Hard to tell from the details in these stories. One argument Avenue Media could run is that DirectRevenue is interfering in the contract between the user and Avenue Media. Whilst it (arguably) has the user's permission to do this, it doesn't have Avenue Media's.
Nope. Under English law they could only recover their actual financial loss. And if SCO has drafted the "licences" carefully then the victims might not even be able to do this.
There is no need for an EULA: if they make it available for installation there is a clearly implied license to make such copies as are necessary for the installation.
Even if you believe in a vengeful God who kills those he disapproves of, it is bizarre and illogical for AIDS to be a punishment (unless you believe that God hates gay men, hemophiliacs and people who have blood transfusions, but loves lesbians).
If you don't believe in God, how can an undirected act of nature possibly be said to be a "punishment"?
The problem with the approach you're taking is that this isn't a question of politics or logic, but a question of law, and EULAs fit into contract law as it's been understood for a very long time.
EULAs fit every definition of a contract: there's an offer from the copyright holder to grant you a license in consideration for you accepting certain terms.
See if you can find any legal authority which agrees with you: I suspect that you won't.
It's not that black and white. In many jurisdictions, these limitations aren't effective(and the clause acknowledges that).
However the effect of this will generally be to (effectively) excise that clause from the contract, not to make the whole contract invalid.
This is probably typical: most EULAs are likely to effective in part and ineffective in part. The idea that EULAs can in principle never be binding at all is daft.
Clearly ineffective: they are offering you a contract which you are free to accept or reject.
If you amend the contract before you agree to it then you are rejecting their original contract. If you communicate the amendments to the company (not the retailer) then you are making a "counter-offer" of a new contract to them - which in the real world they are likely to reject.
This is a common occurance with "normal" paper contracts. There's plenty of case-law - it's the kind of thing taught in introductory contract law courses.
I absolutely agree with you, but there may be some truth in the US embassy thing.
During the cold war the Russians embedded all kinds of devices inside the US embassy in Moscow. Some were remotely powered by microwaves (I can't remember the details): they secretly surrounded the embassy with dozens of very high power microwave transmitters. There may be a link between this and the death of the US ambassador from a very rare form of leukaemia.
This is according to the Mitrokhin Archive, a pretty legit source (and an excellent book - highly recommended for anyone interested in the history of spycraft, the KGB or the Soviet Union).
Having pilots wear coloured safety glasses wouldn't be impractical, it would be impossible; the only colour that would block all laser frequencies is black.
Jacobs' theory that the complaining Internet posters are motivated by making money from shorting SunnComm's stock is nonsense - it's very difficult to sell "short" (i.e. bet that a share goes down) when the share is obscure and rarely traded.
A professional trader *might* be able to find someone willing to go "long" (take the other side of the bet) but it's pretty unlikely. Joe Public has no chance.
The factual background actually isn't very significant.
The Court ruled against Miller because he hadn't shown any evidence of a relationship between the ownership of a shotgun and the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia. The reason Miller didn't provide any evidence was that he didn't turn up - he'd done a runner and was being tried in his absence. But even if he had been there and presented the evidence - even if he'd won - the fact the Court thought the case boiled down to that question means that they didn't think the second amendment created an individual right that was relevant in the absence of a militia.
You may think the decision was wrong (I don't know enough to have a view) but it will continue to be good law unless overturned by a future Supreme Court. This isn't looking likely: there doesn't seem much appetite on the part of the NRA or the Justice Department to try this one on, and the Supreme Court doesn't seem very interested in rehearing the point either.
Unfortunately the US Supreme Court disagrees with you.
U.S. v. Miller (1939) held that the Second Amendment did not create a right to bear arms for individuals outside the context of a well-regulated militia.
Slashdot Mirror
Hard to tell from the details in these stories. One argument Avenue Media could run is that DirectRevenue is interfering in the contract between the user and Avenue Media. Whilst it (arguably) has the user's permission to do this, it doesn't have Avenue Media's.
Hello? The DMCA?
The existence of the X-No-Archive header suggests that implicit permission is given to archive.
Nope. Under English law they could only recover their actual financial loss. And if SCO has drafted the "licences" carefully then the victims might not even be able to do this.
There is no need for an EULA: if they make it available for installation there is a clearly implied license to make such copies as are necessary for the installation.
why isn't it?
Eliminating unions you don't like? That sounds very constitutional.
Do any real banks send e-mails to customers? As far as I know, no UK bank does.
So what about an EULA which grants you additional rights, such as Borland's old "like a book" licence? Should this be illegal too?
Even if you believe in a vengeful God who kills those he disapproves of, it is bizarre and illogical for AIDS to be a punishment (unless you believe that God hates gay men, hemophiliacs and people who have blood transfusions, but loves lesbians).
If you don't believe in God, how can an undirected act of nature possibly be said to be a "punishment"?
I think the original poster was suggesting you could modify the EULA without sending the amended terms back to the other party!
The problem with the approach you're taking is that this isn't a question of politics or logic, but a question of law, and EULAs fit into contract law as it's been understood for a very long time.
EULAs fit every definition of a contract: there's an offer from the copyright holder to grant you a license in consideration for you accepting certain terms.
See if you can find any legal authority which agrees with you: I suspect that you won't.
It's not that black and white. In many jurisdictions, these limitations aren't effective(and the clause acknowledges that).
However the effect of this will generally be to (effectively) excise that clause from the contract, not to make the whole contract invalid.
This is probably typical: most EULAs are likely to effective in part and ineffective in part. The idea that EULAs can in principle never be binding at all is daft.
Clearly ineffective: they are offering you a contract which you are free to accept or reject.
If you amend the contract before you agree to it then you are rejecting their original contract. If you communicate the amendments to the company (not the retailer) then you are making a "counter-offer" of a new contract to them - which in the real world they are likely to reject.
This is a common occurance with "normal" paper contracts. There's plenty of case-law - it's the kind of thing taught in introductory contract law courses.
I absolutely agree with you, but there may be some truth in the US embassy thing.
During the cold war the Russians embedded all kinds of devices inside the US embassy in Moscow. Some were remotely powered by microwaves (I can't remember the details): they secretly surrounded the embassy with dozens of very high power microwave transmitters. There may be a link between this and the death of the US ambassador from a very rare form of leukaemia.
This is according to the Mitrokhin Archive, a pretty legit source (and an excellent book - highly recommended for anyone interested in the history of spycraft, the KGB or the Soviet Union).
That's alittle silly.
Having pilots wear coloured safety glasses wouldn't be impractical, it would be impossible; the only colour that would block all laser frequencies is black.
Jacobs' theory that the complaining Internet posters are motivated by making money from shorting SunnComm's stock is nonsense - it's very difficult to sell "short" (i.e. bet that a share goes down) when the share is obscure and rarely traded.
A professional trader *might* be able to find someone willing to go "long" (take the other side of the bet) but it's pretty unlikely. Joe Public has no chance.
You have a hopelessly naive view of what it's like to live under a dictatorship.
Although, thinking about it, they'd just sink to the bottom of the glass and shatter it.
Copper coated with a thin layer of stainless steel should do the trick (just like in high-end saucepans).
You are absolutely right. The whinging from IT nerds about outsourcing is just a staggering misinformed piece of special pleading.
The factual background actually isn't very significant.
The Court ruled against Miller because he hadn't shown any evidence of a relationship between the ownership of a shotgun and the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia. The reason Miller didn't provide any evidence was that he didn't turn up - he'd done a runner and was being tried in his absence. But even if he had been there and presented the evidence - even if he'd won - the fact the Court thought the case boiled down to that question means that they didn't think the second amendment created an individual right that was relevant in the absence of a militia.
You may think the decision was wrong (I don't know enough to have a view) but it will continue to be good law unless overturned by a future Supreme Court. This isn't looking likely: there doesn't seem much appetite on the part of the NRA or the Justice Department to try this one on, and the Supreme Court doesn't seem very interested in rehearing the point either.
Unfortunately the US Supreme Court disagrees with you.
U.S. v. Miller (1939) held that the Second Amendment did not create a right to bear arms for individuals outside the context of a well-regulated militia.
What if someone else tries to drive the car unexpectedly, say a police-officer or emergency worker?
If this is true, your friend is a potential murderer.