3) As much as I don't like this kind of sales strategy, I'm not sure why folks think buyers shouldn't be restricted to the terms they can read on the box. Those terms are an agreement between Lexmark and the buyer, and if the buyer doesn't like them, s/he doesn't have to buy. That's what freedom to/of contract is all about - don't like their terms, don't buy Lexmark products. Without any antitrust considerations - which I'm not aware of here - where is the rationale for telling Lexmark what it can and cannot offer in its contract terms?
Because those are Diktats, not contracts. There is no consideration, no negotiation, only a "take it or leave it" that is entirely inappropriate at the retail point of sale. If this sort of thing is allowed to stand, expect contract language on the wrapper of everything you buy. I imagine the most popular ones at first will be waivers of right to sue for product liability. This world does not need EULAs on widgets from the store, thank you very much.
Might be a bit better if the greed of the rich didn't create murderous cannibals in the first place, but have it your way. I have the fava beans and the fine Chianti at the ready.
Haven't read slashcode lately, have you? For expending your mod points on one person, you've probably moderated for the last time. And I still post with the +1 bonus. Have a nice day.
You're splitting hairs. If you don't want the content linked, embedded, or otherwise accessed via HTTP, either don't put it on the web or wrap it in some kind of script. It's that simple.
I hope Fuddruckers slaps him with a libel suit for redirecting to the slaughterhouse image. Sure, it'd be meritless, but it might teach the kid a lesson about being a complete prick before it's too late.
That's absolute bull. Webmasters have the right to try and prevent it, but making something freely available via HTTP implies consent to link. The door locking analogy is completely irrelevant, unless you happen to live in a culture where it has always been customary that an unlocked front door implies permission to enter.
I don't give two shits about your artificial distinctions among terms, moron. The only thing worse than a biter is a biter who can't comprehend what she's read.
Without the right to link, there is no web. Whiny crybabies who put things on the Internet then blubbler when someone dares to connect to them need to get a life, post haste. If you've put it on the Internet, copyright or not, you have for all intents and purposes given your precious "content" away. The sooner we all realize that, the better.
It doesn't matter how kind and good-natured iTMS' DRM is -- it's the camel's nose underneath the tent. And as the EFF pointed out, these vendors reserve the right to further contract the rights/expand the restrictions at any time. And Apple has already done this several times.
The site in your sig sucks. It leads the user on thinking he or she will be able to get a quote, collects more than enough information to issue a quote. Then, surprise, after four forms, "Cough up your personal information before you can see the quotes!" Not happening.
The gendarmes can confiscate the camera, but the photos are already on a server outside the country's jurisdiction. This should be handy for journalists, demonstrators, etc.
. . . for Trusted Computing? Could the idea that any lawful browser (i.e. one that will be able to access most commercial sites because it can supply remote attestation credentials) is required (or arranged through "gentleman's agreement") to store history of a user's activity in a file untouchable by the user be far behind?
Exactly. This is another "Give us a better price or we switch to open source!" move that will turn at the last minute when Microsoft offers them a deal.
If it only were true. People are going to eat what they're fed, and Vista + Digital Restrictions Mangement are going to ship on every new PC, whether anyone wants it or not. Such is the nature of monopoly. And Apple has also embraced DRM, so they will be no savior.
Those providing that service to the copyright cartel should be expelled from school for violating the commercial use clause of the terms of their network access.
I personally don't get too up in arms about "some DRM." I think, e.g., FairPlay [extremetech.com] is pretty fair for consumers. Currently
But those that accepted FairPlay have cooperated with getting the Digital Restrictions Management nose underneath the camel's tent. Once DRM is accepted, it will all become more intrusive, because there will be an oligopoly or monopoly controlling the only game in town.
Cool -- ran across this thread in m2 and learned something today. Didn't know why IIII. Wonder why not VIIII rather than IX, though. Do you mean that to the Romans, IX would have been 11?
If one of these suits were to ever go to trial, wouldn't the bounty hunter's testimony be required? Talk about having a price on one's head. Hell, I'd contribute to a PayPal account to fund a lottery for a person who could guess the exact date of death for a pigfucker that would sit inside a campus network, log traffic, and rat fellow students out to the *AA.
That, and they probably wouldn't be able to testify anyway, having broken the usage requirements of the school which prohibit for-profit use, which bounty hunting definitely is.
You might have had a rat Miner among you. Or a stooge among the administration. A Missouri Sunshine Act request asking for anything on cooperation agreements with copyright holders, what third parties are allowed access to the network, etc. should be in order. But they'd probably be able to dodge the request under the guise of "network security." Hope this doesn't screw you up -- and if the administration has let you off, you obviously don't want to be the one making any Sunshine Act requests. Good luck, and use USENET:).
Did you try VMWare? Of course, the reader might have VMware detection code, too--VMware has made that fairly easy, since they're in bed with Microsoft (remember the OS/2 support?). Bochs might be a better bet. Until Treacherous Computing takes hold, emulation holds the answer to bypassing this sort of chicanery.
Slashdot Mirror
Because those are Diktats, not contracts. There is no consideration, no negotiation, only a "take it or leave it" that is entirely inappropriate at the retail point of sale. If this sort of thing is allowed to stand, expect contract language on the wrapper of everything you buy. I imagine the most popular ones at first will be waivers of right to sue for product liability. This world does not need EULAs on widgets from the store, thank you very much.
Might be a bit better if the greed of the rich didn't create murderous cannibals in the first place, but have it your way. I have the fava beans and the fine Chianti at the ready.
Haven't read slashcode lately, have you? For expending your mod points on one person, you've probably moderated for the last time. And I still post with the +1 bonus. Have a nice day.
You're splitting hairs. If you don't want the content linked, embedded, or otherwise accessed via HTTP, either don't put it on the web or wrap it in some kind of script. It's that simple.
And that attitude is why we are moving very quickly to an environment in which the rich will be afraid to be in public lest they be killed and eaten.
I hope Fuddruckers slaps him with a libel suit for redirecting to the slaughterhouse image. Sure, it'd be meritless, but it might teach the kid a lesson about being a complete prick before it's too late.
That's absolute bull. Webmasters have the right to try and prevent it, but making something freely available via HTTP implies consent to link. The door locking analogy is completely irrelevant, unless you happen to live in a culture where it has always been customary that an unlocked front door implies permission to enter.
I don't give two shits about your artificial distinctions among terms, moron. The only thing worse than a biter is a biter who can't comprehend what she's read.
Without the right to link, there is no web. Whiny crybabies who put things on the Internet then blubbler when someone dares to connect to them need to get a life, post haste. If you've put it on the Internet, copyright or not, you have for all intents and purposes given your precious "content" away. The sooner we all realize that, the better.
It doesn't matter how kind and good-natured iTMS' DRM is -- it's the camel's nose underneath the tent. And as the EFF pointed out, these vendors reserve the right to further contract the rights/expand the restrictions at any time. And Apple has already done this several times.
The site in your sig sucks. It leads the user on thinking he or she will be able to get a quote, collects more than enough information to issue a quote. Then, surprise, after four forms, "Cough up your personal information before you can see the quotes!" Not happening.
The gendarmes can confiscate the camera, but the photos are already on a server outside the country's jurisdiction. This should be handy for journalists, demonstrators, etc.
The day when I give those DMCA-wielding jackbooted thug pigfuckers one thin dime.
. . . for Trusted Computing? Could the idea that any lawful browser (i.e. one that will be able to access most commercial sites because it can supply remote attestation credentials) is required (or arranged through "gentleman's agreement") to store history of a user's activity in a file untouchable by the user be far behind?
Exactly. This is another "Give us a better price or we switch to open source!" move that will turn at the last minute when Microsoft offers them a deal.
Probably wouldn't be economical with shipping cost. That, and the *AA has bought laws making lending of audio CDs for profit illegal, IIRC.
If it only were true. People are going to eat what they're fed, and Vista + Digital Restrictions Mangement are going to ship on every new PC, whether anyone wants it or not. Such is the nature of monopoly. And Apple has also embraced DRM, so they will be no savior.
Those providing that service to the copyright cartel should be expelled from school for violating the commercial use clause of the terms of their network access.
But those that accepted FairPlay have cooperated with getting the Digital Restrictions Management nose underneath the camel's tent. Once DRM is accepted, it will all become more intrusive, because there will be an oligopoly or monopoly controlling the only game in town.
Sad. Not the way you want to run a university that tries to attract the best and the brightest.
Cool -- ran across this thread in m2 and learned something today. Didn't know why IIII. Wonder why not VIIII rather than IX, though. Do you mean that to the Romans, IX would have been 11?
That, and they probably wouldn't be able to testify anyway, having broken the usage requirements of the school which prohibit for-profit use, which bounty hunting definitely is.
You might have had a rat Miner among you. Or a stooge among the administration. A Missouri Sunshine Act request asking for anything on cooperation agreements with copyright holders, what third parties are allowed access to the network, etc. should be in order. But they'd probably be able to dodge the request under the guise of "network security." Hope this doesn't screw you up -- and if the administration has let you off, you obviously don't want to be the one making any Sunshine Act requests. Good luck, and use USENET :).
Did you try VMWare? Of course, the reader might have VMware detection code, too--VMware has made that fairly easy, since they're in bed with Microsoft (remember the OS/2 support?). Bochs might be a better bet. Until Treacherous Computing takes hold, emulation holds the answer to bypassing this sort of chicanery.
NGCSB, TCPA, Palladium, TCG, SCMS, CGMS-A ... these will be Microsoft's true legacy.