The "general terms of business" are defined in law as a statutory contract. Ergo, even underage individuals can enter into a contract of simple trade.
If such terms were to be imposed as "general terms of business", some sort of contract would be signed at the time of purchase. Yet purchasing software involves nothing more than the default statutory contract of trade.
The nonsense found in EULAs has no such government endorsement. What's more, entering into a contract requires some sort of knowledge of the contract. You can't tell me that downloading something from a website has made me a party to a contract, because having no idea of this, it's impossible for me to be a party to it.
After all: without altering the program (which is not allowed without a license)
Says who? If I own a copyrighted work, I'm entitled to do what I like with it, save for copying it. That includes modifying it. There is no difference here from me buying a book and scribbling all over it.
Depending on the software, you can also just extract the files without running the installer. Additionally, proving that you "agreed" to the licence needn't be nearly as simple; the user that uses the software isn't necessarily the person that installed it. I also have difficulty believing that EULAs are valid instruments; in disproving the false statements that only the EULA grants you permission to use the software, the EULA becomes extremely one-sided. EULAs that attempt to redefine the nature of a transaction that has already occured, from a sale to a grant of a licence, are particularly entertaining.
Simply put, a license is an agreement giving you the right to use the software.
This is simply false. If I make a piece of software, and distribute it for free online, I don't have to grant the users permission for their use of the software to be lawful. Copyright grants monopoly rights solely over the creation of copies; however, copies of computer programmes created that are technically necessary to the use of software in conjunction with a machine are permitted by law under USC 17-117.
A successful demonstration of this is the GPL:
You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run a copy of the Program.
Of course, the software is still covered by copyright and it's license, so you're really selling the license.
False. A second hand sale involves the sale of physical property. There is no exception for software. A "license" can refer to many things; in the context of software it tends to refer to a fictional concept created by the software industry, the implication being that one is required, typically per user, or even per feature. However, a second-hand copy of a piece of software is a lawfully produced copy of a copyrighted work, and so no license is required merely to transfer ownership, nor is a "license" legally required to use a piece of software.
USC 17-117 creates an exemption for copyright with regards to copies of computer programmes technically necessary to their use in conjunction with a machine. Thus, copies of a computer programme made on a hard drive or in RAM are not infringing.
The lack of necessity of a "license" is demonstrated in the GPL. The GPL explicitly states "You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run a copy of the Program.".
The OpenSSL library provides a varied array of cryptographic services, not just an SSL implementation. Just because something uses OpenSSL doesn't mean it's SSL-based. I suggest you grep the SSH RFCs for 'SSL' and 'TLS'; you won't find anything of note.
The TLS standard (effectively SSL 4) mandates that the server present a certificate for perusal by the client. Sure, you can use a self-signed certificate, but then you're not using TLS in a secure fashion.
SSH and Kerberos are not based on SSL/TLS. SSH probably uses similar techniques to SSL, but Kerberos is out there doing it's own wacky thing. See here for an explanation of Kerberos's operation.
I generally find that DRM can be defined as any type of copy protection that incorporates a network authorization or revocation element. This doesn't include simple CD checks, but does include any form of activation against a central authority.
A DRM mechanism does not become something else just because the central authority chooses (for the time being) to not make full use of it's capacity to 'manage digital rights'. Simply having the mechanism there, dormant, ready to be activated is enough to construe a DRM mechanism.
Spore's activations limit was increased from 3 to 5. Stardock apparently places no limit on the number of times their games can be activated, but this is logically distinct from not having the capacity to impose such a limit at a later time. The capacity is certainly there.
If Stardock games have to activate with Stardock, then Stardock has the means to deny activation, and, ultimately, prevent an owner of their product from using it as they see fit. Even if they never use their power in this way, it exists, ergo (updated) Stardock games incorporate DRM.
On the whole, it's a pretty disgusting press technique EA's gotten away with here.
EA: Mass Effect and Spore will have invasive DRM that re-checks with a central server every 10 days!
Bad press happens
EA: We learned our lesson. Mass Effect and Spore won't use that invasive system we were thinking of using. We decided we had to listen to our customers, so we decided we'd use this less invasive method (which is still invasive, and is the same system used on Bioshock)
Good press happens, despite the fact that EA has just said it would use the same protection system as Bioshock, which got bad press for... having an invasive protection system that locked legitimate consumers out of their own games.
This is called the foot in the door technique, and at least up to this article, EA pulled it off masterfully.
ISPs have argued themselves that they are not common carriers, and ISPs don't want to be classified as common carriers. Common carrier status comes with all sorts of reliability requirements, etc. Telcos (the PSTN-running part of them, anyway) are common carriers.
Also, because judges are occasionally capable of making reasonable decisions, like decisions that holding ISPs liable for data passing through them isn't really reasonable.
Not true. The Firewire specs require DMA, but they don't require that the DMA address space be mapped to the entirety of physical memory.
IIRC this is an issue with common hardware implementations of Firewire, not the OS or the spec itself.
From Wikipedia:
On many implementations, particularly those like PCs and Macs using the popular OHCI, the mapping between the FireWire "Physical Memory Space" and device physical memory is done in hardware, without operating system intervention. While this enables high-speed and low-latency communication between data sources and sinks without unnecessary copying (such as between a video camera and a software video recording application, or between a disk drive and the application buffers), this can also be a security risk if untrustworthy devices are attached to the bus. For this reason, high-security installations will typically either purchase newer machines which map a virtual memory space to the FireWire "Physical Memory Space" (such as a Power Mac G5, or any Sun workstation), disable the OHCI hardware mapping between FireWire and device memory, physically disable the entire FireWire interface, or do not have FireWire at all.
You do know you can get debit cards on the VISA network, right?
I don't know about prepaid, but that's what my bank gave me, and I've never had a situation where it's been rejected online for being a debit card rather than a credit card.
Really, it's the fact that they let you listen to music but try to stop you downloading it — it's stupidity in itself. If your computer is receiving the audio data, you can save it. But then again, similar things can be said about DRM.
Seriously. I have a 14" laptop, and it goes up to 1024x768 (in fact, I've never used anything higher), and they're stuffing 1280x900 on an 8-inch screen?
Wouldn't that result in a few toilets with bad batteries exploding?
Re:Flash as an application development platform
on
The Future of Flash
·
· Score: 2, Informative
On capturing streams -- you might want to use a Mozilla browser and get the LiveHTTPHeaders extension. A site might obfusicate the URL all it likes, but the HTTP requests don't lie.
Having to go to extensive measures to convince the CMS that you want to add a static page, no, not a news item
Hard-coded HTML within the CMS itself
Bloated core (features that not everyone will need implemented in the core, not a plugin/module/etc)
Bloated default installation (I want a content management system, not a "community" management system, and 99% of my website visitors don't need to see a login form)
CMSes that simply don't give you enough control over what HTML is output
You might want to look up overselling. Some people are willing to pay the same or more for less if it means it's guaranteed that those resources are allocated exclusively to them.
I do think this particular host is a ripoff, though. Look at the shared hosting plans — a maximum of 3 websites, even if they're all PHP? I've never seen a host that imposes such a stupidly artificial limit. Limits on the number of domains, subdomains, mailboxes, etc really shouldn't be around in this day and age. The only limits a host should really need to set is disk space, bandwidth, and on other actual raw resources like CPU/memory usage.
Uh, that was my point. I was replying to the parent post to say that I think it's more likely that Microsoft would get sued over WGA than WPA. The poster I was replying to was saying that it seemed unlikely Microsoft would get sued about WGA since they didn't get sued about WPA. I was pointing out a difference between WGA and WPA that meant that more people will be affected by WGA, and more business-critical systems; that is, WGA checks even corporate/volume-license editions. I know WGA still checks corporate editions, otherwise I wouldn't have posted to say that there there actually is some higher chance of Microsoft getting sued for WGA than WPA due to it's larger cone of impact as opposed to WPA (non-corporate/volume-license editions).
Slashdot Mirror
Ooh, I don't think so.
The "general terms of business" are defined in law as a statutory contract. Ergo, even underage individuals can enter into a contract of simple trade.
If such terms were to be imposed as "general terms of business", some sort of contract would be signed at the time of purchase. Yet purchasing software involves nothing more than the default statutory contract of trade.
The nonsense found in EULAs has no such government endorsement. What's more, entering into a contract requires some sort of knowledge of the contract. You can't tell me that downloading something from a website has made me a party to a contract, because having no idea of this, it's impossible for me to be a party to it.
Says who? If I own a copyrighted work, I'm entitled to do what I like with it, save for copying it. That includes modifying it. There is no difference here from me buying a book and scribbling all over it.
Depending on the software, you can also just extract the files without running the installer. Additionally, proving that you "agreed" to the licence needn't be nearly as simple; the user that uses the software isn't necessarily the person that installed it. I also have difficulty believing that EULAs are valid instruments; in disproving the false statements that only the EULA grants you permission to use the software, the EULA becomes extremely one-sided. EULAs that attempt to redefine the nature of a transaction that has already occured, from a sale to a grant of a licence, are particularly entertaining.
This is simply false. If I make a piece of software, and distribute it for free online, I don't have to grant the users permission for their use of the software to be lawful. Copyright grants monopoly rights solely over the creation of copies; however, copies of computer programmes created that are technically necessary to the use of software in conjunction with a machine are permitted by law under USC 17-117.
A successful demonstration of this is the GPL:
False. A second hand sale involves the sale of physical property. There is no exception for software. A "license" can refer to many things; in the context of software it tends to refer to a fictional concept created by the software industry, the implication being that one is required, typically per user, or even per feature. However, a second-hand copy of a piece of software is a lawfully produced copy of a copyrighted work, and so no license is required merely to transfer ownership, nor is a "license" legally required to use a piece of software.
USC 17-117 creates an exemption for copyright with regards to copies of computer programmes technically necessary to their use in conjunction with a machine. Thus, copies of a computer programme made on a hard drive or in RAM are not infringing.
The lack of necessity of a "license" is demonstrated in the GPL. The GPL explicitly states "You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run a copy of the Program.".
The OpenSSL library provides a varied array of cryptographic services, not just an SSL implementation. Just because something uses OpenSSL doesn't mean it's SSL-based. I suggest you grep the SSH RFCs for 'SSL' and 'TLS'; you won't find anything of note.
The TLS standard (effectively SSL 4) mandates that the server present a certificate for perusal by the client. Sure, you can use a self-signed certificate, but then you're not using TLS in a secure fashion.
SSH and Kerberos are not based on SSL/TLS. SSH probably uses similar techniques to SSL, but Kerberos is out there doing it's own wacky thing. See here for an explanation of Kerberos's operation.
I generally find that DRM can be defined as any type of copy protection that incorporates a network authorization or revocation element. This doesn't include simple CD checks, but does include any form of activation against a central authority.
A DRM mechanism does not become something else just because the central authority chooses (for the time being) to not make full use of it's capacity to 'manage digital rights'. Simply having the mechanism there, dormant, ready to be activated is enough to construe a DRM mechanism.
Spore's activations limit was increased from 3 to 5. Stardock apparently places no limit on the number of times their games can be activated, but this is logically distinct from not having the capacity to impose such a limit at a later time. The capacity is certainly there.
If Stardock games have to activate with Stardock, then Stardock has the means to deny activation, and, ultimately, prevent an owner of their product from using it as they see fit. Even if they never use their power in this way, it exists, ergo (updated) Stardock games incorporate DRM.
On the whole, it's a pretty disgusting press technique EA's gotten away with here.
EA: Mass Effect and Spore will have invasive DRM that re-checks with a central server every 10 days!
Bad press happens
EA: We learned our lesson. Mass Effect and Spore won't use that invasive system we were thinking of using. We decided we had to listen to our customers, so we decided we'd use this less invasive method (which is still invasive, and is the same system used on Bioshock)
Good press happens, despite the fact that EA has just said it would use the same protection system as Bioshock, which got bad press for... having an invasive protection system that locked legitimate consumers out of their own games.
This is called the foot in the door technique, and at least up to this article, EA pulled it off masterfully.
ISPs are shielded from liability under the Communications Decency Act.
ISPs have argued themselves that they are not common carriers, and ISPs don't want to be classified as common carriers. Common carrier status comes with all sorts of reliability requirements, etc. Telcos (the PSTN-running part of them, anyway) are common carriers.
Also, because judges are occasionally capable of making reasonable decisions, like decisions that holding ISPs liable for data passing through them isn't really reasonable.
This is correct. In the US, ISPs are classified as an information service by the FCC.
Not true. The Firewire specs require DMA, but they don't require that the DMA address space be mapped to the entirety of physical memory.
IIRC this is an issue with common hardware implementations of Firewire, not the OS or the spec itself.
From Wikipedia:
What?
You know when you're a geek when you look at that and think "Well duh, they ship them compressed."
You do know you can get debit cards on the VISA network, right?
I don't know about prepaid, but that's what my bank gave me, and I've never had a situation where it's been rejected online for being a debit card rather than a credit card.
Huh? What?
It's my hardware. If I buy a Cisco router via eBay, you're telling me I'm not allowed to put Linux on it if I can figure out how?
This seems to be an entirely software router that just runs on a standard x86 machine.
Isn't half the point of buying a dedicated-hardware router that you get ASICs and whatnot that do the job faster than software?
People have already gone about destroying speed cameras:
http://www.speedcam.co.uk/gatso2.htm
Interesting to know just how many people these things manage to piss off.
Really, it's the fact that they let you listen to music but try to stop you downloading it — it's stupidity in itself. If your computer is receiving the audio data, you can save it. But then again, similar things can be said about DRM.
Windows 98 is to Windows ME what Windows XP is to Windows Vista.
Seriously. I have a 14" laptop, and it goes up to 1024x768 (in fact, I've never used anything higher), and they're stuffing 1280x900 on an 8-inch screen?
Wouldn't that result in a few toilets with bad batteries exploding?
On capturing streams -- you might want to use a Mozilla browser and get the LiveHTTPHeaders extension. A site might obfusicate the URL all it likes, but the HTTP requests don't lie.
802.1x over Ethernet isn't necessarily secure, to my knowledge.
Take a computer plugged into an 802.1x port. Unplug computer, plug in hub, plug computer into hub, plug laptop into hub, masquerade MAC address.
802.1x over Ethernet can't detect hubs.
You might want to look up overselling. Some people are willing to pay the same or more for less if it means it's guaranteed that those resources are allocated exclusively to them.
I do think this particular host is a ripoff, though. Look at the shared hosting plans — a maximum of 3 websites, even if they're all PHP? I've never seen a host that imposes such a stupidly artificial limit. Limits on the number of domains, subdomains, mailboxes, etc really shouldn't be around in this day and age. The only limits a host should really need to set is disk space, bandwidth, and on other actual raw resources like CPU/memory usage.
Uh, that was my point. I was replying to the parent post to say that I think it's more likely that Microsoft would get sued over WGA than WPA. The poster I was replying to was saying that it seemed unlikely Microsoft would get sued about WGA since they didn't get sued about WPA. I was pointing out a difference between WGA and WPA that meant that more people will be affected by WGA, and more business-critical systems; that is, WGA checks even corporate/volume-license editions. I know WGA still checks corporate editions, otherwise I wouldn't have posted to say that there there actually is some higher chance of Microsoft getting sued for WGA than WPA due to it's larger cone of impact as opposed to WPA (non-corporate/volume-license editions).