So in practice how would I get to see the EULA before buying the copy? The store isn't likely to have a printed version of the EULA at hand. I just picked up the box of the game Hellgate London to look at it, there's no mention of an EULA on the outside and there's obviously no mention of where to see it either. IIRC I checked other games before, no mention either. How am I supposed to know the terms of that EULA if the box doesn't tell me where to find them?
Not every freedom has a value. The freedom of the press has the value that it allows free flow of information and helps with keeping the public informed and antisocial behaviour in check. What is the value of not wearing a seatbelt? The only flow that facilitates is the flow of body fluids over the dashboard. Seriously why would anybody WANT to not wear a seatbelt?
Because the person at fault (or their insurance) has to pay for all damages, if the "victim" didn't use a seatbelt the damage is much worse and thus much more expensive. Also it needs more medical attention to fix (unless all you need is an undertaker), using the already limited pool of medics.
I thought when you said actual piracy you meant boarding freighters, killing the crew and taking their valuables. I can see how that might lead to more violent crimes.
Yes, it absolutely does, particularly in the case of the kinds of software that doesn't come in the form of a "copy" (i.e. a disc). There is no legal authority of which I'm aware that separates a license from a right to use.
Maybe for downloadable software but that's in the minority (and I'm not sure that the right to download is considered a license either). Owning a copy gives you an implicit right to use and even if the software does not contain an EULA you can still use it.
Again, nothing more than pure fantasy. Owning a copy doesn't make you a party, using the software does.
So I can be subject to a contract I have never seen with no indication that a contract exists? Or have you never used a computer where you haven't installed EVERYTHING yourself? The user is not necessarily a party to that contract.
a mandated warning label on boxes or before point of purchase of online software, legally mandated prior availability of license terms
AFAIK EU law already requires both of these for the EULA to have any chance at enforcement.
It doesn't mean offensive, it means designed to incite hatred towards a segment of the population based on an arbitrary distinction. Inciting hatred is much different from just insulting someone.
Do you represent yourself as the owner of the license to the software?
How do you do that? Using the software does not require a license and as such is not representing yourself as a license holder. Simply owning a copy doesn't make you subject to the EULA either.
Furthermore, EU directives curtail the acceptable terms for non-negotiated contracts.
At the store the implicit sales contract gave you ownership of the box that was rung up at the register and whatever it contains. You are the owner of the copy by the time the EULA is presented to you. Only if you agree to it is the sale voided (and I doubt that can happen if the person who bought the copy and the person who agreed to the EULA are different people), no idea whose property the copy becomes then (would probably revert to the store since that's the previous owner). That is, if the EULA's "this is not a sale" claim can be applied to the sale that happened in the store.
Of course IMO EULAs should be considered a technological measure to circumvent the law and their creation or use should be punishable by jailtime.
IIRC those judges ruled that you can be reasonably expected to know that an EULA is in there and what the terms roughly look like (the whole bought-not-licensed crap and the disclaimer for all damages). However this argument fails whenever an EULA includes nonstandard terms (e.g. privacy invasion, online behaviour rules,...).
Another question is if you can really assume that just because none were issued without a contract that all sellers are under the contract. Is it possible to resell an item if that would put you in breach of contract? I'd assume so, you'd violate the contract and face the fines specified in it but the item would still change possession.
The counterclaim just states that you're confident the takedown was improper. Of course you can't know what's in the other guy's head. I guess they just didn't want to include language in there that could imply that the other party is guilty of a crime.
Hm, it seems Scientology connects quite well to a fundamental book of geekdom: We can assume those exilants were middle-managers, lawyers and telephone cleaners.
Google is a partner to your communication, either the receipent (when you use Google for searching or stuff) or a contracted ad deliverer of the receipent. The ISP is a man in the middle and supposed to stay out of your communication.
But there's a variable amount of non-gold values and it seems to be mostly growing. As such the amount of useful value represented by a fixed amount of currency grows and depending on the growth rate just sitting on your amount of gold would already bring you a net profit as the usable value of the gold increases. This reduces the pool of gold in active circulation even more, further increasing the usable value of a fixed amount of gold.
The problem is that noone WANTS old workers. There's just not enough work to keep them occupied until retirement, there's not even enough work to employ all the young people. Well, okay, there is work but they aren't qualified for it. The vacancies require qualifications that a large part of the population just is not fit to reach (not everyone is smart enough to get a degree and then you still have to subtract those who can't get higher education for social or economic reasons) while a huge surplus of unqualified people exists.
By replacing manual labor with machines that require skilled workers to operate you reduce the job pool for the low skilled and increase the pool for the high skilled but we already lack high-skilled workers and have to import them from other countries. I see three ways out of this: 1. reverse machinisation to create more manual labor jobs (bad idea. Well, it happens if you count jobs created in China but that's not the goal of this), 2. Communism (unfeasible, maybe if we could get the machinisation to a point where it's self-sufficient and we don't need any workers anyway) or 3. Gene boosting all babies to make sure they are capable of becoming highly skilled workers (probably the most attainable if we ignore the major religions that condemn that strategy).
Slashdot Mirror
So in practice how would I get to see the EULA before buying the copy? The store isn't likely to have a printed version of the EULA at hand. I just picked up the box of the game Hellgate London to look at it, there's no mention of an EULA on the outside and there's obviously no mention of where to see it either. IIRC I checked other games before, no mention either. How am I supposed to know the terms of that EULA if the box doesn't tell me where to find them?
Not every freedom has a value. The freedom of the press has the value that it allows free flow of information and helps with keeping the public informed and antisocial behaviour in check. What is the value of not wearing a seatbelt? The only flow that facilitates is the flow of body fluids over the dashboard. Seriously why would anybody WANT to not wear a seatbelt?
That's like claiming because we flush crap down the toilet we'll soon flush valuables down too.
Perhaps quantitatively more, not qualitatively?
I'm not convinced the freedom to not wear a seatbelt is really a freedom of any value and losing it isn't a real loss.
Because the person at fault (or their insurance) has to pay for all damages, if the "victim" didn't use a seatbelt the damage is much worse and thus much more expensive. Also it needs more medical attention to fix (unless all you need is an undertaker), using the already limited pool of medics.
If the IUD doesn't work, an IED will.
I thought when you said actual piracy you meant boarding freighters, killing the crew and taking their valuables. I can see how that might lead to more violent crimes.
Yes, it absolutely does, particularly in the case of the kinds of software that doesn't come in the form of a "copy" (i.e. a disc). There is no legal authority of which I'm aware that separates a license from a right to use.
Maybe for downloadable software but that's in the minority (and I'm not sure that the right to download is considered a license either). Owning a copy gives you an implicit right to use and even if the software does not contain an EULA you can still use it.
Again, nothing more than pure fantasy. Owning a copy doesn't make you a party, using the software does.
So I can be subject to a contract I have never seen with no indication that a contract exists? Or have you never used a computer where you haven't installed EVERYTHING yourself? The user is not necessarily a party to that contract.
a mandated warning label on boxes or before point of purchase of online software, legally mandated prior availability of license terms
AFAIK EU law already requires both of these for the EULA to have any chance at enforcement.
"a lot of people" != "the law".
It doesn't mean offensive, it means designed to incite hatred towards a segment of the population based on an arbitrary distinction. Inciting hatred is much different from just insulting someone.
Do you represent yourself as the owner of the license to the software?
How do you do that? Using the software does not require a license and as such is not representing yourself as a license holder. Simply owning a copy doesn't make you subject to the EULA either.
Furthermore, EU directives curtail the acceptable terms for non-negotiated contracts.
It's in violation to the law of the land though.
GPL doesn't apply to the consumer anyway.
At the store the implicit sales contract gave you ownership of the box that was rung up at the register and whatever it contains. You are the owner of the copy by the time the EULA is presented to you. Only if you agree to it is the sale voided (and I doubt that can happen if the person who bought the copy and the person who agreed to the EULA are different people), no idea whose property the copy becomes then (would probably revert to the store since that's the previous owner). That is, if the EULA's "this is not a sale" claim can be applied to the sale that happened in the store.
Of course IMO EULAs should be considered a technological measure to circumvent the law and their creation or use should be punishable by jailtime.
IIRC those judges ruled that you can be reasonably expected to know that an EULA is in there and what the terms roughly look like (the whole bought-not-licensed crap and the disclaimer for all damages). However this argument fails whenever an EULA includes nonstandard terms (e.g. privacy invasion, online behaviour rules, ...).
Another question is if you can really assume that just because none were issued without a contract that all sellers are under the contract. Is it possible to resell an item if that would put you in breach of contract? I'd assume so, you'd violate the contract and face the fines specified in it but the item would still change possession.
The counterclaim just states that you're confident the takedown was improper. Of course you can't know what's in the other guy's head. I guess they just didn't want to include language in there that could imply that the other party is guilty of a crime.
A sect? I consider them organized crime.
Hm, it seems Scientology connects quite well to a fundamental book of geekdom: We can assume those exilants were middle-managers, lawyers and telephone cleaners.
IMO that's for those private businessmen to deal with, not the government. Their risk for investing into a politically unstable region.
Google is a partner to your communication, either the receipent (when you use Google for searching or stuff) or a contracted ad deliverer of the receipent. The ISP is a man in the middle and supposed to stay out of your communication.
But there's a variable amount of non-gold values and it seems to be mostly growing. As such the amount of useful value represented by a fixed amount of currency grows and depending on the growth rate just sitting on your amount of gold would already bring you a net profit as the usable value of the gold increases. This reduces the pool of gold in active circulation even more, further increasing the usable value of a fixed amount of gold.
The problem is that noone WANTS old workers. There's just not enough work to keep them occupied until retirement, there's not even enough work to employ all the young people. Well, okay, there is work but they aren't qualified for it. The vacancies require qualifications that a large part of the population just is not fit to reach (not everyone is smart enough to get a degree and then you still have to subtract those who can't get higher education for social or economic reasons) while a huge surplus of unqualified people exists.
By replacing manual labor with machines that require skilled workers to operate you reduce the job pool for the low skilled and increase the pool for the high skilled but we already lack high-skilled workers and have to import them from other countries. I see three ways out of this: 1. reverse machinisation to create more manual labor jobs (bad idea. Well, it happens if you count jobs created in China but that's not the goal of this), 2. Communism (unfeasible, maybe if we could get the machinisation to a point where it's self-sufficient and we don't need any workers anyway) or 3. Gene boosting all babies to make sure they are capable of becoming highly skilled workers (probably the most attainable if we ignore the major religions that condemn that strategy).
Perhaps we could just call 'em Population Sustenance Officers so the libertarians will shut up about people getting money for "doing nothing"?