It's government knows that its muslim citizenry cannot handle a movie that not only questions existence (thus calls the words of the koran into doubt) but also has the 'good' people living in a place called Zion. Oh yeah, the movie is made by two Jewish brothers. Egypt knows that any middle-eastern muslim who sees the movie will start rioting and blowing things up. This will just result in property damage and injuries/deaths in Egypt. And anyway, the movie is so fucking horrible (not for the reasons i just mentioned, of course) that no society benefits from such a worthless movie. Let's see, weeks, possibly months of muslims blowing stuff up in your country, or letting a crap movie play in your country? It's an unfortunate comment on today's islamic society, but Egypt made the right call, and it wasn't a tough decision.
I said an add that says anything MORE than just the brand name is inherantly fraudulent. At least I've never seen one that wasnt. Puffery is fraudulent (in my opinion and I realize I'm in a vast minority), but to have a cause of auction for fraud one needs reliance. Going around telling everyone coke is the best soft drink ever *is* fraud, but who is going to sue Coca-Cola for 50 cents because they didn't like the taste and only bought the can of soda because they relied on the misrepresentation that it was the greatest ever. "But it's just an opinion!" Great, opinions have no place in advertising. I look at fraud in advertising very broadly. In fact, it's more of an intentional deception than fraud if you want to get extremely technical, and that's solely due to the reliance. Nobody would really admit they relied on the ad's statement that coke was the greatest ever. I doubt anyone really would believe that. Does that make it okay to say in the context of commercial speech? I say no. What about "our airplanes are the safest ever." "Our cars are the least flammable ever made." That should not be allowed.
It is the implied false statements of fact which lead me to say all advertising (except bare logo type ads) contains fraud. Sticking hot women with big tits in the commercial implies you'll get laid by a hot woman with big tits if you buy the product. It's subconscious. I say it's still deceptive, false, and misleading. The hamburgers in the mcdonald's commercials don't look anything like the hamburgers you actually get from McD's. Fraud. Lock up the advertising agency and throw away the key. If that burger were a car, it would be more blatant. Paying a celebrity to hawk one's goods is deceptive. It implies the celebrity really thinks what he says about the product. The mere fact that there is a quid pro quo which is, of course, never mentioned by the celebrity ("I'm being paid to tell you that I drink coke") makes it deceptive.
I love free speech and the First Amendment quite considerably, but we all know there are times when speech has to be limited. I don't buy the slippery-slope argument that once we get rid of X type of advertising (admittedly a large portion of it, but they're still free to use legal means) we'll end up without any free speech at all.
I agree that Professor Lessig's bounty plan regarding spam elimination is a great idea, but we'll need international treaties to make it effective it, and as long as one country abstains and has electricity, the idea goes out the window (I suppose we could nuke said country, but the folks out in california and france would start whining, which makes it impracticable).
Defining "intrusive" is easy. I've already done it. You look at how the message is sent. If it is sent one time to anyone who happens to be in a certain place to see it (happens to be watching TV and sees the commercial, happens to be driving down the street and sees the billboard) it is not intrusive. If the ad is a large amount of "individual" ads sent (by whatever means) purposely and directly to a given individual, it is per se intrusive. Telemarketing. Spam. Junk mail. They're all composed of multiple copies of an advertisement with one (or more... argh) copy sent to various individuals. Another way of looking at it is that if everyone at a given moment in time is capable of seeing the ad at that very moment (12.5 minutes into "Friends," or at the corner of 15th Street and Main on July 10, 2003 at 5pm) it is not intrusive.
Rowan involved content-neutral speech being forbidden. Only someone in advertising would make the argument seriously, but the gist is: just because you say "shut up" doesn't mean I can't legally still talk to you. You don't have to listen to me. You don't have to read the shit i send you. Just ignore it and throw it out. Of course, that's bullshit and the court correctly decided the case, yet the issue is the same here, sans the request to "shut up." There remai
We're working really hard on reducing spam, but what we're doing is a secret. Uh huh.
Send the spammers to Guantanimo with the terrorists. Can you say MILITARY TRIBUNAL? If Ashcroft can suspend due process for those suspected of terrorism, then surely he can suspend due process for those caught spamming. if he can't, let's amend the constitution... 5th and 14th amendments shall not apply to anyone involved in direct marketing, and the 8th shall not apply to anyone involved in spamming. Who's with me?
My all-time favorite quote from a US Supreme Court case:
"Nothing in the Constitution compels us to listen to or view any unwanted communication, whatever its merit. We [U.S. Supreme Court] categorically reject the argument that a vendor has a right under the Constitution or otherwise to send unwanted material into the home of another. If this prohibition operates to impede the flow of even valid ideas, the answer is that no one has a right to press even 'good' ideas on an unwilling recipient. The asserted right of a mailer, we repeat, stops at the outer boundary of every person's domain." Chief Justice Burger, U.S. Supreme Court ROWAN v. U. S. POST OFFICE DEPT.,
397 U.S. 728 (1970).
It is their profits, not their freedom of speech, that would be threatened with my plan. Fuck their profits. They can earn their profits by making a product that people will want to recommend to their friends. They can also advertise non-intrusively (directed at the public, not at invidivuals, as I described in my original post). My plan only restricts intrusive advertising, not "all" advertising. It is as narrowly tailored as possible to achieve the important government objective of keeping methods of communication useable and preventing waste. Spam alone costs our economy 10 billion dollars a year. There are no less restrictive means of achieving this objective, thus the Central Hudson test is clearly met.
Also, keep in mind the fact that any advertisement that says anything more than the brand name (i.e. a billboard with the coca cola logo and nothing more, I forget the term for such advertisements) is fraudulent in some way or another. Usually the fraud is de minimis (called "puff talk" or "puffery" in these circumstances) and excused. This fraudulent speech deserves no (ZERO) First Amendment protection (although one shouldn't be allowed to sue over it either... de minimis non curat lex).
Remember, you're not buying a product, only a license from the software company. So in theory, the store isn't selling you anything. They're just paid intermediaries/agents for the software company. They handle the money and give it back to you if you don't accept the license. If you do accept the license, the stores get to keep a little bit of the money for their work. They then forward the rest to the software company.
I've said it before... we need to outlaw all forms of intrusive advertising. By intrusive, I mean directed directly at a recipient (each ad sent one at a time). TV commercials are not such types of ads, but junk (physical) mail, spam, cellphone spam, fliers on your doorknob, fliers handed out in public, and even a salesperson saying to you in a public noncommercial place (not in a store) "Hi how are you today...." It all needs to be made illegal. No freedom of speech issues; there will still be viable (legitimate) ways a business can advertise. Word of mouth, however, is the only legitimate form of advertising. All others are illegitimate but necessary evils (better to have commercials on tv than have to put in a quarter). But all this "direct marketing" should be completely illegal, in every possible form, current or yet-to-be developed. As far as I'm concerned the Direct Marketing Association is a criminal organization. They're almost as bad as NAMBLA.
If we don't outlaw (with SEVERE punishment; jailtime and fines) direct marketing/advertising, eventually all technology will be rendered useless. Write your congressman....
Because if it did say that, if I were an evil software company lawyer, I would make the argument that such a (clearly visible) statement on the outside of the box lets the would-be purchaser know there are additional terms to the contract, and the contract is not accepted until those additional terms are agreed to. In order to read those additional terms you have to lay out some money, but if you don't agree to the terms you can get your money back as soon as you wish. Thus buying the software is just part of the negotiation process... no different than me telling you to get in your car and drive to my office to discuss additional terms to our potential contract--you'd have to shell out the money for transportation in order to learn of the additional terms. And there you wouldn't even get a refund for the gas money....
Of course I'm not an evil software lawyer and I would not be able to look at myself in the mirror were I to make such an argument in good faith. In fact, I'd snarf down some warfarin and slit my wrists. But it's not an entirely implausible line of reasoning, and gets past the consideration problem.
This is true as well. No argument here. I've never, for the life of me, understood how they've gotten away with it. It's been a while since I've bought any software (erm..) or looked at a box. Does the box say "to use the product inside you have to agree to the EULA inside"? or something to that extent? Just the fact that they give you "the right" to return it if you don't accept doesn't matter. The bargained-for exchange took place at the store. Then when you get home, they add new terms to the offer... after the acceptance... with out any new consideration. Is it only binding because they have a lobby strong enough to negate hundreds of years' worth of contract law without so much as getting a statute passed (UCITA seeming irrelevant)?
No, just because a principal has knowledge that something can happen and warns his agents to be aware of it doesn't mean he gives his agents implied authority to do the action (in this case make a binding contract for the company). Then the business would be better off not warning the agents in the first place, which would foster bad public policy.
Regardless, there is no new consideration for the new contract terms written on the check. Thus it's not binding, even if the agent did have authority to make such a contract. You're not giving anything that you didn't already owe to impose the new terms (or to get title to the brooklyn bridge, etc.). Even the infamous "if you write 'paid in full' on a check written for an amount less than you owe then the remainder of your debt is discharged if they cash it" thing is an urban legend. See UCC 3-311, or Snopes.
Yep. I should be able to do whatever I want with anything I legally buy (or illegally buy for that matter... nothing that's not radioactive or contagious should be illegal to buy). If something I do with my property causes your business to lose money, go find another fucking business model. Jackasses.
naw the beef isn't with the stores, it is w/ the software manufacturers--the ones doing the shrinkwrap licenses. What WOULD be fun(ny) to do would be write a letter to someone like Adobe or Microsoft inquiring about purchasing a large quantity of licenses for a specific piece of software, and give them the terms for the license of your money. Ask if they accept... as we'd really love to do business together. The response (if any) would be worth a few chuckles. Then tell them sorry, no sale.
"Automatically gives me express authorization to copy, record, and sell as many copies of vendor's software product as I so desire, as well as share any registration codes/keys necessary to use said software, up and until the time of vendor complying with this EVLA."
doesnt work because, primarily, the minimum wage desk jockey rubber-stamping endorsements is not an agent with the authority to accept such a condition. it's like the old send a $5 check to NYC city hall and write in the memo space "for title to the brooklyn bridge." Needless to say it doesn't work. Makes for funny sitcom episodes, though.:)
quit modding it funny... i'm serious. If I buy their software and only get a license to use it, then I'll give them a license to use my money. It's still my money (just like it's still their software). If we all agree that we will not buy any software unless they accept this condition, we'll make the world a better place. Birds will sing all day long. Chipmunks and pitbulls will play together.
"if you violate any of these terms we will stop payment"... huh? What if they violate the EVLA 6 months after you buy the software? How can you stop payment then? You can't. You'd have to sue.
I have a better idea. Make them agree that when you pay them, you are only giving them A LICENSE to use your money. You can revoke that license (i.e. get your money back) at any time, and for any reason. Would there be a failure of consideration (thus making the contract void for ya non-legal peeps)? No, due to time value of money. You get the money back, but not with interest. So they did get some consideration - the use of your money until you ask for it back.
Yeah, you'd still probably have to sue them to get them to quit pirating your money (violating the license agreement), but we can start a BSA type group to enforce such horrible, criminal violations on a large scale. I mean, come on.... taking a license to use someone's money and not giving the money back when the license is revoked is.. well it's sorta kinda like breaking into their house and stealing the money from their piggybank. Damn, I am a genius today.
When you put the money in, it decides if you win or lose (random chance -- totally legal). Whatever buttons you push afterwards are just for fun and illusion.
as long as you win a certain % of the time (which I presume you do, or nobody would ever play the machines.. then again we are talking about the UK here hehe) it IS random. The question is when the randomness happens. That really doesn't matter at all, unless it just ruins the illusion for you and makes you all cranky.
Yes it is pre-determined, but pre-determined randomly. The odds are (whatever) that you will win or lose. You have a chance of winning. That chance has a certain probability. Just because the outcome is determined before the wheels stop spinning doesn't mean it's cheating/fraud. The spinning wheels are just for aesthetics.
I'm sure i'm probably too late... someone's probably already applied for a patent on dragonfly flight.... which means I'd be infringing if i walk a certain way, i guess....
"The DMCA was a carefully crafted compromise and balance struck by Congress." -- RIAA Fool (quote from article)
I spit the yogurt i was eating all over my keyboard when I read that one. It's funny and sad at the same time. Yes, it was a compromise all right. Between the RIAA and MPAA.... very carefully crafted and balanced indeed.
Slashdot Mirror
It's government knows that its muslim citizenry cannot handle a movie that not only questions existence (thus calls the words of the koran into doubt) but also has the 'good' people living in a place called Zion. Oh yeah, the movie is made by two Jewish brothers. Egypt knows that any middle-eastern muslim who sees the movie will start rioting and blowing things up. This will just result in property damage and injuries/deaths in Egypt. And anyway, the movie is so fucking horrible (not for the reasons i just mentioned, of course) that no society benefits from such a worthless movie. Let's see, weeks, possibly months of muslims blowing stuff up in your country, or letting a crap movie play in your country? It's an unfortunate comment on today's islamic society, but Egypt made the right call, and it wasn't a tough decision.
Ok in reverse order:
I said an add that says anything MORE than just the brand name is inherantly fraudulent. At least I've never seen one that wasnt. Puffery is fraudulent (in my opinion and I realize I'm in a vast minority), but to have a cause of auction for fraud one needs reliance. Going around telling everyone coke is the best soft drink ever *is* fraud, but who is going to sue Coca-Cola for 50 cents because they didn't like the taste and only bought the can of soda because they relied on the misrepresentation that it was the greatest ever. "But it's just an opinion!" Great, opinions have no place in advertising. I look at fraud in advertising very broadly. In fact, it's more of an intentional deception than fraud if you want to get extremely technical, and that's solely due to the reliance. Nobody would really admit they relied on the ad's statement that coke was the greatest ever. I doubt anyone really would believe that. Does that make it okay to say in the context of commercial speech? I say no. What about "our airplanes are the safest ever." "Our cars are the least flammable ever made." That should not be allowed.
It is the implied false statements of fact which lead me to say all advertising (except bare logo type ads) contains fraud. Sticking hot women with big tits in the commercial implies you'll get laid by a hot woman with big tits if you buy the product. It's subconscious. I say it's still deceptive, false, and misleading. The hamburgers in the mcdonald's commercials don't look anything like the hamburgers you actually get from McD's. Fraud. Lock up the advertising agency and throw away the key. If that burger were a car, it would be more blatant. Paying a celebrity to hawk one's goods is deceptive. It implies the celebrity really thinks what he says about the product. The mere fact that there is a quid pro quo which is, of course, never mentioned by the celebrity ("I'm being paid to tell you that I drink coke") makes it deceptive.
I love free speech and the First Amendment quite considerably, but we all know there are times when speech has to be limited. I don't buy the slippery-slope argument that once we get rid of X type of advertising (admittedly a large portion of it, but they're still free to use legal means) we'll end up without any free speech at all.
I agree that Professor Lessig's bounty plan regarding spam elimination is a great idea, but we'll need international treaties to make it effective it, and as long as one country abstains and has electricity, the idea goes out the window (I suppose we could nuke said country, but the folks out in california and france would start whining, which makes it impracticable).
Defining "intrusive" is easy. I've already done it. You look at how the message is sent. If it is sent one time to anyone who happens to be in a certain place to see it (happens to be watching TV and sees the commercial, happens to be driving down the street and sees the billboard) it is not intrusive. If the ad is a large amount of "individual" ads sent (by whatever means) purposely and directly to a given individual, it is per se intrusive. Telemarketing. Spam. Junk mail. They're all composed of multiple copies of an advertisement with one (or more... argh) copy sent to various individuals. Another way of looking at it is that if everyone at a given moment in time is capable of seeing the ad at that very moment (12.5 minutes into "Friends," or at the corner of 15th Street and Main on July 10, 2003 at 5pm) it is not intrusive.
Rowan involved content-neutral speech being forbidden. Only someone in advertising would make the argument seriously, but the gist is: just because you say "shut up" doesn't mean I can't legally still talk to you. You don't have to listen to me. You don't have to read the shit i send you. Just ignore it and throw it out. Of course, that's bullshit and the court correctly decided the case, yet the issue is the same here, sans the request to "shut up." There remai
We're working really hard on reducing spam, but what we're doing is a secret. Uh huh.
Send the spammers to Guantanimo with the terrorists. Can you say MILITARY TRIBUNAL? If Ashcroft can suspend due process for those suspected of terrorism, then surely he can suspend due process for those caught spamming. if he can't, let's amend the constitution... 5th and 14th amendments shall not apply to anyone involved in direct marketing, and the 8th shall not apply to anyone involved in spamming. Who's with me?
My all-time favorite quote from a US Supreme Court case:
"Nothing in the Constitution compels us to listen to or view any unwanted communication, whatever its merit. We [U.S. Supreme Court] categorically reject the argument that a vendor has a right under the Constitution or otherwise to send unwanted material into the home of another. If this prohibition operates to impede the flow of even valid ideas, the answer is that no one has a right to press even 'good' ideas on an unwilling recipient. The asserted right of a mailer, we repeat, stops at the outer boundary of every person's domain." Chief Justice Burger, U.S. Supreme Court
ROWAN v. U. S. POST OFFICE DEPT., 397 U.S. 728 (1970).
It is their profits, not their freedom of speech, that would be threatened with my plan. Fuck their profits. They can earn their profits by making a product that people will want to recommend to their friends. They can also advertise non-intrusively (directed at the public, not at invidivuals, as I described in my original post). My plan only restricts intrusive advertising, not "all" advertising. It is as narrowly tailored as possible to achieve the important government objective of keeping methods of communication useable and preventing waste. Spam alone costs our economy 10 billion dollars a year. There are no less restrictive means of achieving this objective, thus the Central Hudson test is clearly met.
Also, keep in mind the fact that any advertisement that says anything more than the brand name (i.e. a billboard with the coca cola logo and nothing more, I forget the term for such advertisements) is fraudulent in some way or another. Usually the fraud is de minimis (called "puff talk" or "puffery" in these circumstances) and excused. This fraudulent speech deserves no (ZERO) First Amendment protection (although one shouldn't be allowed to sue over it either... de minimis non curat lex).
I live in the USA and we don't have any rights here (only corporate entities have rights, not individual persons).
Remember, you're not buying a product, only a license from the software company. So in theory, the store isn't selling you anything. They're just paid intermediaries/agents for the software company. They handle the money and give it back to you if you don't accept the license. If you do accept the license, the stores get to keep a little bit of the money for their work. They then forward the rest to the software company.
I've said it before... we need to outlaw all forms of intrusive advertising. By intrusive, I mean directed directly at a recipient (each ad sent one at a time). TV commercials are not such types of ads, but junk (physical) mail, spam, cellphone spam, fliers on your doorknob, fliers handed out in public, and even a salesperson saying to you in a public noncommercial place (not in a store) "Hi how are you today...." It all needs to be made illegal. No freedom of speech issues; there will still be viable (legitimate) ways a business can advertise. Word of mouth, however, is the only legitimate form of advertising. All others are illegitimate but necessary evils (better to have commercials on tv than have to put in a quarter). But all this "direct marketing" should be completely illegal, in every possible form, current or yet-to-be developed. As far as I'm concerned the Direct Marketing Association is a criminal organization. They're almost as bad as NAMBLA.
If we don't outlaw (with SEVERE punishment; jailtime and fines) direct marketing/advertising, eventually all technology will be rendered useless. Write your congressman....
Because if it did say that, if I were an evil software company lawyer, I would make the argument that such a (clearly visible) statement on the outside of the box lets the would-be purchaser know there are additional terms to the contract, and the contract is not accepted until those additional terms are agreed to. In order to read those additional terms you have to lay out some money, but if you don't agree to the terms you can get your money back as soon as you wish. Thus buying the software is just part of the negotiation process... no different than me telling you to get in your car and drive to my office to discuss additional terms to our potential contract--you'd have to shell out the money for transportation in order to learn of the additional terms. And there you wouldn't even get a refund for the gas money....
Of course I'm not an evil software lawyer and I would not be able to look at myself in the mirror were I to make such an argument in good faith. In fact, I'd snarf down some warfarin and slit my wrists. But it's not an entirely implausible line of reasoning, and gets past the consideration problem.
This is true as well. No argument here. I've never, for the life of me, understood how they've gotten away with it. It's been a while since I've bought any software (erm..) or looked at a box. Does the box say "to use the product inside you have to agree to the EULA inside"? or something to that extent? Just the fact that they give you "the right" to return it if you don't accept doesn't matter. The bargained-for exchange took place at the store. Then when you get home, they add new terms to the offer... after the acceptance... with out any new consideration. Is it only binding because they have a lobby strong enough to negate hundreds of years' worth of contract law without so much as getting a statute passed (UCITA seeming irrelevant)?
No, just because a principal has knowledge that something can happen and warns his agents to be aware of it doesn't mean he gives his agents implied authority to do the action (in this case make a binding contract for the company). Then the business would be better off not warning the agents in the first place, which would foster bad public policy.
Regardless, there is no new consideration for the new contract terms written on the check. Thus it's not binding, even if the agent did have authority to make such a contract. You're not giving anything that you didn't already owe to impose the new terms (or to get title to the brooklyn bridge, etc.). Even the infamous "if you write 'paid in full' on a check written for an amount less than you owe then the remainder of your debt is discharged if they cash it" thing is an urban legend. See UCC 3-311, or Snopes.
Yep. I should be able to do whatever I want with anything I legally buy (or illegally buy for that matter... nothing that's not radioactive or contagious should be illegal to buy). If something I do with my property causes your business to lose money, go find another fucking business model. Jackasses.
naw the beef isn't with the stores, it is w/ the software manufacturers--the ones doing the shrinkwrap licenses. What WOULD be fun(ny) to do would be write a letter to someone like Adobe or Microsoft inquiring about purchasing a large quantity of licenses for a specific piece of software, and give them the terms for the license of your money. Ask if they accept... as we'd really love to do business together. The response (if any) would be worth a few chuckles. Then tell them sorry, no sale.
yeah, until the day they snap and chew someone's arms off. Which case you'll go and sue the breeder for failure to warn....
"Automatically gives me express authorization to copy, record, and sell as many copies of vendor's software product as I so desire, as well as share any registration codes/keys necessary to use said software, up and until the time of vendor complying with this EVLA."
doesnt work because, primarily, the minimum wage desk jockey rubber-stamping endorsements is not an agent with the authority to accept such a condition. it's like the old send a $5 check to NYC city hall and write in the memo space "for title to the brooklyn bridge." Needless to say it doesn't work. Makes for funny sitcom episodes, though. :)
quit modding it funny... i'm serious. If I buy their software and only get a license to use it, then I'll give them a license to use my money. It's still my money (just like it's still their software). If we all agree that we will not buy any software unless they accept this condition, we'll make the world a better place. Birds will sing all day long. Chipmunks and pitbulls will play together.
"if you violate any of these terms we will stop payment" ... huh? What if they violate the EVLA 6 months after you buy the software? How can you stop payment then? You can't. You'd have to sue.
.. well it's sorta kinda like breaking into their house and stealing the money from their piggybank. Damn, I am a genius today.
I have a better idea. Make them agree that when you pay them, you are only giving them A LICENSE to use your money. You can revoke that license (i.e. get your money back) at any time, and for any reason. Would there be a failure of consideration (thus making the contract void for ya non-legal peeps)? No, due to time value of money. You get the money back, but not with interest. So they did get some consideration - the use of your money until you ask for it back.
Yeah, you'd still probably have to sue them to get them to quit pirating your money (violating the license agreement), but we can start a BSA type group to enforce such horrible, criminal violations on a large scale. I mean, come on.... taking a license to use someone's money and not giving the money back when the license is revoked is
Yep, would be very Unamerican for them to not give ashcroft the keys in escrow. If they didn't do that, they'd be with bin laden.
So nobody has ever (EVER!) won a 2nd round? I really doubt that. (if they have won a 2nd round, there's no problem)
When you put the money in, it decides if you win or lose (random chance -- totally legal). Whatever buttons you push afterwards are just for fun and illusion.
as long as you win a certain % of the time (which I presume you do, or nobody would ever play the machines.. then again we are talking about the UK here hehe) it IS random. The question is when the randomness happens. That really doesn't matter at all, unless it just ruins the illusion for you and makes you all cranky.
And the lottery is a tax on people who are bad at math.
Yes it is pre-determined, but pre-determined randomly. The odds are (whatever) that you will win or lose. You have a chance of winning. That chance has a certain probability. Just because the outcome is determined before the wheels stop spinning doesn't mean it's cheating/fraud. The spinning wheels are just for aesthetics.
I'm sure i'm probably too late... someone's probably already applied for a patent on dragonfly flight.... which means I'd be infringing if i walk a certain way, i guess....
"The DMCA was a carefully crafted compromise and balance struck by Congress." -- RIAA Fool (quote from article)
I spit the yogurt i was eating all over my keyboard when I read that one. It's funny and sad at the same time. Yes, it was a compromise all right. Between the RIAA and MPAA.... very carefully crafted and balanced indeed.