Or you could do what the EU does and mandate say, 2 year minimum warranties on durable goods, and at the same time they complain that they are being gouged for their stuff (which really ends up looking normal after import duties, VAT (added to base price), and the cost of an extended warranty - how often do you answer no to "Would you like an extended warranty?").
I see this mentioned a lot, and it's still completely disingenuous and patently false. Extended warranties go far above and beyond the mandatory protections enforced by law in... well, pretty much every country that isn't the US actually. With an extended warranty, any failure is covered, and even some accidental damage. However, every implementation of minimum warrantability law I've ever seen requires only that a manufacturer (or retailer or distributor) make right any faults which occur as a result of a manufacturing defect. Wear and tear isn't covered. Pretty much the only covered thing is premature failure due to a provable defect. The EU is unique in that it actually specifies a time period, while most implementations of this kind of law provide for a "sliding scale" taking into account what the goods do, how much they costed, and those sorts of things (legally, I can get maintenance for way longer on a Mac by citing our Consumer Guarantees Act than I can on an equivalently speced Asus, just because of the price difference).
You are correct on the VAT though - most overseas people tend to use the including tax price of the item and fail to account for State, County, and City taxes on good when comparing against the US price.
It's assumed that they're in the US based on their mention of monopoly break up and no competition - it's unlikely anyone who doesn't live there would have that level of caring.
And for what it's worth, no, we do have 3 strikes because of the US government, who literally paid for and wrote the drafts of the law.
If you are a US citizen, you should be concerned about your government using taxpayer money to write laws for other countries to benefit large corporations.
Our government passed that shitty law while in a State of Emergency so they could circumvent all those inconvenient things like "due process" and "public consultation". That's after we successfully bashed it back once. On the plus side, the three strikes law has a mandated fee of $25 payable from the copyright holder to the ISP every time they send a notice, so the movie industry refuses to use the system and the record industry uses it less and bitches about it.
No, I didn't, thanks very much. I am responding specifically to the statement "When media that can't be shared can't be sold" - apparently I need to be a shit-ton clearer when posting on this site, because people here love to interpret things as negatively as possible so they can have a mental breakdown. C'est la vie I guess.
So, for absolute clarity - I agree fully with sharing things where the author has made clear their intent that this is the case, be it Creative Commons, GPL, BSD, MPL, or whatever. I disagree with the statement that only media that can be freely shared should be sold. I agree with the statement that only media which respects your rights of resale, usage, and even the right to give it to a friend for a week or two to try it out, should be sold.
So... what gives them the right to punish the alleged infringers?
The Terms of Service of course. The problem you'll face here is that they're completely within their rights to run a regime like this provided it's in the contract. Just like they can terminate your account for all sorts of shit.
And consider yourself fortunate. In my country, it's three strikes, and it's enshrined in law thanks to your fucking government.
I don't agree with this at all. When you talk about sharing, I know for a fact you're talking about copying and giving someone that copy so they don't have to pay for it - I don't see why you think this is OK.
Now, lending and reselling - these are definitely things that everyone should demand to be able to do. Lending someone a CD/book/game/whatever is practically free advertisement for the producer.
Crashing a competitor's product release at all cannot be tastefully done (especially by the FSF) so I don't really see there being a huge issue at that point...
So what you're saying is that Linux is LESS secure that Windows? Because it's a piece of cake to make a Windows server run scripts in such a way that they can't read, write, delete, or list directory contents outside their own little sandbox.
But that can't be the case. And in fact... it isn't the case! PHP can indeed be properly secured on Linux in such a way that scripts can't access outside their sandbox, and it certainly doesn't include custom SELinux rules. I've used tons of hosts where this is in fact the configuration.
Please name the hundreds of hosts you've worked with so we can avoid them?
Services don't have license agreements. They're Terms of Service, and very rarely do you actually see them without going to an effort (usually there's a box saying "I agree to the terms of the MSA" or similar and you're supposed to go dig for the document referenced).
Odd. With my dedicated server, keeping on top of OS updates is Somebody Else's Problem too. They have WSUS servers, yum repositories, and all that good stuff sitting in the DC so updates can be automated at no extra cost.
MY question is... where the bloody hell do these fines go?!? Do they get given to the allegedly "harmed" consumers and businesses? Hell no! They get dropped into a giant government slush fund to pay for the next round of "legally required" pay rises for the "elected representatives".
Correlation is not causation. There are many possible reasons for that, including: the card number may have been swiped prior to the pinpads being removed, the card number may have been swiped from another vendor entirely.
Automatically assuming that clearly the AC, vendor, law enforcement, and every other commenter is wrong because ONE PERSON had a different experience is reckless and foolish.
There's two completely different lawsuits mentioned in TFA which the editor (oh. Samzenpus.) managed to compress into one when doing the summary. Compete doesn't actually have to pay a cent, but their settlement with the FTC requires them to complete third party audits every two years, immediately cease the infringing activity, delete (or anonymize) any data it already collected, and get express consent before ever collecting info again. KISSmetrics has to pay half a million dollars for developing their platform in such a way that it resurrected deleted cookies so that you couldn't escape tracking. They also didn't admit guilt, so there's nothing stopping them carrying on doing it.
It's nothing like that actually. There's two completely different lawsuits mentioned in TFA which the editor (oh. Samzenpus.) managed to compress into one when doing the summary. Compete doesn't actually have to pay a cent, but their settlement with the FTC requires them to complete third party audits every two years, immediately cease the infringing activity, delete (or anonymize) any data it already collected, and get express consent before ever collecting info again. KISSmetrics has to pay half a million dollars for developing their platform in such a way that it resurrected deleted cookies so that you couldn't escape tracking. They also didn't admit guilt, so there's nothing stopping them carrying on doing it.
"Share a song"? Well, actually, wanting to do that is on one side of the extreme. I agree with you on the others, but sharing a song entails giving a copy of the file to someone who hasn't purchased it, and I don't necessarily see that as being something that should be considered protected behaviour until someone comes up with the solution to the problem of appropriately rewarding authors in a world where the law doesn't control distribution..
No, it isn't the same category at all. When you buy something on credit, you gain title but the lendor takes out something called a security interest - where they essentially get to use that property as security against your continued adherence to the contract. It's not contract law that enables this either, there's a whole dedicated to this principle. Amazon revoking a digital book most definitely could not use those laws.
And to your footnote, it wouldn't be very interesting legally at all. Such a contract would be invalidated either by being signed under duress or being just plain illegal.
News flash: when a contract and the law differ, it's not the contract that wins.
That doctor's laptop wouldn't be able to connect to the internal network then. Hardly any risk (and no, our laptops do not contain patient data. That's expressly forbidden - a dismissal offence even!)
Slashdot Mirror
Or you could do what the EU does and mandate say, 2 year minimum warranties on durable goods, and at the same time they complain that they are being gouged for their stuff (which really ends up looking normal after import duties, VAT (added to base price), and the cost of an extended warranty - how often do you answer no to "Would you like an extended warranty?").
I see this mentioned a lot, and it's still completely disingenuous and patently false. Extended warranties go far above and beyond the mandatory protections enforced by law in ... well, pretty much every country that isn't the US actually. With an extended warranty, any failure is covered, and even some accidental damage. However, every implementation of minimum warrantability law I've ever seen requires only that a manufacturer (or retailer or distributor) make right any faults which occur as a result of a manufacturing defect. Wear and tear isn't covered. Pretty much the only covered thing is premature failure due to a provable defect. The EU is unique in that it actually specifies a time period, while most implementations of this kind of law provide for a "sliding scale" taking into account what the goods do, how much they costed, and those sorts of things (legally, I can get maintenance for way longer on a Mac by citing our Consumer Guarantees Act than I can on an equivalently speced Asus, just because of the price difference).
You are correct on the VAT though - most overseas people tend to use the including tax price of the item and fail to account for State, County, and City taxes on good when comparing against the US price.
It's assumed that they're in the US based on their mention of monopoly break up and no competition - it's unlikely anyone who doesn't live there would have that level of caring.
And for what it's worth, no, we do have 3 strikes because of the US government, who literally paid for and wrote the drafts of the law.
If you are a US citizen, you should be concerned about your government using taxpayer money to write laws for other countries to benefit large corporations.
Our government passed that shitty law while in a State of Emergency so they could circumvent all those inconvenient things like "due process" and "public consultation". That's after we successfully bashed it back once. On the plus side, the three strikes law has a mandated fee of $25 payable from the copyright holder to the ISP every time they send a notice, so the movie industry refuses to use the system and the record industry uses it less and bitches about it.
No, I didn't, thanks very much. I am responding specifically to the statement "When media that can't be shared can't be sold" - apparently I need to be a shit-ton clearer when posting on this site, because people here love to interpret things as negatively as possible so they can have a mental breakdown. C'est la vie I guess.
So, for absolute clarity - I agree fully with sharing things where the author has made clear their intent that this is the case, be it Creative Commons, GPL, BSD, MPL, or whatever. I disagree with the statement that only media that can be freely shared should be sold. I agree with the statement that only media which respects your rights of resale, usage, and even the right to give it to a friend for a week or two to try it out, should be sold.
So... what gives them the right to punish the alleged infringers?
The Terms of Service of course. The problem you'll face here is that they're completely within their rights to run a regime like this provided it's in the contract. Just like they can terminate your account for all sorts of shit.
And consider yourself fortunate. In my country, it's three strikes, and it's enshrined in law thanks to your fucking government.
I don't agree with this at all. When you talk about sharing, I know for a fact you're talking about copying and giving someone that copy so they don't have to pay for it - I don't see why you think this is OK.
Now, lending and reselling - these are definitely things that everyone should demand to be able to do. Lending someone a CD/book/game/whatever is practically free advertisement for the producer.
Yes, most emphatically, yes.
Crashing a competitor's product release at all cannot be tastefully done (especially by the FSF) so I don't really see there being a huge issue at that point...
So what you're saying is that Linux is LESS secure that Windows? Because it's a piece of cake to make a Windows server run scripts in such a way that they can't read, write, delete, or list directory contents outside their own little sandbox.
But that can't be the case. And in fact... it isn't the case! PHP can indeed be properly secured on Linux in such a way that scripts can't access outside their sandbox, and it certainly doesn't include custom SELinux rules. I've used tons of hosts where this is in fact the configuration.
Please name the hundreds of hosts you've worked with so we can avoid them?
Services don't have license agreements. They're Terms of Service, and very rarely do you actually see them without going to an effort (usually there's a box saying "I agree to the terms of the MSA" or similar and you're supposed to go dig for the document referenced).
Odd. With my dedicated server, keeping on top of OS updates is Somebody Else's Problem too. They have WSUS servers, yum repositories, and all that good stuff sitting in the DC so updates can be automated at no extra cost.
Is this unusual?
They're still elected, just not by the public.
Also, note the quotation marks. The more cynical among us argue that even the ones that actually are elected aren't really elected.
It's not a fine. It's a "settlement". You know the sort - the one that keeps it out of court to avoid a precedent being set?
MY question is... where the bloody hell do these fines go?!? Do they get given to the allegedly "harmed" consumers and businesses? Hell no! They get dropped into a giant government slush fund to pay for the next round of "legally required" pay rises for the "elected representatives".
Fines are a shitty way to deal with a problem.
Correlation is not causation. There are many possible reasons for that, including: the card number may have been swiped prior to the pinpads being removed, the card number may have been swiped from another vendor entirely.
Automatically assuming that clearly the AC, vendor, law enforcement, and every other commenter is wrong because ONE PERSON had a different experience is reckless and foolish.
There's two completely different lawsuits mentioned in TFA which the editor (oh. Samzenpus.) managed to compress into one when doing the summary. Compete doesn't actually have to pay a cent, but their settlement with the FTC requires them to complete third party audits every two years, immediately cease the infringing activity, delete (or anonymize) any data it already collected, and get express consent before ever collecting info again. KISSmetrics has to pay half a million dollars for developing their platform in such a way that it resurrected deleted cookies so that you couldn't escape tracking. They also didn't admit guilt, so there's nothing stopping them carrying on doing it.
It's nothing like that actually. There's two completely different lawsuits mentioned in TFA which the editor (oh. Samzenpus.) managed to compress into one when doing the summary. Compete doesn't actually have to pay a cent, but their settlement with the FTC requires them to complete third party audits every two years, immediately cease the infringing activity, delete (or anonymize) any data it already collected, and get express consent before ever collecting info again. KISSmetrics has to pay half a million dollars for developing their platform in such a way that it resurrected deleted cookies so that you couldn't escape tracking. They also didn't admit guilt, so there's nothing stopping them carrying on doing it.
And that's why it's a good thing that you have exactly zero authority whatsoever.
If it's a physical object, they would pay it to your government. If it's an eBook, they would not (and would not in fact charge 27% anyway).
"Share a song"? Well, actually, wanting to do that is on one side of the extreme. I agree with you on the others, but sharing a song entails giving a copy of the file to someone who hasn't purchased it, and I don't necessarily see that as being something that should be considered protected behaviour until someone comes up with the solution to the problem of appropriately rewarding authors in a world where the law doesn't control distribution..
No, it isn't the same category at all. When you buy something on credit, you gain title but the lendor takes out something called a security interest - where they essentially get to use that property as security against your continued adherence to the contract. It's not contract law that enables this either, there's a whole dedicated to this principle. Amazon revoking a digital book most definitely could not use those laws.
And to your footnote, it wouldn't be very interesting legally at all. Such a contract would be invalidated either by being signed under duress or being just plain illegal.
News flash: when a contract and the law differ, it's not the contract that wins.
That doctor's laptop wouldn't be able to connect to the internal network then. Hardly any risk (and no, our laptops do not contain patient data. That's expressly forbidden - a dismissal offence even!)
No, because the consequence would be that the rest of the planet would no longer honour France's intellectual property regime. It has happened before.
There would be no desirable consequences from such an action for anyone.
And it's not one treaty, it's more than seven treaties.
Steam URLs don't contain hostnames, because they run things on your PC. The only funny thing would be how dumb a person that tries it is.
Write it to a Perl script then. You've got at least a 75% chance that the garbled crap ends up being valid executable code somewhere.
(Perl. The only language where YGT$#WQAYGTyAEHQY compiles).