Software causing a car crash would lead to the first real court test of EULA disclaimers. Microsoft may be able to disclaim liability for someone's ruined spreadsheet, but if a Microsoft powered car crashes and kills someone, there's enough money at stake to sue and I doubt the court will be impressed with what is written on page 87 of a EULA that the driver supposedly agreed to by turning the ignition key.
What people don't like is change in the landscape. Once the change happens and they get used to it, nobody complains anymore. A perfect example of this is the giant Citgo sign on the Boston skyline. When it was first put up (1960s, I think), people complained that the skyline was being altered by some corporate monstrosity. Eventually people quit complaining and got used to it, and it was just another part of the city. Years later, Citgo decided they no longer needed the huge sign and announced it was going to be taken down. Once again, people complained. They said the sign had become part of the Boston skyline that everyone recognized and that taking it down would be causing the area to lose a landmark. Change is what people object to, not the objects themselves.
Most Americans don't have a problem with reasonable transportation subsidies. What they have a problem with is money being poured down a blackhole, which is what Amtrak funding is. Money spent on roads, on the other hand, actually benefits society. How does funding a railroad agency known for legendary incompetence help the nation? I would be in favor of dissolving Amtrak, creating a rail agency that is at least capable of doing some things right, and running rail routes that make sense, like the east and west coast corridors. I don't think they need to necessarily turn a profit, but there should be some limits to how much of a loss we will tolerate. Does anyone really think a rail route from Chicago to Los Angeles makes sense?
It won't be the US that makes Canada adopt a DMCA style set of laws, it will be the corporate lobbyists, same as it was in the US. Canadian legislators can be bought just as easily, hell they already have a copyright tax on recordable media.
There's no need for the RIAA to spend the money doing that when they can just get their bitch boy Orrin Hatch to introduce some more laws making the FBI function as their own private detective service. Then they'll no longer have to bother with this pesky warrant crap.
That's why they don't actually take cases to court. They just threaten people with lawsuits claiming $50 billion in damages to scare them into a $5,000 settlement. This way they don't have to prove shit. And a mere listing of available files, with or without actual traffic logs, will probably be enough probably cause to get a court order.
On the subject of NDAs and EULAs, like all contracts, just because it's written doesn't mean it's enforceable. I haven't heard of anyone being taken to court for selling software to someone else, assuming they deleted all copies they may have had. I'd be very surprised if a EULA term like this would be upheld by a court.
Hey, I totally agree with you here. But when a country which constantly criticizes the US for being intolerant has a policy like this, while claiming to support freedom, it is nothing less than hypocritical. And based on the numerous downmods that my initial post received, the truth hurts to a lot of Slashdotters who are modding based solely on their personal beliefs.
Well of course they waited so long so they can maximize the damages they are asking for. I agree, if there is evidence that a patent is being infringed on and the owner is either aware or should be aware, they should be required to act within a reasonable amount of time or lose the right to claim damages. I can't think of how this infringes any patent holders' legitimate rights other than denying them the ability to wait until something is in widespread use and then use the patent as a lottery ticket.
Most importantly, is it overly difficult to remove? If the software was either carelessly created or intentionally designed to resist uninstallation, it could cause problems for the user and should be avoided.
Never did I say that the Democratic party was above all of this. Afterall, they have to get reelected too. Modern lobbyists will almost always play both sides of the field to some degree. The RIAA for example might prefer to lobby Democrats, but I could take a good guess which party most of their efforts are being focused on right now. You're awfully defensive towards someone who essentially agrees with you.
Although that was the traditional Republican belief, Bush republicans (the reason I no longer vote Republican) tend to believe in running businesses like a government (RIAA, Halliburton, SBC), or at least in giving them government-like powers. Protection from competition is one of those powers, so no, the GOP no longer believes in free enterprise.
Obviously this is just another case of a business entity thinking the taxpayers can pay most of the costs of their business model but then they can keep most of the profits. I guess they figured if it works for professional sports it could work for them too. But seriously, corporate welfare is getting out of hand. I say if the weather forecasting companies want the NOAA to not make their data available to the public then it should no longer be a taxpayer funded service and Accuweather can pay out the ass to get a satellite feed from them. Somehow I don't think that's what the executives have in mind, though.
That's bullshit, a DVD is something you pay for so that you don't have to watch ads. The price is set according to how much people are willing to pay, not how much the company can make on ads. What if HBO started interrupting movies with ads and said it was in place of a rate increase? I doubt that would go over very well since the main appeal of HBO is the lack of ads. When an ad is shown anyplace, there is never a guarantee that it will be watched attentively by every potential viewer, only that it will be put in a place where people CAN see it, so ad blocking is not unethical by any means.
ColdFusion would be a great development platform if only it weren't so damn expensive to (legally) run. It is very easy to use to develop great web applications, but the licensing cost is prohibitive in most cases.
I agree. His behavior was not exactly proper, but since no actual crime took place, I don't see how her lawsuit will go anywhere. The fact that this took place over a long period of time and that she waited just as long to sue will make it very easy to question her real intentions. Of course, AOL executives should see this as a wake up call to what could have been a much worse situation and do what they can to make sure it is not likely to happen again.
Face it, dude, you're an idiot. Nobody cares about your self-righteousness. You obviously feel scared to handle a car at higher speeds. What if someone cut in front of you quickly, which I'm sure they do often as they fly around you, and it required a fast reaction from you to avoid an accident, could you do it? I doubt it, since you'll be too mind-numbed from crawling along at 50 mph to actually think about driving. Get off the highway and take the backroads, where you can go 50 without causing a traffic tieup.
The issue of common carrier status (which is what ISPs operate under) has been addressed by the courts numerous times. Comcast would face no legal problems by refusing to turn over subscriber data without a court order.
It's not your customers' faults that your business model is apparently broken. No ISP I've ever dealt with says no file sharing. Why can they turn a profit but you can't? Yes, I know, I'm probably feeding a troll here.
Never talk to debt-collection scumbags. All communication with them should be done in writing, since it's much harder for them to later deny having said something. Since they ALL lie, you'll definitely need to protect yourself. That being said, they probably knew you were going to protest and decided to stop trying to collect, preferring to move on to people who just send the check as soon as they get any bill.
From what I have read (I'm too tired and lazy to post a link), more Americans support censorship than you would think. Something like 20% of Americans, maybe even more, have stated in surveys that they believe that "dangerous" political speech should be a crime. Publicly insulting the president and protesting the war in Iraq were 2 examples they gave of dangerous speech. Most people you know would probably not be in favor of this type of restriction, but remember there are a lot of Americans who are very fearful and determine all of their beliefs based on what they hear from their parents, boss, pastor, Fox News, whatever, without thinking about things themselves. These are the people who want to have dissent outlawed because it scares them since it questions their entire belief structure and they don't know how to deal with that.
Slashdot Mirror
Software causing a car crash would lead to the first real court test of EULA disclaimers. Microsoft may be able to disclaim liability for someone's ruined spreadsheet, but if a Microsoft powered car crashes and kills someone, there's enough money at stake to sue and I doubt the court will be impressed with what is written on page 87 of a EULA that the driver supposedly agreed to by turning the ignition key.
What people don't like is change in the landscape. Once the change happens and they get used to it, nobody complains anymore. A perfect example of this is the giant Citgo sign on the Boston skyline. When it was first put up (1960s, I think), people complained that the skyline was being altered by some corporate monstrosity. Eventually people quit complaining and got used to it, and it was just another part of the city. Years later, Citgo decided they no longer needed the huge sign and announced it was going to be taken down. Once again, people complained. They said the sign had become part of the Boston skyline that everyone recognized and that taking it down would be causing the area to lose a landmark. Change is what people object to, not the objects themselves.
Most Americans don't have a problem with reasonable transportation subsidies. What they have a problem with is money being poured down a blackhole, which is what Amtrak funding is. Money spent on roads, on the other hand, actually benefits society. How does funding a railroad agency known for legendary incompetence help the nation? I would be in favor of dissolving Amtrak, creating a rail agency that is at least capable of doing some things right, and running rail routes that make sense, like the east and west coast corridors. I don't think they need to necessarily turn a profit, but there should be some limits to how much of a loss we will tolerate. Does anyone really think a rail route from Chicago to Los Angeles makes sense?
It won't be the US that makes Canada adopt a DMCA style set of laws, it will be the corporate lobbyists, same as it was in the US. Canadian legislators can be bought just as easily, hell they already have a copyright tax on recordable media.
There's no need for the RIAA to spend the money doing that when they can just get their bitch boy Orrin Hatch to introduce some more laws making the FBI function as their own private detective service. Then they'll no longer have to bother with this pesky warrant crap.
That's why they don't actually take cases to court. They just threaten people with lawsuits claiming $50 billion in damages to scare them into a $5,000 settlement. This way they don't have to prove shit. And a mere listing of available files, with or without actual traffic logs, will probably be enough probably cause to get a court order.
On the subject of NDAs and EULAs, like all contracts, just because it's written doesn't mean it's enforceable. I haven't heard of anyone being taken to court for selling software to someone else, assuming they deleted all copies they may have had. I'd be very surprised if a EULA term like this would be upheld by a court.
Hey, I totally agree with you here. But when a country which constantly criticizes the US for being intolerant has a policy like this, while claiming to support freedom, it is nothing less than hypocritical. And based on the numerous downmods that my initial post received, the truth hurts to a lot of Slashdotters who are modding based solely on their personal beliefs.
Google for French Muslims headscarves schools.
Well of course they waited so long so they can maximize the damages they are asking for. I agree, if there is evidence that a patent is being infringed on and the owner is either aware or should be aware, they should be required to act within a reasonable amount of time or lose the right to claim damages. I can't think of how this infringes any patent holders' legitimate rights other than denying them the ability to wait until something is in widespread use and then use the patent as a lottery ticket.
Let me guess, your nasty boss took it back, and then you burned down the building in retaliation?
Most importantly, is it overly difficult to remove? If the software was either carelessly created or intentionally designed to resist uninstallation, it could cause problems for the user and should be avoided.
Never did I say that the Democratic party was above all of this. Afterall, they have to get reelected too. Modern lobbyists will almost always play both sides of the field to some degree. The RIAA for example might prefer to lobby Democrats, but I could take a good guess which party most of their efforts are being focused on right now. You're awfully defensive towards someone who essentially agrees with you.
Although that was the traditional Republican belief, Bush republicans (the reason I no longer vote Republican) tend to believe in running businesses like a government (RIAA, Halliburton, SBC), or at least in giving them government-like powers. Protection from competition is one of those powers, so no, the GOP no longer believes in free enterprise.
Now if only they can find a way to twist and distort the DMCA to outlaw privately owned thermometers.
Obviously this is just another case of a business entity thinking the taxpayers can pay most of the costs of their business model but then they can keep most of the profits. I guess they figured if it works for professional sports it could work for them too. But seriously, corporate welfare is getting out of hand. I say if the weather forecasting companies want the NOAA to not make their data available to the public then it should no longer be a taxpayer funded service and Accuweather can pay out the ass to get a satellite feed from them. Somehow I don't think that's what the executives have in mind, though.
That's bullshit, a DVD is something you pay for so that you don't have to watch ads. The price is set according to how much people are willing to pay, not how much the company can make on ads. What if HBO started interrupting movies with ads and said it was in place of a rate increase? I doubt that would go over very well since the main appeal of HBO is the lack of ads. When an ad is shown anyplace, there is never a guarantee that it will be watched attentively by every potential viewer, only that it will be put in a place where people CAN see it, so ad blocking is not unethical by any means.
ColdFusion would be a great development platform if only it weren't so damn expensive to (legally) run. It is very easy to use to develop great web applications, but the licensing cost is prohibitive in most cases.
I agree. His behavior was not exactly proper, but since no actual crime took place, I don't see how her lawsuit will go anywhere. The fact that this took place over a long period of time and that she waited just as long to sue will make it very easy to question her real intentions. Of course, AOL executives should see this as a wake up call to what could have been a much worse situation and do what they can to make sure it is not likely to happen again.
Face it, dude, you're an idiot. Nobody cares about your self-righteousness. You obviously feel scared to handle a car at higher speeds. What if someone cut in front of you quickly, which I'm sure they do often as they fly around you, and it required a fast reaction from you to avoid an accident, could you do it? I doubt it, since you'll be too mind-numbed from crawling along at 50 mph to actually think about driving. Get off the highway and take the backroads, where you can go 50 without causing a traffic tieup.
The issue of common carrier status (which is what ISPs operate under) has been addressed by the courts numerous times. Comcast would face no legal problems by refusing to turn over subscriber data without a court order.
It's not your customers' faults that your business model is apparently broken. No ISP I've ever dealt with says no file sharing. Why can they turn a profit but you can't? Yes, I know, I'm probably feeding a troll here.
That's because he was running a competitive business. Comcast, unfortunately, is a monopoly in most areas.
Never talk to debt-collection scumbags. All communication with them should be done in writing, since it's much harder for them to later deny having said something. Since they ALL lie, you'll definitely need to protect yourself. That being said, they probably knew you were going to protest and decided to stop trying to collect, preferring to move on to people who just send the check as soon as they get any bill.
From what I have read (I'm too tired and lazy to post a link), more Americans support censorship than you would think. Something like 20% of Americans, maybe even more, have stated in surveys that they believe that "dangerous" political speech should be a crime. Publicly insulting the president and protesting the war in Iraq were 2 examples they gave of dangerous speech. Most people you know would probably not be in favor of this type of restriction, but remember there are a lot of Americans who are very fearful and determine all of their beliefs based on what they hear from their parents, boss, pastor, Fox News, whatever, without thinking about things themselves. These are the people who want to have dissent outlawed because it scares them since it questions their entire belief structure and they don't know how to deal with that.