Or the person you are developing the site wants IE. Maybe he wants to use Active X or some other IE only functionality. Maybe he is using programs in his company (I believe Soloman is one) that requires IE. Or maybe he is using MS web Outlook which doesn't correctly in FireFox. There are plenty of reasons, and to just say flat out "I *only* make browser-independent websites" shows that 1)You are a boastful liar, 2)an idiot who will not succeed in a service business, or 3)not really a web developer and the only thing you create is your family website - which in all honesty, probably 80% of your family doesnt't care about let alone the 99.99999999% of the world that doesn't care about it.
Hmm depending on how the service worked, no it would not be ridiculous. It is a service - you have the option of playing it or not playing it. I used to play on BBS' (prior to 95) and I paid around 20-30/month to play text based games (MajorMUD, TeleArena, TradeWars, etc). I will NEVER say that was a waste of 20-30/month. I had a Nintendo and SNES and played those - but it was more fun for me to play the online games - and that costs somebody money! Plus continuous updates, not just patches, but extra mods, equipment, etc. Yea it was very much worth it.
Hmmm the subscription crap comes from the fact those servers need to be maintained (bandwidth is IMMENSE, probably some of the largest in the world); they have developers CONSISTANTLY working on the game - which costs money; management, support staff, etc. All of this costs money - and your $50 doesn't mean SQUAT!
Now, personally I think they should have done what Everquest did. The game costs you $10 (or you can d/l it for free) and then you pay a monthly fee.
Or you could compare it to Diablo, and the fact that game was pure repetition and you never really did anything new, and changes came infrequently. So infrequently, that by the time they actually fixed duping the market was flooded with 15/45 IAS Windforce bows that made them more common then a dagger.
I'm not being facetious, I'm really curious--what did you intend this to mean? FireFox is a browser that runs on various operating systems. It is not an OS (of course). Should we infer that you meant "...then it better [become] the dominate [browser]..." or is there something else that I am missing here?
Sorry for not being clear. I meant it better be the browser that most of my market will utilize. I had a slip of the tongue:)
As a businessman, my concern is to reach as many people as possible. IE has 87.2% of the market share according to the article. That means 12.8% of potential patrons are NOT using IE. I'm not willing to have a website that's not functional in multiple browsers and immediately alienate 12.8% of viewers.
Yea 87.2% according to this article, some stats say other things. 87% is a LOT, and if making my website in IE would serve that 87% more then it would serve that 12%, then guess who loses out?
You may not be willing to do it, but your boss who has market research probably doesn't care. The only thing he will want ask you is "Can you offer everything IE does, that our 87% customers WANT, in other browsers?" The moment you cannot include features such as ActiveX (which 87% might want) then your ideas are hosed.
While I don't have the numbers in front of me, I am pretty sure there aren't "Millions of web developers" not even a million and not even 100,000.
Even then, what percentage of web developers are actively testing IE7? I doubt anywhere near 100%, and probably nothing near 25%. Most people will not care until the product is finished. Why would I want to spend hours, days, weeks studying a product and learning its features when it might very well (and reasonably) change in a week? It is still too early for web developers (in general) to care about learning IE7's new nuances.
You may be different, and I am sure someone here will say how they and their 50,000 personal web developing friends are different, but lets talk realistically.
But it is very possible people tried FireFox, didn't like the feel (maybe they didn't give it a chance) and went back. It took me about 2-3 weeks before I became comfortable enough to say "I really like this program." Even at first I didn't like tabbed browsing, now I do...though I could easily live without it.
No, a web designer wants to design his website to hit the majority of his audience. A web designer may not care what Internet program people use,(even if he prefers one over the other), he just wants to know how he can affect the majority of his audiance.
While *I* prefer FireFox, I realize the majority of my audience is IE. Now I make my websites IE and FireFox compatible, but if I had to choose it would be IE. If FireFox wants to become my dominate choice - then it better be the dominate OS. This is business, and my concern is to maximize the hits on my website - and I really don't want to get 50 e-mails a day saying "your website doesn't work in my Internet Explorer".
You may disagree, maybe you are biased against MS. That is not my concern, as a businessman, my concern is to keep my doors open.
There are websites I access that are IE only (because they use things such as Active-X). I always e-mail these guys and complain that they are not FireFox compatible, and that Active-X is not really a tool of choice - especially since the cons outweigh the pros.
This rather neatly kills your "why should *I* have to do it, it's HIS tree" position.
For me to do the trimming, I would have to buy clippers, buy a ladder and then try and climb and hope I don't break my neck. Since I am putting myself at risk at climbing the ladder, that is qualified. Not only that, but I am alergic to bee's and his berries are attracting bee's and other bugs, and it is damaging our property.
"I'm perfectly willing to entertain generous severence packages, and am also willing to collect unemployment while suing you for wrongful termination should you choose to fire me."
Oh silly, you haven't heard of "employment at will". they can fire you for any reason except the wrong reason. Oh and get this, they don't even have to give you a reason. And firing you for not following corporate policies is not the wrong reason. Remember, the wrong reason is pretty much extensively based on discrimination (race, religion, if your pregnant, etc).
A company gets from me what they pay for; nothing less, and definately nothing more
You know it is a shame that you feel you should not give 110% at your company. I am sure you do not always give 100% (that is impossible) but to not even desire to give 110%. When i was in college, I worked in banking. I hated banking, but you know what I always gave 110% and was always in the top 3 best employees in the region. I guess I just have a better work ethic then you do. That doesn't mean I will let a company abuse me - and I have told companies to get lost, but every company I have left in the past five years has told me I am welcome to come back anytime I want.
Go to your nearest Target, pick up a DVD and read the part where it explains the EULA, Region Coding, etc. It doesn't say anything, except of course the features of the DVD such as 5.1 Surround Sound. So, you are agreeing to something without seeing the terms first. Now, of course you can return the DVD and wash your hands of the whole thing, but you can't always say that you read a contract before you implicitly agreed to it.
Whenever I pop the DvD into my player i get this nice FBI message telling me not to copy or distribute, etc. It is before the movie starts, and in general is hard to just skip right over. Also, you are still living in a vaccuum and acting like people are not aware of copying rights, etc.
It doesn't say that, but that is implied in the same way that you use "reasonable expectations" I have a reasonable expectation that renting a DVD won't cost my home.
You have a reasonable expectation of this because when you go to your rental store it lists the prices and terms of membership. You know the price of the DvD is $2/night. You also know that DvD copying is illegal, a crime punishable by federal courts (they even stated the maximum fine which looks like it could cost you your home). Your statement is also erroneous, you know very well that if you rent a movie, go home watch it and take it back to the video store you will not lose your home, or have a federal agent knocking on your door. So whats your problem?
and yet you believe in "reasonable expectations." I consider it perfectly reasonable for me to buy a Japanese DVD in Tokyo and have it work in the US
Except there are explicit import/export laws that prohibit you from doing this. Maybe US customs won't care if you bring a couple DvD's you plan to watch in your own home - but you still run into the problem of region coding. And the law does not permit you to bust it.
corporate agreements be damned
As I said before, if you do not like the terms a company sets forth in their product - nobody is forcing you to buy it. By ignoring their terms of service, you place yourself in legal jeapardy, and you already have compromised yourself in moral jeapardy - even if you do not agree. You breaking the law is immoral. If you want to fight the law - do it within the system.
But while Region Coding keeps some dumb Chinese kid from copying, it also takes away rights from everyone else.
Last I checked, there is no law stating you have the "right" to watch movies. It is up to the corporation, while following gov't regulations, to determine if they want you to own their product. Reasonably, they cannot assign a bodyguard to you, or put your picture in the store. But if a company wants to sell movies ONLY to people who live in China it is their right. If the company then wants to put a restriction on the DvD that the DvD can only be played on DvD players from China, it is their right. You may not like it, you may not feel it is fair - but it is not your product to choose.
reasonable and implicit contracts that exist between corporations and consumers
The corps explicitly spell out the TOAs they want followed with their products. If you do not like it - then don't buy it. Why is that so hard to follow? I went to a phone store, I didn't like their service plan - I didn't buy their service plan. It never crossed my mind to get a service plan and start phone phreaking (i think thats the term) them. It never crossed my mind to try and circumvent their rules. I just said "you are not getting my $50/month.
But, we also agree that there are certain limits and rules of acquisition that protect both the public and corporate bodies.
I agree with you 100%, but so far the corps are following the rules - and you (for arguments sake) are not because you are willing to crack the region code. Remember, region codeing is sanctioned by the gov't, and by circumventing it you are 1) breaking a federal law, and 2) breaking the implicit and explicit the DvD companies have made with you. Maybe the laws and contracts are not fair, but why are you buying the product then if you think they are unfair?
It is ALL about controling the customer's behavior regarding how they use the product.
Well DUH! They are trying to prevent their customers from copying and giving their friends copies of their property. If, in all honesty, people were just making copies for backups there would not be a problem...the problem resides with people giving it away to the masses - even worse some of them sell it on street corners, some of them release it on the internet so its free for everyone. Yea they have a beef, and they are trying to protect their works.
There is NOTHING illegal about selling movies overseas
There are a lot of importing/exporting laws and yes there is a lot of things illegal about selling these products overseas when you do not have the permission to do so, and are violating certain restrictions. For example, the US gov't forbade companies from selling/dispensing 128 bit encryption software to countires over seas (i.e. Netscape). Did it happen, well yea, but was it illegal, most certainly.
Yup, but like I said, there is nothing illegal about it. Breach of contract MAYBE, but certainly no ferderal or state laws have been broken.
I am not a lawyer, and I will wager you are not either, so I do not know how far up the ranks this goes. If he is proven to violate the laws accross state borders then it does become a federal issue as it is interstate commerce. Breaching a contract has you sent to court. I doubt he will face jail time (though it is possible if it is a federal case) but he does stand to get sued, and to lose.
Interestingly enough, all FedEx is asking him to do is to cease and decist. All of this would happen if he complied with their wishes to stop using their product...Maybe he should switch to UPS?
Honestly, most people could care less about bypassing security measures (secure measures put into place not to aid customers in any way, but to limit them for the benefit of the customer) if it gains them more "bang for their buck". It seems most people are ok with being in the wrong in this way. Region free DVD players are certainly popular these days, same thing.
And those people who do not care about the restrictions should be understanding when a high priced lawyer comes a knocking on their door. And they do not gain my sympathy. Will you sympathize with a bank robber for getting caught trying to rob a bank? There is no difference here.
Maybe one day EULA's and such will be a thing of the past - maybe one day people will be honest and not hack to steal things. As long as you have people willing to abuse honest people, you will have honest people trying to figure out ways to deter this activty.
There is really nothing legally wrong with him requesting boxes and making chairs out of them
There is DEFINITLY an expected assumption that the person will use the boxes to ship fedex packages - you and I and he and everyone else all know this. And yes, there might be something in his membership agreement (i am not going to look it up) where it says he gets all these free supplies so he can send fedex packages with them.
FedExfurniture is digital. I am pretty sure there are no words in the English dictionary "FedEx".
The images displaying FedEx boxes are digital. He uses the FedEx name continuously - and that is digital.
HOWEVER you do not often find much public goodwill toward major corporations
Doesn't that sound a bit wrong? Not having goodwill towards an organization because it is an organization? Last I heard, FedEx has not screwed society over.
given the massive screwing they as a group usually attempt every chance they get.
People screw people over everyday. That is not an excuse to continue the vicious cycle. And in relation to this specific issue, FedEx is being kind by giving the boxes (which cost money) for free to potential customers - not for someone to make furniture out of it. And it also goes to tape, boxes, and other packing supplies.
Also, FedEx is not sueing this guy into the ground - they just want him to stop his activities. I think if he complied with them, he would be OK. If he continues to give them the finger, he may not be so OK. And he is giving them the finger with such comments as "If any shipping corporations have problems with our site please feel free to forward requests to/dev/null." This is not different than giving out cheap CUECAT scanners, only to have people figure out how to use them without your crappy software
Actually this is very different. Also, if I give you a scanner for free, but you need to buy my software to use the scanner - you have the option of buying the software or not using the scanner. By bypassing any security systems (though in FedEx's case it is hard if not impossible to provide security on boxes), any written/verbal agreements you become in the wrong.
The DMCA probably came out, if i remember correctly, because the boxes have the FedEX logo's.
FedExs business model is a good business model, and god forbid, a company that is putting faith in the people. Aren't we always complaining how companies do not trust us so they DRM the hell out of their products? Now look, a company that DOES trust us, gives us the benefit of the doubt (at their obvious expense) and they are getting screwed....and look some people in/. think they are wrong for doing this.
Unless he signed a contract stating how he would use the boxes, they have nothing on him.
Not all contracts have to be signed to be enforceable (i.e. when you buy a CD, you do not have to sign the EULA agreement to be held responsible for breaking the agreement.)
Unfortunately, he has changed his website since I last viewed it (yesterday). I have seen his website prior to this posting on/. and he was offering desks for "donations".
I viewed his website yesterday, and I am viewing it today- and it has been changed dramatically (in terms of content). So, unfortunately, I do not have any supporting material
It was convenient that on his donation page he has a link to five or so pieces. Since I know his page changed since yesterday, it is not hard for me to believe that his lawyers said "fix up your website a bit".
At best DVD region coding is a way for the studios to make an extra buck, at worst it's cartel price-fixing. These are not gov't law
Well first, thats your opinion. You also have to remember, that some movies are not meant to be released in other countries for various reasons. Maybe it does not meet the movie ratings (they didn't want to submit it), maybe the gov't doesn't want the content in their country (i.e. China or they used illegal practices in making the movie so the US doesn't want that in their country). Yes there is law with regard to price-fixing, it is very illegal for companies to do so.
You however mentioned piracy, and my point that region coding doesn't protect against piracy, it may even encourage it.
Actually region coding may not stop tech geeks who know whats up, but it can hinder a lot of people. I once sold an old dvd player on the net, i had some guy from China (he lived in the US at the time) ask me if it plays China region DvDs. He wanted a DvD player that could play movies he brought in from China. He obviously did not have the technical knowledge to rip a movie and remove the region encoding. So there are a lot of people this will prvent from hacking - maybe not the/. crowd, but most of the world is not a/. member
There is an implicit contract between corporation and consumer that the corporation can sell a product at a fair price and the consumer will purchase that product and use it within their rights as understood in the body of Fair Use (which could codified more handily).
First there is no implicit in business. Anyone who works on the implicit contract methodology will learn they get burned and burned fast. Second there is no implicit contract that the price needs to be fair. Second I have never read this universal "Fair Use" agreement, nor have I seen it. Third, a company, if they want, could offer a DvD of a movie for $1000. The consumer has the option of not buying it. As for Fair Use - the movies come with agreements (i.e. the Federal Law warning at the start of each movie) plus any additional documentation. The consumer who fails to read it cannot use ignorance of the law because the law states "ignorance of the law is no excuse".
Terms should be reasonable, easily understood--if you need a lawyer to read the EULA on your new laptop
Where does it say "terms should be reasonable" - they can be flat out UNREASONABLE. They can say "if you plan to use this product you must give me your car and your house." I am not a lawyer, and I have no problem reading the EULA. While I have a college education, I know I could read EULA's when I was in HS and I went into an urban, public HS.
Corporations were never guarenteed profits, especially at the expense of consumer rights.
You are correct, Corps are not gauranteed profits. And corps are not allowed to violate consumer rights. Region coding does not violate consumer rights. Nobody said you have to buy the product. Corps lose profits on products every day. Thats why a lot of businesses go out of business. There is also no rule that says a corp can't make an unlimited profit. In fact, in our society, we encourage people to maximize their wealth (be it money, happiness, health, etc.)
Under your loose interpretation I enforce this clause:
Barring this is/., and there is an expectation (and it probably says somewhere) that this forum is free to read. But going by your hypothetical situation: As long as you posted that AHEAD of time then that is enforceable. When I buy a DvD there is a lot of writing on the box. I should read that writing. When I place the DvD in the DvD player I should read the FBI warning. There is also reasonable expectations. Everyone knows (hell my parents know and they only started using a computer last year, and can barely access their email) that movies from another countries do not normally pla
But he is providing stuff in return. First if he is starting to accept donations, he needs to report these to the fed. Second he may be "accepting donations" but if someone says "hey let me donate to you $50 bucks, oh and that fedex desk looks hot". A week later the guy gets a fedex desk in the mail. THats a sale. If he wants to give prizes away to donars, then he better open up a non-profit.
No you inept shithead, he is providing people with the boxes in return for a "donation". Technically, and if the IRS cared enough about this guy, it is selling. To avoid paying taxes he is asking for donations. "And for your wonderful donation, here is a free fedex desk." Thats called selling, no matter how you want to term it. If he wants to accept donations, (and then "give away for free" gifts) he better get a non-profit organization EIN number.
Now that your socialistic tendencies have been unveiled, my red friend, its time for you to go back to try and destroy the Free World by writing and giving away software for free:).
One more thing. I followed your link - it leads to the/. post. Where in the forum do you see a few hundred thousand people agreeing with you? Frankly, a few hundred thousand people didn't even post - let alone sign some kind of petition.
Why is he modded anything but overrated, untruthful (i wish we had this).
You "know a few hundred thousand other people"? Maybe you mean you saw a list of a few hundred thousand people who feel the same way as you? I don't even know a few hundred thousand other people - and I doubt I have ever met a few hundred thousand other people.
Not to mention what this guy was wrong:
FedEx sends these boxes under the good faith that you will use them to ship through FedEx (walk into a FedEx store and ask them for a box and they sell them...ship with the box and its free). So he is using their shipping supplies at no cost, using their name (fedexfurniture.com) and the furniture which is their name. All of this for a product. Maybe, as opposed to sitting 20 hours a day at his FedEx box, he should go out and get a job?
Great ingenuity on his part (or I should say his friends) - if he just made this stuff for himself and a couple of friends and said "hey look at this" it would be fine...but he is making a profit on another company w/o their permission - and they are losing money. That is NOT cool.
FedEx does not object to giving it's boxes away for free, but under the assumption you will use them for FedEx shipments. Walk into a FedEx store and just ask for a box and they will charge you (well they are supposed to, they do have list prices). Go into a FedEx store, use FedEx express and the box is free.
Not to mention he is using boxes that they create, with their logo and their name - as well as naming his website "fedexfurniture.com" - and then selling these things.
He is clearly in the wrong - and if they can cite the DMCA then kudos for their legal team who figured a way.
Slashdot Mirror
Or the person you are developing the site wants IE. Maybe he wants to use Active X or some other IE only functionality. Maybe he is using programs in his company (I believe Soloman is one) that requires IE. Or maybe he is using MS web Outlook which doesn't correctly in FireFox.
There are plenty of reasons, and to just say flat out "I *only* make browser-independent websites" shows that 1)You are a boastful liar, 2)an idiot who will not succeed in a service business, or 3)not really a web developer and the only thing you create is your family website - which in all honesty, probably 80% of your family doesnt't care about let alone the 99.99999999% of the world that doesn't care about it.
Hmm depending on how the service worked, no it would not be ridiculous. It is a service - you have the option of playing it or not playing it. I used to play on BBS' (prior to 95) and I paid around 20-30/month to play text based games (MajorMUD, TeleArena, TradeWars, etc). I will NEVER say that was a waste of 20-30/month. I had a Nintendo and SNES and played those - but it was more fun for me to play the online games - and that costs somebody money! Plus continuous updates, not just patches, but extra mods, equipment, etc. Yea it was very much worth it.
Hmmm the subscription crap comes from the fact those servers need to be maintained (bandwidth is IMMENSE, probably some of the largest in the world); they have developers CONSISTANTLY working on the game - which costs money; management, support staff, etc. All of this costs money - and your $50 doesn't mean SQUAT!
Now, personally I think they should have done what Everquest did. The game costs you $10 (or you can d/l it for free) and then you pay a monthly fee.
Or you could compare it to Diablo, and the fact that game was pure repetition and you never really did anything new, and changes came infrequently. So infrequently, that by the time they actually fixed duping the market was flooded with 15/45 IAS Windforce bows that made them more common then a dagger.
I'm not being facetious, I'm really curious--what did you intend this to mean? FireFox is a browser that runs on various operating systems. It is not an OS (of course). Should we infer that you meant "...then it better [become] the dominate [browser]..." or is there something else that I am missing here?
:)
Sorry for not being clear. I meant it better be the browser that most of my market will utilize. I had a slip of the tongue
As a businessman, my concern is to reach as many people as possible. IE has 87.2% of the market share according to the article. That means 12.8% of potential patrons are NOT using IE. I'm not willing to have a website that's not functional in multiple browsers and immediately alienate 12.8% of viewers.
Yea 87.2% according to this article, some stats say other things. 87% is a LOT, and if making my website in IE would serve that 87% more then it would serve that 12%, then guess who loses out?
You may not be willing to do it, but your boss who has market research probably doesn't care. The only thing he will want ask you is "Can you offer everything IE does, that our 87% customers WANT, in other browsers?" The moment you cannot include features such as ActiveX (which 87% might want) then your ideas are hosed.
And how our conversation went from intellectual to derogetory. What a waste.
Maybe millions of web developers
While I don't have the numbers in front of me, I am pretty sure there aren't "Millions of web developers" not even a million and not even 100,000.
Even then, what percentage of web developers are actively testing IE7? I doubt anywhere near 100%, and probably nothing near 25%. Most people will not care until the product is finished. Why would I want to spend hours, days, weeks studying a product and learning its features when it might very well (and reasonably) change in a week? It is still too early for web developers (in general) to care about learning IE7's new nuances.
You may be different, and I am sure someone here will say how they and their 50,000 personal web developing friends are different, but lets talk realistically.
But it is very possible people tried FireFox, didn't like the feel (maybe they didn't give it a chance) and went back. It took me about 2-3 weeks before I became comfortable enough to say "I really like this program." Even at first I didn't like tabbed browsing, now I do...though I could easily live without it.
No, a web designer wants to design his website to hit the majority of his audience. A web designer may not care what Internet program people use,(even if he prefers one over the other), he just wants to know how he can affect the majority of his audiance.
While *I* prefer FireFox, I realize the majority of my audience is IE. Now I make my websites IE and FireFox compatible, but if I had to choose it would be IE. If FireFox wants to become my dominate choice - then it better be the dominate OS. This is business, and my concern is to maximize the hits on my website - and I really don't want to get 50 e-mails a day saying "your website doesn't work in my Internet Explorer".
You may disagree, maybe you are biased against MS. That is not my concern, as a businessman, my concern is to keep my doors open.
There are websites I access that are IE only (because they use things such as Active-X). I always e-mail these guys and complain that they are not FireFox compatible, and that Active-X is not really a tool of choice - especially since the cons outweigh the pros.
This rather neatly kills your "why should *I* have to do it, it's HIS tree" position.
For me to do the trimming, I would have to buy clippers, buy a ladder and then try and climb and hope I don't break my neck. Since I am putting myself at risk at climbing the ladder, that is qualified. Not only that, but I am alergic to bee's and his berries are attracting bee's and other bugs, and it is damaging our property.
"I'm perfectly willing to entertain generous severence packages, and am also willing to collect unemployment while suing you for wrongful termination should you choose to fire me."
Oh silly, you haven't heard of "employment at will". they can fire you for any reason except the wrong reason. Oh and get this, they don't even have to give you a reason. And firing you for not following corporate policies is not the wrong reason. Remember, the wrong reason is pretty much extensively based on discrimination (race, religion, if your pregnant, etc).
A company gets from me what they pay for; nothing less, and definately nothing more
You know it is a shame that you feel you should not give 110% at your company. I am sure you do not always give 100% (that is impossible) but to not even desire to give 110%. When i was in college, I worked in banking. I hated banking, but you know what I always gave 110% and was always in the top 3 best employees in the region. I guess I just have a better work ethic then you do. That doesn't mean I will let a company abuse me - and I have told companies to get lost, but every company I have left in the past five years has told me I am welcome to come back anytime I want.
Go to your nearest Target, pick up a DVD and read the part where it explains the EULA, Region Coding, etc. It doesn't say anything, except of course the features of the DVD such as 5.1 Surround Sound. So, you are agreeing to something without seeing the terms first. Now, of course you can return the DVD and wash your hands of the whole thing, but you can't always say that you read a contract before you implicitly agreed to it.
Whenever I pop the DvD into my player i get this nice FBI message telling me not to copy or distribute, etc. It is before the movie starts, and in general is hard to just skip right over. Also, you are still living in a vaccuum and acting like people are not aware of copying rights, etc.
It doesn't say that, but that is implied in the same way that you use "reasonable expectations" I have a reasonable expectation that renting a DVD won't cost my home.
You have a reasonable expectation of this because when you go to your rental store it lists the prices and terms of membership. You know the price of the DvD is $2/night. You also know that DvD copying is illegal, a crime punishable by federal courts (they even stated the maximum fine which looks like it could cost you your home). Your statement is also erroneous, you know very well that if you rent a movie, go home watch it and take it back to the video store you will not lose your home, or have a federal agent knocking on your door. So whats your problem?
and yet you believe in "reasonable expectations." I consider it perfectly reasonable for me to buy a Japanese DVD in Tokyo and have it work in the US
Except there are explicit import/export laws that prohibit you from doing this. Maybe US customs won't care if you bring a couple DvD's you plan to watch in your own home - but you still run into the problem of region coding. And the law does not permit you to bust it.
corporate agreements be damned
As I said before, if you do not like the terms a company sets forth in their product - nobody is forcing you to buy it. By ignoring their terms of service, you place yourself in legal jeapardy, and you already have compromised yourself in moral jeapardy - even if you do not agree. You breaking the law is immoral. If you want to fight the law - do it within the system.
But while Region Coding keeps some dumb Chinese kid from copying, it also takes away rights from everyone else.
Last I checked, there is no law stating you have the "right" to watch movies. It is up to the corporation, while following gov't regulations, to determine if they want you to own their product. Reasonably, they cannot assign a bodyguard to you, or put your picture in the store. But if a company wants to sell movies ONLY to people who live in China it is their right. If the company then wants to put a restriction on the DvD that the DvD can only be played on DvD players from China, it is their right. You may not like it, you may not feel it is fair - but it is not your product to choose.
reasonable and implicit contracts that exist between corporations and consumers
The corps explicitly spell out the TOAs they want followed with their products. If you do not like it - then don't buy it. Why is that so hard to follow? I went to a phone store, I didn't like their service plan - I didn't buy their service plan. It never crossed my mind to get a service plan and start phone phreaking (i think thats the term) them. It never crossed my mind to try and circumvent their rules. I just said "you are not getting my $50/month.
But, we also agree that there are certain limits and rules of acquisition that protect both the public and corporate bodies.
I agree with you 100%, but so far the corps are following the rules - and you (for arguments sake) are not because you are willing to crack the region code. Remember, region codeing is sanctioned by the gov't, and by circumventing it you are 1) breaking a federal law, and 2) breaking the implicit and explicit the DvD companies have made with you. Maybe the laws and contracts are not fair, but why are you buying the product then if you think they are unfair?
It is ALL about controling the customer's behavior regarding how they use the product.
Well DUH! They are trying to prevent their customers from copying and giving their friends copies of their property. If, in all honesty, people were just making copies for backups there would not be a problem...the problem resides with people giving it away to the masses - even worse some of them sell it on street corners, some of them release it on the internet so its free for everyone. Yea they have a beef, and they are trying to protect their works.
There is NOTHING illegal about selling movies overseas
There are a lot of importing/exporting laws and yes there is a lot of things illegal about selling these products overseas when you do not have the permission to do so, and are violating certain restrictions. For example, the US gov't forbade companies from selling/dispensing 128 bit encryption software to countires over seas (i.e. Netscape). Did it happen, well yea, but was it illegal, most certainly.
Yup, but like I said, there is nothing illegal about it. Breach of contract MAYBE, but certainly no ferderal or state laws have been broken.
I am not a lawyer, and I will wager you are not either, so I do not know how far up the ranks this goes. If he is proven to violate the laws accross state borders then it does become a federal issue as it is interstate commerce. Breaching a contract has you sent to court. I doubt he will face jail time (though it is possible if it is a federal case) but he does stand to get sued, and to lose.
Interestingly enough, all FedEx is asking him to do is to cease and decist. All of this would happen if he complied with their wishes to stop using their product...Maybe he should switch to UPS?
Honestly, most people could care less about bypassing security measures (secure measures put into place not to aid customers in any way, but to limit them for the benefit of the customer) if it gains them more "bang for their buck". It seems most people are ok with being in the wrong in this way. Region free DVD players are certainly popular these days, same thing.
And those people who do not care about the restrictions should be understanding when a high priced lawyer comes a knocking on their door. And they do not gain my sympathy. Will you sympathize with a bank robber for getting caught trying to rob a bank? There is no difference here.
Maybe one day EULA's and such will be a thing of the past - maybe one day people will be honest and not hack to steal things. As long as you have people willing to abuse honest people, you will have honest people trying to figure out ways to deter this activty.
There is really nothing legally wrong with him requesting boxes and making chairs out of them
There is DEFINITLY an expected assumption that the person will use the boxes to ship fedex packages - you and I and he and everyone else all know this. And yes, there might be something in his membership agreement (i am not going to look it up) where it says he gets all these free supplies so he can send fedex packages with them.
FedExfurniture is digital. I am pretty sure there are no words in the English dictionary "FedEx".
/dev/null."
The images displaying FedEx boxes are digital. He uses the FedEx name continuously - and that is digital.
HOWEVER you do not often find much public goodwill toward major corporations
Doesn't that sound a bit wrong? Not having goodwill towards an organization because it is an organization? Last I heard, FedEx has not screwed society over.
given the massive screwing they as a group usually attempt every chance they get.
People screw people over everyday. That is not an excuse to continue the vicious cycle. And in relation to this specific issue, FedEx is being kind by giving the boxes (which cost money) for free to potential customers - not for someone to make furniture out of it. And it also goes to tape, boxes, and other packing supplies.
Also, FedEx is not sueing this guy into the ground - they just want him to stop his activities. I think if he complied with them, he would be OK. If he continues to give them the finger, he may not be so OK. And he is giving them the finger with such comments as "If any shipping corporations have problems with our site please feel free to forward requests to
This is not different than giving out cheap CUECAT scanners, only to have people figure out how to use them without your crappy software
Actually this is very different. Also, if I give you a scanner for free, but you need to buy my software to use the scanner - you have the option of buying the software or not using the scanner. By bypassing any security systems (though in FedEx's case it is hard if not impossible to provide security on boxes), any written/verbal agreements you become in the wrong.
The DMCA probably came out, if i remember correctly, because the boxes have the FedEX logo's.
/. think they are wrong for doing this.
FedExs business model is a good business model, and god forbid, a company that is putting faith in the people. Aren't we always complaining how companies do not trust us so they DRM the hell out of their products? Now look, a company that DOES trust us, gives us the benefit of the doubt (at their obvious expense) and they are getting screwed....and look some people in
Unless he signed a contract stating how he would use the boxes, they have nothing on him.
Not all contracts have to be signed to be enforceable (i.e. when you buy a CD, you do not have to sign the EULA agreement to be held responsible for breaking the agreement.)
Unfortunately, he has changed his website since I last viewed it (yesterday). I have seen his website prior to this posting on /. and he was offering desks for "donations".
I viewed his website yesterday, and I am viewing it today- and it has been changed dramatically (in terms of content). So, unfortunately, I do not have any supporting material
It was convenient that on his donation page he has a link to five or so pieces. Since I know his page changed since yesterday, it is not hard for me to believe that his lawyers said "fix up your website a bit".
At best DVD region coding is a way for the studios to make an extra buck, at worst it's cartel price-fixing. These are not gov't law
/. crowd, but most of the world is not a /. member
/., and there is an expectation (and it probably says somewhere) that this forum is free to read. But going by your hypothetical situation: As long as you posted that AHEAD of time then that is enforceable. When I buy a DvD there is a lot of writing on the box. I should read that writing. When I place the DvD in the DvD player I should read the FBI warning. There is also reasonable expectations. Everyone knows (hell my parents know and they only started using a computer last year, and can barely access their email) that movies from another countries do not normally pla
Well first, thats your opinion. You also have to remember, that some movies are not meant to be released in other countries for various reasons. Maybe it does not meet the movie ratings (they didn't want to submit it), maybe the gov't doesn't want the content in their country (i.e. China or they used illegal practices in making the movie so the US doesn't want that in their country). Yes there is law with regard to price-fixing, it is very illegal for companies to do so.
You however mentioned piracy, and my point that region coding doesn't protect against piracy, it may even encourage it.
Actually region coding may not stop tech geeks who know whats up, but it can hinder a lot of people. I once sold an old dvd player on the net, i had some guy from China (he lived in the US at the time) ask me if it plays China region DvDs. He wanted a DvD player that could play movies he brought in from China. He obviously did not have the technical knowledge to rip a movie and remove the region encoding. So there are a lot of people this will prvent from hacking - maybe not the
There is an implicit contract between corporation and consumer that the corporation can sell a product at a fair price and the consumer will purchase that product and use it within their rights as understood in the body of Fair Use (which could codified more handily).
First there is no implicit in business. Anyone who works on the implicit contract methodology will learn they get burned and burned fast. Second there is no implicit contract that the price needs to be fair. Second I have never read this universal "Fair Use" agreement, nor have I seen it. Third, a company, if they want, could offer a DvD of a movie for $1000. The consumer has the option of not buying it. As for Fair Use - the movies come with agreements (i.e. the Federal Law warning at the start of each movie) plus any additional documentation. The consumer who fails to read it cannot use ignorance of the law because the law states "ignorance of the law is no excuse".
Terms should be reasonable, easily understood--if you need a lawyer to read the EULA on your new laptop
Where does it say "terms should be reasonable" - they can be flat out UNREASONABLE. They can say "if you plan to use this product you must give me your car and your house." I am not a lawyer, and I have no problem reading the EULA. While I have a college education, I know I could read EULA's when I was in HS and I went into an urban, public HS.
Corporations were never guarenteed profits, especially at the expense of consumer rights.
You are correct, Corps are not gauranteed profits. And corps are not allowed to violate consumer rights. Region coding does not violate consumer rights. Nobody said you have to buy the product. Corps lose profits on products every day. Thats why a lot of businesses go out of business. There is also no rule that says a corp can't make an unlimited profit. In fact, in our society, we encourage people to maximize their wealth (be it money, happiness, health, etc.)
Under your loose interpretation I enforce this clause:
Barring this is
But he is providing stuff in return. First if he is starting to accept donations, he needs to report these to the fed. Second he may be "accepting donations" but if someone says "hey let me donate to you $50 bucks, oh and that fedex desk looks hot". A week later the guy gets a fedex desk in the mail. THats a sale. If he wants to give prizes away to donars, then he better open up a non-profit.
No you inept shithead, he is providing people with the boxes in return for a "donation". Technically, and if the IRS cared enough about this guy, it is selling. To avoid paying taxes he is asking for donations. "And for your wonderful donation, here is a free fedex desk." Thats called selling, no matter how you want to term it. If he wants to accept donations, (and then "give away for free" gifts) he better get a non-profit organization EIN number.
Now that your socialistic tendencies have been unveiled, my red friend, its time for you to go back to try and destroy the Free World by writing and giving away software for free :).
Where is my VODKA!!! I MUST HAVE VODKA comrad!
Read the articles. Also he may term it as "donation" but give me a break. Don't give half-assed dumbass statements.
One more thing. I followed your link - it leads to the /. post. Where in the forum do you see a few hundred thousand people agreeing with you? Frankly, a few hundred thousand people didn't even post - let alone sign some kind of petition.
Why is he modded anything but overrated, untruthful (i wish we had this).
You "know a few hundred thousand other people"? Maybe you mean you saw a list of a few hundred thousand people who feel the same way as you? I don't even know a few hundred thousand other people - and I doubt I have ever met a few hundred thousand other people.
Not to mention what this guy was wrong:
FedEx sends these boxes under the good faith that you will use them to ship through FedEx (walk into a FedEx store and ask them for a box and they sell them...ship with the box and its free). So he is using their shipping supplies at no cost, using their name (fedexfurniture.com) and the furniture which is their name. All of this for a product. Maybe, as opposed to sitting 20 hours a day at his FedEx box, he should go out and get a job?
Great ingenuity on his part (or I should say his friends) - if he just made this stuff for himself and a couple of friends and said "hey look at this" it would be fine...but he is making a profit on another company w/o their permission - and they are losing money. That is NOT cool.
FedEx does not object to giving it's boxes away for free, but under the assumption you will use them for FedEx shipments. Walk into a FedEx store and just ask for a box and they will charge you (well they are supposed to, they do have list prices). Go into a FedEx store, use FedEx express and the box is free.
Not to mention he is using boxes that they create, with their logo and their name - as well as naming his website "fedexfurniture.com" - and then selling these things.
He is clearly in the wrong - and if they can cite the DMCA then kudos for their legal team who figured a way.