Why is it impossible. They found out you were doing something illegal. Once they start watching you it's not that hard. All you have to do is mention it one time.
You're planning or debating and they have the place bugged. The phone bugged. They're working with an informant. They've been watching your web traffic and saw you download the latest version of true crypt. There are a myriad of ways they can discover you have an encrypted volume.
A trip wire is non-trivial. Effort to set up every time you leave. Effort to remove up every time you return. Then there are the exception cases. What happens if you leave and someone else is still around? How do you determine false positives? What if you made a mistake and the trip wire failed?
Crypto is not a magic bullet.
If you know the police are on to you stopping illegal activities and destroying anything incriminating is the only option. Any other option results in jail time.
What all the talks on crypto seem to forget is that crypto only protects your data when you are not using it.
If they are investigating you to the point where they are going to be seizing your computer they have means of acquiring your password.
They can get a warrant an put a key logger on your system. Optionally they could acquire a warrant to install some sort of surveillance with the intent of either shoulder surfing the password or to simply read the data off the screen.
The whole premise is invalid. You're playing a game not bartering. It's impossible to barter things you don't own. Read the section of the EULA below.
If you make money by selling services in game then you have earned income and must be reported. This is nothing new and existing tax law clearly covers it.
With RMT there is no ownership and no income so how can there be changes to tax?
From the Eve EULA:
11. PROPRIETARY RIGHTS
A. Ownership of Software, System and Game
As between you and CCP, CCP is the sole and exclusive owner of the Software, System, Game and Game Content (as
defined below). The Software, System, Game and all Game Content are protected by law governing copyrights,
trademarks and other proprietary rights. CCP reserves all rights not expressly granted herein.
The Game is comprised of, without limitation, software code, programs, routines, subroutines, objects, files,
data, characters (and items, currency, objects and attributes comprising or associated with a character or an
Account), graphics, sound effects, music, animation, video, text, content, layout, design and other information
downloaded from and accessible through the System (collectively, the "Game Content"). CCP, its affiliates,
licensors and/or suppliers retain all of their right, title and interest (including without limitation all
intellectual property rights) in and to the Software, System, Game and all Game Content, and no rights thereto
are transferred to you, except for the limited license granted above.
Problem without using third party is that you cannot get to that trust level as newcomer and that it takes time to work it. When there's someone trusted in the middle of the transaction, you have some guarantee that you wont be cheated (or lose your personal details etc to whatever kind of fraud). In this case the trustful middlehand is good.
Wow you missed the whole point of the article.
In the cut and choose example does it fail because it has no trusted middle man?
What about the problem of middle men going rogue or being compromised? The whole idea is centered around making the middle man obsolete for exactly this reason.
You are free to accept or decline the contract as you see fit. You alone decide. Thus there are no external limits on it. Thus the choice is limitless.
Entering into a stupid contract is not unconscionable. It's just stupid.
From your link: "In contract law an unconscionable contract is one that is unjust or extremely one-sided in favor of the person who has the superior bargaining power."
Since you can choose not to sign it there is no superior bargaining power. This is a key test.
"Unconscionable" does not mean one sided in the USA, where ATT is located.
"Unconscionability has generally been recognized to include an absence of meaningful choice on the part of one of the parties together with contract terms which are unreasonably favorable to the other party." --Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co., 350 F.2d 445 (C.A. D.C. 1965)
Since signing the contract with AT&T is utterly voluntary you have limitless choice and it is impossible for it to be unconscionable. Now if ATT is the only choice for service you might have a case for unconscionable. But that's not the situation here.
You can't give up your right to sue. As mentioned earlier mandatory binding arbitration clauses have already been struck down by the courts.
However what it does do is raise the barrier of entry for actions against them since they just hide behind the contract and force you to start legal proceedings. Most people won't bother or won't realize it's even an option.
It's a US court, a US student, and a US company. The laws of other countries are irrelevant in this case.
The magic legal word is unconscionable. Ask your lawyer about that. People like the incorrect +5s up there think it means unfair. It does not. It has a distinct legal meaning which luxury goods are incapable of meeting.
Don't hold me to this I may be remembering wrong but I think this came up in blizzard v bnetd. They tried to argue unconscionable contract, saying they couldn't use the product in a manner they wanted. The judge said tough. You accepted the contract. If you didn't like the terms you should have declined it.
To start with all four limbs are used at the same time for multiple operations. In a significantly different manner than a manual. Some things are the same and some are wildly different.
Unconscionability has generally been recognized to include an absence of meaningful choice on the part of one of the parties together with contract terms which are unreasonably favorable to the other party. --J. Skelly Wright, Circuit Judge
Luxury items cannot meet the meaningful choice test since you can choose not to purchase the item.
Slashdot Mirror
Again with the choices. I never said that. I'm not talking about that.
I'm talking about one specific choice. Not what choices you have in general.
I repeat. I'm talking about a limitless choice. You are talking about limitless choices. Two distinctly different things.
But that's not creation of loot. That's transfer of loot. That can't be exploited since it's sum 0.
No.
No gain also works. Why would loot be created when PvPing?
There are no limits on your choice so it is a limitless choice.
This is distinctly different from having limitless choices which is what you insist I'm saying.
It's a valid use of the language. I can't understand why you have a problem with it.
Why is it impossible. They found out you were doing something illegal. Once they start watching you it's not that hard. All you have to do is mention it one time.
You're planning or debating and they have the place bugged. The phone bugged. They're working with an informant. They've been watching your web traffic and saw you download the latest version of true crypt. There are a myriad of ways they can discover you have an encrypted volume.
A trip wire is non-trivial. Effort to set up every time you leave. Effort to remove up every time you return. Then there are the exception cases. What happens if you leave and someone else is still around? How do you determine false positives? What if you made a mistake and the trip wire failed?
Crypto is not a magic bullet.
If you know the police are on to you stopping illegal activities and destroying anything incriminating is the only option. Any other option results in jail time.
What all the talks on crypto seem to forget is that crypto only protects your data when you are not using it.
If they are investigating you to the point where they are going to be seizing your computer they have means of acquiring your password.
They can get a warrant an put a key logger on your system. Optionally they could acquire a warrant to install some sort of surveillance with the intent of either shoulder surfing the password or to simply read the data off the screen.
An invalid justification for banning gold farmers. What more justification do you need than they are disruptive?
Show me a game that doesn't have have RMT, sanctioned or not, and I'll show you a game that has no player base.
What solutions are their other than sanctioning and securing it?
A game without money or resources might be able to do it and that would be a fun design problem.
Exactly.
Additionally any money pulled out for providing services, legit or in name only to circumvent the EULA, is already taxes as income under existing law.
Nonsensical fear mongering.
The whole premise is invalid. You're playing a game not bartering. It's impossible to barter things you don't own. Read the section of the EULA below.
If you make money by selling services in game then you have earned income and must be reported. This is nothing new and existing tax law clearly covers it.
With RMT there is no ownership and no income so how can there be changes to tax?
From the Eve EULA:
11. PROPRIETARY RIGHTS
A. Ownership of Software, System and Game
As between you and CCP, CCP is the sole and exclusive owner of the Software, System, Game and Game Content (as
defined below). The Software, System, Game and all Game Content are protected by law governing copyrights,
trademarks and other proprietary rights. CCP reserves all rights not expressly granted herein.
The Game is comprised of, without limitation, software code, programs, routines, subroutines, objects, files,
data, characters (and items, currency, objects and attributes comprising or associated with a character or an
Account), graphics, sound effects, music, animation, video, text, content, layout, design and other information
downloaded from and accessible through the System (collectively, the "Game Content"). CCP, its affiliates,
licensors and/or suppliers retain all of their right, title and interest (including without limitation all
intellectual property rights) in and to the Software, System, Game and all Game Content, and no rights thereto
are transferred to you, except for the limited license granted above.
Some quotes from a court rather than from a technology magazine.
"The existence of consumer choice decreases the extent of procedural unconscionability" p353
"The existence of consumer choice is relevant" p354
The contract was not found unconscionable.
All that case shows is that you cannot give up your right to sue. This is an old precedent.
How so? What are the tax ramifications of CCP's current set up?
As with your earlier objection you're confusing a limitless choice and limitless choices.
limitless choice - You and you alone choose if you sign it. There are no limits.
limitless choices - You can choose anything you want.
The choice I'm talking about has nothing to do with the terms of the contract.
Completely wrong.
Since you are free to walk away you have all the power. You alone control if the contract is signed.
Problem without using third party is that you cannot get to that trust level as newcomer and that it takes time to work it. When there's someone trusted in the middle of the transaction, you have some guarantee that you wont be cheated (or lose your personal details etc to whatever kind of fraud). In this case the trustful middlehand is good.
Wow you missed the whole point of the article.
In the cut and choose example does it fail because it has no trusted middle man?
What about the problem of middle men going rogue or being compromised? The whole idea is centered around making the middle man obsolete for exactly this reason.
This is exactly the same with laws. You cant enforce it, but you can make consequences for breaking laws bad enough so people dont want to break them.
So places that have the death penalty for murder have no murder?
That's just not true. Laws don't prevent they only punish.
You are free to accept or decline the contract as you see fit. You alone decide. Thus there are no external limits on it. Thus the choice is limitless.
Entering into a stupid contract is not unconscionable. It's just stupid.
Phone being critical is debatable. It has no disconnect protection such as electricity and gas has in cold areas.
If you are free to walk away then you have the best possible bargaining position. This is the case with phone.
Limitless choice does not mean the number of carriers.
Limitless choice means you and you alone choice if you sign the contract.
From your link:
"In contract law an unconscionable contract is one that is unjust or extremely one-sided in favor of the person who has the superior bargaining power."
Since you can choose not to sign it there is no superior bargaining power. This is a key test.
The contract is not unconscionable.
"Unconscionable" does not mean one sided in the USA, where ATT is located.
"Unconscionability has generally been recognized to include an absence of meaningful choice on the part of one of the parties together with contract terms which are unreasonably favorable to the other party." --Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co., 350 F.2d 445 (C.A. D.C. 1965)
Since signing the contract with AT&T is utterly voluntary you have limitless choice and it is impossible for it to be unconscionable. Now if ATT is the only choice for service you might have a case for unconscionable. But that's not the situation here.
You can't give up your right to sue. As mentioned earlier mandatory binding arbitration clauses have already been struck down by the courts.
However what it does do is raise the barrier of entry for actions against them since they just hide behind the contract and force you to start legal proceedings. Most people won't bother or won't realize it's even an option.
Computer viruses and trojans are social illnesses. Risk of social illness infection is greatly mitigated through behavior.
Good luck.
It's a US court, a US student, and a US company. The laws of other countries are irrelevant in this case.
The magic legal word is unconscionable. Ask your lawyer about that. People like the incorrect +5s up there think it means unfair. It does not. It has a distinct legal meaning which luxury goods are incapable of meeting.
Don't hold me to this I may be remembering wrong but I think this came up in blizzard v bnetd. They tried to argue unconscionable contract, saying they couldn't use the product in a manner they wanted. The judge said tough. You accepted the contract. If you didn't like the terms you should have declined it.
To start with all four limbs are used at the same time for multiple operations. In a significantly different manner than a manual. Some things are the same and some are wildly different.
For example your left hand is clutch and signals.
http://law.scu.edu/FacWebPage/Neustadter/e-books/abridged/main/cases/Williams.html
Unconscionability has generally been recognized to include an absence of meaningful choice on the part of one of the parties together with contract terms which are unreasonably favorable to the other party. --J. Skelly Wright, Circuit Judge
Luxury items cannot meet the meaningful choice test since you can choose not to purchase the item.