I wonder though, whether EULAs couldn't also be used as a defense against this type of trolling in a way patents can't. Suppose, for example, that a maker of a small, free-ware (popular) program, put a clause into their EULA saying in essence "You agree not sue any other end-users of this product".. if there were enough of these out there, any EULA-troll company would have almost certainly have clicked through on one of them, which would put them in a position of arguing both for and against EULA terms. I don't think this would pass the legal "reasonableness" criteria - a court would simply rule that no contract could possibly prevent one party from taking action against a third party not involved in the contract (the fact that two companies have entered into identical contracts with the software company is irrelevant - the two are completely independent of one another). Consider - if such were possible, a company could evade a well-earned lawsuit over theft of trade secrets from a competitor, simply because both use the same accounting package.
Many of the posters in this topic seem to have adopted the "that'll never happen" mentality. After all, there's no real chance of a corporation *successfully* suing people over these outrageous EULAs, is there?
I would like to remind those posters of the methodology used by the RIAA - threaten, harass, sue, and in the unlikely case that the victim actually puts up a fight, drop the case and run away.
Consider how many people, in the face of a mere *threat* to sue from the RIAA, have rolled over and paid the amount that the RIAA was demanding? Perhaps these people are cowards. More likely, they simply calculated that paying up would be much cheaper than hiring an attorney and fighting it out.
A EULA troll could exploit the same methods.
And the only thing that could put a stop to it would be a firm ruling by the courts that EULAs are in fact non-enforceable. A ruling which the trolls would avoid like the plague by using the cut-and-run tactic whenever faced with somebody who appears inclined to fight.
After reading TFA, I sat back and attempting to count just how many of those EULAs I had clicked through without bothering to read (after all, everyone *knows* that they are non-enforceable, don't they?). I can't be sure, but the number is most certainly at least three digits.
I suspect that most *present* EULAs simply don't contain anything that could be used for this purpose. That doesn't mean that *future* EULAs won't include them *deliberately*.
How long before Wiki has an entry titled "EULA bomb"?
yea, if they wanted to calm it down, they shoulda just poured a few truckloads of valium into it instead. The *traditional* method is to toss in a virgin (hey, if somebody tossed ME a virgin, I'd calm down....eventually).
Unfortunately this method runs afoul of modern legislations (it violates the Endangered Species Act).
I think the smart people acting on the spam emails are shorting the stocks being pumped...
Not likely. The stocks used in these schemes are generally small issues, so anybody trying to make money in this fashion is all too likely to get caught in a "short squeeze".
Uh - Nasa and company have been using aerobraking since the beginning of the space program. More than 40 years ago, the took a MANNED capsule, decelerated is just barely below orbital velocity, slowed it via aerodynamic drag, then dropped the thing into the ocean on parachutes.
Doing the same with big chunks of metal, with all the technological advances that we've seen since the 1960's, does NOT sound like an inherently impossible task...
A security freeze means that your credit history cannot be seen by potential creditors, insurance companies or employers doing background checks unless you give consent.
Gee, it isn't that way by default? I would expect that that information too would be safeguarded...
Nope. Unless you've specified such a freeze, anyone who has subscribed to the credit bureau can see your credit history. Credit card companies routinely scan such histories to determine who to send those unsolicited "You have been approved for..." mailings. Employers routinely check such histories before hiring (on the assumption that a bad credit history = an unreliable person). Apartments routinely check such histories before renting to a person.
I wouldn't be a bit surprised to find out that con artists are accessing these credit histories to find suitable victims. All that such a criminal would need is an inside contact with a subscriber...
I personally know of 3 music artists that have died due to starvation, just in the last 2 weeks. One was a good friend involved on the verge of signing a big record deal with Sony music...
I'm probably going to get nailed as a troll for this one, but:
What were YOU doing while this "good friend" was starving to death? Couldn't spare a meal or two?
Of course, in reality I doubt that this "friend" even exists. I'm guessing you're a shill for the RIAA trying to build some sympathy by once again playing the "starving artists" card.
First I read the slashdot article, and thought to myself "okay, the editors are smoking crack again".
Then I read the referenced article.
I owe the editors an apology for my mistaken assumption.
From TFA:
As quoted by The Hollywood Reporter,"Mechanical royalties currently are out of whack with historical and international rates," RIAA executive VP and General Counsel Steven Marks said. "We hope the judges will restore the proper balance by reducing the rate and moving to a more flexible percentage rate structure so that record companies can continue to create the sound recordings that drive revenues for music publishers."
In other words, the RIAA has actually admitted what most Slashdotters have know all along - their crusade is concerned strictly with the "revenues for music publishers", and if enhancing said revenues means screwing the artists, then so be it.
Another point: "...so that record companies can continue to create the sound recordings...". Since when did record companies start creating anything? They take the creations of the artists, slap their name on them, and bleed off the majority of the profits for themselves.
I thought that the RIAA couldn't possibly sink any lower - looks like I was wrong.
1. Speed limits should not only be posted, they should be broadcast via RFID or similar short range transmission (sue the city, county, state, etc. responsible for posting speed limits). Ford should have a receiver in their vehicle to constantly monitor the broadcast of speed limits and adjust the governor accordingly
I honestly think this would be a great idea.
So if I see another vehicle heading towards me, I'm not allowed to even attempt evading it by accelerating beyond the speed limit? Or what if I'm heading to a hospital with a seriously injured passenger? Or what if the creep behind me (with the illegally modified governor) is trying to run me off the road?
There are situations where exceeding the speed limit is justifiable. Limiting the speed of the vehicle UNDER ALL CIRCUMSTANCES is possibly the most ludicrous thing I've ever heard (and given that I regularly read Slashdot, that's saying a hell of a lot!).
The lyrics (not the tune) were copyrighted in 1935. And like Mickey Mouse, Congress's continual extension of copyright term has kept the copyright valid (It's currently set to expire in 2030).
FYI: The copyright is currently held by Time/Warner. According to ASCAP, T/W receives approximately $2 million a year in royalties on said song.
Slashdot Mirror
Many of the posters in this topic seem to have adopted the "that'll never happen" mentality. After all, there's no real chance of a corporation *successfully* suing people over these outrageous EULAs, is there?
I would like to remind those posters of the methodology used by the RIAA - threaten, harass, sue, and in the unlikely case that the victim actually puts up a fight, drop the case and run away.
Consider how many people, in the face of a mere *threat* to sue from the RIAA, have rolled over and paid the amount that the RIAA was demanding? Perhaps these people are cowards. More likely, they simply calculated that paying up would be much cheaper than hiring an attorney and fighting it out.
A EULA troll could exploit the same methods.
And the only thing that could put a stop to it would be a firm ruling by the courts that EULAs are in fact non-enforceable. A ruling which the trolls would avoid like the plague by using the cut-and-run tactic whenever faced with somebody who appears inclined to fight.
After reading TFA, I sat back and attempting to count just how many of those EULAs I had clicked through without bothering to read (after all, everyone *knows* that they are non-enforceable, don't they?). I can't be sure, but the number is most certainly at least three digits.
I suspect that most *present* EULAs simply don't contain anything that could be used for this purpose. That doesn't mean that *future* EULAs won't include them *deliberately*.
How long before Wiki has an entry titled "EULA bomb"?
Unfortunately this method runs afoul of modern legislations (it violates the Endangered Species Act).
Not likely. The stocks used in these schemes are generally small issues, so anybody trying to make money in this fashion is all too likely to get caught in a "short squeeze".
Uh - Nasa and company have been using aerobraking since the beginning of the space program. More than 40 years ago, the took a MANNED capsule, decelerated is just barely below orbital velocity, slowed it via aerodynamic drag, then dropped the thing into the ocean on parachutes.
Doing the same with big chunks of metal, with all the technological advances that we've seen since the 1960's, does NOT sound like an inherently impossible task...
Nope. Unless you've specified such a freeze, anyone who has subscribed to the credit bureau can see your credit history. Credit card companies routinely scan such histories to determine who to send those unsolicited "You have been approved for
I wouldn't be a bit surprised to find out that con artists are accessing these credit histories to find suitable victims. All that such a criminal would need is an inside contact with a subscriber...
I'm probably going to get nailed as a troll for this one, but:
What were YOU doing while this "good friend" was starving to death? Couldn't spare a meal or two?
Of course, in reality I doubt that this "friend" even exists. I'm guessing you're a shill for the RIAA trying to build some sympathy by once again playing the "starving artists" card.
Then I read the referenced article.
I owe the editors an apology for my mistaken assumption.
From TFA:
In other words, the RIAA has actually admitted what most Slashdotters have know all along - their crusade is concerned strictly with the "revenues for music publishers", and if enhancing said revenues means screwing the artists, then so be it.
Another point: "...so that record companies can continue to create the sound recordings...". Since when did record companies start creating anything? They take the creations of the artists, slap their name on them, and bleed off the majority of the profits for themselves.
I thought that the RIAA couldn't possibly sink any lower - looks like I was wrong.
So if I see another vehicle heading towards me, I'm not allowed to even attempt evading it by accelerating beyond the speed limit? Or what if I'm heading to a hospital with a seriously injured passenger? Or what if the creep behind me (with the illegally modified governor) is trying to run me off the road?
There are situations where exceeding the speed limit is justifiable. Limiting the speed of the vehicle UNDER ALL CIRCUMSTANCES is possibly the most ludicrous thing I've ever heard (and given that I regularly read Slashdot, that's saying a hell of a lot!).
Afraid not.
The lyrics (not the tune) were copyrighted in 1935. And like Mickey Mouse, Congress's continual extension of copyright term has kept the copyright valid (It's currently set to expire in 2030).
FYI: The copyright is currently held by Time/Warner. According to ASCAP, T/W receives approximately $2 million a year in royalties on said song.