So with that logic lets say a local mom and pop pharmacy accidentally gives out the wrong prescription. We should fine them only $1000, but if Walmart does the same thing well they are a big company and they should get fined 1 million.
I don't see what would be so horrible about that, but you've pointed out an even bigger difference between the two. What the broadcasting companies are doing is intentional (if not directly then via the doctrine of respondent emptor).
Wrongful death is what one is charged with in a civil case, murder is a criminal charge. As an example, OJ Simpson was found not guilty of murder but was found responsible of wrongful death.
Broadcast companies tend to have a lot more money than your average nuke violator. They are fined more because it takes more to make them listen.
And stern's switching to XM anyway, which just shows that the problem isn't the cursing, it's using a public resource to broadcast your curses.
I'm a fan of Howard Stern, but at the same time I can understand why we have an FCC. The airwaves are a public resource, and as such they pretty much have to be regulated.
It would be a tremendous waste of technology to use a quantum computer to evaluate operations which are serial, rather than parallel, in nature.
When I hear this, I immediately think "AI". In that sense it might make sense not to tightly couple the devices so closely, but instead hook them both up to the same network independent of one another. After all, the brain seems to do a good enough job with just the parallel processing parts, using computers to handle the serial processing. Likewise maybe a quantum computer could just have a login account to a few standard computers and just run (or write!) a program to handle some tough calcuation bits (It would of course contain a basic multiplication table and addition table just like our human brains do for the simple stuff). Sure, I guess you could increase the network speed by putting them in the same box, but with a smart enough algorithm it shouldn't require too much in the way of communication back and forth.
Of course, I never even got to take a course in quantum computing when I earned my degree, so maybe I'm taking too much meaning out of the description of a quantum computer as a parallel device. I'm certainly looking farther ahead into the future than the initial configuration of these things.
it is likely that for the forseeable future, quantum computers will remain far too valuable and rare to be used for anything a more conventional computer could do as well.
Fortunately the internet is much further along today than it was in the days of the supercomputers, so it might not be too unreasonable for scientists all over the world to get a timeslice on one (not implying the same one).
It seems that TSP, if not directly expressible as a searching algorithm, could certainly be expressed as one. In the end I guess we'll have to have a regular computer and quantum computer all within the same box, most likely with the quantum computer as a side processor kind of like an FPU (though presumably with a much more complex instruction set).
The debate is not over what EULAs can or cannot do; the debate is over what they try to do, and what software publishers believe they can do.
I thought the debate was over whether or not the GPL was an EULA. As for what software publishers believe they can do, I'm sure most software publishers realize they can't do anything.
It's obvious that software publishers think they can require you to accept the EULA to use the software.
I strongly disagree. Most EULAs make invalid claims. There have been court cases which say that you have the right to install a program you've legally aquired onto your computer without restriction, but EULAs claim to restrict this.
They require you to agree to it in their installers, or on their shrinkwraps, and they include clauses that state you can return the software for a refund if you don't agree.
It's like having a sign in a store saying "NO RETURNS" even though you're required by law to have a 24-hour return policy. Just because they say it doesn't mean it's true, and doesn't mean that they even think it's true. Going back to the GPL, it obviously doesn't want to tell you that you have every right to distribute binaries without source, but you still do.
The GPL, on the other hand, clearly states that you aren't required to accept it
Almost all EULAs clearly state that you aren't required to accept them. And what about companies that put the GPL in an installer, or on their shrinkwrap? This is quite common.
If you don't accept it, you are governed by regular copyright law, and the FSF understands and explicitly states this.
I don't think the fact that the FSF states this is a fundamental enough difference to say that the GPL isn't an EULA.
Terminating your rights under this license doesn't mean you can no longer use the program.
And this is different from any other EULA how? Show me an example of where someone has been successfully sued for using software because of a restriction in an EULA.
I don't believe that "distribution" covers resale
If it doesn't then there is a gaping wide hole in the GPL.
Even if it did, you can still resell, but you give up your GPL rights for this copy of the program.
I don't see any reason to believe that the termination of rights is limited to that single copy. I think it's less clear whether or not the attempt is to revoke the rights retroactively. If not, then I suppose that's another gaping wide hole in the GPL.
An EULA takes the rights you have and restricts them further. They may add things such as restrictions on your use of the software, your ability to sue the publisher, etc.
And the GPL does not? "You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License." Sounds like they've just restricted all of your fair use and first sale rights just there, except the ones they expressly grant. If I buy GPLed software, can I resell the binary without distributing the source or not? It is my right under first sale to redistribute in this way, after all, but according to the GPL I cannot do this.
It is perfectly legal and legitimate to use GPLd software without reading, understanding, or accepting the GPL.
This is true of any software.
In this case, you fall back to the default copyright restrictions, which are more restrictive than the GPL.
In most cases they are more restrictive, but in some they are not. Copyright law doesn't require you to distribute source code when you distribute a binary, for example.
EULAs should be allowed, but they should also be rare. I mean very rare, to the extent that you should be able to generally assume that if someone agreed to a EULA longer than half a dozen lines, then they probably either had their lawyer look it over, or they spent a couple days thinking about it.
Ah, in a perfect world maybe that would be true. But c'mon, most people don't even spend a couple days thinking about a lease agreement or an insurance contract. Hell, I bet at least one in four don't even read their car lease agreemnt, apartment rental contract, or car insurance policy.
Not letting people agree to things is probably part of the problem. I agree that most EULAs should not be binding (and in reality most probably aren't), but that's because there was no meeting of the minds, something essential to a valid contract.
I'm not sure how it's fundamentally different from any other EULA, especially when software presents it to you as a clickthrough agreement. As far as I'm concerned the GPL is an EULA, it's just not a very restrictive one.
There are other paths than reading the actual license.
For instance, not reading the license. You only really need to read an EULA if you plan on doing something commercial with the software or on redistributing it. Even then, if you're just using the software on one machine you can generally skip the EULA. And then the next most common usage, installing the software on multiple machines for commercial purposes, you can generally get an answer to your question from the manufacturer. The answer they give you may be more restrictive than your actual rights under the law, but then again EULAs usually claim to restrict you from things which they can't actually restrict you from anyway. Finally, comes the people who really need to read EULAs, those redistributing for commercial purposes. For instance, if you bought a CD full of public domain information (such as names and addresses), and want to resell them to the public. Then you better look at the EULA, and you should probably get a lawyer too.
I personally would like to see a standard, simple format for EULA's like credit card companies do with rate disclosures. Otherwise most users have no idea what they have just agreed to.
it was like $200 and the credit card company took like $15-$30 from the restaurant
I highly doubt it. Credit card processing fees are usually in the range of 2-4%. Unless the restaurant was a really big credit risk, I seriously doubt they were paying more than that.
Nonsense. There is no difference between charging a fee if you return the movie late and charging a fee if you return the movie late. Furthermore, every sale has an automatic return policy unless it is clearly marked AS IS on all advertising and packaging. As you have returned the product in exactly the same condition it was in when you purchased it, they have no right to charge you a restocking fee.
So what's the problem again?
The problem is they lied. At the very least they're responsible for actual damages, which means they can't charge restocking fees to those people who didn't know about them, and frankly I'd like to see them face punitive damages because this seems to me to be premeditated and intentional.
The majority of their rentals are 5 days. You get a week in addition to that. If you can't stop by the video store on your way home to drop your movies off in 12 days, they should charge you.
And they should advertise "extended rental periods" not "no late fees". C'mon. They charge a late fee. They shouldn't be advertising that they don't.
Regardless of what you were told by the guy on the phone, or what you thought the TV ads meant, it is your legal responsibility to abide by the rental contract, the terms of which are available at any Blockbuster.
Well, you probably won't get the movie to keep forever, but the guy on the phone still committed fraud as an agent of Blockbuster, and you could sue Blockbuster (respondeat superior) for any damages you suffered due to that fraud. Which basically means, once they charge you for the movie and you return it, you could get out of the restocking fee. If they won't let you (and since they're currently being sued they probably will), then just call your credit card company and reverse the charges.
Does the government really need to protect me against the cost of a DVD because I didn't read the fine print while ignoring far larger issues?
So where do you draw the line? Can an advertiser just advertise anything they want? Before this lawsuit even came up I myself commented on that commercial several times. Blockbusted does charge late fees. They just call it a "restocking fee". It's exactly the same as a late fee.
To say that this is equivalent to a commercial for a free cell phone with cell phone service is not at all reasonable. First of all, as has been pointed out, a commercial advertising free cell phones will say that a service contract is required. Secondly, it is a common practice to offer a free product with the purchase of another. I just don't think the two are equivalent. If blockbusted advertised "NO LATE FEES when you buy the movie" then it'd be much less of a problem, and probably legal.
I can buy a car at 0% interest....but if I pay cash it's $$$thousands$$$ less than if I do credit.
Are you talking about getting thousands less through negotiation, or through an incentive program? In any case, it's only the same if the company actually charged you interest (but just called it a "money loan fee" or something). Is the reduced price of the car in the advertising? If not, then you can't really complain. If blockbusted actually offered no late fees, but just charged $25 for the DVD rental I don't see a problem, since they didn't advertise the price. But that's not what they've done. The deal is you rent the movie, and if you don't return it, then they charge you for it. Then, if you decide to return it after they charged you for it, they charge you a "restocking fee". How is that any different from a late fee? How is it any different from the usual process blockbuster uses? The only difference is they've extended the time before they charge the late fee.
If we've reached the point where a company can advertise the end of late fees when it actually charges a late fee (just calls it a restocking fee), all without being subject to a lawsuit, then we have reached a new level of stupidity in the legal system.
I'm sorry, I'm a big believer that some of the disclaimers we require are ridiculous, but saying you don't charge late fees when you do is just wrong.
And the fact that we commit crimes which go unpunished means we shouldn't punnish others?
No, the fact that we have thousands of stupid laws means that lawbreakers don't and shouldn't knowingly risk losing their right to privacy simply by committing a crime.
Until more people are driving those sorts of cars I think they deserve the relief they are getting.
Every day, more people are driving them.
I think they should get bigger breaks for the time being. (note: I do not own a hybrid or electric)
I don't think they need to get any breaks. I doubt the amount of pollution saved by those vehicles costs society all that much. But I'd be willing to look at figures to the contrary.
Slashdot Mirror
So with that logic lets say a local mom and pop pharmacy accidentally gives out the wrong prescription. We should fine them only $1000, but if Walmart does the same thing well they are a big company and they should get fined 1 million.
I don't see what would be so horrible about that, but you've pointed out an even bigger difference between the two. What the broadcasting companies are doing is intentional (if not directly then via the doctrine of respondent emptor).
You're right. XM is the name of the Company, not the band, I keep getting confused on that one.
XM does use the public airwaves.
True, but the broadcast isn't open to the public. That said, XM might very well be regulated (as strictly as FM) one day, and probably should be.
Wrongful death is what one is charged with in a civil case, murder is a criminal charge. As an example, OJ Simpson was found not guilty of murder but was found responsible of wrongful death.
Broadcast companies tend to have a lot more money than your average nuke violator. They are fined more because it takes more to make them listen.
And stern's switching to XM anyway, which just shows that the problem isn't the cursing, it's using a public resource to broadcast your curses.
I'm a fan of Howard Stern, but at the same time I can understand why we have an FCC. The airwaves are a public resource, and as such they pretty much have to be regulated.
It would be a tremendous waste of technology to use a quantum computer to evaluate operations which are serial, rather than parallel, in nature.
When I hear this, I immediately think "AI". In that sense it might make sense not to tightly couple the devices so closely, but instead hook them both up to the same network independent of one another. After all, the brain seems to do a good enough job with just the parallel processing parts, using computers to handle the serial processing. Likewise maybe a quantum computer could just have a login account to a few standard computers and just run (or write!) a program to handle some tough calcuation bits (It would of course contain a basic multiplication table and addition table just like our human brains do for the simple stuff). Sure, I guess you could increase the network speed by putting them in the same box, but with a smart enough algorithm it shouldn't require too much in the way of communication back and forth.
Of course, I never even got to take a course in quantum computing when I earned my degree, so maybe I'm taking too much meaning out of the description of a quantum computer as a parallel device. I'm certainly looking farther ahead into the future than the initial configuration of these things.
it is likely that for the forseeable future, quantum computers will remain far too valuable and rare to be used for anything a more conventional computer could do as well.
Fortunately the internet is much further along today than it was in the days of the supercomputers, so it might not be too unreasonable for scientists all over the world to get a timeslice on one (not implying the same one).
It seems that TSP, if not directly expressible as a searching algorithm, could certainly be expressed as one. In the end I guess we'll have to have a regular computer and quantum computer all within the same box, most likely with the quantum computer as a side processor kind of like an FPU (though presumably with a much more complex instruction set).
The debate is not over what EULAs can or cannot do; the debate is over what they try to do, and what software publishers believe they can do.
I thought the debate was over whether or not the GPL was an EULA. As for what software publishers believe they can do, I'm sure most software publishers realize they can't do anything.
It's obvious that software publishers think they can require you to accept the EULA to use the software.
I strongly disagree. Most EULAs make invalid claims. There have been court cases which say that you have the right to install a program you've legally aquired onto your computer without restriction, but EULAs claim to restrict this.
They require you to agree to it in their installers, or on their shrinkwraps, and they include clauses that state you can return the software for a refund if you don't agree.
It's like having a sign in a store saying "NO RETURNS" even though you're required by law to have a 24-hour return policy. Just because they say it doesn't mean it's true, and doesn't mean that they even think it's true. Going back to the GPL, it obviously doesn't want to tell you that you have every right to distribute binaries without source, but you still do.
The GPL, on the other hand, clearly states that you aren't required to accept it
Almost all EULAs clearly state that you aren't required to accept them. And what about companies that put the GPL in an installer, or on their shrinkwrap? This is quite common.
If you don't accept it, you are governed by regular copyright law, and the FSF understands and explicitly states this.
I don't think the fact that the FSF states this is a fundamental enough difference to say that the GPL isn't an EULA.
Terminating your rights under this license doesn't mean you can no longer use the program.
And this is different from any other EULA how? Show me an example of where someone has been successfully sued for using software because of a restriction in an EULA.
I don't believe that "distribution" covers resale
If it doesn't then there is a gaping wide hole in the GPL.
Even if it did, you can still resell, but you give up your GPL rights for this copy of the program.
I don't see any reason to believe that the termination of rights is limited to that single copy. I think it's less clear whether or not the attempt is to revoke the rights retroactively. If not, then I suppose that's another gaping wide hole in the GPL.
An EULA takes the rights you have and restricts them further. They may add things such as restrictions on your use of the software, your ability to sue the publisher, etc.
And the GPL does not? "You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License." Sounds like they've just restricted all of your fair use and first sale rights just there, except the ones they expressly grant. If I buy GPLed software, can I resell the binary without distributing the source or not? It is my right under first sale to redistribute in this way, after all, but according to the GPL I cannot do this.
It is perfectly legal and legitimate to use GPLd software without reading, understanding, or accepting the GPL.
This is true of any software.
In this case, you fall back to the default copyright restrictions, which are more restrictive than the GPL.
In most cases they are more restrictive, but in some they are not. Copyright law doesn't require you to distribute source code when you distribute a binary, for example.
EULAs should be allowed, but they should also be rare. I mean very rare, to the extent that you should be able to generally assume that if someone agreed to a EULA longer than half a dozen lines, then they probably either had their lawyer look it over, or they spent a couple days thinking about it.
Ah, in a perfect world maybe that would be true. But c'mon, most people don't even spend a couple days thinking about a lease agreement or an insurance contract. Hell, I bet at least one in four don't even read their car lease agreemnt, apartment rental contract, or car insurance policy.
Not letting people agree to things is probably part of the problem. I agree that most EULAs should not be binding (and in reality most probably aren't), but that's because there was no meeting of the minds, something essential to a valid contract.
This things should not be legally binding.
Most of them aren't.
The GPL is not an EULA afaik.
I'm not sure how it's fundamentally different from any other EULA, especially when software presents it to you as a clickthrough agreement. As far as I'm concerned the GPL is an EULA, it's just not a very restrictive one.
There are other paths than reading the actual license.
For instance, not reading the license. You only really need to read an EULA if you plan on doing something commercial with the software or on redistributing it. Even then, if you're just using the software on one machine you can generally skip the EULA. And then the next most common usage, installing the software on multiple machines for commercial purposes, you can generally get an answer to your question from the manufacturer. The answer they give you may be more restrictive than your actual rights under the law, but then again EULAs usually claim to restrict you from things which they can't actually restrict you from anyway. Finally, comes the people who really need to read EULAs, those redistributing for commercial purposes. For instance, if you bought a CD full of public domain information (such as names and addresses), and want to resell them to the public. Then you better look at the EULA, and you should probably get a lawyer too.
I personally would like to see a standard, simple format for EULA's like credit card companies do with rate disclosures. Otherwise most users have no idea what they have just agreed to.
That's because they've agreed to nothing.
I don't exactly remember the number
it was like $200 and the credit card company took like $15-$30 from the restaurant
I highly doubt it. Credit card processing fees are usually in the range of 2-4%. Unless the restaurant was a really big credit risk, I seriously doubt they were paying more than that.
A restocking charge is not a late fee.
Nonsense. There is no difference between charging a fee if you return the movie late and charging a fee if you return the movie late. Furthermore, every sale has an automatic return policy unless it is clearly marked AS IS on all advertising and packaging. As you have returned the product in exactly the same condition it was in when you purchased it, they have no right to charge you a restocking fee.
So what's the problem again?
The problem is they lied. At the very least they're responsible for actual damages, which means they can't charge restocking fees to those people who didn't know about them, and frankly I'd like to see them face punitive damages because this seems to me to be premeditated and intentional.
The majority of their rentals are 5 days. You get a week in addition to that. If you can't stop by the video store on your way home to drop your movies off in 12 days, they should charge you.
And they should advertise "extended rental periods" not "no late fees". C'mon. They charge a late fee. They shouldn't be advertising that they don't.
Regardless of what you were told by the guy on the phone, or what you thought the TV ads meant, it is your legal responsibility to abide by the rental contract, the terms of which are available at any Blockbuster.
Well, you probably won't get the movie to keep forever, but the guy on the phone still committed fraud as an agent of Blockbuster, and you could sue Blockbuster (respondeat superior) for any damages you suffered due to that fraud. Which basically means, once they charge you for the movie and you return it, you could get out of the restocking fee. If they won't let you (and since they're currently being sued they probably will), then just call your credit card company and reverse the charges.
Does the government really need to protect me against the cost of a DVD because I didn't read the fine print while ignoring far larger issues?
So where do you draw the line? Can an advertiser just advertise anything they want? Before this lawsuit even came up I myself commented on that commercial several times. Blockbusted does charge late fees. They just call it a "restocking fee". It's exactly the same as a late fee.
To say that this is equivalent to a commercial for a free cell phone with cell phone service is not at all reasonable. First of all, as has been pointed out, a commercial advertising free cell phones will say that a service contract is required. Secondly, it is a common practice to offer a free product with the purchase of another. I just don't think the two are equivalent. If blockbusted advertised "NO LATE FEES when you buy the movie" then it'd be much less of a problem, and probably legal.
I can buy a car at 0% interest....but if I pay cash it's $$$thousands$$$ less than if I do credit.
Are you talking about getting thousands less through negotiation, or through an incentive program? In any case, it's only the same if the company actually charged you interest (but just called it a "money loan fee" or something). Is the reduced price of the car in the advertising? If not, then you can't really complain. If blockbusted actually offered no late fees, but just charged $25 for the DVD rental I don't see a problem, since they didn't advertise the price. But that's not what they've done. The deal is you rent the movie, and if you don't return it, then they charge you for it. Then, if you decide to return it after they charged you for it, they charge you a "restocking fee". How is that any different from a late fee? How is it any different from the usual process blockbuster uses? The only difference is they've extended the time before they charge the late fee.
If we've reached the point where a company can advertise the end of late fees when it actually charges a late fee (just calls it a restocking fee), all without being subject to a lawsuit, then we have reached a new level of stupidity in the legal system.
I'm sorry, I'm a big believer that some of the disclaimers we require are ridiculous, but saying you don't charge late fees when you do is just wrong.
What I believe will happen is kind of irrelevant.
And the fact that we commit crimes which go unpunished means we shouldn't punnish others?
No, the fact that we have thousands of stupid laws means that lawbreakers don't and shouldn't knowingly risk losing their right to privacy simply by committing a crime.
There are great ways to insure that the government does not get to put their fancy schmancy GPS units around your ankle, and here they are:
Don't do anything that will get you put on probation.
In today's society, that pretty much limits you to not being able to do anything.
If it's kept limited to those who are convicted of committing violent crimes I don't have a problem with it. Any further than that and I'd hesitate.
Until more people are driving those sorts of cars I think they deserve the relief they are getting.
Every day, more people are driving them.
I think they should get bigger breaks for the time being. (note: I do not own a hybrid or electric)
I don't think they need to get any breaks. I doubt the amount of pollution saved by those vehicles costs society all that much. But I'd be willing to look at figures to the contrary.