How is a civil penalty harsher than any criminal one? It can be. You can't categorically say that a criminal conviction is worse. Most misdemeanors, for example, are relatively minor. Not all crimes are felonies, and in fact most convictions aren't, and you won't be facing the kind of consequences you describe.
On the other hand, a $400,000 judgment against you with $100,000 liability insurance might lead to bankruptcy, much higher personal liability insurance rates, loan defaults, and massive damage to your reputation and integrity...a far greater penalty than running a red light and being caught by the intersection robot.
A criminal conviction may do all of those things and then some. The key word there is MAY. In many states, certain kinds of traffic tickets are misdemeanors and create a criminal record if there wasn't one before. This won't stop you from gainful employment.
On the other hand, a judgment against you for civil fraud causing termination from your prior employer might well stop you from getting a job, particularly if you don't disclose it up front. People think that civil suits are somehow irrelevant or off-limits, but they're matters of public record in most cases.
Ah, spoken like someone who never actually used Classic except in passing.
What, the little apple icon at the corner is actually click-able and is important? What would make a novice user realize this? The simple fact that the Macintosh UI is completelyclickable? Every widget is capable of being manipulated by user interaction. This is one of the basics of UI design and something that "novice users" intuitively understood in those days. What you really mean is "Windows users" didn't get it.
95 had a programs list to quickly get to all the installed applications. MacOS, not so much. Mac OS had an Applications menu since at least System 5 (1987).
OSX's dashboard is just a copy of the taskbar and quicklaunch combination. Dashboard is neither an application launcher nor a taskbar. Quicklaunch, furthermore, is simply a fixed form of the MacOS Application palette, which predates it. Quicklaunch was not a feature of Windows 95.
taskbar that summarizes all of your open programs so that you can just click to go to that particular program. As opposed to MacOS, where you just clicked on the window. Notice how there has never been a "maximize" button in a multitasking MacOS? There's a reason for it. If the window you're looking for was hidden, the Application menu, or the tear-off Application palette (which floated on top of all windows) got the job done.
You're looking at those functions from a modern perspective. In a time when live window previews weren't common features, a visual quick-reference directly on the screen was better than a program icon and a few title letters. At a time when the standard resolution was 640x480 (yes, even in the Windows 95 days), a permanent taskbar with limited information was not necessarily preferable to a drop-down menu or optional floating palette.
That doesn't even address the confusion of form and function that is the taskbar.
My point is that people who make generalizations without knowing the facts and the history aren't in a sound position to do so. "Credit" or not isn't really the point--it's that user experience isn't a simple matter of outright copying, because Windows directly copying things from MacOS would create an awful Frankenstein's-monster mess. Some parts of Windows are like that.
But not really knowing about MacOS at the time, and using your modern familiarity with the Windows taskbar retroactively does not make a sound comparison in the least. The Windows 95 taskbar at the "common" resolution at launch had room for four application buttons. The text field wasn't wide enough to tell you which Word document you were clicking on. There was no quick launch. Start's only layered menu was the applications one. It was not what it is today, and it was not that good OR logical. It was part of a wholly new OS that most people had to invest considerable effort into learning, so good UI wasn't strictly necessary.
"Illegal" has nothing to do with criminality. All copyright infringement is illegal. Affirmative defenses mitigate that with a justification.
"Mere civil infraction" is likewise misleading. Many civil penalties are far harsher than criminal ones. Both have a range of consequences. Many criminal misdemeanors aren't show-stoppers, while some civil judgments, depending on your occupation, can be.
As for 'guilty', because Revision3 is an Internet television business, had they actually done what AC believed, it would be criminal infringement. The civil suit is an option, but not a requirement, for industry litigation. They prefer it because it allows them greater leeway with their false-attack shenanigans, makes it easier for them to prove, and because it shows some element, however small, of temperance. Willful, knowing copyright infringement is a crime, punishable with imprisonment.
You're using 'illegal' and 'mere' carelessly, while the troll, in fact, got the 'illegal' part right, as far as terminology goes. Within the false scenario presented by AC, 'guilty' would also be correct. Leave it to Slashdot to get it wrong, though.
Like the other poster, I disagree. Persistence of location aids in muscle memory. Consistency aids in the learning curve.
There is no reason why the menubar should not be at the top of the monitor. If your mouse is too slow to make use of your desktop space, then you have configured your system poorly. If you can't sweep your mouse and take advantage of pointer acceleration (or just learn the keyboard shortcuts), you don't really belong on a large monitor or multi-monitor setup.
The menubar at the top also doesn't require the use of visual hints, and speeds recognition of the topmost window or application. It extends application-level commands to a central location, irrespective of the number of windows open within the application or the current window you're working within.
It's not a dated concept in the least. In fact, it's one of the keys of good UI. Take the example to websites: constant navigation panels at the top or left side are the most familiar and accessible designs. Regardless of the content, sites that score highest for usability include a fixed header with some anchoring links. It doesn't pop around from div to div based on which one you're reading.
When you're talking about familiarity in the sense of consistency, persistence, universality, and uniformity of function...yes, it does mean it's good.
The fact that the name changes should be a big indicator for you that this is a major release, not just a 'point' release. Did you not even read my comment?
I never claimed it was a "point" release or in any way a non-major release, and your "explanation" is not Apple's system of numbering.
Generation.Major_release.Minor_release
10.5.2.
Work it out. Troll, indeed. Windows 5 included several different kernels and 3 different products. The Windows 2003 base, in fact, was recycled into later XP service packs. Perhaps if you can muster the brain cells to comprehend this, you wouldn't have to be such a dick.
10 isn't really part of the version number, it's part of the name). No, it's definitely part of the version number, just like the leading 5 (or now, 6) in Windows version numbers. What it's not is the major release number (that's the second, just like in Windows).
The breakdown is very simple: Generation.Major_release.Minor_release, with build numbers appended to that. Windows does an almost identical pattern Win2k (5.0), WinXP (5.2), etc. MS's numbering is non-sequential, but it's not really any different. Hell, Windows 7.0 is actually being called Windows 7 for now.
'OS X' is a brand in its own right, and one Apple has spent a lot of resources and effort building. The '10' in the version number that matches the 'X' in the name isn't cast in stone, and to claim that part of the version number is part of the brand is misleading. The stupid Mac-people meme of "when will we hear about OS XI?" skips right past the far more likely case that there will NEVER be an OS XI. They will either stick with OS X as a brand and move right on to OS X 11.0, or they'll come up with something entirely new when the time comes.
Jefferson, for example, did not subscribe to the Lockean theory of property. If you haven't read his McPherson letter, you should. That is a gross oversimplification, and unsurprisingly, a less than complete understanding of that famous letter.
Setting aside that there may not yet be anything beyond industrialization (as we're rapidly learning in the US), correlation does not imply causation. Apart from the fact that the first part is vacuous (nothing past industrialization? Are you kidding? 70% of the US workforce is service-sector, not manufacturing or industry), the second part is, yet again, a feeble misdirection. Causation is causation. An information-based economy (a service labor force) relies on a robust apparatus and extensive proprietary rights. It must be moderated, but it simply must exist in an economically and fundamentally sound system. There is no workable replacement.
directly refuted the notion that copyright could be a basis for privacy! No kidding! Copyright protection is sought by its very nature on works that have entered third party consciousness. That is wholly irrelevant, though, as copyright was not the subject of that particular discussion. The issue was the appropriate recognition of property in intellectual works, of which you have consistently shown a mere demagogic grasp. There are several excellent MCLE and LL.M programs delving deeper into the rich history and providing a more complete analytical framework that would be of value to you.
That's the text you were thinking of? "The argument that a literary man is as much entitled to the product of his labour as any other member of society, cannot be controverted. And the answer is, that he realises this product by the transfer of his manuscripts, or in the sale of his works, when first published." 33 US 591, 657.
"In what respect does the right of an author differ from that of an individual who has invented a most useful and valuable machine? In the production of this, his mind has been as intensely engaged, as long; and, perhaps, as usefully to the public, as any distinguished author in the composition of his book." Id.
"That every man is entitled to the fruits of his own labour must be admitted; but he can enjoy them only, except by statutory provision, under the rules of property, which regulate society, and which define the rights of things in general." Id. at 658.
The case held that Pennsylvania common law contained no such right; not that the right did not exist or was only conferred by statute.
Which supports me and rejects you? Again, it does not, and it shows a gross flaw in your reasoning which you apparently cannot address and which must force the end of this discussion. The right in question was not the property and dominion of the work, which was explicitly recognized to exist (refuting your "everyone owns it" approach), and instead the government-backing of it. Proper holdings are important.
What do you get when you buy software? A box, a disc, maybe some printed materials, distribution costs, retail costs, and the option to contract for the licensing of the software. If you decline to exercise that option, the promise is revocable, and you exercise the return option, even though you should not have purchased it in the first place if you did not like the terms.
What does the EULA grant you that you did not already pay for? You're paying for the EULA when you buy the software. The real question is, what did you pay for if you don't accept the EULA? The answer is nothing, because if you don't acquire the license, all you have is an expensive little stack of paper, cardboard, and plastic.
I said nothing incorrect about consideration, Yes, you did. CONSIDERATION IS NOT BENEFIT. "Giving up something and getting nothing" has exactly zero to do with consideration.
A contract with one side giving up everything and getting nothing has no consideration. That isn't the definition, but is the meaning and is correct usage. No, it's not even close. Such a contract is easily supported by consideration, e.g. a promise for a charitable donation. The promise is the consideration, and the promisor gets nothing.
why should I be required to define it, when I have used it multiple times correctly You have yet to use it even once correctly.
You seem to disagree with what I say such that you don't accept my use of the word, without actually paying attention to the context. The context is that you don't understand the concept of consideration. THAT is what makes your usage incorrect.
It does mean that. It isn't the definition... QED.
tell me how you can get nothing in a contract and there still be consideration. There are several ways for you to offer consideration: money paid, a return promise, partial or complete performance, etc. There are also a number of valid substitutes for consideration, recognized under contract law to preserve equity and the sound administration of justice. Promises without direct personal benefit are also enforceable under certain circumstances.
Further, I reject the implication that you "get nothing"--your contractual acceptance gets you the license to use the software at an affordable market price, since licensing is contingent upon contractual agreement and most software is not made available under alternate terms. The standard form contract gives you the benefit of not requiring the expense, time, and burden of having to negotiate for the owner to grant a limited license. If that is not of value to you personally, then you should find alternate software and terms, but you're stuck, because subjective measure of value is wholly irrelevant in this situation.
but the people who are buying into the sleek imac look are the people LEAST interested in having a bunch of parts that really should be inside the computer scattered over and under their desk in a rat's nest of wiring. No, they're the people least interested in having a mess on the desk. Hence the use of concealed cabinets, USB hubs tucked away, and the HUGE market for stylish peripherals that stack or otherwise blend into the aesthetic of the Mac desktop.
People are thrilled to be able to expand their computers by plugging something into a monitor-sized machine while they're using it, and to be able to tuck it away in a drawer or cabinet when they're done. It's the exact reason that motivated them to dump their large, boxy tower in the first place.
The rat's nest of cables behind a desktop with that hardware is a much bigger headache, because you can't ever get rid of it, and those peripherals are always turned on, sucking down power and generating heat.
The problem is that we can't even do THAT. You might not be able to, but the iMac is a solid seller, and not to unhappy customers. As for your "families who play casual games" deficiency: it's a total fabrication. The iMac is perfectly suitable for casual gaming, even with its supposedly inferior graphics.
It can't play the latest intensive 3D games at full quality, but it was never supposed to. Unless you're a gamer upgrading every year, it's fine. In fact, the GPU is better than a typical gaming GPU at HD video and multimedia applications, which is exactly where the iMac is targeted.
I am granted a license I don't need to agree with to get 100% legal use of it. Is English not your first language? This isn't really that difficult.
A license and a license agreement are NOT synonymous. In order to get the software license, you must agree to the license agreement.
It means that a contract that gives one person everything and the other party nothing is not a contract No, it does not mean that at all. That's exactly the point.
after I've already bought something No. Your purchase is conditioned on acceptance of the terms. The box will say right on it something to the effect of "your use of this product is governed by the terms set forth in the license agreement". If you wish to review those terms before purchase, do your due diligence as a consumer and get those terms. It's phenomenally easy to do; most are published right on their websites. Others are a simple email or post letter away. Even if you just see the EULA upon installation, you still must accept those terms. If you choose not to, you are entitled to a refund. It's right there in the terms.
have a license for it, as you state above, I said no such thing. You have a license to enter the store and you have a license to purchase the product from the retailer. You don't have a license to use the product until you agree to the license agreement. It's not terribly complicated: if you have the box sitting at home, you haven't yet completed the process--you can return that box, or sell it to some else, or give it to someone else and you will have never been licensed to the software contained in the box.
There is no consideration in a EULA. For the last goddamned time, there are at least three forms of consideration here: money, assent, and performance. And no, you still apparently don't know the meaning of consideration.
It's the use of adhesive licensing as to consumer transactions that bothers me. And for at least the fifth time now, I'll ask again for examples of the pattern of abuse that concerns you, as pertaining to EULAs and not just the simple reality of predatory business practices, which have nothing at all to do with EULAs specifically.
I merely hope to see consumer protections brought up to date to respond to the latest threats No, you advocate the elimination of a functional, tool that is economically, commercially, and cognitively critical in the sale of software products.
The enhancement of consumer protections is something we can all get behind, with further fine-tuning of contractual provisions. You've not presented any case for the categorical absolution of the freedom to contract here, a move which would be profoundly stupid, constitutionally infirm, and patently unfair to all parties.
Your analogy fails pretty badly there, because creative works are nonrivalrous. Hardly. There is just one work. Copies do not factor in here.
Nature is set up in such a way that works Works are not natural.
Oh, don't tell me you subscribe to that stupid Lockean nonsense. Creative works are not property The founding fathers did. Our government does. Property in intellectual works is a centuries-old apparatus, and no society has ever advanced beyond industrialization without it.
The right of privacy is orthogonal to copyright. You seem to be confused. You cannot have a privacy interest unless you accept property rights in intangibility. It simply cannot be done. If you don't have an exclusive right in your thoughts, actions, writings, and other expressions, there is no such thing as privacy. There's no framework to latch onto.
For example, my grandmother has no right to her Social Security checks, except that the government created that right out of whole cloth That's not a right; that's an entitlement. The "right" in Social Security is in the personal and social interest in protecting and providing for our fellow citizens.
Back in Wheaton v. Peters, the Supreme Court pointed out that there is no natural copyright in published works Absolutely, because government protection of personal interests is not natural. You either misunderstand the holding in that case or you're continuing with your untenable and disingenuous approaches.
One of the major sections in Wheaton is that the author DOES have a whole set of natural and fundamental rights in his works--that Lockean theory you decry out of your unfortunate, agenda-based inanity. Further, the case did not speak to the rights of individuals to contract for the issue of those rights in any way they chose--a right which they enjoyed and continue to enjoy to this day. The case's holding refers simply to the availment of statutory copyright, and that its protections are only as far as the four corners of the statute granting them.
It absolutely does not mean, nor can it be in good faith construed to mean that the author does not have protections in the absence of copyright. The text of the holding explicity rejects the "everyone owns it" theory you advance.
Everyone has equal rights to do anything they please with the work. Again, this is not supported by history, legal principles, a logical framework, or any functioning social theory in use on our planet.
This is exactly the kind of ridiculous missing-of-the-point that your parent post is talking about.
Adding an $80 internal hard drive is easy, neat, and no fuss... and not possible on an imac. Adding that $80 drive to a simple slide-in drive case is even easier and less fuss. It's also portable.
If you go with Firewire, it also has no net impact on the number of ports.
iMacs have 3 and one is tied up by the keyboard/mouse. Want more? Tough. iMacs have 3 free USB ports after dealing with the keyboard and mouse. They also have Bluetooth built-in, and the vast majority of desktops with BT do it with a USB dongle. So that's really just about at par with your "6 to 8" USB port standard.
The easy fix? A USB hub. You're complaining about one of the very reasons USB was designed the way it was: to reduce clutter and the number of ports in a machine. It's also part of the iMac's design: most people have exactly two cords to deal with on their desk: power and the keyboard-mouse chain (which, unlike desktops, is one continuous cord rather than two separate ones back to the computer).
Want a TV-tuner card? Tough. Nonsense. At least four companies make TV tuners for the Mac.
Bluray reader? Tough. Again, an external one works fine, but I don't really see people clamoring for Blu-ray drives in their computers. Most people don't even have one in their living room yet.
hese are the sorts of things perfectly normal people want from their computers in the normal course of using them, or coming out of the store. No, they're not. They're things geek expect out of their all-encompassing desktops, where they know how to open the case in 5 seconds.
Most people don't want to open the case, don't want to buy cards, and don't really care. They'll order the computer with the feature if they want it, or they'll drag it to Best Buy and have them upgrade it, or they'll find that computer-savvy niece or nephew to fix "that clicking noise".
External upgrades are ones that people can actually just do themselves. Plug it in and go, for the most part. When you don't want it anymore, you can just unplug it and put it in a closet. No disassembly required. If you want to hide all the peripherals in that space in the desk where the tower is supposed to go, it's a simple task, and it'll hold more than a typical desktop could.
Really, regular people prefer the flexibility of external devices. If the computer never got opened, that would be fine by them. Cards and screwdrivers are for IT people and geeks. That's it.
Wait, so when I buy a book at a book store, I agreed to a license? No, you don't agree to licenses. You are granted licenses, and when you purchase something, you receive a conveyance, a transfer of rights and a promise not to sue. It doesn't have anything to do with whether the publisher was licensed contractually.
You agree to license agreements, which are contracts. Contractual licenses are documents, but a license is simply a property transaction. For example, your entry into the store in the first place is trespassing, except that you are licensed by way of being a business invitee (sometimes even called a licensee). When you offer payment, you are granting license to the store to accept and process your card or take your cash. When the seller hands you the book, he grants a license for you to take possession of that property, and in the process conveys his set of rights to you.
EULAs were created to restrict users with no consideration. Stop. You don't even know what that word means.
So you are saying that if I want to buy a book at the bookstore, I need a license? No, I'm saying that the purchase of goods is a license. A license is simply a binding promise not to sue, and it underlies all transactions.
Often, given 109, the copyright holder won't be involved at all. Completely irrelevant, nor is ]109 controlling. The relationship is traced back through agency. However many middlemen are in the middle, the simplified transaction remains between the customer and the rightsholder.
Are you suggesting that the author has a reversionary interest in his books? No, and reversion is not an element of a license. The bookstore has granted license to transfer ownership of the book by entering into the sale. There can be no transfer of rights without licensure; a license is the mechanism by which conveyances operate. Do not commit a law student or fish-out-of-water practitioner's mistake of conflating a paper license with the mechanics of licensing.
bear in mind that the report mentioning the status quo refers to the original version of 117 from the 1976 Act, No. I suggest you read the report. It refers to the market, not prior versions of the Act.
If I wear my Mickey Mouse watch, I need no license from Disney to do so, because I'm not using it in any commercial way. Merchandising is entirely separate.
Real life is not an issue-spotting quiz. It is when the subject is your limited understanding of the potential scope and needs for particular products.
But MS can handle this just as easily by having the versions they ship actually be different, At tremendous cost to the consumer for separate R&D or structural redesign, because many of the feature differentiations are not modular and cannot be modular. Further, much of the difference between licenses are not in the code, but in its uses. There is no way to enforce this scheme except through contract.
Such as? Choice of law, choice of forum, arbitration agreements. Honestly, these are easy examples.
Adhesive licensure has been getting abused all over the place in fact And yet still, no example of this supposedly rampant problem.
I'm just interested in copyright in particular, since that is my field. Strange then, how tenuous your grasp seems to be on many of the salient concepts and procedures. It must be that technology law is outside your field.
Should he share the work with even one other person, that person has an inherent right to share that work further, regardless of ABC's feelings on the matter. That's simply not true. It's completely counterintuitive to the nature of inherent rights, which you seem to be confused about.
If I have an orange, I can offer to sell you one segment. That does not mean you have an inherent right to take that segment, or any other part of my orange.
Copyright is a system of artificial, not inherent, rights vested in the author, I don't know where you get this, but it is neither based in history nor in logic. Basic labor theory does not comport with this idea.
The inherent free speech rights that the others exercise to use ABC's work None exist. Free speech does not apply to the speech of others. The word 'proprietary' exists for a reason.
There are no property rights in published (using that term very broadly) works outside of copyright law. Also completely untrue. Without such rights, there can be no right of privacy.
I'm not sure where you're getting your theoretical framework, but it does not devolve from the same place as our legal system. Your system is counterintuitive and artificial. Copyright isn't a creation of a right. There can be no such thing. A law cannot create a right except where it is carving a hole out of a right previously denied.
First, I'm not suggesting that there would be a compulsory license, I'm saying there would be no license at all. I don't need to be licensed by the author to read a book, or by the composer or musician to listen to a CD.
Well, that's not strictly true. You don't need a license to listen or to read because that's a basic function of liberty. It is also an ephemeral event completed in passing--there is no persistence. If you want to acquire a copy, you do need a license. A license is the only thing that distinguishes you as an individual from the general public, which has no license and no property interest in the copy.
If you had no license, you'd have not even a drop of ownership, and there could be no way to sell anything.
However, 17 USC 117 deals with that nicely.
Logical fallacy. 117 post-dates the EULA as a mechanism by two decades. It was also passed with the explicit intent, in 1998, to "preserve the status quo" (see HR Rep. 94-1476).
Hell, an implied license would probably be enough to handle...
That is downright absurd. Consumer confusion about implied licenses make that an utterly terrible idea.
Trademarks strike me as a red herring; what trademark rights are implicated in an ordinary user using trademarked software?
I was thinking of games and the use of avatars and characters.
Lastly, I have no idea what you mean by 'commercial uses.' Could you explain it?
The use of software to prepare works of commercial value or in business situations is not contemplated in the Copyright Act, because expressive works as tools are unusual (as is interactive art) and the language is not constructed to resolve the conflicts arising out of such licensure.
Yeah, but that's usually crap.
Glib and wholly untrue. One need look no further than Windows product versions. They may be arbitrary, and all licenses may be overpriced, but that is not within the purview of the law. The licensing structure represents a distribution of capital and, in measured consideration, varying transfers of legal right.
Tradition is not actually a reason to do anything.
Five SCOTUS justices disagree, but moreover, industry practices are a massive component of contract law, as they are in rational jurisprudence. The last nail in that coffin: there is no alternative system that is as granular, effective, and versatile.
As we've seen, it hasn't worked out.
I don't agree. Customers have embraced the convenience over the freedom and generated billions of dollars in sales. The market has responded by opening up to DRM-free models as well. Customers have available to them music at unprecedented affordability, convenience, and variety. For some applications and business models, DRM is a perfectly acceptable trade-off as long as alternatives exist for those who have strong objection.
Disclosure can be handled in a mere notice, and again doesn't require actual licensure.
No, not all of it. Some waivers and disclaimers require more than notice. Further, you could rename a EULA to "Notice of Terms" and be in the same place.
Since we outnumber merchants and live in a democracy, I fail to see why we can't do something about this.
Well, we don't live in a democracy, and that's exactly why. The mob does not get to make those decisions. You have to have a good reason to take away a party's right to contract, and you've not presented one.
Then why bother?
For the reasons already stated: to introduce consumers to the limiting provisions regarding their use of the product in a single, exhaustive location. The real question is, what's your actual objection?
You've not provided any example of abuse, demonstrated that the example actually is abusive, or established any sort of pattern of that abuse.
The public does have inherent rights to everything else as to the copyrighted work of another No, it does not. The inherent rights of the owner remain controlling until ended by law.
1. ABC creates a work. ABC owns every possible legally protected right to that work and has exclusive dominion over it. No other person has any right to it.
2. ABC elects to create a few copies of that work and sell them, via negotiated individual contracts. ABC retains every and all legal rights to that work, except those signed away for consideration, irrespective of copyright law, because most provisions of copyright law are waivable by contract. Unless a specific contractual provision is expressly forbidden by law, it is prima facie valid.
3. ABC elects to publish the work and sell it via distributors with a copyright notice. ABC at this point must honor any right affirmatively granted to copyholders by the Copyright Act and its amendments. ABC also agrees that at future date, he and his estate will lose the ability to enforce ABC's rights as regards that work. ABC still retains, for the duration of copyright, any property right not explicitly denied to it by Title 17. Consumer XYZ has only acquired the rights purchased and secured by the Copyright Act.
This is your failure, whether it's a willful one to support an agenda or otherwise. The law does not affirmatively grant rights. It merely incorporates by reference or denies. Any right not denied to the copyright holder remains his as a reserved right ("All rights reserved" should ring a bell here).
The public does not have those inherent rights, because that is completely orthogonal to the meaning of 'inherent'. All rights are vested in the creator as a fundamental principle of Liberalism (as in the rational framework, not as in the Liberal party, in case there are confused readers); they are transferred to the public through the mechanisms of copyright and its expiration. The public cannot have an inherent right to something that is not theirs.
First, a statute-based license does not itself confer upon the user the necessary rights to use the software. The Copyright Act does not permit any sort of commercial preparation, nor does it comtemplate a mixed-mode type of license including patents, trademarks, copyrights, publicity rights, and commercial uses, all of which are traditionally licensed through contracts, with the exception of works of non-interactive art (music, film, paintings, books, etc.). Interactive works are usually associated with various explicit contracts, as well (installation agreements and a wide variety of other particularized needs depending on the work in question).
Second, because a modern piece of commercial software contains a complex mix of rights and assignments, the consumer cannot be expected to sort through appropriate law on their own. This also pertains to disclaimers (though absent a EULA a simple notice might suffice for this particular concern).
Third, modern software requires specific terms as a result of the existing case law with regard to unusual properties of software (the fact that it acts as a communications channel, that many modern applications will self-heal or have diagnostic reporting functions, software update functions, and/or are used to produce and/or distribute expressive works which may themselves be subject to legal protection, and others) that do not have any solid basis and require that customers be notified of these functions and their legal rights or responsibilities.
Fourth, unlike music CDs and DVDs, software is commonly licensed for specific machines or to specific numbers of machines. These varied licenses differ from a one-size fits all media license, and results in lower pricing, since consumers only need to purchase a license level for their specific purposes. The limitations on uses are contemplated in the price. These alternate licenses must be based in contract.
Further, a EULA is an important tool for the disclosure and negotiation of third-party rights contained in most commercial software. E.g. Company Y licenses algorithm A to Company X for use in non-military applications including all transferrees and assigns; Company X puts the requirement in a EULA, such that end users are enjoined from that use per those terms. This sublicensing or third-party licensing must come from contract as well.
ordinary users don't need them in order to run or backup the software.
They are required to set parameters on what "running" software entails, and what rights the owner has elected to reserve. With some notable exceptions required by law, the freedom to contract reigns supreme. Sellers are free to set arbitrary restrictions; consumers can seek an alternative that lacks those restrictions to cause a market shift.
There was a time when software was around but EULAs were not
I don't accept that statement as fact. End users also didn't exist, so software sales were among and between competent, professional parties. Disputes arising under that setup are precisely why standardized EULAs became the norm.
I'm all for mostly abolishing them as to consumer transactions.
That would be a grotesque failure of rationality. The price of software would skyrocket (no more "home" or "professional" versions, no more discounts for bulk licensing), and consumer confusion would require their reinstatement. Limiting the ability of owners and developers to license to select groups would have a profound chilling effect on the release of software and on collaboration.
The system as is has no deleterious effect on developers who choose more generous licensing terms. But a blanket prohibition on EULAs would not accomplish much, as those developers would either exit the market or limit their sales to purchase contracts or institute dramatic price increases. It would not stop abusive practices. As is, and as someone who sees EULAs on an uncommonly frequent basi
I've never seen a EULA modified by both parties. It wouldn't be a EULA if it were. What's your point?
They have no consideration. Money.
I've never seen any commercial EULA give the buyer *more* rights/priviledges than if the EULA wasn't there. If the EULA wasn't there, the software wouldn't be available, so that's simply not true. Without a EULA, you'd need an agent or broker to license software, which would add cost and complexity. If you'd prefer it that way and want to pay substantially more for your software, you're welcome to give it a shot.
I don't think EULAs fit any of the legal definitions of "contract." They do. Your legal reasoning is no better than your spelling.
That (I hope) makes the EULA safe to ignore, and I can save time by not reading any more and go about my business. No, it makes that provision safe to ignore, and only if that condition truly is not something that can be contracted for.
A weird clause in a contract does not usually make the entire agreement void, because use of it in such a manner is an open and obvious attempt to avoid an agreement willingly entered into. Using ambiguity or a condition that happens to be banned statutorily where you live to avoid enforcement of the whole is not tolerated. The offending provisions drop out, but the EULA stands.
Note that no case, at least in the US, has ever categorically dissolved a EULA. Most of them have to do with cases where the company uses a EULA in a defensive posture to do something that deprives the customer of a legal right (most commonly, being forced into binding arbitration). If it limits a customer's rights and is supported by mutuality or consideration, it's fine. This is the major sticking point with DRM audio--if people buy it knowing it is protected by DRM rather than going to a vendor that sells without it, they paid a price that reflects the loss of certain kinds of personal uses that would otherwise be legal.
There is no law requiring that media vendors give you a means to exercise personal or fair uses.
Mostly they're just trying to make you think you need permission to do things you have the right to do anyway. Condition you to think you don't have the right to do something that isn't explicitly granted You don't have the right to do something that isn't explicitly granted. If it's not granted to you by the EULA and it's not granted to you by statutory law (e.g. the Copyright Act), it's a reserved right for the owner.
Slashdot as a whole really needs to wrap its head around that basic fact sooner or later. Yes, the law permits a citizen to do anything that is not against the law, but in the case of copyrighted works, the citizens targeted are the rightsholders. The customers only get the rights that are transferred to them; they don't have any inherent right to use the protected work of another.
The biggest reason people get rid of their TV is so they can tell other people they got rid of their TV.
Congratulations, all the same. I suppose watching movies on rainy nights or spending Sunday mornings with HD Theater or the History channel make the rest of us less human. I can't imagine what would possess me to want to watch BBC World News when I get home at 8pm with a glass of wine, after spending 10-12 hours reading page after page, writing what seems like as many pages, and dealing with clients. Having access to music with an elegant on-screen display and sorting system must mean that I'm living the life of a cattle because I haven't been "freed" of the "tube".
I'll stay in the Matrix, thanks. I enjoy hiking, boating, and relaxing at the beach with a barbecue as much as the next Californian, but I don't always have the time or energy.
All Harmony remotes are programmed and configured from a computer interface that supports Windows and Mac OS X. I assumed it was a basic piece of information anyone reading it would already possess, like, for instance, knowing that it is a universal remote control with an LCD screen to allow "infinite" button flexibility.
You don't even need the original remote most of the time. I had to reprogram two buttons from my Comcast remote, and obviously had to manually learn my custom aquarium switch sensor, but everything else was already in the database--even my fairly obscure remote-operated ceiling fan.
Slashdot Mirror
On the other hand, a $400,000 judgment against you with $100,000 liability insurance might lead to bankruptcy, much higher personal liability insurance rates, loan defaults, and massive damage to your reputation and integrity...a far greater penalty than running a red light and being caught by the intersection robot. A criminal conviction may do all of those things and then some. The key word there is MAY. In many states, certain kinds of traffic tickets are misdemeanors and create a criminal record if there wasn't one before. This won't stop you from gainful employment.
On the other hand, a judgment against you for civil fraud causing termination from your prior employer might well stop you from getting a job, particularly if you don't disclose it up front. People think that civil suits are somehow irrelevant or off-limits, but they're matters of public record in most cases.
You're looking at those functions from a modern perspective. In a time when live window previews weren't common features, a visual quick-reference directly on the screen was better than a program icon and a few title letters. At a time when the standard resolution was 640x480 (yes, even in the Windows 95 days), a permanent taskbar with limited information was not necessarily preferable to a drop-down menu or optional floating palette.
That doesn't even address the confusion of form and function that is the taskbar.
My point is that people who make generalizations without knowing the facts and the history aren't in a sound position to do so. "Credit" or not isn't really the point--it's that user experience isn't a simple matter of outright copying, because Windows directly copying things from MacOS would create an awful Frankenstein's-monster mess. Some parts of Windows are like that.
But not really knowing about MacOS at the time, and using your modern familiarity with the Windows taskbar retroactively does not make a sound comparison in the least. The Windows 95 taskbar at the "common" resolution at launch had room for four application buttons. The text field wasn't wide enough to tell you which Word document you were clicking on. There was no quick launch. Start's only layered menu was the applications one. It was not what it is today, and it was not that good OR logical. It was part of a wholly new OS that most people had to invest considerable effort into learning, so good UI wasn't strictly necessary.
"Illegal" has nothing to do with criminality. All copyright infringement is illegal. Affirmative defenses mitigate that with a justification.
"Mere civil infraction" is likewise misleading. Many civil penalties are far harsher than criminal ones. Both have a range of consequences. Many criminal misdemeanors aren't show-stoppers, while some civil judgments, depending on your occupation, can be.
As for 'guilty', because Revision3 is an Internet television business, had they actually done what AC believed, it would be criminal infringement. The civil suit is an option, but not a requirement, for industry litigation. They prefer it because it allows them greater leeway with their false-attack shenanigans, makes it easier for them to prove, and because it shows some element, however small, of temperance. Willful, knowing copyright infringement is a crime, punishable with imprisonment.
You're using 'illegal' and 'mere' carelessly, while the troll, in fact, got the 'illegal' part right, as far as terminology goes. Within the false scenario presented by AC, 'guilty' would also be correct. Leave it to Slashdot to get it wrong, though.
Like the other poster, I disagree. Persistence of location aids in muscle memory. Consistency aids in the learning curve.
There is no reason why the menubar should not be at the top of the monitor. If your mouse is too slow to make use of your desktop space, then you have configured your system poorly. If you can't sweep your mouse and take advantage of pointer acceleration (or just learn the keyboard shortcuts), you don't really belong on a large monitor or multi-monitor setup.
The menubar at the top also doesn't require the use of visual hints, and speeds recognition of the topmost window or application. It extends application-level commands to a central location, irrespective of the number of windows open within the application or the current window you're working within.
It's not a dated concept in the least. In fact, it's one of the keys of good UI. Take the example to websites: constant navigation panels at the top or left side are the most familiar and accessible designs. Regardless of the content, sites that score highest for usability include a fixed header with some anchoring links. It doesn't pop around from div to div based on which one you're reading.
When you're talking about familiarity in the sense of consistency, persistence, universality, and uniformity of function...yes, it does mean it's good.
Yes, that's what I meant to type (e.g. 10.11.0).
I never claimed it was a "point" release or in any way a non-major release, and your "explanation" is not Apple's system of numbering.
Generation.Major_release.Minor_release
10.5.2.
Work it out. Troll, indeed. Windows 5 included several different kernels and 3 different products. The Windows 2003 base, in fact, was recycled into later XP service packs. Perhaps if you can muster the brain cells to comprehend this, you wouldn't have to be such a dick.
The breakdown is very simple: Generation.Major_release.Minor_release, with build numbers appended to that. Windows does an almost identical pattern Win2k (5.0), WinXP (5.2), etc. MS's numbering is non-sequential, but it's not really any different. Hell, Windows 7.0 is actually being called Windows 7 for now.
'OS X' is a brand in its own right, and one Apple has spent a lot of resources and effort building. The '10' in the version number that matches the 'X' in the name isn't cast in stone, and to claim that part of the version number is part of the brand is misleading. The stupid Mac-people meme of "when will we hear about OS XI?" skips right past the far more likely case that there will NEVER be an OS XI. They will either stick with OS X as a brand and move right on to OS X 11.0, or they'll come up with something entirely new when the time comes.
"In what respect does the right of an author differ from that of an individual who has invented a most useful and valuable machine? In the production of this, his mind has been as intensely engaged, as long; and, perhaps, as usefully to the public, as any distinguished author in the composition of his book." Id.
"That every man is entitled to the fruits of his own labour must be admitted; but he can enjoy them only, except by statutory provision, under the rules of property, which regulate society, and which define the rights of things in general." Id. at 658.
The case held that Pennsylvania common law contained no such right; not that the right did not exist or was only conferred by statute. Which supports me and rejects you? Again, it does not, and it shows a gross flaw in your reasoning which you apparently cannot address and which must force the end of this discussion. The right in question was not the property and dominion of the work, which was explicitly recognized to exist (refuting your "everyone owns it" approach), and instead the government-backing of it. Proper holdings are important.
Further, I reject the implication that you "get nothing"--your contractual acceptance gets you the license to use the software at an affordable market price, since licensing is contingent upon contractual agreement and most software is not made available under alternate terms. The standard form contract gives you the benefit of not requiring the expense, time, and burden of having to negotiate for the owner to grant a limited license. If that is not of value to you personally, then you should find alternate software and terms, but you're stuck, because subjective measure of value is wholly irrelevant in this situation.
People are thrilled to be able to expand their computers by plugging something into a monitor-sized machine while they're using it, and to be able to tuck it away in a drawer or cabinet when they're done. It's the exact reason that motivated them to dump their large, boxy tower in the first place.
The rat's nest of cables behind a desktop with that hardware is a much bigger headache, because you can't ever get rid of it, and those peripherals are always turned on, sucking down power and generating heat. The problem is that we can't even do THAT. You might not be able to, but the iMac is a solid seller, and not to unhappy customers. As for your "families who play casual games" deficiency: it's a total fabrication. The iMac is perfectly suitable for casual gaming, even with its supposedly inferior graphics.
It can't play the latest intensive 3D games at full quality, but it was never supposed to. Unless you're a gamer upgrading every year, it's fine. In fact, the GPU is better than a typical gaming GPU at HD video and multimedia applications, which is exactly where the iMac is targeted.
A license and a license agreement are NOT synonymous. In order to get the software license, you must agree to the license agreement. It means that a contract that gives one person everything and the other party nothing is not a contract No, it does not mean that at all. That's exactly the point. after I've already bought something No. Your purchase is conditioned on acceptance of the terms. The box will say right on it something to the effect of "your use of this product is governed by the terms set forth in the license agreement". If you wish to review those terms before purchase, do your due diligence as a consumer and get those terms. It's phenomenally easy to do; most are published right on their websites. Others are a simple email or post letter away. Even if you just see the EULA upon installation, you still must accept those terms. If you choose not to, you are entitled to a refund. It's right there in the terms. have a license for it, as you state above, I said no such thing. You have a license to enter the store and you have a license to purchase the product from the retailer. You don't have a license to use the product until you agree to the license agreement. It's not terribly complicated: if you have the box sitting at home, you haven't yet completed the process--you can return that box, or sell it to some else, or give it to someone else and you will have never been licensed to the software contained in the box. There is no consideration in a EULA. For the last goddamned time, there are at least three forms of consideration here: money, assent, and performance. And no, you still apparently don't know the meaning of consideration.
The enhancement of consumer protections is something we can all get behind, with further fine-tuning of contractual provisions. You've not presented any case for the categorical absolution of the freedom to contract here, a move which would be profoundly stupid, constitutionally infirm, and patently unfair to all parties.
One of the major sections in Wheaton is that the author DOES have a whole set of natural and fundamental rights in his works--that Lockean theory you decry out of your unfortunate, agenda-based inanity. Further, the case did not speak to the rights of individuals to contract for the issue of those rights in any way they chose--a right which they enjoyed and continue to enjoy to this day. The case's holding refers simply to the availment of statutory copyright, and that its protections are only as far as the four corners of the statute granting them.
It absolutely does not mean, nor can it be in good faith construed to mean that the author does not have protections in the absence of copyright. The text of the holding explicity rejects the "everyone owns it" theory you advance. Everyone has equal rights to do anything they please with the work. Again, this is not supported by history, legal principles, a logical framework, or any functioning social theory in use on our planet.
If you go with Firewire, it also has no net impact on the number of ports. iMacs have 3 and one is tied up by the keyboard/mouse. Want more? Tough. iMacs have 3 free USB ports after dealing with the keyboard and mouse. They also have Bluetooth built-in, and the vast majority of desktops with BT do it with a USB dongle. So that's really just about at par with your "6 to 8" USB port standard.
The easy fix? A USB hub. You're complaining about one of the very reasons USB was designed the way it was: to reduce clutter and the number of ports in a machine. It's also part of the iMac's design: most people have exactly two cords to deal with on their desk: power and the keyboard-mouse chain (which, unlike desktops, is one continuous cord rather than two separate ones back to the computer). Want a TV-tuner card? Tough. Nonsense. At least four companies make TV tuners for the Mac. Bluray reader? Tough. Again, an external one works fine, but I don't really see people clamoring for Blu-ray drives in their computers. Most people don't even have one in their living room yet. hese are the sorts of things perfectly normal people want from their computers in the normal course of using them, or coming out of the store. No, they're not. They're things geek expect out of their all-encompassing desktops, where they know how to open the case in 5 seconds.
Most people don't want to open the case, don't want to buy cards, and don't really care. They'll order the computer with the feature if they want it, or they'll drag it to Best Buy and have them upgrade it, or they'll find that computer-savvy niece or nephew to fix "that clicking noise".
External upgrades are ones that people can actually just do themselves. Plug it in and go, for the most part. When you don't want it anymore, you can just unplug it and put it in a closet. No disassembly required. If you want to hide all the peripherals in that space in the desk where the tower is supposed to go, it's a simple task, and it'll hold more than a typical desktop could.
Really, regular people prefer the flexibility of external devices. If the computer never got opened, that would be fine by them. Cards and screwdrivers are for IT people and geeks. That's it.
You agree to license agreements, which are contracts. Contractual licenses are documents, but a license is simply a property transaction. For example, your entry into the store in the first place is trespassing, except that you are licensed by way of being a business invitee (sometimes even called a licensee). When you offer payment, you are granting license to the store to accept and process your card or take your cash. When the seller hands you the book, he grants a license for you to take possession of that property, and in the process conveys his set of rights to you. EULAs were created to restrict users with no consideration. Stop. You don't even know what that word means.
If I have an orange, I can offer to sell you one segment. That does not mean you have an inherent right to take that segment, or any other part of my orange. Copyright is a system of artificial, not inherent, rights vested in the author, I don't know where you get this, but it is neither based in history nor in logic. Basic labor theory does not comport with this idea. The inherent free speech rights that the others exercise to use ABC's work None exist. Free speech does not apply to the speech of others. The word 'proprietary' exists for a reason. There are no property rights in published (using that term very broadly) works outside of copyright law. Also completely untrue. Without such rights, there can be no right of privacy.
I'm not sure where you're getting your theoretical framework, but it does not devolve from the same place as our legal system. Your system is counterintuitive and artificial. Copyright isn't a creation of a right. There can be no such thing. A law cannot create a right except where it is carving a hole out of a right previously denied.
First, I'm not suggesting that there would be a compulsory license, I'm saying there would be no license at all. I don't need to be licensed by the author to read a book, or by the composer or musician to listen to a CD.
Well, that's not strictly true. You don't need a license to listen or to read because that's a basic function of liberty. It is also an ephemeral event completed in passing--there is no persistence. If you want to acquire a copy, you do need a license. A license is the only thing that distinguishes you as an individual from the general public, which has no license and no property interest in the copy.
If you had no license, you'd have not even a drop of ownership, and there could be no way to sell anything.
However, 17 USC 117 deals with that nicely.
Logical fallacy. 117 post-dates the EULA as a mechanism by two decades. It was also passed with the explicit intent, in 1998, to "preserve the status quo" (see HR Rep. 94-1476).
Hell, an implied license would probably be enough to handle...
That is downright absurd. Consumer confusion about implied licenses make that an utterly terrible idea.
Trademarks strike me as a red herring; what trademark rights are implicated in an ordinary user using trademarked software?
I was thinking of games and the use of avatars and characters.
Lastly, I have no idea what you mean by 'commercial uses.' Could you explain it?
The use of software to prepare works of commercial value or in business situations is not contemplated in the Copyright Act, because expressive works as tools are unusual (as is interactive art) and the language is not constructed to resolve the conflicts arising out of such licensure.
Yeah, but that's usually crap.
Glib and wholly untrue. One need look no further than Windows product versions. They may be arbitrary, and all licenses may be overpriced, but that is not within the purview of the law. The licensing structure represents a distribution of capital and, in measured consideration, varying transfers of legal right.
Tradition is not actually a reason to do anything.
Five SCOTUS justices disagree, but moreover, industry practices are a massive component of contract law, as they are in rational jurisprudence. The last nail in that coffin: there is no alternative system that is as granular, effective, and versatile.
As we've seen, it hasn't worked out.
I don't agree. Customers have embraced the convenience over the freedom and generated billions of dollars in sales. The market has responded by opening up to DRM-free models as well. Customers have available to them music at unprecedented affordability, convenience, and variety. For some applications and business models, DRM is a perfectly acceptable trade-off as long as alternatives exist for those who have strong objection.
Disclosure can be handled in a mere notice, and again doesn't require actual licensure.
No, not all of it. Some waivers and disclaimers require more than notice. Further, you could rename a EULA to "Notice of Terms" and be in the same place.
Since we outnumber merchants and live in a democracy, I fail to see why we can't do something about this.
Well, we don't live in a democracy, and that's exactly why. The mob does not get to make those decisions. You have to have a good reason to take away a party's right to contract, and you've not presented one.
Then why bother?
For the reasons already stated: to introduce consumers to the limiting provisions regarding their use of the product in a single, exhaustive location. The real question is, what's your actual objection?
You've not provided any example of abuse, demonstrated that the example actually is abusive, or established any sort of pattern of that abuse.
Most EULAs contain nothing
1. ABC creates a work. ABC owns every possible legally protected right to that work and has exclusive dominion over it. No other person has any right to it.
2. ABC elects to create a few copies of that work and sell them, via negotiated individual contracts. ABC retains every and all legal rights to that work, except those signed away for consideration, irrespective of copyright law, because most provisions of copyright law are waivable by contract. Unless a specific contractual provision is expressly forbidden by law, it is prima facie valid.
3. ABC elects to publish the work and sell it via distributors with a copyright notice. ABC at this point must honor any right affirmatively granted to copyholders by the Copyright Act and its amendments. ABC also agrees that at future date, he and his estate will lose the ability to enforce ABC's rights as regards that work. ABC still retains, for the duration of copyright, any property right not explicitly denied to it by Title 17. Consumer XYZ has only acquired the rights purchased and secured by the Copyright Act.
This is your failure, whether it's a willful one to support an agenda or otherwise. The law does not affirmatively grant rights. It merely incorporates by reference or denies. Any right not denied to the copyright holder remains his as a reserved right ("All rights reserved" should ring a bell here).
The public does not have those inherent rights, because that is completely orthogonal to the meaning of 'inherent'. All rights are vested in the creator as a fundamental principle of Liberalism (as in the rational framework, not as in the Liberal party, in case there are confused readers); they are transferred to the public through the mechanisms of copyright and its expiration. The public cannot have an inherent right to something that is not theirs.
First, a statute-based license does not itself confer upon the user the necessary rights to use the software. The Copyright Act does not permit any sort of commercial preparation, nor does it comtemplate a mixed-mode type of license including patents, trademarks, copyrights, publicity rights, and commercial uses, all of which are traditionally licensed through contracts, with the exception of works of non-interactive art (music, film, paintings, books, etc.). Interactive works are usually associated with various explicit contracts, as well (installation agreements and a wide variety of other particularized needs depending on the work in question).
Second, because a modern piece of commercial software contains a complex mix of rights and assignments, the consumer cannot be expected to sort through appropriate law on their own. This also pertains to disclaimers (though absent a EULA a simple notice might suffice for this particular concern).
Third, modern software requires specific terms as a result of the existing case law with regard to unusual properties of software (the fact that it acts as a communications channel, that many modern applications will self-heal or have diagnostic reporting functions, software update functions, and/or are used to produce and/or distribute expressive works which may themselves be subject to legal protection, and others) that do not have any solid basis and require that customers be notified of these functions and their legal rights or responsibilities.
Fourth, unlike music CDs and DVDs, software is commonly licensed for specific machines or to specific numbers of machines. These varied licenses differ from a one-size fits all media license, and results in lower pricing, since consumers only need to purchase a license level for their specific purposes. The limitations on uses are contemplated in the price. These alternate licenses must be based in contract.
Further, a EULA is an important tool for the disclosure and negotiation of third-party rights contained in most commercial software. E.g. Company Y licenses algorithm A to Company X for use in non-military applications including all transferrees and assigns; Company X puts the requirement in a EULA, such that end users are enjoined from that use per those terms. This sublicensing or third-party licensing must come from contract as well.
ordinary users don't need them in order to run or backup the software.
They are required to set parameters on what "running" software entails, and what rights the owner has elected to reserve. With some notable exceptions required by law, the freedom to contract reigns supreme. Sellers are free to set arbitrary restrictions; consumers can seek an alternative that lacks those restrictions to cause a market shift.
There was a time when software was around but EULAs were not
I don't accept that statement as fact. End users also didn't exist, so software sales were among and between competent, professional parties. Disputes arising under that setup are precisely why standardized EULAs became the norm.
I'm all for mostly abolishing them as to consumer transactions.
That would be a grotesque failure of rationality. The price of software would skyrocket (no more "home" or "professional" versions, no more discounts for bulk licensing), and consumer confusion would require their reinstatement. Limiting the ability of owners and developers to license to select groups would have a profound chilling effect on the release of software and on collaboration.
The system as is has no deleterious effect on developers who choose more generous licensing terms. But a blanket prohibition on EULAs would not accomplish much, as those developers would either exit the market or limit their sales to purchase contracts or institute dramatic price increases. It would not stop abusive practices. As is, and as someone who sees EULAs on an uncommonly frequent basi
A weird clause in a contract does not usually make the entire agreement void, because use of it in such a manner is an open and obvious attempt to avoid an agreement willingly entered into. Using ambiguity or a condition that happens to be banned statutorily where you live to avoid enforcement of the whole is not tolerated. The offending provisions drop out, but the EULA stands.
Note that no case, at least in the US, has ever categorically dissolved a EULA. Most of them have to do with cases where the company uses a EULA in a defensive posture to do something that deprives the customer of a legal right (most commonly, being forced into binding arbitration). If it limits a customer's rights and is supported by mutuality or consideration, it's fine. This is the major sticking point with DRM audio--if people buy it knowing it is protected by DRM rather than going to a vendor that sells without it, they paid a price that reflects the loss of certain kinds of personal uses that would otherwise be legal.
There is no law requiring that media vendors give you a means to exercise personal or fair uses. Mostly they're just trying to make you think you need permission to do things you have the right to do anyway. Condition you to think you don't have the right to do something that isn't explicitly granted You don't have the right to do something that isn't explicitly granted. If it's not granted to you by the EULA and it's not granted to you by statutory law (e.g. the Copyright Act), it's a reserved right for the owner.
Slashdot as a whole really needs to wrap its head around that basic fact sooner or later. Yes, the law permits a citizen to do anything that is not against the law, but in the case of copyrighted works, the citizens targeted are the rightsholders. The customers only get the rights that are transferred to them; they don't have any inherent right to use the protected work of another.
The biggest reason people get rid of their TV is so they can tell other people they got rid of their TV.
Congratulations, all the same. I suppose watching movies on rainy nights or spending Sunday mornings with HD Theater or the History channel make the rest of us less human. I can't imagine what would possess me to want to watch BBC World News when I get home at 8pm with a glass of wine, after spending 10-12 hours reading page after page, writing what seems like as many pages, and dealing with clients. Having access to music with an elegant on-screen display and sorting system must mean that I'm living the life of a cattle because I haven't been "freed" of the "tube".
I'll stay in the Matrix, thanks. I enjoy hiking, boating, and relaxing at the beach with a barbecue as much as the next Californian, but I don't always have the time or energy.
All Harmony remotes are programmed and configured from a computer interface that supports Windows and Mac OS X. I assumed it was a basic piece of information anyone reading it would already possess, like, for instance, knowing that it is a universal remote control with an LCD screen to allow "infinite" button flexibility.
You don't even need the original remote most of the time. I had to reprogram two buttons from my Comcast remote, and obviously had to manually learn my custom aquarium switch sensor, but everything else was already in the database--even my fairly obscure remote-operated ceiling fan.