I suggest you do some more reading, including re-reading what I wrote. Oh, and stop with the unwarranted racism; it only takes a few clicks to see what race I am and -- well -- you're wrong there, too.
When you understand the meanings of words, it's easy to see how wrong you are. A contract can be written (e.g. on a receipt for payment) and does, indeed, cover sales. Sales, mind you, are exchanges of commodities for money, while buying something means obtaining it in exchange for payment; in other words, buying something means completing a sale. A purchase is the act of acquiring something by paying for it, which means buying it, which means completing a sale, which is a contract. Period.
Dictionary definitions attached for reference.
contract
noun
noun: contract; plural noun: contracts
käntrakt/
1. a written or spoken agreement, especially one concerning employment, sales, or tenancy, that is intended to be enforceable by law.
purchase
prCHs/
verb
verb: purchase; 3rd person present: purchases; past tense: purchased; past participle: purchased; gerund or present participle: purchasing
1. acquire (something) by paying for it; buy.
buy
b/
verb
verb: buy; 3rd person present: buys; past tense: bought; past participle: bought; gerund or present participle: buying
1. obtain in exchange for payment.
sale
sl/
noun
noun: sale; plural noun: sales
1. the exchange of a commodity for money; the action of selling something.
Either way, whether the wording I allude to exists or not (and in the complaint it is made clear that it does), it doesn't apply for reasons already ruled on by the Supreme Court nearly 22 years ago.
I do know what was on the packaging Redbox got for the DVDs in question, because the complaint plainly states such.
The case centered on two well-established principles in United States copyright law: That facts are not copyrightable, but that compilations of facts can be.
"There is an undeniable tension between these two propositions," Justice O'Connor wrote in her decision. "Many compilations consist of nothing but raw data -- i.e. wholly factual information not accompanied by any original expression. On what basis may one claim a copyright upon such work? Common sense tells us that 100 uncopyrightable facts do not magically change their status when gathered together in one place. The key to resolving the tension lies in understanding why facts are not copyrightable: The sine qua non of copyright is originality."
Emphasis and formatting preserved from original source.
All that says is that Comodo won't issue certificates for non-routable IPs and non-registerable TLDs, which is a reasonable position for them to take and also a damn good reason to use a domain that you own (e.g. a registerable TLD) for your internal services -- it's the only way to get a properly signed certificate for those services.
Did you even read that before you linked to it? It pretty much explains exactly why you're wrong.
I never claimed otherwise. That wording is also hidden from the buyer until after the purchase so, even absent the first-sale doctrine, it wouldn't apply. I thought I made that clear when I said:
and it matters not one bit as you can't read it before you buy, anyway; the Supreme Court has already ruled on that matter.
I'm not sure if you think you're arguing or agreeing with me, here. Right up until "Shrink wrap licenses don't count. Printing terms on the box may count, if they're big enough and obvious enough that a person would see and read them before deciding to make a purchase." it sounds like you're arguing, but then you stated precisely what I've been relaying in various threads on this page, so I think we're in agreement.
Too this date, I've only seen small print, summary terms and conditions on the box of most products. That's not going to convince anyone that someone agreed to them.
Indeed, and that's all we'll ever see because the boxes aren't big enough to print the full EULA on.
As for negotiation, all that's really required is that you're not forced or coerced to sign. Getting up and walking away is considered a negotiation tactic; and it's quite an effective one, as anyone who's ever managed to not get ripped off by a car dealership can tell you.
Trust me, no I woudln't. I am, however, constantly amazed at what Slashdot posters such as yourself can ignore. Example:
If you can't know the terms of the purchase before the purchase, for literally every non-IP product we know those terms don't apply. Why should IP be any different? What if the terms were "by keeping this product after opening it, you agree to give us 100% of your income for the remainder of your natural life"? Oh, and you can't return it once you've opened it... and you can't know that's a term of the sale until you open it... and you can't open it before you buy it.
Nope. The Supreme Court agrees, too.
You see, I already answered the remainder of your post, 2 posts ago, before you posted it. However, to let that really sink in, I'll continue.
And honestly, most people would not follow the news on this if it was publicized.
Indeed. Until someone who knows the poor sucker being sued over it tells their friends and family about the atrocity that is that product's EULA, then those people spread it, and so on, and so forth, until anybody with a single living friend or family member has heard that they shouldn't buy X product because they're signing away all of their future income if they do. When you try to take away someone's paycheck, well, you get their attention.
With that many eyeballs wanting a peek, the media would not ignore it.
If you don't agree with the terms you see after you open the box, you have grounds for a refund but not much more than that.
When the policy is "no refunds on open software and media", and that policy is posted where you can see it prior to purchase, you actually don't have grounds for refund. That's one of the reasons the Supreme Court ruled the way they did when they held shrink-wrap licenses unenforceable.
That was not an intended interpretation, clearly, but I think you might actually be on to something. Of course, if the contract is printed on the box and states that, by opening the box and using the product, you're implicitly agreeing to the terms of the contract, well...
And you'd have to be dense not to know you can't re-distribute copyrighted content without permission of the copyright owner.
The download code is a fact. Facts are not protected by copyright. It is Disney's distribution partner who is distributing the copyrighted work when they accept the code in exchange for the download.
Verbal agreements are enforceable contracts, as are contracts "signed" by the exchange of goods, services, or money. You can view it however you want, but the law is clear and there's plenty of precedent.
That said, I wipe my ass with in-box EULAs all the time. No advance knowledge of terms = no contract; that much we agree on.
Ah, but what matters is not whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction where you're watching from, but whether they have jurisdiction where Disney is suing Redbox; and they do.
There is wording on that slip of paper stating that it cannot be transferred or sold. That is the license to which I am referring, and it matters not one bit as you can't read it before you buy, anyway; the Supreme Court has already ruled on that matter.
The code itself is a fact and, therefore, exempt from copyright protection.
Contracts can be negotiated, no law says they must be. Of course, I stand to be corrected by someone who's passed a BAR exam, but I expect to be allowed to examine credentials before accepting them.
The codeis part of the sale. It's printed on a slip included with the disc. By accepting the code when whoever I sell it to enters it, they're agreeing to that second transaction you allude to, as well.
So should you be allowed to rip it and stream that content from your website for anyone to see?
No. That would be a violation of copyright, which is a set of terms one can know prior to the purchase. The copyright is listed right on the package and you can learn what copyright is, should you not already be aware, without opening the package. It is the terms included inside the package that don't apply; and the Supreme Court agrees.
The First Sale Doctrine applies if Redbox is paying Retail rates for the DVD+digital package.
Secondly, it looks like Redbox buys some of their DVDs through Wholesale agreements (Sony, but not Universal) to purchase the movies in bulk (since they are buying 10,000 at a time). With this, they are paying a reduced rate per movie box.
From TFS:
Redbox is only offering digital copies of Disney movies because it doesn't have a distribution arrangement with the studio and buys retail copies of its discs to rent to customers. Those retail DVDs come with digital download codes.
Redbox bought these at retail and paid full retail price. They don't have a distribution agreement.
It's not like it'd be enforceable anyway unless it's on the outside of the packaging where the user can see it before the purchase. I'd love to see them try it, both inside and outside the box. The very first time they sued over it, it would spell the end of that company; the trial would be so publicized that nobody would be able to ignore id, and nobody would willingly give up all of their income for the rest of their life, so sales would drop to 0.
Of course, if they printed it on the outside of the box, they could sue the stores who also bought it knowing the terms. That would actually be amusing and might trigger a revolution in US retail practices.
Except for the first poor sucker to run afoul of the terms, I'd say it's be a win for all consumers.
they could have prevented the problem by printing the actual terms on the outside of the box. Which frankly, sucks.
That's how contract law works. Both parties state their terms and, when an agreement is met, the contract is made. A purchase is a contract, mind you.
If you don't agree to the terms, don't enter into that contract, it's as simple as that.
If the license terms were on the box, Redbox wouldn't have bought the DVDs. In fact, if the license terms were on the box and enforceable, I'm fairly certain most people wouldn't buy them. Sure, at first they would, because they wouldn't know any better; but once we started seeing lives ruined over loaned DVDs, well...
And that's why, even though that case was decided almost 22 years ago, we still don't see license terms printed on boxes.
The phone "app" IMNSHO should never be active unless I activate it by calling someone or receiving a call. Same with Messages, as both rely on OS level connectivity, and the OS services those apps when something inbound happens
iOS may service those apps but, then, it's taking on the same role those apps perform for themselves on Android. Those apps have to listen to the radio for incoming calls and messages, so they will use power even when backgrounded; and even if the OS is listening on their behalf, whether or not the OS lists that usage under the app.
In IOS with Messages there's slightly more going on, because a connection is made to the central server that stays "alive" to indicate you're online.
If we weren't talking about a service meant to support full-time connections, I'd say the keep-alive was necessary but, for this use case, it's just silly. We're talking about devices which, for the most part, are kept on and connected to the network 24x7, there's no reason to time out those connections (thus, no reason for a keepalive); there are plenty of other, more sensible, ways to manage them.
For example, the Messages servers could maintain at most one connection per device and just assume connection parameters have not changed until the device changes them itself or message delivery fails. When network conditions change, the phone would reconnect on its new network and the old connection would then close; the phone could even close the connection to Messages before turning off radios, so Apple's servers wouldn't have to maintain the connection. If sending a message to the phone fails, or the user removes the device from their iCloud account, the server could likewise close the connection. As an added safeguard, perhaps the connections could time out after a week of inactivity, but I'm not sure how necessary that would be -- again, this is a service designed such that every device is connected 24x7, Apple's servers must be able to handle that many open sockets at once or the service wouldn't work.
The above is a bit sparse on details, there are a few scenarios I don't cover in that explanation, I think we're enough on the same wavelength here that I don't need to detail every consideration I made when coming up with this.
In general, though, I think we're in agreement that both major mobile OSes are choosing not to honor certain settings which prevent them from monetizing us like they want to. And think about it, before you say Apple doesn't monetize location data: why would they ignore your choice to not provide it to them if they weren't?
Slashdot Mirror
I suggest you do some more reading, including re-reading what I wrote. Oh, and stop with the unwarranted racism; it only takes a few clicks to see what race I am and -- well -- you're wrong there, too.
When you understand the meanings of words, it's easy to see how wrong you are. A contract can be written (e.g. on a receipt for payment) and does, indeed, cover sales. Sales, mind you, are exchanges of commodities for money, while buying something means obtaining it in exchange for payment; in other words, buying something means completing a sale. A purchase is the act of acquiring something by paying for it, which means buying it, which means completing a sale, which is a contract. Period.
Dictionary definitions attached for reference.
contract
noun
noun: contract; plural noun: contracts
käntrakt/
1. a written or spoken agreement, especially one concerning employment, sales, or tenancy, that is intended to be enforceable by law.
purchase
prCHs/
verb
verb: purchase; 3rd person present: purchases; past tense: purchased; past participle: purchased; gerund or present participle: purchasing
1. acquire (something) by paying for it; buy.
buy
b/
verb
verb: buy; 3rd person present: buys; past tense: bought; past participle: bought; gerund or present participle: buying
1. obtain in exchange for payment.
sale
sl/
noun
noun: sale; plural noun: sales
1. the exchange of a commodity for money; the action of selling something.
Either way, whether the wording I allude to exists or not (and in the complaint it is made clear that it does), it doesn't apply for reasons already ruled on by the Supreme Court nearly 22 years ago.
I do know what was on the packaging Redbox got for the DVDs in question, because the complaint plainly states such.
Except that transmission of that fact induces copyright infringement.
A fact has no copyright protection. Period. There is no copyright to infringe.
The case centered on two well-established principles in United States copyright law: That facts are not copyrightable, but that compilations of facts can be.
"There is an undeniable tension between these two propositions," Justice O'Connor wrote in her decision. "Many compilations consist of nothing but raw data -- i.e. wholly factual information not accompanied by any original expression. On what basis may one claim a copyright upon such work? Common sense tells us that 100 uncopyrightable facts do not magically change their status when gathered together in one place. The key to resolving the tension lies in understanding why facts are not copyrightable: The sine qua non of copyright is originality."
Emphasis and formatting preserved from original source.
All that says is that Comodo won't issue certificates for non-routable IPs and non-registerable TLDs, which is a reasonable position for them to take and also a damn good reason to use a domain that you own (e.g. a registerable TLD) for your internal services -- it's the only way to get a properly signed certificate for those services.
Did you even read that before you linked to it? It pretty much explains exactly why you're wrong.
and it matters not one bit as you can't read it before you buy, anyway; the Supreme Court has already ruled on that matter.
Too this date, I've only seen small print, summary terms and conditions on the box of most products. That's not going to convince anyone that someone agreed to them.
Indeed, and that's all we'll ever see because the boxes aren't big enough to print the full EULA on.
As for negotiation, all that's really required is that you're not forced or coerced to sign. Getting up and walking away is considered a negotiation tactic; and it's quite an effective one, as anyone who's ever managed to not get ripped off by a car dealership can tell you.
You'd be amazed what the media can ignore.
Trust me, no I woudln't. I am, however, constantly amazed at what Slashdot posters such as yourself can ignore. Example:
If you can't know the terms of the purchase before the purchase, for literally every non-IP product we know those terms don't apply. Why should IP be any different? What if the terms were "by keeping this product after opening it, you agree to give us 100% of your income for the remainder of your natural life"? Oh, and you can't return it once you've opened it... and you can't know that's a term of the sale until you open it... and you can't open it before you buy it.
Nope. The Supreme Court agrees, too.
You see, I already answered the remainder of your post, 2 posts ago, before you posted it. However, to let that really sink in, I'll continue.
And honestly, most people would not follow the news on this if it was publicized.
Indeed. Until someone who knows the poor sucker being sued over it tells their friends and family about the atrocity that is that product's EULA, then those people spread it, and so on, and so forth, until anybody with a single living friend or family member has heard that they shouldn't buy X product because they're signing away all of their future income if they do. When you try to take away someone's paycheck, well, you get their attention.
With that many eyeballs wanting a peek, the media would not ignore it.
If you don't agree with the terms you see after you open the box, you have grounds for a refund but not much more than that.
When the policy is "no refunds on open software and media", and that policy is posted where you can see it prior to purchase, you actually don't have grounds for refund. That's one of the reasons the Supreme Court ruled the way they did when they held shrink-wrap licenses unenforceable.
That was not an intended interpretation, clearly, but I think you might actually be on to something. Of course, if the contract is printed on the box and states that, by opening the box and using the product, you're implicitly agreeing to the terms of the contract, well...
And you'd have to be dense not to know you can't re-distribute copyrighted content without permission of the copyright owner.
The download code is a fact. Facts are not protected by copyright. It is Disney's distribution partner who is distributing the copyrighted work when they accept the code in exchange for the download.
Verbal agreements are enforceable contracts, as are contracts "signed" by the exchange of goods, services, or money. You can view it however you want, but the law is clear and there's plenty of precedent.
That said, I wipe my ass with in-box EULAs all the time. No advance knowledge of terms = no contract; that much we agree on.
Its okay, you corrected you're error, your fine. ;)
I'm sad that you posted this anonymously, you seem like someone I'd like to read more from.
Ah, but what matters is not whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction where you're watching from, but whether they have jurisdiction where Disney is suing Redbox; and they do.
The code on that piece of paper is a fact. Facts are not protected by copyright. I'm also not arguing anything about the first-sale doctrine.
There is wording on that slip of paper stating that it cannot be transferred or sold. That is the license to which I am referring, and it matters not one bit as you can't read it before you buy, anyway; the Supreme Court has already ruled on that matter.
The code itself is a fact and, therefore, exempt from copyright protection.
Contracts can be negotiated, no law says they must be. Of course, I stand to be corrected by someone who's passed a BAR exam, but I expect to be allowed to examine credentials before accepting them.
Indeed. The code is a fact and facts are exempt from copyright.
The code is part of the sale. It's printed on a slip included with the disc. By accepting the code when whoever I sell it to enters it, they're agreeing to that second transaction you allude to, as well.
So should you be allowed to rip it and stream that content from your website for anyone to see?
No. That would be a violation of copyright, which is a set of terms one can know prior to the purchase. The copyright is listed right on the package and you can learn what copyright is, should you not already be aware, without opening the package. It is the terms included inside the package that don't apply; and the Supreme Court agrees.
The First Sale Doctrine applies if Redbox is paying Retail rates for the DVD+digital package.
Secondly, it looks like Redbox buys some of their DVDs through Wholesale agreements (Sony, but not Universal) to purchase the movies in bulk (since they are buying 10,000 at a time). With this, they are paying a reduced rate per movie box.
From TFS:
Redbox is only offering digital copies of Disney movies because it doesn't have a distribution arrangement with the studio and buys retail copies of its discs to rent to customers. Those retail DVDs come with digital download codes.
Redbox bought these at retail and paid full retail price. They don't have a distribution agreement.
It's not like it'd be enforceable anyway unless it's on the outside of the packaging where the user can see it before the purchase. I'd love to see them try it, both inside and outside the box. The very first time they sued over it, it would spell the end of that company; the trial would be so publicized that nobody would be able to ignore id, and nobody would willingly give up all of their income for the rest of their life, so sales would drop to 0.
Of course, if they printed it on the outside of the box, they could sue the stores who also bought it knowing the terms. That would actually be amusing and might trigger a revolution in US retail practices.
Except for the first poor sucker to run afoul of the terms, I'd say it's be a win for all consumers.
they could have prevented the problem by printing the actual terms on the outside of the box. Which frankly, sucks.
That's how contract law works. Both parties state their terms and, when an agreement is met, the contract is made. A purchase is a contract, mind you.
If you don't agree to the terms, don't enter into that contract, it's as simple as that.
If the license terms were on the box, Redbox wouldn't have bought the DVDs. In fact, if the license terms were on the box and enforceable, I'm fairly certain most people wouldn't buy them. Sure, at first they would, because they wouldn't know any better; but once we started seeing lives ruined over loaned DVDs, well...
And that's why, even though that case was decided almost 22 years ago, we still don't see license terms printed on boxes.
The phone "app" IMNSHO should never be active unless I activate it by calling someone or receiving a call. Same with Messages, as both rely on OS level connectivity, and the OS services those apps when something inbound happens
iOS may service those apps but, then, it's taking on the same role those apps perform for themselves on Android. Those apps have to listen to the radio for incoming calls and messages, so they will use power even when backgrounded; and even if the OS is listening on their behalf, whether or not the OS lists that usage under the app.
In IOS with Messages there's slightly more going on, because a connection is made to the central server that stays "alive" to indicate you're online.
If we weren't talking about a service meant to support full-time connections, I'd say the keep-alive was necessary but, for this use case, it's just silly. We're talking about devices which, for the most part, are kept on and connected to the network 24x7, there's no reason to time out those connections (thus, no reason for a keepalive); there are plenty of other, more sensible, ways to manage them.
For example, the Messages servers could maintain at most one connection per device and just assume connection parameters have not changed until the device changes them itself or message delivery fails. When network conditions change, the phone would reconnect on its new network and the old connection would then close; the phone could even close the connection to Messages before turning off radios, so Apple's servers wouldn't have to maintain the connection. If sending a message to the phone fails, or the user removes the device from their iCloud account, the server could likewise close the connection. As an added safeguard, perhaps the connections could time out after a week of inactivity, but I'm not sure how necessary that would be -- again, this is a service designed such that every device is connected 24x7, Apple's servers must be able to handle that many open sockets at once or the service wouldn't work.
The above is a bit sparse on details, there are a few scenarios I don't cover in that explanation, I think we're enough on the same wavelength here that I don't need to detail every consideration I made when coming up with this.
In general, though, I think we're in agreement that both major mobile OSes are choosing not to honor certain settings which prevent them from monetizing us like they want to. And think about it, before you say Apple doesn't monetize location data: why would they ignore your choice to not provide it to them if they weren't?
I know the Supreme Court has upheld shrinkwrap licenses, but anyone with any critical thinking ability whatsoever can see how that decision was wrong.
I shouldn't post this early in the morning. The Supreme Court struck down the shrinkwrap license in the case that made it in front of them. And they were right to do so.