The FCC governs many items that would not "normally" qualify as Federal Jurisdiction.
An example:
I could have a very week HAM radio that could only reach a block or two down the street. I could be in the middle of my State. However because I am broadcasting a radio signal in a specific band I require authorization from the FCC to legally use that equipment.
Being as Comcast is an entity that is strongly regulated by the FCC, I would be surprised if the FCC had no jurisdiction here.
What they fail to mention is the 10th Amendment. The Detroit interpretation is ignoring the fact that unless there is an enabling statute, the federal law is void. It would make the 10th amendment at odds with the article, and void both provisions. It would be impossible to reserve any power to the states if federal law trumps state law. We've avoided this so far by having the federal only govern international and interstate commerce.
Historically, Federal law DOES trump State law if the subject falls within Federal Jurisdiction. I would suspect that if it came to a FCC verses Comcast issue, Comcast would argue that there is no Federal Jurisdiction here (as it seems is your argument).
Your trying to make your preference in English usage into a rule that does not exist. There is absolutely nothing incorrect about saying, "One of my children is born on Tuesday. My other child is also born on Tuesday."
Since there are several THOUSAND private schools (K-12) in the US, I would say that there is significant "stats" available for study.
Please show one study that says private schools work better than public (EU, US or Zanzibar for all I care). We can fact check it and debate its accuracy. Until then, just add "Citation Needed!" to the end of all your posts.
I don't know where you're getting your Windows CD's but I've never seen one that came with a preinstalled copy of Office. However, practically every copy of Linux comes with OpenOffice.org.
Oh so you are not actually talking about the OS. You are talking about nine different subjects and blaming the OS when you have to do work.
Look the OS setup is pretty easy for the entire list. UNTIL you get into some odd (or non-common) hardware configuration. Then they all go to hell (but some are much better than others).
If you want to have a separate discussion about APPLICATIONS or DISTRIBUTION PACKAGES then we can do that too. Ever look on HP or Dell's site, they sell Windows machines that come pre-installed with MS Office, or Open Office. The OEM install disc has an install image with everything included. There are DOZENS of OEM pre-installed setups you can choose from. How is that any different from some distro's set of pre-installed apps? Answer: It isn't, but that has nothing to do with the OS.
They claim that they DON'T sell the client. Blizzard claims they rent you a service (which includes the physical disk you "obtained" at the store, you don't own that). If they did sell you the client then this would not be an issue.
It's not ownership of the copy of the game you've bought that's being contested; it's the right to play it on Blizzard's own servers.
Except it is entirely about who own the local copy of the game. If the I OWN the box copy of WoW that I buy in the store, then Blizzard looses all but one of its claims. Read the EFF's summary, it says all of this better than I can. Here is one excerpt:
If you own your software, you have the right to resell it and the right to make copies and adaptations as necessary to use it. If you don't, well, then you face a possible copyright lawsuit for transgressing any limitations the vendor puts in the license agreement.
However, Blizzard is not talking about going into anybody's home and taking away their physical copy of the game, or requiring them to delete it from their hard drive.
We are actually. Blizzards asserts that you are forever bound by the EULA because you NEVER own any software product purchased from Blizzard. If you read the EULA you will find that if at any point you end the license agreement you must destroy all copies - including physical copies - of WoW. If you fail to do so you are committing copyright infringement and may be liable for massive damages. Here is the section from the EULA:
7 Termination.
This License Agreement is effective until terminated. You may terminate the License Agreement at any time by (i) permanently destroying all copies of the Game in your possession or control; (ii) removing the Game Client from your hard drive; and (iii) notifying Blizzard of your intention to terminate this License Agreement. Blizzard may terminate this Agreement at any time for any reason or no reason. Upon termination for any reason, all licenses granted herein shall immediately terminate and you must immediately and permanently destroy all copies of the Game in your possession and control and remove the Game Client from your hard drive.
So by the same token, Blizzard isn't contesting anybody's ownership of the game - just the right to play it on Blizzard servers.
Except they are entirely contesting ownership of the game. They have stated emphatically that you NEVER own any Blizzard game EVER.
As a former WoW player (quit cold-turkey 6 weeks ago due to needing my life back) I'm supportive of Blizzard. Stuff like Glider just ruins the experience for legitimate players and I'm glad they take steps to guard against that.
I hope you "immediately and permanently destroy(ed) all copies of the Game in your possession and control" when you stopped playing WoW in accordance with the EULA.
This has absolutely nothing to do with the legal authority of Blizzard to refuse someone to use a bot. Blizzard cannot really deny a bot playing Starcraft. You own the software, you may do with it as you please.
Except Blizzard makes no legal distinction between Starcraft and WoW. They claim that you are bound by the EULA in both cases. They claim that you NEVER own any blizzard software product, that you only lease (rent) them.
This is where I have my objection, in both cases you have made a purchase and should legally OWN the client side software. That does NOT give you the right to play WoW as that includes the server side software that you do not own.
I want to play WoW, fine I have to agree to the ToS and pay my monthly fee. I have to not use bots (I don't like bots anyways) or any other such things or I loose my account. I am fine with all of that. But even if I do loose my account, I should still OWN the client side software.
Owning the software means that should I loose my account I should not be liable for copyright infringement for continuing to break the EULA:
Termination.
This License Agreement is effective until terminated. You may terminate the License Agreement at any time by (i) permanently destroying all copies of the Game in your possession or control; (ii) removing the Game Client from your hard drive; and (iii) notifying Blizzard of your intention to terminate this License Agreement. Blizzard may terminate this Agreement at any time for any reason or no reason. Upon termination for any reason, all licenses granted herein shall immediately terminate and you must immediately and permanently destroy all copies of the Game in your possession and control and remove the Game Client from your hard drive.
I think you are missing the point. The issue at hand is, do you own the contents of the box? It has nothing to do with "can I play WoW."
If I purchase the WoW box software, I should OWN a copy of the client side program. If I want to connect to Blizzard's WoW servers then fine, I agree to a ToS and pay my fee. But I should still own a copy of the client side program.
This has far reaching effects that I think you are not considering. If I don't OWN the copy, then I can be held liable for any use not approved by the copyright owner. The ToS (which is part of the EULA) is VERY broad. Under section 9Ciii it is a violation of the license if you do "Anything that Blizzard considers contrary to the "essence" of the Game." To be very clear, you are committing copyright infringement which carries massive penalties if you break the license.
Blizzard can also alter the license at any time by posting something on their web site (which you check constatnly I am sure). You can get out of the updated license, here is how:
Termination.
This License Agreement is effective until terminated. You may terminate the License Agreement at any time by (i) permanently destroying all copies of the Game in your possession or control; (ii) removing the Game Client from your hard drive; and (iii) notifying Blizzard of your intention to terminate this License Agreement. Blizzard may terminate this Agreement at any time for any reason or no reason. Upon termination for any reason, all licenses granted herein shall immediately terminate and you must immediately and permanently destroy all copies of the Game in your possession and control and remove the Game Client from your hard drive.
Oh and did you notice that if Blizzard terminates the agreement you must, "immediately and permanently destroy all copies of the Game in your possession and control and remove the Game Client from your hard drive." If you don't, you are again committing copyright infringement.
That is what Blizzard claims, it is absurd. It should be very clearly defined that if you purchase a copy of a game, you own that copy. Just like a book. When you buy a book, you do OWN that copy of the book. That is where the whole first-sale doctrine came from.
Funny the only case I can think of for a "shrink wrapped" EULA product is the AutoDesk case. In that case the judge ruled that the item in question was sold and not licensed.
It is reasonable that Blizzard can restrict access to their game and servers. It is NOT reasonable for them to claim that every purchaser of Wow never purchased the game. This is Blizzard's claim, that no one ever purchases a copy of WoW, they LEASE (rent) a copy of it.
Blizzard also argues that this is true for all Blizzard products. You don't own your copy of Baldur's Gate, you are renting it forever.
If Blizzard wants to disallow the use of Glider that is fine. If they want to ban people who do use it, that is fine. But what Blizzard has done is preposterous.
If the only argument is that because World of Warcraft is heavily dependent upon server-side interactions, that there is a leasing of the software to interact with that code.
Except this is not the argument. The issue is that Blizzard claims that no one EVER owns a program "purchased" from them. They argue that any user of any licensed software product is forever bound by the terms of the license in every way.
Many people (myself included) believe that the purchase of a game or other software product is an actual sale (with all applicable first-sale doctrine rights). That is the issue at hand, do you purchase the program or are you renting the program (any program, even something with no network or server attributes)? This is by the way, even in the FIRST LINE of the summary on EFF's site.
From the EFF's summary:
When you buy World of Warcraft (WoW) in a retail box, do you own the copy of the software you bought? That's the critical legal question facing the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in a pending appeal in MDY v. Blizzard, and the question that Public Knowledge took on in an excellent amicus brief filed with the court earlier this week.
If you own your software, you have the right to resell it and the right to make copies and adaptations as necessary to use it. If you don't, well, then you face a possible copyright lawsuit for transgressing any limitations the vendor puts in the license agreement.
It's more likely that the local bureaucrats dislike the store on religious reasons than it is that somebody could get sick from the undies themselves (what may come to be on those undies after packaging is certainly the greater risk).
From TFA:
KENS 5 has learned of other stores, like Dillard's department stores and several auto parts stores, that are also required to have food permits. The reason is because they sell chocolate bars.
That would be true if this is just a contract. It is NOT true for a license. A license is a grant of rights from one part to another in which the receiver does not have to explicitly agree to it its terms to be bound by them.
For more information look into copyright law regarding books. There is a wealth of information regarding that industry and licensing.
When you purchase a disc at Best Buy you are not agreeing to limit your use of that disc. When you purchase something at the iTunes store you "sign" an agreement restricting you from doing many things. That is the issue. The GPL requires that you give permissions and NOT restrict the user (well, only restrict them in ways detailed by the GPL).
If Best Buy made you sign a contract stating that you would not do XYZ to the software on the disc, they would be in violation of the GPL as well.
6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.
As for what restrictions. RTFA. Half the article is just listing the restrictions. Yes I know, I expect you to actually be informed and read things, I'll apologize latter.
Nobody even fucking said that being ugly caused you to commit more crimes.
Actually several people have said that, including this guy:
Any time a study comes out, twelvity million Slashdotters start chanting "Correlation!=Causation". None actually read the article. In fact, most have their rant typed out long before the story hits slashdot, and simply cut and paste into the comment box.
So, in the interest of keeping up this fine tradition, I offer the following:
1) Ugly people are more likely to actually commit the crime. Makes sense. Pretty people are less likely to need to do a crime as they are more likely to get good employement.
2) Committing a crime MAKES you ugly. Far fetched? Maybe. But I am sure those stupid researchers who only get by on grant money never thought of such a thing.
Under the code of law in multiple states in the USA (i.e., the more conservative ones, such as Texas, Indiana), the contract or license says what the written words of it say.
I find it amusing that you keep stating that a given State's laws would require a specific interpretation. Again, in the United States, copyright is defined in Federal law. It has its origins in Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the Constitution. It is further defined in Title 17 of the USC.
This particular issue is entirely and solely within Federal jurisdiction, in plain terms, it does not matter what a given State's laws are.
Slashdot Mirror
That sounds like a challenge! I accept. =P
ONLY 18 button!? That is not enough, I need at least a 106 buttons on my mouse. How else can I type from it?
An example:
I could have a very week HAM radio that could only reach a block or two down the street. I could be in the middle of my State. However because I am broadcasting a radio signal in a specific band I require authorization from the FCC to legally use that equipment.
Being as Comcast is an entity that is strongly regulated by the FCC, I would be surprised if the FCC had no jurisdiction here.
What they fail to mention is the 10th Amendment. The Detroit interpretation is ignoring the fact that unless there is an enabling statute, the federal law is void. It would make the 10th amendment at odds with the article, and void both provisions. It would be impossible to reserve any power to the states if federal law trumps state law. We've avoided this so far by having the federal only govern international and interstate commerce.
Historically, Federal law DOES trump State law if the subject falls within Federal Jurisdiction. I would suspect that if it came to a FCC verses Comcast issue, Comcast would argue that there is no Federal Jurisdiction here (as it seems is your argument).
Well with her Husband on vacation with his mistress, SOMEONE has to sound her alarm bells...
Your trying to make your preference in English usage into a rule that does not exist. There is absolutely nothing incorrect about saying, "One of my children is born on Tuesday. My other child is also born on Tuesday."
Citation needed!
Since there are several THOUSAND private schools (K-12) in the US, I would say that there is significant "stats" available for study.
Please show one study that says private schools work better than public (EU, US or Zanzibar for all I care). We can fact check it and debate its accuracy. Until then, just add "Citation Needed!" to the end of all your posts.
=P
I don't know where you're getting your Windows CD's but I've never seen one that came with a preinstalled copy of Office. However, practically every copy of Linux comes with OpenOffice.org.
Oh so you are not actually talking about the OS. You are talking about nine different subjects and blaming the OS when you have to do work.
Look the OS setup is pretty easy for the entire list. UNTIL you get into some odd (or non-common) hardware configuration. Then they all go to hell (but some are much better than others).
If you want to have a separate discussion about APPLICATIONS or DISTRIBUTION PACKAGES then we can do that too. Ever look on HP or Dell's site, they sell Windows machines that come pre-installed with MS Office, or Open Office. The OEM install disc has an install image with everything included. There are DOZENS of OEM pre-installed setups you can choose from. How is that any different from some distro's set of pre-installed apps? Answer: It isn't, but that has nothing to do with the OS.
You sir, loose: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
You sir, loose: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
Perhaps it's time for managers of open source startups to stop chasing the billion-dollar dream.
Exactly who *IS* chasing a billion dollar anything?! Is there a wealth of money driven open source mangers out there that I just have never heard of?
/. summary writers to stop chasing billion dollar payments for sensational headlines.
I think it might be better for
They claim that they DON'T sell the client. Blizzard claims they rent you a service (which includes the physical disk you "obtained" at the store, you don't own that). If they did sell you the client then this would not be an issue.
It's not ownership of the copy of the game you've bought that's being contested; it's the right to play it on Blizzard's own servers.
Except it is entirely about who own the local copy of the game. If the I OWN the box copy of WoW that I buy in the store, then Blizzard looses all but one of its claims. Read the EFF's summary, it says all of this better than I can. Here is one excerpt:
If you own your software, you have the right to resell it and the right to make copies and adaptations as necessary to use it. If you don't, well, then you face a possible copyright lawsuit for transgressing any limitations the vendor puts in the license agreement.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/09/you-bought-it-you-own-it-mdy-v-blizzard-appealed
However, Blizzard is not talking about going into anybody's home and taking away their physical copy of the game, or requiring them to delete it from their hard drive.
We are actually. Blizzards asserts that you are forever bound by the EULA because you NEVER own any software product purchased from Blizzard. If you read the EULA you will find that if at any point you end the license agreement you must destroy all copies - including physical copies - of WoW. If you fail to do so you are committing copyright infringement and may be liable for massive damages. Here is the section from the EULA:
7 Termination.
This License Agreement is effective until terminated. You may terminate the License Agreement at any time by (i) permanently destroying all copies of the Game in your possession or control; (ii) removing the Game Client from your hard drive; and (iii) notifying Blizzard of your intention to terminate this License Agreement. Blizzard may terminate this Agreement at any time for any reason or no reason. Upon termination for any reason, all licenses granted herein shall immediately terminate and you must immediately and permanently destroy all copies of the Game in your possession and control and remove the Game Client from your hard drive.
So by the same token, Blizzard isn't contesting anybody's ownership of the game - just the right to play it on Blizzard servers.
Except they are entirely contesting ownership of the game. They have stated emphatically that you NEVER own any Blizzard game EVER.
As a former WoW player (quit cold-turkey 6 weeks ago due to needing my life back) I'm supportive of Blizzard. Stuff like Glider just ruins the experience for legitimate players and I'm glad they take steps to guard against that.
I hope you "immediately and permanently destroy(ed) all copies of the Game in your possession and control" when you stopped playing WoW in accordance with the EULA.
Concise and well said.
This has absolutely nothing to do with the legal authority of Blizzard to refuse someone to use a bot. Blizzard cannot really deny a bot playing Starcraft. You own the software, you may do with it as you please.
Except Blizzard makes no legal distinction between Starcraft and WoW. They claim that you are bound by the EULA in both cases. They claim that you NEVER own any blizzard software product, that you only lease (rent) them.
This is where I have my objection, in both cases you have made a purchase and should legally OWN the client side software. That does NOT give you the right to play WoW as that includes the server side software that you do not own.
I want to play WoW, fine I have to agree to the ToS and pay my monthly fee. I have to not use bots (I don't like bots anyways) or any other such things or I loose my account. I am fine with all of that. But even if I do loose my account, I should still OWN the client side software.
Owning the software means that should I loose my account I should not be liable for copyright infringement for continuing to break the EULA:
Termination.
This License Agreement is effective until terminated. You may terminate the License Agreement at any time by (i) permanently destroying all copies of the Game in your possession or control; (ii) removing the Game Client from your hard drive; and (iii) notifying Blizzard of your intention to terminate this License Agreement. Blizzard may terminate this Agreement at any time for any reason or no reason. Upon termination for any reason, all licenses granted herein shall immediately terminate and you must immediately and permanently destroy all copies of the Game in your possession and control and remove the Game Client from your hard drive.
If I purchase the WoW box software, I should OWN a copy of the client side program. If I want to connect to Blizzard's WoW servers then fine, I agree to a ToS and pay my fee. But I should still own a copy of the client side program.
This has far reaching effects that I think you are not considering. If I don't OWN the copy, then I can be held liable for any use not approved by the copyright owner. The ToS (which is part of the EULA) is VERY broad. Under section 9Ciii it is a violation of the license if you do "Anything that Blizzard considers contrary to the "essence" of the Game." To be very clear, you are committing copyright infringement which carries massive penalties if you break the license.
Blizzard can also alter the license at any time by posting something on their web site (which you check constatnly I am sure). You can get out of the updated license, here is how:
Termination.
This License Agreement is effective until terminated. You may terminate the License Agreement at any time by (i) permanently destroying all copies of the Game in your possession or control; (ii) removing the Game Client from your hard drive; and (iii) notifying Blizzard of your intention to terminate this License Agreement. Blizzard may terminate this Agreement at any time for any reason or no reason. Upon termination for any reason, all licenses granted herein shall immediately terminate and you must immediately and permanently destroy all copies of the Game in your possession and control and remove the Game Client from your hard drive.
Oh and did you notice that if Blizzard terminates the agreement you must, "immediately and permanently destroy all copies of the Game in your possession and control and remove the Game Client from your hard drive." If you don't, you are again committing copyright infringement.
That is what Blizzard claims, it is absurd. It should be very clearly defined that if you purchase a copy of a game, you own that copy. Just like a book. When you buy a book, you do OWN that copy of the book. That is where the whole first-sale doctrine came from.
Funny the only case I can think of for a "shrink wrapped" EULA product is the AutoDesk case. In that case the judge ruled that the item in question was sold and not licensed.
/. where AC's make broad comments with nothing to back them up.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2008/05/court-smacks-autodesk-affirms-right-to-sell-used-software.ars
Here is a linked copy of the Judge's decision:
http://www.citizen.org/documents/vernororder.pdf
I see you cited plenty of these cases. Oh wait this is
It is reasonable that Blizzard can restrict access to their game and servers. It is NOT reasonable for them to claim that every purchaser of Wow never purchased the game. This is Blizzard's claim, that no one ever purchases a copy of WoW, they LEASE (rent) a copy of it.
Blizzard also argues that this is true for all Blizzard products. You don't own your copy of Baldur's Gate, you are renting it forever.
If Blizzard wants to disallow the use of Glider that is fine. If they want to ban people who do use it, that is fine. But what Blizzard has done is preposterous.
If the only argument is that because World of Warcraft is heavily dependent upon server-side interactions, that there is a leasing of the software to interact with that code.
Except this is not the argument. The issue is that Blizzard claims that no one EVER owns a program "purchased" from them. They argue that any user of any licensed software product is forever bound by the terms of the license in every way.
Many people (myself included) believe that the purchase of a game or other software product is an actual sale (with all applicable first-sale doctrine rights). That is the issue at hand, do you purchase the program or are you renting the program (any program, even something with no network or server attributes)? This is by the way, even in the FIRST LINE of the summary on EFF's site.
From the EFF's summary:
When you buy World of Warcraft (WoW) in a retail box, do you own the copy of the software you bought? That's the critical legal question facing the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in a pending appeal in MDY v. Blizzard, and the question that Public Knowledge took on in an excellent amicus brief filed with the court earlier this week.
If you own your software, you have the right to resell it and the right to make copies and adaptations as necessary to use it. If you don't, well, then you face a possible copyright lawsuit for transgressing any limitations the vendor puts in the license agreement.
It's more likely that the local bureaucrats dislike the store on religious reasons than it is that somebody could get sick from the undies themselves (what may come to be on those undies after packaging is certainly the greater risk).
From TFA:
KENS 5 has learned of other stores, like Dillard's department stores and several auto parts stores, that are also required to have food permits. The reason is because they sell chocolate bars.
That would be true if this is just a contract. It is NOT true for a license. A license is a grant of rights from one part to another in which the receiver does not have to explicitly agree to it its terms to be bound by them.
For more information look into copyright law regarding books. There is a wealth of information regarding that industry and licensing.
When you purchase a disc at Best Buy you are not agreeing to limit your use of that disc. When you purchase something at the iTunes store you "sign" an agreement restricting you from doing many things. That is the issue. The GPL requires that you give permissions and NOT restrict the user (well, only restrict them in ways detailed by the GPL).
If Best Buy made you sign a contract stating that you would not do XYZ to the software on the disc, they would be in violation of the GPL as well.
Obligatory GPLv2 link:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html
From the license:
6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.
As for what restrictions. RTFA. Half the article is just listing the restrictions. Yes I know, I expect you to actually be informed and read things, I'll apologize latter.
Nobody even fucking said that being ugly caused you to commit more crimes.
Actually several people have said that, including this guy:
Any time a study comes out, twelvity million Slashdotters start chanting "Correlation!=Causation". None actually read the article. In fact, most have their rant typed out long before the story hits slashdot, and simply cut and paste into the comment box.
So, in the interest of keeping up this fine tradition, I offer the following:
1) Ugly people are more likely to actually commit the crime. Makes sense. Pretty people are less likely to need to do a crime as they are more likely to get good employement.
2) Committing a crime MAKES you ugly. Far fetched? Maybe. But I am sure those stupid researchers who only get by on grant money never thought of such a thing.
From this post:
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1656418&cid=32256490
In a bit of irony, my capthca was "dumbbell". =P
Benjamin Franklin said it best. "Anyone who would trade money for something produced by Sony deserves neither, and will lose both."
It is also good to remember that he was sitting naked in his living room, getting stoned and playing on XBox live while he said that.
=)
Under the code of law in multiple states in the USA (i.e., the more conservative ones, such as Texas, Indiana), the contract or license says what the written words of it say.
I find it amusing that you keep stating that a given State's laws would require a specific interpretation. Again, in the United States, copyright is defined in Federal law. It has its origins in Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the Constitution. It is further defined in Title 17 of the USC.
This particular issue is entirely and solely within Federal jurisdiction, in plain terms, it does not matter what a given State's laws are.