named. Agreed - Evolution is a Fact and a Theory.
It's unclear from the article how this means it will actually be taught. The article says:
The panel includes the word "evolution" in state science standards for the first time, but it is relegated to a place among a host of ideas, including Albert Einstein's theory of relativity. By contrast Isaac Newton's law of gravity is taught as undisputed fact.
Claiming that this is relegated to "a host of ideas" which seems worrying. But the bits about gravity make no sense to me - both Newtonian gravitation and General Relativity are theories of gravity to explain facts. General relativity is a far more accurate theory, and it (along with special relativity, in case it means that) are supported by vast amounts of evidence. They are not merely "ideas".
I'm not aware of any fundies who have a problem with relativity, so I really wonder what is going on here?
Leave it to wikipedia to cite as a source a NASA edutainment page aimed at grade schoolers.
What's curious is that none of the articles distinguish between "average" and "core" either. It's only the Slashdot summary - and now Wikipedia - that state this. Does the original paper mention this, I wonder? It's the obvious answer to explain the factor of 6 difference, but it would be nice to know for sure...
But the same people (presumably) have also rushed off to edit Wikipedia! (I see a half dozen edits this morning, to add in the "new" thickness.) That's the part that I find incredible. And people really take Wikipedia seriously?
And in doing so, the article has been clarified as to what "thickness" means, as well as updated it with the new information. None of the "wild speculation" on this thread is on the article, so I'm not sure that's relevant.
It would be good to have a clearer article to explain different measurements for "thickness", but that doesn't make the article wrong, when it is based on sources. This also has nothing to do with whether Wikipedia is edited by people who also use Slashdot.
I also find it interesting that some people are criticising Wikipedia for having old values, whilst others are criticising it for putting in new information too soon - which is it?
To be honest, every encyclopedia and so on that I've seen just gives simple dimensions of the sizes of the galaxy as far as I can remember. And any number of them could be seen as "wrong", depending on when they were published, and how recent a source they took as being true. I think your dislike of Wikipedia is really just the same attitude that any astronomer will have of any encyclopedia aimed at a general audience (same with any other person who is an expert in a particular field).
As has been pointed out, 1,000 light years was not incorrect, they were only guilty of not be specific - if you RTFS, you will see this new information is about the thickness at the core. I am never able to understand people who write off Wikipedia as unreliable, but are willing to accept random comments on places like Slashdot as the truth.
In fact, this "unreliable" source already states the new information on the thickness size. Wake me up when other encyclopedias are updated.
If it's true that the GPL does not form a contract with an end user, developer's beware: you're on the hook for unlimited liability for anything that you contribute to a GPL product.
Whilst moving my mouse hand to reply to your post, I accidently knocked an expensive vase off my desk, which then landed instantly killing my dearly loved pussy cat. Since you did not have the sense to put an EULA into your post, I guess I can sue you for the financial damages, not to mention the emotional harm that has now been caused to me...
The point is (at least in the UK) we don't live in a world where you have "unlimited liability" which can magically turn into "zero liability" with a contract. If I cause someone damages, I can be sued, but this doesn't mean I throw up a "EULA" to everyone I meet to get them to sign away their right to sue me. And even if I did, that doesn't mean such a contract would be valid, since a contract doesn't necessarily absolve one of liability. So does that mean I never go outside in case I do something that gets me sued? Of course not. It doesn't mean I don't write software either.
The purpose of software can be given as information, without need an agreement. If I drive a car into the sea, I can't sue the car manufacturer for damages - they don't need to get me to sign a contract to say that the car is not made for underwater transportation...
If a court were to rule that using freely available software meant whoever wrote it was liable for any problems resulting from your use, even if the software stated it was not meant to be used for such purposes, then yes, I'd be worried. I don't think that's happened yet. Perhaps it might happen in the US, what with the sue-them-culture that seems to exist - but in that case, I'd also be worried of people suing car makers for driving off into the sea...
Neither of those things seem to me to be an agreement.
Granting you permission to use the software doesn't require the recipient to agree to anything, it's just affirming your right to use it.
The warranty disclaimer is there for information. It's just making it clear that the software doesn't come with any warranty. The key point here is that the warranty does not trump the law - if by default, the law meant that software developers were liable, then yes they would need an "agreement" to get round that. But it states "TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW" and "UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW".
In fact, it also says "OR AGREED TO IN WRITING" - so you can change that if you do have an agreement, but the GPL itself is not an agreement, it's just there for your information.
The GPL also explicitly states "You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run a copy of the Program."
So yes, I think that your post is probably one of the favorite myths of this site.
Oh that's no problem - you see my terms of service are also available on a website, which just so happens to give me unrestricted use of their software, as well as allowing me the right to use all their other software for free. If they do not agree, then do not install onto my machine...
The consideration requirement is pretty easy: "I give you a limited right to use this software and in return you agree to pay some money and to follow the EULA."
The problem is that that "agreement" is presented after the sale has taken place.
If a US court has ruled that one side can put additional terms in after the sale, then that works both ways. Decide you don't like the software you bought after all? Well just take it straight back for a full refund. If more people started doing this, perhaps companies would be less keen to have EULs enforceable as contracts...
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProCD_v._Zeidenberg , "The court stated that Zeidenberg could have rejected the terms of the contract and returned the software." which seems an important point for EULAs having any validity, and as noted above, most companies don't allow you to return the software. Let's face it - if acceptance of EULAs also meant retailers had to refund your money at any time, no questions asked, that wouldn't be such a loss overall...
And if I lived in the US, I'd be writing letters to ProCD saying "By keeping this letter, you agree to pay me £1000 a month". No doubt, the court will rule that they have every right to reject the terms of the contract and return every single letter to me.
Questions that the court case does not seem to address - what happens if a child / your pet presses the Okay button? What if he installed it, but someone else took the information and put it on a website? What if he bypassed the installer (perhaps it was possible to read the data directly from the CD)? Or modified the text file of the EULA (it's perfectly legal to modify a contract and sign that instead)? Contract law covers all of these situations fine (they only apply to the adult human who accepts the contract, and not at all if he doesn't accept it), so surely that applies for the EULA too?
~ Anyone replying to this post who disagrees with me agrees to send me £10. You can reject the terms of the contract and choose to not disagree if you prefer. ~
Whatever happened to the "good old days" of people paying a few bucks for a basic hosting account, slapping up a few pages of basic HTML describing themselves and their interests, with maybe a few photos?
You're saying that if people are worried about privacy, they should put their information on a completely public webpage, rather than making use of features on sites like Facebook and LiveJournal that allow you to restrict access to certain people?
Here in the UK, all ISPs have had to sign up to Cleanfeed. Like the Finnish system, it's intended to block only child porn - to be fair, unlike the Finnish system there doesn't seem to be evidence that it catches more stuff. But then, since the list is secret, and blocked pages silently return a false "page not found" error, there's no way to be sure.
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/02/391376.html?c=on claims that the list has been expanded, but it's not clear what the evidence is. We already know though that the Government want criminalisation of possession to start including consensual adult porn.
In Finland it is not illegal to access or view child pornograpy. Possession of such materials is illegal.
Even with caching disabled, you'd have to temporarily possess it if you viewed it. Has there been a court case that ruled this legal - and by that, I don't mean an accidental viewer, but someone who intentionally went to view the site?
(Here in the UK, downloading is considered making child porn - you're "making" another copy - and hence it is punished worse than simple possession...)
Slashdot Mirror
I agree - I was going to suggest that people also respond to the consultation that's planned this spring, but it seems they've already made up their mind!:
A creative industries strategy paper published on Friday commits the government to consulting on anti-piracy legislation this spring with a view to implementing it by April 2009.
That document is available at http://www.culture.gov.uk/Reference_library/Publications/archive_2008/cepPub-new-talents.htm . The full quote is:
We will consult on legislation that would require internet service providers and rights holders to co-operate in taking action on illegal file sharing with a view to implementing legislation by April 2009. Finding voluntary, preferably commercial solutions, remains the ideal, but the Government will equip itself to introduce legislation swiftly if suitable arrangements between ISPs and relevant sectors are not forthcoming or prove insufficient.We will also explore tougher penalties for copyright infringement. These actions signal the Governments strong support for the creative industries as we move towards a fully digital world.
The document also makes claims as to the supposed "costs" of piracy:
The cost of pirate audio-visual goods and illegal downloads amounted to £460 million in 2006 alone.
A 10% reduction in software piracy in the UK would generate 30,000 jobs and contribute £11 billion to the official economy.
Aside from the flaw that a downloaded copy is not always a lost sale, I feel there is another flaw here - people who don't spend money on CDs will then have that money to spend money on other things. Don't get me wrong, it's ethically wrong if companies have lost out on money they have received, but it is an economic fallacy to suggest that this is a loss to the economy as a whole. That money will be spent elsewhere - and it will also create jobs elsewhere. It's the same misunderstanding of economics as exists in the broken window fallacy.
I'll still reply to the consultation anyway, as I hope many other people will, just to make a point - but writing to MPs will be better still.
Basically, they *fully* and *with in-store, in-person assistance*, support everything you need hardware-wise
You can argue this the other way round - Microsoft support Windows running on any hardware, whilst Apple only support OS X running in their own machines (and might even claim it's illegal to do otherwise). It's not clear to me why Apple are getting the credit here.
I don't "notice" my computer either in the way that you describe, btw.
There are suicidal cults and suicide websites all over the internet which promote and even describe how to commit suicide. Are these sites cyber-bullying people? Should these sites be banned?
Many people commit group suicide in Japan. Should the websites where these people meet up be banned?
Shhh, don't give them ideas! (Every few years, someone commits suicide "on the Internet", and we get the inevitable uproar of "the Internet must be banned"...)
I'm not saying it's right, but these arguments are rather dubious:
A: It's theft. The theif gets something they want and they value it, yet do not pay.
By that logic, me reading Slashdot is theft, because I get something I want, I value it, yet I do not pay. Clearly there is more to something being "theft". Your argument is a logical fallacy - just because something shares some properties with something else does not make it the same as that thing.
The major excuse "there isn't a legal alternative" is lost by point B. since ripping for ones own personal use has not been solidly confirmed as illegal.
It is in the UK at least. OTOH there are some countries where downloading is not illegal, I believe.
1: The content developers/distributors lose sales since the people downloading have at least once claimed in court under oath that they didn't think it was illegal and would have purchased the cd if they thought it was.
This is hardly proof, because it is countered by people "at least once" claiming that they went on to buy things after downloading.
The users that download the songs must activly be searching for ways not think of it as theft.
It's not theft because it's copyright infringment. Simple as that. That doesn't make it right, but I don't understand why people insist on conflating different laws - if copyright infringement is so bad, shouldn't it be sufficient to call it that, rather than pretending it's something else?
The only "effort" involved is using the dictionary, or having basic knowledge of language and legal terms. I find it worrying if this is now viewed as too much "effort".
I agree, theft is theft - and copyright infringement is copyright infringment.
As opposed to all those emotionally stable adult humans...
Fixed that for you.
I'm curious why this didn't come under some child predator/grooming laws - I mean, impersonating an underage person so you can form a relationship with an underage girl? Does this mean that men who do the same can now get off by saying "Oh, I was only pretending to make her upset"?
But yes, I fully agree with your post. Social relationships are not and should not be a matter for legislation, no matter how much someone is upset from being dumped, even if someone is malicious and pretends to fancy someone. The only thing that might be special in this case is that it regards a (pretend) relationship between an adult and an underage child.
Well, if assault is meant to cause physical harm, then this prank was certainly meant to cause emotional harm
This still misses the point - causing someone emotional harm in this manner, even intentionally, isn't and shouldn't be illegal. Because otherwise, anyone who has ever dumped someone is guilty of the same crime.
Does it make a difference that you were never interested in them and planned to dump them all along? I don't know - but this isn't comparable to assault.
Just to add to your comments...
Is thicker than MacBook Air. Winner: MacBook Air.
Either way, the Lenovo X300 is still under an inch thick, apparently.
Is heavier than MacBook Air. Winner: MacBook Air.
But in fact, the Lenovo is 2.93lbs, whilst the Air is 3lbs! Whilst this does mean less battery life, this is the weight category, not the battery life category, so it's a bit misleading to ignore the option of the light model (the fact that it has no DVD drive is, of course, irrelevant).
Doesn't use Mac OS X Leopard. Winner: MacBook Air.
Either you want to run OS X, in which case you're restricted to Apple anyway, or you don't, in which case this point isn't an advantage.
Such a contract might be invalid, but I presumed if you are in a state where you can be fired for any reason, they don't need that contract. They don't say they're firing you for breathing, they just say you're fired...
When you've supported your side over and over and over again, it's common that, in the vernacular, it becomes "fact". That's not quite what he was saying though. Yes, a "fact" is something that, even though we can't be 100% sure, is something that has overwhelming evidence. But in science, "theory" is not a word for "not yet a fact", rather, a theory explains the facts.
The fact of gravity might be that things fall. The theory of gravity explains why and how this happens.
The fact of evolution is that life as we see it today developed from simpler lifeforms. The theory of evolution explains how this happened.
To quote http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html : It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms.
Yes, we can't prove it 100%, but as you say, we refer to it as a fact if we have enough evidence. But the fact that there is a theory of evolution does not mean that these things aren't yet facts - on the contrary, these things are considered facts.
When IDers propose that evolution only be taught as a theory, they are not acknowledging the scientific usage of evolution being a theory - I fear their intent is to claim that these facts are not actually facts, and they push the myth that "theory means it isn't a fact".
It's unclear from the article how this means it will actually be taught. The article says:
The panel includes the word "evolution" in state science standards for the first time, but it is relegated to a place among a host of ideas, including Albert Einstein's theory of relativity. By contrast Isaac Newton's law of gravity is taught as undisputed fact.
Claiming that this is relegated to "a host of ideas" which seems worrying. But the bits about gravity make no sense to me - both Newtonian gravitation and General Relativity are theories of gravity to explain facts. General relativity is a far more accurate theory, and it (along with special relativity, in case it means that) are supported by vast amounts of evidence. They are not merely "ideas".
I'm not aware of any fundies who have a problem with relativity, so I really wonder what is going on here?
Leave it to wikipedia to cite as a source a NASA edutainment page aimed at grade schoolers.
What's curious is that none of the articles distinguish between "average" and "core" either. It's only the Slashdot summary - and now Wikipedia - that state this. Does the original paper mention this, I wonder? It's the obvious answer to explain the factor of 6 difference, but it would be nice to know for sure...
But the same people (presumably) have also rushed off to edit Wikipedia! (I see a half dozen edits this morning, to add in the "new" thickness.) That's the part that I find incredible. And people really take Wikipedia seriously?
And in doing so, the article has been clarified as to what "thickness" means, as well as updated it with the new information. None of the "wild speculation" on this thread is on the article, so I'm not sure that's relevant.
It would be good to have a clearer article to explain different measurements for "thickness", but that doesn't make the article wrong, when it is based on sources. This also has nothing to do with whether Wikipedia is edited by people who also use Slashdot.
I also find it interesting that some people are criticising Wikipedia for having old values, whilst others are criticising it for putting in new information too soon - which is it?
To be honest, every encyclopedia and so on that I've seen just gives simple dimensions of the sizes of the galaxy as far as I can remember. And any number of them could be seen as "wrong", depending on when they were published, and how recent a source they took as being true. I think your dislike of Wikipedia is really just the same attitude that any astronomer will have of any encyclopedia aimed at a general audience (same with any other person who is an expert in a particular field).
As has been pointed out, 1,000 light years was not incorrect, they were only guilty of not be specific - if you RTFS, you will see this new information is about the thickness at the core. I am never able to understand people who write off Wikipedia as unreliable, but are willing to accept random comments on places like Slashdot as the truth.
In fact, this "unreliable" source already states the new information on the thickness size. Wake me up when other encyclopedias are updated.
If it's true that the GPL does not form a contract with an end user, developer's beware: you're on the hook for unlimited liability for anything that you contribute to a GPL product.
Whilst moving my mouse hand to reply to your post, I accidently knocked an expensive vase off my desk, which then landed instantly killing my dearly loved pussy cat. Since you did not have the sense to put an EULA into your post, I guess I can sue you for the financial damages, not to mention the emotional harm that has now been caused to me...
The point is (at least in the UK) we don't live in a world where you have "unlimited liability" which can magically turn into "zero liability" with a contract. If I cause someone damages, I can be sued, but this doesn't mean I throw up a "EULA" to everyone I meet to get them to sign away their right to sue me. And even if I did, that doesn't mean such a contract would be valid, since a contract doesn't necessarily absolve one of liability. So does that mean I never go outside in case I do something that gets me sued? Of course not. It doesn't mean I don't write software either.
The purpose of software can be given as information, without need an agreement. If I drive a car into the sea, I can't sue the car manufacturer for damages - they don't need to get me to sign a contract to say that the car is not made for underwater transportation...
If a court were to rule that using freely available software meant whoever wrote it was liable for any problems resulting from your use, even if the software stated it was not meant to be used for such purposes, then yes, I'd be worried. I don't think that's happened yet. Perhaps it might happen in the US, what with the sue-them-culture that seems to exist - but in that case, I'd also be worried of people suing car makers for driving off into the sea...
Neither of those things seem to me to be an agreement.
Granting you permission to use the software doesn't require the recipient to agree to anything, it's just affirming your right to use it.
The warranty disclaimer is there for information. It's just making it clear that the software doesn't come with any warranty. The key point here is that the warranty does not trump the law - if by default, the law meant that software developers were liable, then yes they would need an "agreement" to get round that. But it states "TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW" and "UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW".
In fact, it also says "OR AGREED TO IN WRITING" - so you can change that if you do have an agreement, but the GPL itself is not an agreement, it's just there for your information.
The GPL also explicitly states "You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run a copy of the Program."
So yes, I think that your post is probably one of the favorite myths of this site.
Oh that's no problem - you see my terms of service are also available on a website, which just so happens to give me unrestricted use of their software, as well as allowing me the right to use all their other software for free. If they do not agree, then do not install onto my machine...
The consideration requirement is pretty easy: "I give you a limited right to use this software and in return you agree to pay some money and to follow the EULA."
The problem is that that "agreement" is presented after the sale has taken place.
If a US court has ruled that one side can put additional terms in after the sale, then that works both ways. Decide you don't like the software you bought after all? Well just take it straight back for a full refund. If more people started doing this, perhaps companies would be less keen to have EULs enforceable as contracts...
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProCD_v._Zeidenberg , "The court stated that Zeidenberg could have rejected the terms of the contract and returned the software." which seems an important point for EULAs having any validity, and as noted above, most companies don't allow you to return the software. Let's face it - if acceptance of EULAs also meant retailers had to refund your money at any time, no questions asked, that wouldn't be such a loss overall...
And if I lived in the US, I'd be writing letters to ProCD saying "By keeping this letter, you agree to pay me £1000 a month". No doubt, the court will rule that they have every right to reject the terms of the contract and return every single letter to me.
Questions that the court case does not seem to address - what happens if a child / your pet presses the Okay button? What if he installed it, but someone else took the information and put it on a website? What if he bypassed the installer (perhaps it was possible to read the data directly from the CD)? Or modified the text file of the EULA (it's perfectly legal to modify a contract and sign that instead)? Contract law covers all of these situations fine (they only apply to the adult human who accepts the contract, and not at all if he doesn't accept it), so surely that applies for the EULA too?
~ Anyone replying to this post who disagrees with me agrees to send me £10. You can reject the terms of the contract and choose to not disagree if you prefer. ~
Whatever happened to the "good old days" of people paying a few bucks for a basic hosting account, slapping up a few pages of basic HTML describing themselves and their interests, with maybe a few photos?
You're saying that if people are worried about privacy, they should put their information on a completely public webpage, rather than making use of features on sites like Facebook and LiveJournal that allow you to restrict access to certain people?
but instead giving your browsing history to an ad vendor
Oh, that's okay then!
Here in the UK, all ISPs have had to sign up to Cleanfeed. Like the Finnish system, it's intended to block only child porn - to be fair, unlike the Finnish system there doesn't seem to be evidence that it catches more stuff. But then, since the list is secret, and blocked pages silently return a false "page not found" error, there's no way to be sure.
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/02/391376.html?c=on claims that the list has been expanded, but it's not clear what the evidence is. We already know though that the Government want criminalisation of possession to start including consensual adult porn.
In Finland it is not illegal to access or view child pornograpy. Possession of such materials is illegal.
Even with caching disabled, you'd have to temporarily possess it if you viewed it. Has there been a court case that ruled this legal - and by that, I don't mean an accidental viewer, but someone who intentionally went to view the site?
(Here in the UK, downloading is considered making child porn - you're "making" another copy - and hence it is punished worse than simple possession...)