Complete crap statistics. If it were true, it would mean that the USOC took at least 50 appeals for decisions from the 9th circuit, and overturned at least 47 of them in one year. Considering that they only granted review for 80 cases in the last term, that's basically an impossibility. And it actually is. According to this, the 9th circuit was overturned 71% of the time, which is actually less often than the other two next busiest courts of appeal.
Did you make up these statistics on your own, or did you just regurgitate what you heard?
A contract can't contain a provision that is illegal. However, giving up your right to sell something back is not an illegal act. Hence enforceable in a license.
Sort of. The publisher apparently needs to take it back. Gamestop is under no obligation to take your copy of SC2 back, but Activision-Blizzard is. At least that's what I was told.
Jackpot. Especially with automatic enforcement through tying software to online network logins.
Personally, I'm largely fine with it because I don't deal with the used video game market. But I recognize that this will kill it, and set a very dangerous precedent for other markets, including the one of trading games among friends. Not to mention that this will reinforce the notion of business people all over that they're owed revenue, and shouldn't have to beg the population to part with their money.
Not quite. Essentially, when you handed over the money, the transaction wasn't complete, because you didn't accept the contract yet. Without that, whatever you paid for is still not yours.
This is not about copyright. This is about contracts, which can apply to any good or service. The only question is what kind of contracts can be enforced through EULAs. Turns out, quite a wide range.
You know what will fix this problem in a hurry? People reading the EULA, rejecting it, and petitioning the publisher for a refund. If Activision would have to field to field about a million refund requests for SC2, I bet you that EULAs would get fixed in a jiffy. But since everyone just clicks Accept, nothing will change.
This has nothing to do with the 9th Circuit Court. This is strictly a contract issue. Can you enforce a contract that gets signed after money has already exchanged hands? That's it.
You also managed to repeat the misleading statement that it is the most overturned - it is also by far the one that gets cases most often to the Supreme Court, and one of the two busiest circuits in the nation.
Yep. It's a done deal. There was actually a panel at PAX that addressed this directly. What you buy is a license, and the contract you sign is the EULA you click through when you install the software. You can abort the installation at that point, and the publisher (not the retail store) is supposed to refund you your purchase.
It's really, really important to read the EULA. It's not that people can put anything they want into it, but it's fairly close. Short of signing over constitutionally protected rights, anything goes. And the First Sale Doctrine is just that, a doctrine - not a federally protected right.
And yes, everyone and their brother will try to emulate this. The only good news is that it is much harder to enforce a license when buying an actual good, because people aren't used to having to sign a document when buying a stove or a TV. But since everyone is used to just clicking accept in the EULA, they are enforcable in software.
It's called Methane. A lot of rigs burn off the Methane that comes with many oil deposits. But sometimes, Methane accumulates for whatever reason, isn't burned off in a controlled fashion, and explodes instead. And then ignites the oil. Methane/oil compositions are a bitch.
So riddle me this. If what Wikileaks is doing is illegal, and no one should do it, how do we find out about cases where immoral and illegitimate things happen in secret? Trust the government, the same people who are guilty in this scenario? Yeah, right. They might be able to convict Assange based on your approach, but it doesn't change the fact that that makes the government completely unaccountable, save to the rich and powerful.
Is that really how you want things to work? Think carefully.
You're missing a key point in your comparison: how much more are you willing to spend on the more fuel-efficient car? With mpg, it's a two-step calculation - first divide your yearly driving by the three mpg values, then subtract the two options from your current fuel use. The difference in fuel usage between the two options is your savings. Different mileages require you to go through the two steps again. With GPM, you just subtract the GPM values from each other, and scale up as needed.
GPM works better any time you deal with a real-life situation.
There is a range of possible outcomes between becoming a filthy rich artist and being a destitute artist. I would hope that the filthy rich artists are the ones working the hardest - which generally means the performing artists. It doesn't mean no recording artist should be filthy rich, just that the setup should favor the performing artists to become filthy rich.
As far as I can tell, that's not the way it works right now.
I'm sure everyone would be okay with just "making a copy" of their back accounts and distribute it. Hey free culture right?
Ahhh.... now I get it. Music Publishers confuse money with culture. If it has a dollar sign attached to it, it is culture. If it doesn't, it is worthless and should forcibly have a dollar sign attached to it, so that it becomes culture.
As perverse and mindblowingly stupid as that attitude is, I now understand exactly why and how Entertainment Publishers work and think. Please do everyone a favor and snort that bag of coke you have in your desk all at once.
And by the way, HIPAA exists because people do stupid things with medical information, like deny you jobs and ostracize you. If people wouldn't be stupid like you, there'd be no need for HIPAA.
Sure, but what about the recording artists? Should they be left high and dry? Is public performance the only art venue that is deserving of reward?
Short version: yes. Long version: More or less. Thanks to autotune, the work done by a recording singer is minimal, and a lot of music can be similarly tuned or fixed by computers.
There's a Post Anonymously button for that reason. Given the state of their IT department, I doubt they'll be able to figure out who broke their NDA, even if police manages to give them an IP.
You COMPLETELY missed the point. What I said has no bearing on what you are saying. In the end, what you consider your natural right depends fully on enough people around you agreeing with you that it is a natural right - making it not a natural right, but a privilege.
The Constitution is a document that documents what some people at some point in time thought to be a rational way to organize a society. It may define things as limiting what government can do, but it doesn't change the fact that in the end, the only rights you naturally have are the ones you can defend yourself. Sort of like the idea that the only thing you truly own is what you can carry while running at full tilt.
Just to repeat: there are no universal rights. Merely rights people agree on. This means that the constitution is a historical document codifying said agreement. Not a sacred artifact of worship.
Ummm..... in trademark law, you have to defend YOUR trademark. They didn't name their site teacherfacebook, they named it teachbook. It is generally understood that defending your trademark has to occur in cases where people could reasonably mistake someone else's trademark for yours.
I fail to see how teachbook is reasonably inferred to be produced by Facebook. I don't expect every company with Software, Architects, Precision etc. to be tied to the same company.
Trademark law is remarkably reasonable. Some people decide to abuse it. This is one of the cases.
What if someone names their site blackbook (keep your contacts nicely sorted, learn of new contacts through existing contacts), yellowbook (keep your business listings organized, learn of new businesses through existing businesses, follow them), etc.? Book is a generic term for a listing of things you know, with the prefix indicating something about what's being stored.
Kinda like Foo Software, which is generally recognized to not be able to sue Bar Software, because both contain the name Software.
Correction: it is a privilege granted to you by the state through virtue of the Constitution, which was written by a collection of people who agreed on a basic set of operating principles for a human society.
I'll never understand why people argue that the Bible is just a book, but the Constitution is the physical embodiment of some higher, unalterable truth. Maybe they're the same? I don't know. Either which way, the Constitution can be changed as quickly as it was created. If enough people agree on its amendments, or even its scrapping, it will be changed.
And magically, on their 18th birthday, children suddenly become endowed with the wisdom of adults, and the ability to properly process such thoughts.
Horseshit. You teach kids in a supervised environment, and discuss with them their trains of thought. Early. That is the only way that on their 18th birthday, they aren't as handicapped as they were at 17, 16 or even 12.
Slashdot Mirror
It's in the copyright code, 17 USC 109.
The problem is, you are not actually buying something. You are acquiring a license to use. If you disagree with those terms, don't enter into them.
Complete crap statistics. If it were true, it would mean that the USOC took at least 50 appeals for decisions from the 9th circuit, and overturned at least 47 of them in one year. Considering that they only granted review for 80 cases in the last term, that's basically an impossibility. And it actually is. According to this, the 9th circuit was overturned 71% of the time, which is actually less often than the other two next busiest courts of appeal.
Did you make up these statistics on your own, or did you just regurgitate what you heard?
The 9th circuit court of appeals basically covers all of the western states and then some. They're just a huge jurisdiction.
A contract can't contain a provision that is illegal. However, giving up your right to sell something back is not an illegal act. Hence enforceable in a license.
Sort of. The publisher apparently needs to take it back. Gamestop is under no obligation to take your copy of SC2 back, but Activision-Blizzard is. At least that's what I was told.
Jackpot. Especially with automatic enforcement through tying software to online network logins.
Personally, I'm largely fine with it because I don't deal with the used video game market. But I recognize that this will kill it, and set a very dangerous precedent for other markets, including the one of trading games among friends. Not to mention that this will reinforce the notion of business people all over that they're owed revenue, and shouldn't have to beg the population to part with their money.
Not quite. Essentially, when you handed over the money, the transaction wasn't complete, because you didn't accept the contract yet. Without that, whatever you paid for is still not yours.
The joy of contract law.
This is not about copyright. This is about contracts, which can apply to any good or service. The only question is what kind of contracts can be enforced through EULAs. Turns out, quite a wide range.
You know what will fix this problem in a hurry? People reading the EULA, rejecting it, and petitioning the publisher for a refund. If Activision would have to field to field about a million refund requests for SC2, I bet you that EULAs would get fixed in a jiffy. But since everyone just clicks Accept, nothing will change.
This has nothing to do with the 9th Circuit Court. This is strictly a contract issue. Can you enforce a contract that gets signed after money has already exchanged hands? That's it.
You also managed to repeat the misleading statement that it is the most overturned - it is also by far the one that gets cases most often to the Supreme Court, and one of the two busiest circuits in the nation.
Yep. It's a done deal. There was actually a panel at PAX that addressed this directly. What you buy is a license, and the contract you sign is the EULA you click through when you install the software. You can abort the installation at that point, and the publisher (not the retail store) is supposed to refund you your purchase.
It's really, really important to read the EULA. It's not that people can put anything they want into it, but it's fairly close. Short of signing over constitutionally protected rights, anything goes. And the First Sale Doctrine is just that, a doctrine - not a federally protected right.
And yes, everyone and their brother will try to emulate this. The only good news is that it is much harder to enforce a license when buying an actual good, because people aren't used to having to sign a document when buying a stove or a TV. But since everyone is used to just clicking accept in the EULA, they are enforcable in software.
It's called Methane. A lot of rigs burn off the Methane that comes with many oil deposits. But sometimes, Methane accumulates for whatever reason, isn't burned off in a controlled fashion, and explodes instead. And then ignites the oil. Methane/oil compositions are a bitch.
So riddle me this. If what Wikileaks is doing is illegal, and no one should do it, how do we find out about cases where immoral and illegitimate things happen in secret? Trust the government, the same people who are guilty in this scenario? Yeah, right. They might be able to convict Assange based on your approach, but it doesn't change the fact that that makes the government completely unaccountable, save to the rich and powerful.
Is that really how you want things to work? Think carefully.
You're missing a key point in your comparison: how much more are you willing to spend on the more fuel-efficient car? With mpg, it's a two-step calculation - first divide your yearly driving by the three mpg values, then subtract the two options from your current fuel use. The difference in fuel usage between the two options is your savings. Different mileages require you to go through the two steps again. With GPM, you just subtract the GPM values from each other, and scale up as needed.
GPM works better any time you deal with a real-life situation.
There is a range of possible outcomes between becoming a filthy rich artist and being a destitute artist. I would hope that the filthy rich artists are the ones working the hardest - which generally means the performing artists. It doesn't mean no recording artist should be filthy rich, just that the setup should favor the performing artists to become filthy rich.
As far as I can tell, that's not the way it works right now.
This assumes smartness on the part of the department. Looking at the clusterfuck that is the current meltdown, I doubt they have the smarts for that.
I'm sure everyone would be okay with just "making a copy" of their back accounts and distribute it. Hey free culture right?
Ahhh.... now I get it. Music Publishers confuse money with culture. If it has a dollar sign attached to it, it is culture. If it doesn't, it is worthless and should forcibly have a dollar sign attached to it, so that it becomes culture.
As perverse and mindblowingly stupid as that attitude is, I now understand exactly why and how Entertainment Publishers work and think. Please do everyone a favor and snort that bag of coke you have in your desk all at once.
And by the way, HIPAA exists because people do stupid things with medical information, like deny you jobs and ostracize you. If people wouldn't be stupid like you, there'd be no need for HIPAA.
Sure, but what about the recording artists? Should they be left high and dry? Is public performance the only art venue that is deserving of reward?
Short version: yes. Long version: More or less. Thanks to autotune, the work done by a recording singer is minimal, and a lot of music can be similarly tuned or fixed by computers.
There's a Post Anonymously button for that reason. Given the state of their IT department, I doubt they'll be able to figure out who broke their NDA, even if police manages to give them an IP.
Just like you are an expert on European culture and thought patterns?
You COMPLETELY missed the point. What I said has no bearing on what you are saying. In the end, what you consider your natural right depends fully on enough people around you agreeing with you that it is a natural right - making it not a natural right, but a privilege.
The Constitution is a document that documents what some people at some point in time thought to be a rational way to organize a society. It may define things as limiting what government can do, but it doesn't change the fact that in the end, the only rights you naturally have are the ones you can defend yourself. Sort of like the idea that the only thing you truly own is what you can carry while running at full tilt.
Just to repeat: there are no universal rights. Merely rights people agree on. This means that the constitution is a historical document codifying said agreement. Not a sacred artifact of worship.
Yes, but it also means that it is illogical to argue that a common word of your trademark is a defining characteristic of your trademark.
Ummm..... in trademark law, you have to defend YOUR trademark. They didn't name their site teacherfacebook, they named it teachbook. It is generally understood that defending your trademark has to occur in cases where people could reasonably mistake someone else's trademark for yours.
I fail to see how teachbook is reasonably inferred to be produced by Facebook. I don't expect every company with Software, Architects, Precision etc. to be tied to the same company.
Trademark law is remarkably reasonable. Some people decide to abuse it. This is one of the cases.
What if someone names their site blackbook (keep your contacts nicely sorted, learn of new contacts through existing contacts), yellowbook (keep your business listings organized, learn of new businesses through existing businesses, follow them), etc.? Book is a generic term for a listing of things you know, with the prefix indicating something about what's being stored.
Kinda like Foo Software, which is generally recognized to not be able to sue Bar Software, because both contain the name Software.
Correction: it is a privilege granted to you by the state through virtue of the Constitution, which was written by a collection of people who agreed on a basic set of operating principles for a human society.
I'll never understand why people argue that the Bible is just a book, but the Constitution is the physical embodiment of some higher, unalterable truth. Maybe they're the same? I don't know. Either which way, the Constitution can be changed as quickly as it was created. If enough people agree on its amendments, or even its scrapping, it will be changed.
And magically, on their 18th birthday, children suddenly become endowed with the wisdom of adults, and the ability to properly process such thoughts.
Horseshit. You teach kids in a supervised environment, and discuss with them their trains of thought. Early. That is the only way that on their 18th birthday, they aren't as handicapped as they were at 17, 16 or even 12.