Digital Convergence In Violation Of Postal Regs? 329
mfdii writes: "Glenn Powers has been investigating the postal regulations and found that Digital Convergence could very well be in violation of them. Check out his site to get more one this, and file your own complaint with the postal inspectors."
Re:Me too! :) (Score:2)
Well, we don't have digital radio (and I'm not sure why I want it, FM is good enough for most of the trash that gets put on the radio - AM is great for talk stations, and you can make a reciver from a pencile, razor blade a magnet and some wire it is hard to see a reason to switch to something more complex). All the music stations are FM, which better then cassette tape, and good enough.
My cell phone though is GSM only (And 4 oz seems about right), and it works almost everywhere I want to go. I've considered an analog module, but I don't have one and don't really need it.
digital TV is avaiable, but nobody I know wants it. I don't watch TV myself so I don't care.
Re:cuecat loan (Score:2)
But since I would be completely and utterly laughed at, so should DC.
Re:Unsolicited merchandise (Score:2)
The other 0.9991% write to their Senator or Representative bemoaning the poor state of the US education system, or Intel.
How does USPS define "unordered"? (Score:2)
As an example, when I subscribed to Sports Illustrated, I ended up also recieving a "free" phone. I wasn't aware that the phone was included in the subscription and SI didn't take any additional steps to make me aware beforehand. However, if for whatever reason SI felt it needed to issue a recall on the phone for whatever reason, I would probably feel obligated to comply.
Please don't flame me, I'm pritty much playing devil advocate here, but I believe D:C probably sees this as being similar to the SI case. That in subscribing to a magazine, you also have an implied (or maybe even written) agreement to recieve additional material in connection with that subscription. Also, similar to SI, I believe that the distributor still retains the right to attempt a recall if required.
If the USPS has my "devil's advocate" defination of "ordered" then maybe the people to be complaining to is not USPS but rather how magazines "package" a series of services rather than allowing a customer to buy *just* the magazine.
DC's logic is flawed. (Score:2)
I'm gonna start getting concerned, though, if someone else tries something like this (like Sony shipping Music Clips, and then charging you your immortal soul for the software).
It isn't "my" community (Score:2)
Another day, another CueCat article. (Score:4)
When is Slashdot going to get a new icon for these stories?
Maybe a generic one for "Nasty companies we're trying to hound to death."
Childish? Only if you don't get what's going on! (Score:4)
Hello? One-click patent, anybody? Companies do find crappy ways of ruining other businesses, and we do despise them. We are merely engaging in self-defense against a company doing unethical things.
Why is it always that "we" are right and "them companies" are wrong when it comes to finding smart ways to do business or break other people's businesses.
You're completely missing the point. The point is not to destroy Digital Convergance, the point is that their attempt to bind us in a legal contract (the EULA) in bold violation of postal regulation is reprehensible. Nor is this a 'clever' way of using the law; this is exactly what that postal regulation is trying to prevent: Mail fraud!
If they hadn't tried to screw people, maybe people wouldn't be upset. But it's not just illegal to send unsolicited gifts and then trying to tie conditions to use, it's unethical too, and that pisses us off. It's good to see a lack of complacency.
Re:Childish? (Score:3)
On the other hand, you have devices like the TiVo. People hack it all the time, adding hard drive space, etc. The people who make TiVo took a different approach, which basically allows you to do what you want with your TiVo for use in your home, with the understanding that any warrantee is null and void. I have heard very little negative response to TiVo, because the TiVo people did not have a negative response to the hackers.
The response of Linux fans may or may not be the right one, but the response isn't just to random companies that make neat stuff.
Re:Good grief (Score:2)
that got me thinking. We need a gallery of dead *Cats! Email me photos or scans of your horrifically killed *Cat and I'll assemble the gallery.
By the way, I emailed the CEO of barpoint.com suggesting that they build some code into their site to unscramble *Cat's output. With no installed software, a user could use the free device easily with that service. No response yet.
Unsolicited Hardware? (Score:2)
--
Who really sent you the device (Score:2)
Re:Ok, you are all getting a bit too lame on this (Score:2)
Read the Constitution sometime, learn what it means. Understand the context of the time it was written in. Pay close attention to the Bill of Rights and Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8. Heres one of My Favorite Court Quotes:
"It was never the object of those laws to grant a monopoly for every trifling de-vice, every shadow of a shade of an idea, which would naturally and spontaneously occur to any skilled mechanic or operator in the ordinary progress of manufacturers. Such an indiscriminate creation of exclusive privileges tends rather to obstruct than to stimulate invention. It creates a class of speculative schemers who make it their business to watch the advancing wave of improvement, and gather its foam in the form of patented monopolies, which enable them to lay a heavy tax upon the indus-try of the country, without contributing anything to the real advancement of the arts. It embarrasses the honest pursuit of business with fears and apprehensions of concealed liens and unknown liabilities to lawsuits and vexatious accountings for profits made in good faith."
This quote apply today more than ever with "One Click" shopping and CueCats... But when was it made? 1882 by Justice Bradley!
You not only have the Right to protect you liberty's you have an Obligation!
Re:Childish? (Score:4)
Both of these are what is becoming a disturbing trend in computer hardware: licencing agreements. They are saying that we aren't buying our hardware, we're "borrowing" it from them, and as such, can't do what we want with it. Even though it's sitting on the desk in front of you, you're not allowed to open it up and see how it works.
Imagine if this paridigm started being used with other hardware, cars perhaps. Would you want to sign an agreement when you buy your car that declares that will only get it repaired at the dealership? Or even worse, that you would not allow the hood to be opened to anyone who wasn't a Ford employed mechanic. People would be outraged.
Another example I thought of was that people would never accept software without the source code, otherwise how would they be able to change it. I guess that's not the best example
My point (and I do have one), is that companies are trying to apply the razor/razorblade loss leader business plan to computers. The problem is that computers are so damn versatile that people are finding really cool stuff to do with the razor, and aren't bothering to buy the razorblade.
This is a simple fact of reality, they need to learn to deal with it.
--
But this has nothing to do with copyright (Score:2)
The point of this is NOT about copyright, because the software being used by the "hacker" community is licensed under the GPL. They have a license to distribute the software if they care to. Indeed copyright law freely permits people who have a license to distribute software to make as many copies as that license allows (which is unlimited with GPL). Digital Convergence has produced a product, and as long as you don't manufacture new identical copies of the hardware, then I can't see how you are in any way violating copyright.
The DCMA, on the other hand, has a very questionable principle that still has to be tested for constitutional validity that the mere act of reverse engineering something to see how it works is illegal. This is entirely the same principle that the deCSS software is going through the courts right now, and if the MPAA, DVD-CCA, and the DVD Fourm are allowed to set a precident, then products like the
For a lighter side of reverse engineering, look at The Red Green Show [redgreen.com], which usually includes a segment on how Red Green (the name of the fictional host) hacks at a car or other household appliance (with a chain saw/hack saw/tin snips, ect.) to make a useful product out of it. The show has been on PBS for a number of years, but it appears as though CBS has picked it up for the fall (or for the folks in Canada, I think it is being broadcast by CBC.... I know that it is a Canadian import). It is too bad that the news media doesn't have this view of hackers instead of the 16 year old wannabe that breaks into the Pentagon computers and starts a nuclear war.
Re:Another day, another CueCat article. (Score:2)
Re:Another day, another CueCat article. (Score:2)
Re:Ho there! You mean you didn't request the thing (Score:2)
But when I get CD's, they *do* tell me what I can and can't do. Does that mean that I can ignore the license on the CD's I receive in the mail?
-BrentRe:Why has no one commented on... (Score:2)
The article points out that, as designed, the :CueCat is a solution in search of a problem, and DigitalConvergence.com (where the hell does the silly colon go in their name anyway?) must have an unbelievable burn rate at the moment. The latter factor could explain why the DC people are so anal about people fooling around with the Cats in "unauthorized" ways even though the number of people doing so is undoubtedly a tiny percentage of the people who actually have the devices...
Eric
--
Re:Privacy Foundation on :Cue:C.A.T. (Score:2)
Re:Childish? (Score:4)
This seems a fair question -- but let's look at who's doing the ruination here.
Clearly, the current utility of this device is marginal at best. The CC is *not* a terribly useful device in and of itself; its *only* uses to the customer, as usage would be allowed by DC, are: (a) to scan the half-dozen sweepstakes codes that come in the package; (b) to scan the codes in Wired and Forbes once a month; (c) to scan products for more neat-o advertising, like we don't get enough of that. The actual *value* to the customer is truly, truly marginal, no matter what the DC marketroids might have talked themselves into believing.
What does this mean? Well, it means that unless DC gets *unbelievable* penetration and is able to *fundamentally* change the usage patterns of a hundred million computer users, the CC will be useless 99.9% of the time. And a device that is generally useless on your desktop gets removed, right?
So the next logical step is to improve the overall utility of this device -- which is *exactly* what /. users have been doing. If some clever person writes, say, a GPL'd household inventory control application for the CC, the value of the CC suddenly goes through the roof, doesn't it?
DC has acted incredibly shortsightedly throughout this fiasco, and it isn't as though their failures are attributable solely to /., either. The installation procedure is horrible, horrible, horrible. The client software is horrible, horrible, horrible. And their tactics to scare the geek community have been, to date, pathetic, and belie fundamental misunderstandings about who they're dealing with.
DC had another path, you know. Remember when everyone first got the CC, how cool everyone thought it was? DC could have said, "yes! We're giving you a cool toy for nothing, do with it as you will, and in exchange, please let us market to you." It's been proven again and again that the *vast* majority of users DON'T CARE about handing over a little piece of their privacy if they get something of clear value in return! But instead they tried to be sneaky, and they got into a pissing contest with the smartest people on the internet, and what do you know, now they smell like piss.
And it's not as though DC is beyond saving, either. But they need to get a lot smarter, a lot faster, before they run out of money. Hey, America loves to give second chances to the truly penitent. We're suckers that way.
Re:Another day, another CueCat article. (Score:2)
but an effort should be made to see if a CueCat can actually detect CRT or LCD barcodes
LCD yes, CRT no. Remember that barcode scanners work by identifying areas of differing reflectivity. Your CRT actually gives off light, the reflectivity doesn't change.
On the other hand, an LCD works by changing transparency, with a semi-reflective surface behind it. It would be possible to make a scannable LCD, but there's no guarantee that any particular LCD will be scannable.
That's your Mr. Science lesson for the day.
Michael
Re:Bwahahahahah! (Score:2)
The company said they would (Score:2)
http://www. sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1083392/0000912057-00- 020438.txt [sec.gov]
Re:Childish? (Score:2)
I have a hard time seeing how this is different from any other free market/competitive response. Let's say there are three profit-making (in the legal sense) companies competing to sell a certain product category, and that there are no free/open-source type products in that market. Company A release a new version which is potentially "better" or more attractive than Company B or C's, but appears to violate some law or cause some long-term damange to the customer. You had better believe that Companys B and C will immediately counterattck on several fronts with both their sales forces ("oh, you didn't know that product A causes sterility after 6 months?") and through the legal/political/media system. In fact, Companys B and C would be in violation of their obligations to their shareholders if they did _not_ counterattack and their directors could be subject to shareholder lawsuits seeking damages.
Now, how is this different from the instant case?
sPh
Childish? Maybe . . . (Score:2)
Whether or not you agree with the production of third-party software for decoding the CutCat barcodes, or with the installation of Linux on the I-Opener machines, or any of the other examples in this category, the fact of the matter is that any company that attempts to make money on services while distributing a "loss leader" to utilize those services is taking a risky gamble at best. Certainly, sometimes this gamble pays off, but in reality, I would wager that 90%+ of companies that try to do so either barely break even or fail miserably. DC has taken this gamble, and built a business model that not only requires that users utlize the barcode readers in conjunction with their software, but that they use them often, and that they actually feel that swiping barcodes that are linked in the DC database to particular websites is conveinent enough that they can build a demographic database that can be peddled to companies interested in such data.
Furthermore, no matter what the motivation of those who are filing complaints with the USPS against DC might be, it does not mitigate the fact that they are clearly in violation of the regulations. One would expect that a company that expects to "loan" such a device to end users while distributing them to those users by way of magazines via the USPS would certainly inverstigate to see if such a distribution was not in violation of regulations. Clearly, they either did not do the research, or either they don't care. In the first case, ignorance of the law does not clear the offending party of any guilt, although it might persuade those in the business of dispensing justice to "go easy" on the offending party. However, if DC is violating postal regulations despite knowledge of them, it's their own tough luck if they get slapped around in the legal system.
-------
Re:Childish? (Score:3)
We used to get pissed off only when companies tried to sell software. Now we get pissed off when they don't give us the hardware for free too! Wake up, people. Arent tech industry workers and geeks supposed to have the largest disposable income of any other demographic in the history of the world?
How come we seem to respect each other so well but often forget that companies like DC are full of our own? Think about what they are trying to do - integrate print and the web - I very much enjoy reading Wired now that it is full of barcodes. I can easily get more info than the printed page can hold. Sure they could just publish a long url that i'd have to type in, but scannning a barcode is soo much easier. I mean... a bunch of geeks started DC to do something cool. We've got all of these people finding all kinds of legal loopholes screaming IANAL the whole fucking time -- you think the geeks at DC are lawyers? But instead of giving them the benefit of the doubt and trying to HELP THEM FIX THE LEGAL PROBLEM as you undoubtadely would help someone writing a free software application, you just trash them, point your finger, sic the post office on them.
Guess what guys?
When you put DC out of business you will go back to paying minimum of about 100 bucks for a barcode scanner that will scan as well as the CC (cheaper ones will not even scan through the plastic of a CD case or on reflective surfaces like soda cans) and, oh yeah, you will no longer get nice barcodes on articles in magazines. Publishers will stop promoting/creating the "extra" content.
Sometimes it's good to support a good idea because it is a good idea; not because you're pissed off that you didn't think of it or that someone is trying to make money off of it.
~GoRK
two wrongs make a right? (Score:2)
--
Cut the serial number wire to comply with the law (Score:4)
You see, the whole justification behind "shrink-wrap" licenses is that a company managed to convince a judge that loading software into a computer counts as "making a copy", and therefore the user needs to be licensed to use software, as opposed to when she purchases a book, and can read the book without copying anything (except for making a chemical image on her retina, I suppose.)
I personally think that the "running software == copying" argument is nonsense, and is the cause of a lot of problems, but let's stipulate it for the sake of argument.
Back to the cuecat. The general consensus is that if you don't use the cuecat software, then the cuecat device is just a hardware device, and requires no licensing whatsoever.
However, I was just thinking
The reverse-engineering efforts have determined that there is an EEPROM inside the cuecat that contains the serial number of the cuecat. Without that serial number, DC has no way of knowing exactly who is scanning with what cuecat. Their demographic information would be ruined if that serial number was disabled.
It has also been determined that every time the cuecat is powered up, the microcontroller reads the contents of the EEPROM, the serial number, into its own memory.
So the question is, does this count as a copying operation?
If so, then the only way for an individual to use the cuecat in full compliance with the copyright laws would be to make the hardware modification, cutting the wire between the EEPROM and the microcontroller. This way, no information would be transferred from the EEPROM storage media into the processor, and no license would be required, because no copying would be done.
Of course, this would totally destroy DC's business plan, but all we want to do is fully comply with copyright law, and this may be the only way to do it!
Any opinions?
- John
Re:Ok, you are all getting a bit too lame on this (Score:2)
You didn't ask for it; they can't attach any 'terms' to something you received unsolicited and for free.
You open the mail, something is in it. They cannot 'require' you to agree to terms with it. Especially 'license agreements'.
Why? This is the same, if you think about it, as companies that used to mail you 'merchanidse' and then if oyu didn't return it, they send you a bill. This is illegal now. This is the same thing.
I mean, it's fine.. but if they try to prosecute it, they are in trouble.
Re:Ho there! You mean you didn't request the thing (Score:2)
This means you didn't ask them to send you a cuecat.
If you DID ask them to send you a cuecat, you could perhaps be held to certain terms.
If you didn't, they are out of luck.
This discussion is missing only one thing... (Score:3)
John
The Church of the SubGenius [subgenius.com] -- because somebody had to put all that slack in there...
Re:Unsolicited Hardware? (Score:3)
Actually, if you read your agreement with the magazine, they probably will mention that they will distribute promo items with the mag . . .
I'll bet it doesn't say they will LOAN me promo items or that I can't use them in any way that I want. A promo item is a gift. If the cuecat isn't meant as a gift (but rather, a loan as DC would have us believe), then it's not a promo item, and it is covered under the postal regulation.
Privacy Foundation on :Cue:C.A.T. (Score:4)
Re:But this has nothing to do with copyright (Score:2)
And no, I don't believe you're legally allowed to copy the AOL to a friend if AOL doesn't give you permission to.
See Infinity Broadcast v. Kirkwood [pace.edu]. Kirkwood set up a service that allowed people to call in over a phone and listen to radio stations in the Kirkwood's area. Kirkwood got sued and lost (read the judge's opinion, it's weird). If you will, the radio broadcasts are unsolicited bulk distribution. Granted, the listener can choose to not listen to those transmissions (throw them away). The listener isn't allowed to record the broadcasts and retransmit them.
--
Re:Why they are violating the postal regulations.. (Score:2)
So anybody in that boat is perfectly within their legal rights to consider it a gift, and nothing in the EULA can change that.
Re:Childish? (Score:2)
That said, Digital Convergence didn't find any "little loopholes" in any law. What happened is that Digital Convergence reacted to the initial hacking of their device with vague, legal-sounding threats. The /. community responded the same way hackers have always responded to any legal sounding threat: mirrors, freedom rants, and of course, more code.
For their part, I've heard NOTHING more from Digital Convergence since the "Victory over Evil Hackers" speech. I suspect this speech was made strictly for the investors' benefit. I think they tired of our hacker rants long before we did.
So, is Digital Convergence evil? No, they're trying to make a buck. Are they being ethical about it? They're not very up-front with their data collection intentions. (They are never mentioned in the paper documentation that comes with the CueCat, nor in the Radio Shack advertising or signage. It's certainly the darker side of ethics as we define them here on Slashdot.) But evil? They're just a corporation, driven solely by profit.
You are absolutely right. The "cease-and-desist" letters were a knee-jerk first reaction, and very poorly thought out. I think they were sent based on their misunderstanding of the various intellectual property laws. But we on Slashdot are being way too harsh on them by calling for lawsuits, filing frivolous fraud complaints, predicting the demise of the company, etc. We do ourselves a disservice by making ourselves into the pitchfork-waving-mob. We should let this drop, ignore the threats, and get back to coding Linux drivers for CueCats.
In this case, the legalistic letters prompted the mob reaction. Hopefully, the next company with a cheap hardware model will keep these lessons in mind before angering the peasants again.
John
The Church of the SubGenius [subgenius.com] -- because somebody had to put all that slack in there...
Re:He is wrong. (Score:2)
1) Mailing of unordered merchandise ... constitutes an unfair method of competition and an unfair trade practice in violation of section 45(a)(1) of title 15.
and 2) that communications prohibited by subsection (c) [in other words, communicating to you that you owe money for this unordered merchandise] is also an unfair method of competition and an unfair trade practice etc.
DC has violated subsection (a)'s first part, but not the second part, and apparently not subsection (c).
Now, is that clear as mud, or what?
---
Information for Form (Score:5)
9101 N Central Expy.
6th Floor
Dallas, TX 75231-5914
further it asks what this is pertaining to -- one of them is "Harassment (goods ordered without consent)" while this sounds right, this pertains to being charged for a product you didn't order instead of receiving a misleading product.
I believe what you would want to enter in the form is "Misrepresentation of Product / Service"
Re:RULE NUMBER ONE OF GIVING AWAY STUFF (Score:2)
We live, for better or worse, in a free market society. In such a society, companies are free to give away things. The recipients are also free to do whatever the hell they want with them. That's how the free market works. If I sell something cheap, people will buy it. It is up to ME to make sure that I do it in such a way that I make money. If I don't, then I am the one that's SOL.
Personally, I don't see how exploiting this is any different than, say, buying something on sale or on clearance. In both cases you are getting something for below the market rates for some reason. People aren't up in arms when other people do that. why are they so ticked off that the hacker community has expanded the uses for something they got for free.
Heck, it is an old time Yankee Thrift at work here (for those in the us doing these things). If it weren't for that, we'd still only use Duct Tape on Ducts and furnaces :-).
The real problem (Score:2)
Re:Unsolicited but copyrighted material (Score:2)
Yes yes, that argument wouldn't hold up in court. Copyright law says that the copyright holder has an exclusive right to reproduce his/her work. 39 USC sec 3009 says the recipient can use it however they want. Is copying included under "use"? Neither code specifies exactly, so I'd expect the issue to be decided in some court case, but I can't find any such cases. (I didn't look very hard)
I would think that even if the recipient could make millions of copies and distribute them, that the people you gave it to wouldn't be able to copy the software. Unless, maybe, if they were also sent via postal mail.
I'm pretty sure copyright law would have precedence though.
--
Dead Horse Icon; Article Moderation (Score:4)
Of course there would be a positive side to this too; Insightful stories would get a light bulb; Funny stories would get a foot (even if they weren't classified as humor); etc.
You could also sort by article moderation, exclude redundant articles, and get emails notifying you of good articles.
Anyone familiar with Slashcode want to write such a module and pitch it to the powers that be?
sullu
Re:You can consider either both. (Score:2)
Disclaimer: This is not meant to be adversarial, I just think these are issues that need to be thought about.
An interesting question to consider is this: suppose they sent a book without your asking for it. Do you have a right to read the book via Title 39, Sec. 3009 where it says ...the recipient, who shall have the right to retain, use, discard, or dispose of it in any manner he sees fit without any obligation whatsoever to the sender. (emphasis is mine).
If you have the right to read it, do you have the right to think about it? Do you have the right to write a review? Do you have the right to be inspired by it and write your own book using the same alphabet and perhaps even some of the same phrases?
If you have any of those rights, how is software different? In both cases the protection is via copyright (although I think there is an argument for saying that any copyright the sender may have had was voided by the act of sending via the USPS regulation - do notice that the sender may not have had any copyright rights to being with).
Suppose I put a notice of an EULA on the copyright page at the front of the book (that nearly no one ever reads) and the EULA itself in an appendix in the back of the book saying that if you read any of the book, then you agree to certain terms. Where does that leave us?
-- OpenSourcerers [opensourcerers.com]
The difference. (Score:2)
Nope, nobody did any of the above to anybody getting an SI phone.
However, DC has already done this to several people that have CueCats.
That would be the difference.
Visit DC2600 [dc2600.com]
USPS (Score:4)
Remember, everyone thinks that Al Capone went to jail for Tax evasion - He didn't he went to jail for MAILING the false return.
The Post office doesn't screw around. This is why it's a BAD idea to vandalize someones mailbox.
BTW The Postal Inspectors are REAL law officers, carry guns (Up to and including MP5s - those are sub-machine guns for those that don't know)
Re:Childish? (Score:2)
EULAs/contracts are generally okay, but when they try override federal law, then I get worried.
--
Re:Childish? (Score:2)
Sorry wrong answer, try again. A customer has absolutly no responsibility to support a companies business model. If they have a good business model then they make money if they have a poor one then they go out of business.
If anything it's these businesses who are seeking "loopholes" (as well as getting dodgy laws passed) to attempt to force customers to support their business model. If they were smart they'd be able to come up with a business model which didn't require law bending to be viable.
If these businesses really cannot hack capitalism then maybe instead they should move to Cuba or North Korea.
Re:Childish? Only if you don't get what's going on (Score:2)
Indeed in bold violation of the basic contract of a contract too. The USPS takes the sensible position that no contract can possibly exist in respect of the supply of unsolicited goods, thus they are considered "gifts".
Otherwise party A could send party B a piece of paper saying "By opening the envelope containing this paper you agree to pay
Re:OOh brother. (Score:2)
Rather they decided to herasspeople, then some of the people they had herassed fought back. They only DC had any right to be mad as were themselves and their business advisors.
Also has anyone realised that "Digital Convergence" has the same abbreviation as "Dumb Criminal"...
Re:Childish? (Score:2)
Circumventing is the wrong term, since the customer has no obligation to support the business model in the first place.
Both of these are what is becoming a disturbing trend in computer hardware: licencing agreements. They are saying that we aren't buying our hardware, we're "borrowing" it from them, and as such, can't do what we want with it.
Also in both these cases they have attempted to apply such conditions retrospectivly
Imagine if this paridigm started being used with other hardware, cars perhaps. Would you want to sign an agreement when you buy your car that declares that will only get it repaired at the dealership? Or even worse, that you would not allow the hood to be opened to anyone who wasn't a Ford employed mechanic.
The difference here is that more people understand the problems this kind of thing would cause with cars than who understand exactly the same issues which are showing up with computers...
Re:Childish? (Score:2)
Especially if this is all there is to their business model. Other types of businesses, e.g. supermarkets, who use loss leader type of pricing only do this for a tiny proportion of their product lines. So even if they do something stupid, like giving out more loyalty points/cash back/etc than the value of a product their business will not fall over when someone walks in and buys their entire stock.
Re:RULE NUMBER ONE OF GIVING AWAY STUFF (Score:2)
At least at the moment we do
In such a society, companies are free to give away things. The recipients are also free to do whatever the hell they want with them.
For some reason quite a few high tech companies can't actually hack it in the free market. So are seeking to create something different, laws such as DMCA & UCITA are part of the way of creating this new economic model.
Unsolicited merchandise (Score:3)
If DC sent me a scanner, I would take it as a gift, to do with as I please.
This guy's idea seems like a workable solution: many companies pull stuff like this knowing that 90% of the sheeple will pay, 9% will complain to the company but take no other action, and
But then again, probably not.
Re:You can consider either both. (Score:2)
Remember also that books often come with an EULA which would, if applied as written, forbid reading aloud or remembering any part of the text.
Recall my CueCat at any time? (Score:2)
Digital Convergence -- The New Microsoft? (Score:2)
Seems like DC might be stealing something from MS: The (not so coveted) position as the #1 company that /. loves to hate.
For a while, it seemed like Amazon might be that company, until Bezos became conciliatory on the issue of software patents.
For now, however, MS continues to reign supreme both on the desktop and the /. hate list.
Re:You can consider either both. (Score:2)
If I send you a CD, you're free to boot it up, play with it, sell it, etc. It's basically like first-sale, it's yours now, do with it as you like.
You can't break existing laws with it, like sharpen it and kill someone, or burn multiple copies, because murder and copyright laws cover those actions, but you can use it or sell it.
You can consider either both. (Score:4)
The same applies to the CC device sent through Forbes. He now has a free CC device, a CD that may or may not contain software, and crappy wrapping that he now owns. All as a gift from either DC, Forbes, or Wired, however you see fit.
At this point, there's nothing infringing about the problem.
*NOW*, if DC started to C&D this guy, or otherwise threating with their psuedo-IP arguement, then it becomes a question if DC is considering that their gift, or not. At which point I'd put letters in to the USPO.
At it stands, the case for non-DC CC 'drivers' is strengthened by the mail issue, and if we have to fight this, distribution by mail needs to remain open, not closed as this article suggests.
Re:Game not Over (Score:2)
Recieving a book in the mail (solicited or not) gives me the right to do anything with it I like except reproduce its contents in print/readable form without permission of the copyright holders. I may burn it, read it sliently, read it aloud (even in public if I don't charge for it; Remember story-hour at your local library?), grind it up and use it as cat-box filler, anything.
Recieving or not recieving, or the possession/lack thereof of a DVD has no bearing whatsoever on the dissemination of DeCSS. That will end up a constitutional law issue. I can have zero DVD's and (currently) have no right to disseminate DeCSS, or I can own a million legit DVDs and still have no "right" to do so.
As to cracking DC "encryption", that, AFAICS, would not apply because the data encrypted is not _created_ by the CC, merely read from another source. If the transcription of the bar-code and subsequent encryption of it by CC renders that data DC's Innaleckshual Propertee, then I'm going to go out, grab a copy of Windows2k, transcribe-and-encrypt it myself (probably rot _fourteen_, just to make it difficult *G*) and start selling my new IP at CD-production-cost-plus-mailing-cost-plus $5. I'll be rich. I'll call it "WIN2K Enterpreneurial Suite".
Now, if DC want's to claim that the encryption algorithm _itself_ is the IP, well, I think that there's probably considerable prior art, so patenting is out of the question. Copyright? Be serious. That only leaves Trade Secret, and that's already been discussed to death elsewhere.
At this stage, I'd say (just off the top of my head, you understand) DC is out in the cold. The USPS regs look like they put the final nail in the coffin as far as just who owns the widget once they email it to me unsolicited. Me to DC: "Mine! Piss off!"
Now, as to DC's _actual_ IP: The software they send with the gadget. So far, the only part of that they've lost is the "encryption" algorithm discussed above. And the loss came through legitimate means (specifically, reverse engineering of a Trade Secret). No other part of their IP has been recreated. Unless they want to try and patent "shopping by bar-code scanner". I think they'd have considerable difficulty there, considering the sheer number of big department stores that use bc scanners to help folks in bridal registries. That's a similar enough application that there could be considerable trouble getting such a patent.
These folks really need to re-examine what's up, and be prepared to cut losses and bail out.
Note to Venture Capitalists: From DC's little saga, I'd think several times before investing in any subsequent businasses that these clowns attempt (once DC tanks, as seems inevitable at this point).
Re:You can consider either both. (Score:2)
Instead the law in some places, such as the USA, is being changed so as to make such entities legal.
Re:Unsolicited but copyrighted material (Score:2)
At a guess such regulations would not void copyright, but they would void any EULA. Thus you'd have a software CD with usage rights analagous to a music CD or a book.
Re:You can consider either both. (Score:2)
If PepsiCo mailed you a trademark, you'd be able to stick that trademark on something. If they don't like it, tough, they gave it to you for you to use. But that doesn't mean you could reproduce their trademarks and use them. (For instance, I could cut up this free Nike shirt I'm wearing now with the swoosh and 'Running' and put it on a broken truck as a sarcastic comment (ie, not running.) but I couldn't market their trademark.)
If Pfizzer (I think) mailed you the structure of Prozzac, you'd be allowed to make it, if you could. It's selling it afterwords, and products related to making it, that might be covered under patent law. But you could always sell your copy of the email.
If DC sends you a CD with CueCat software on it, you're free to use that, their giving it to you as a gift overrides any EULA they might put on it. You still couldn't burn a bunch of copies, but you could use the one you had in any way you wanted, or sell it.
Re:You can consider either both. (Score:2)
Right where we started. EULAs are completely unenforcable when not given to you *before* you purchase the product. An EULA *inside* a product is worthless (actually, it's an attempt at fraud, but nobody has yet ben sued.)
Contract law states among other things that you must know about a contract before you can be said to have agreed. Also, once you own a book and the legal right to use it (ditto with software) what can the EULA offer? The same right? If they offer something worthless or don't offer anything, the contract isn't valid.
So if you put an EULA in a book you'd get nothing, except perhaps sued.
> any copyright the sender may have had was voided by [...]
Nope. They hold the copyright, they made a copy, they sent the copy. That's all legit.
Now, you *own* that copy, you can use and abuse it in all the ways that the postal regs permit (and more) because it's yours. But, you don't have the copyright on it, so you can't make more copies. But other than that...
Re:OOh brother. (Score:2)
They threatened legal action against people doing perfectly legal things. That's basically the same as me threatening to break the legs of a toddler who pissed me off.
They're using their large cash reserves to intimidate. The threat is that they'll sue you into the stone ages and take everything you have with huge damage judgements.
Well, fair is fair... they want to ruin people who don't do what they want, those people want to ruin them, as do people like me who are sick and tired of being pushed around by rich assholes with too many lawyers.
And, I am ruining them, bit by bit... Just think what their customers (for their demographics) will say when they find out people have been using scripts to stack the demographics in certain ways and that all of DC's data is essentially worthless?
He is wrong. (Score:3)
(a)
He argues that this subsection identifies DC's mailing of the packages (which actually may really be Wired's or Forbes's mailing), to be an unfair trade practice, etc.
But what is subsection c?
(c) No mailer of any merchandise mailed in violation of subsection (a) of this section, or within the exceptions contained therein, shall mail to any recipient of such merchandise a bill for such merchandise or any dunning communications.
(BTW, Dunning: To make consistent demands for payment. m-w.com)
Has DC sent anyone a bill for their CueCat? Have they made consistet demands for payment? I haven't heard of such a thing.
In this case they have not violated the law, and complaints to the postal service will be ignored.
That does not mean, however, that they are not subject to subsection b:
b) Any merchandise mailed in violation of subsection (a) of this section, or within the exceptions contained therein, may be treated as a gift by the recipient, who shall have the right to retain, use, discard, or dispose of it in any manner he sees fit without any obligation whatsoever to the sender.
In other words, it's yours, but they didn't break any law. Save your fingerpads on this one.
Re:Childish? (Score:2)
Hell no, but the people in charge are.
> HELP THEM FIX THE LEGAL PROBLEM
Oh, I am. When we're successful and they're out of business or paying reparation to those they threatened for performing completely legal actions, then that'll fix the legal problem. The legal problem is THEM.
I'm sick and tired of bullying. When I was in school I watched a bunch of kids getting picked on, so I beat the crap out of the bully. He threatened to kill me and I reported him to the teachers, he got kicked out of school and sent to juvie.
I'm trying to do the same thing to DC. They pick on people, I'm trying to return the hurt to them, more than they dished out.
Bullies don't care if you ask them to stop, they want to get something and don't care who they hurt. You can't use polite societal rules to fight a sociopath. If DC is threatening people, we have the threaten the only thing DC holds dear, their bottom line.
My way to do this is send in tons of false scans (and record it how it happens to prove it later). When they try to sell their demographic info I can release the info and make it worthless... Doesn't take a lot of scripts running 24/7 to flood the actual data.
Re:Another day, another CueCat article. (Score:2)
Re:Wired [was unordered] (Score:3)
Just think of the possibilities!
Re:Unsolicited Hardware? (Score:2)
Now there's an interesting thought. That certainly makes it legal for me to reverse engineer any of the software on those CD's. Although I must say I'm not sure why anybody would bother. Probably still wouldn't let you copy and distribute anything off of it -- they're giving you a copy, like a book.
No, no, no. It ain't ME babe,
It ain't ME you're looking for.
Re:Unsolicited Hardware? (Score:3)
It can, but this postal law specifically refers to unsolicited items. It's to keep companies from sending you items then demanding you pay for them or use some service of theirs. It's to keep mail order companies honest.
This doesn't apply to all cuecat readers, only the ones sent to readers of Wired and Forbes. If you went to Rat Shack or their website and asked for one this doesn't apply to you.
Re:Childish? (Score:2)
The free marketplace is a jungle. Businesses should expect that consumers will act to maximize their utility. Businesses have a right to expect that consumers won't do illegal things. Consumers have a right to expect that Businesses won't similarly violate the law. Other than that business models that expect that consumers are too stupid to maximize their utility are broken as designed and deserve no special respect.
DC has appeared to give away a device when they've actually tried to retain ownership and control of the item. The text implementing this is buried on an EULA which is possibly not a legal contract with at least some people who have acquired the device. I'd like to see them prove that I've agreed to any contract.
Netpliance also sold devices and attempted to retroactively apply a user agreement that required purchasing their service. On one hand, they wanted to make it easy for people to buy the device (hey just plunk down your credit card and don't bother with any silly contracts) but they also wanted to hold people to contractual requirements. When this is done in other areas of commerce, it's often called fraud.
Virginconnect had a similar scheme and a similarly hackable product, but that haven't had the same problems as Netpliance becuase all of the terms of the agreement are spelled out at the beginning. You have to agree to them before you get your device. You are free to pay the cancellation fees and keep your device and use it as a doorstop if you want. They treated their customers with respect. (Now they may have GPL problems, but that's a different issue.)
Just because someone has a business model, Economics in gerneral or any economy in specific does not guarantee them a profit. Relying on the stupidity of the consumer is a particularly bad way to design a business plan.
Re:Childish? (Score:2)
By refusing to use their CueCat scanners the way they'd prefer?
I could throw it in the garbage (within my rights, even they would admit) and they'd get to scans from me.
I could write (leaving asside questions of *my* programming ability, I mean the generic *me*) a driver that actually displays the information from the barcode. This I could use locally only, or to look-up items on any company, Amazon, B&N, or even DC, if they make a decent interface, etc.
So, if I use it my own way, they have a potential of getting scans, but likely don't.
How does my doing this affect what everyone else does?
If their service is so bad as to turn off users, or to make them look for new software, that's their fault.
What they should be afraid of is Amazon.com writing cueCat software that does a better lookup, for free, without DC's specific privacy invasion. Amazon would easily make their investment back just from the orders they'd get.
And it'd be perfectly legal, after all, the EULA for the DC software says 'if you don't agree, don't use it...' Well, they might get their wish, people wouldn't use their crippled, invasive software.
And it'd all be fair, free markets mean free choice. It's not like by giving us a cheap barcode scanner that DC could claim the ongoing right to any barcode scans we ever made.
Slow news day... (Score:5)
Wow.
I mean really, Wow.
All I can say is that if I were Digital Convergence, I'd be shaking in my boots. This guy really has 'em by the short hairs, I tell you what.
</sarcasm>
But really, folks. Anybody remember all the clever little form threats you could send off to spammers, the FBI, CIA, and your grandmother about how spam was illegal by some particular subsection of this particular code that stated that you can't spam a fax machine, so send me my $500 now or I'll sue you?
Yeah. This is exactly that. Only for CueCats that you didn't order.
This isn't news for nerds or stuff that matters. This is harebrained legal manuvering for the sake of being a pain in the ass. Funny how this level of legal nit-picking on the part of some big, mean corporation usually brings forth nasty boos and hisses from the /. Collective...
Re:Radio Shack-obtained Cats Yours, Too (Score:2)
And I ran the whole thing by a lawyer I know anyway -- the "we own your 'Cat" is bullshit.
/Anonymous Coward
/
Re:Another day, another CueCat article. (Score:2)
No, the icon should be dinosaur. Standing for company has won the Darwin award.
Strange this one seems to be used... grin ;-)
Why CueCat Matters (for those who came in late) (Score:3)
I believe that a corporation which gives a serial-numbered tracking device free out to citizens as a "productivity tool", buries the little detail of "by the way, we're keeping your every move in a central database" in a lengthy legal contract, and then attempts to make gobs of cash off of the information gleaned thereby is immoral. However, I also believe in the rule of law, their freedom to do as they please within that law, and the capitalist system. It just happens to also be my right to see how the law works in my favor. And every bit of information that I can use against them I will gladly use. They may find that to be immoral from their point of view, but I'm only concerned that it's legal; then we're on even terms.
I am not usually an activist about such things, but this one seems to have crossed a line. Fortunately, these folks seem pretty technically and legally clueless, and I wish them a short ride to the business plan cemetery. So here's a plain-english recap for those who think that this issue is less than relevant:
DC launched the CueCat by giving them away free in exchange for registration information at Radio Shacks nationwide, AND by mailing them out to subscribers of Wired and Forbes magazines.
By giving away free hardware, DC immediately raises the antennae of privacy activists, who sniff the air for the scent of money and find, as expected, that their business model operates on collecting and collating demographic information on private citizens. Since the CueCat is a scanner that can scan coupons, UPC codes, book ISBNs and more, they can obviously gather a huge amount of info on shopping habits. This is all confirmed by DC's own corporate materials.
The ones that are sent through the mail (mine arrived sporting Wired colors) arrive in non-shrinkwrapped boxes containing a CueCat, a cable, a non-shrinkwrapped CD, and an instruction sheet. None of these have ANY legal contract on them. The legalese is all in the software CD (which I can't install 'cause it's Windows only and I'm only running mac and linux).
Meanwhile, hackers all over the place immediately take the little things apart and find out how they work. They're found to be super simple, without anything that can really be called encryption, just a base 64 conversion of some sort. Since the bar codes themselves are public domain, reverse-engineering happens quickly. Linux drivers are posted all over the net in no time flat.
More disturbingly, those who hack the little things discover a Serial Number encoded in each device, which gets transmitted as part of the datastream back to DC's servers. Privacy activists raise more antennae.
More linux drivers with serial-number-cleaning routines are posted, as are instructions on how to defeat the SN scheme by snipping a wire.
DC's lawyers send out Cease and Desist letters to the purveyors of the new code, on the grounds that the code is messing with their business model (boo-hoo), that it's tampering with their intellectual property (what, the public domain barcodes?) and their contract (which I, like many other, never even got a chance to see 'cause I couldn't even begin to boot their software). They also claim in the contract that they own the CueCat and are "loaning" it to me.
Now this story tells us that the contract might be irrelevant to those who received the CueCat in the mail because unsolicited gifts arriving in the mail belong to you no matter what. This is not an insignificant point, people! This is establishing the legal grounds that folks like you and me have the right to use this free gift however we want, and that right includes writing new software for it and promoting that software as an alternative to the intended use.
If it screws with DC's ability to make a profit, all the better, IMHO. But the bigger issue is not allowing corporations with lots of money to dictate what you can or can't do where privacy matters and freedoms are concerned.
No (Score:3)
Thus, they sent you a copy of the work to do with as you wish, but they did not send you the copyright (a metaphysical property). They still retain that.
Radio Shack-obtained Cats Yours, Too (Score:2)
The CueCat comes in a shrinkwrapped plastic bag. Inside is the CueCat device, a poster-like illustrated set-up guide, a piece of paper with the Radio Shack-used UPC on it, and the
I opended the package and removed the contents. One the bottom back of the CD folder, in little type and not viewable from the outside of the package, reads "Opening this software constitutes acceptance of our License terms contained herein. Copies can also be found at www.digitalconvergence.com/ula.html. Hard copies can be mailed to you by contacting Digital Convergence.:Com in writing at this address: Attn: Licensee deaprtment, 9101 North Central Expressway, Suite 600, Dalas, Texas, 75231".
IANAL, but I read this one of the following ways:
1. Only the software, not the hardware is licensed. The hardware is mine. I did not remove the CD from the envelope, therefore the license does not apply to me.
2. Opening the shrinkwrapping is condidered to be accepting the license. The license applies to the hardware and software, but you only become aware of the license after you open the package. Therefore, you couldn't have known the terms of the license and couldn't have made an informed decision and the license is invalid.
3. Opening the software is removing the CD. However, since the license is on the CD and you must open the software and run it to read the license, you can't read the license until you aparently agree to it. The license is therefore invalid.
The license either doesn't apply to the hardware or the license is invalid. Any way you cut it, the hardware is yours.
Re:Unsolicited Hardware? (Score:2)
AT & T. (Score:4)
What'd happen? It'd be like AT & T back in the 70s. You didn't buy your phone, you rented it from Ma Bell. In fact if memory serves correctly, it was actually illegal to hook a non-AT & T device to the line or service an AT & T phone. By "service" that included opening up the phone.
I have a very vivid memory of this from when I was a kid. Me and a kid accross the street got curious and unscrewed a phone which had become defective. We didn't damage it in any way, we just removed the outer casing and a few simple parts, so that reassembly would have been obvious to anybody (even an adult). Well, his mom found out about it and soundly scolded us, much more than if we had taken apart a radio. Why? Because tampering with phones was illegal! It seemed strange to me. After all, taking apart radios and TVs was not illegal. People unscrewed tubes from TVs all the time. But, that's the way it was.
Now, this may have seemed strange, but I don't recall feeling particularly oppressed by the phone company. At this point, we could digress into the fact that the Telco was a monopoly at that time, and indeed, disolving it *did* open up a lot of things. Also, I think that some of the cool telephone products we have now are a direct result of the fact that you no longer have to rent your phone. So yes, hardware licenses do oppress people, and we should be opposed to them, but it's a mild form of oppression, or at least it was from my point of view.
I'd be more interested in hearing if any adults from that era were actually prosecuted for working on AT & T equipment without a license. If they were, and they got anything more than a small fine and a blot on their record, then this was indeed very oppressive.
So, maybe we should look at this in terms of AT & T, and pass a low a requiring that all communication services (not just AT & T) should allow you to use 3rd party equipment to access the service, so long as said 3rd party equipment functions properly and does not cause harm to the network or service.
That would mean that you would also have to allow 3rd parties to sell cable boxes (not descramblers mind you, that would still be illegal). Hmmmm... my cable box is owned by the cable company. I don't feel particularly oppressed by the cable company. OTOH, I bet that if we opened up this market, some innovative 3rd party might come up with a cable box that didn't weigh 10 pounds and throw out heat like a blast furnace. You might be able to get them in some other color than brown too.
OK, IANAL, etc... how would this work?
Wait a minute!!! (Score:2)
At that point, you get to use it, reverse engineer, etc. for free. When they send the lawyer letter, for reverse engineering it, then include a copy of the USPS complaint along with your response to their lawyers.
Do their lawyers get paid by the cease and desist letter?
Disclaimer: IANAL, you cannot sue for the pain caused by reading this. If you read this, you agree to send me all your property and money.
Re:Unsolicited but copyrighted material (Score:2)
This is valid, they're making an offer and you accept by taking an Item X when you fill-up.
Now, if *you* changed the sign to read "Two Item Xs
What if you had a friend do it for you? Nope. You still know that the modified contract isn't what the gas station is offering, so you can't just take an Item X, even if the sign now offers them for free...
The bright side of this is that EULAs in the form of a click-through or shrink-wrap licenses aren't valid at all, so you can click 'I Agree' and not actually have entered into a contract.
The basic rundown is that you have to know about a contract to be ableto accept it, and you have to get something out of it (called Consideration.)
If they display the license (either in click-through or inside the shrink-wrap) *after* you buy the product, or they give it to you as a gift, you can't be said to have known about the contract (and not just that there is one, you can't agree to a contract you've never seen.) so you can't agree to it.
Also, further invalidating them, is the fact that after they've given you the software or you've bought it, they're trying to offer you the ability to use it as the consideration for the contract, but you've already be granted that right by the gift/sale so they have nothing else to give. No consideration = no contract. (Like me trying to get you to sign a contract where I offer you the right to use your car... hello?)
You do click 'I agree' but that's not binding because you're being coerced. That's *your* program there, free to use, and they're keeping you out until you click a button. You *have to* click that button to use it. For the EULA to be binding (in ANY case) it'd have to say 'I Agree' 'I don't agree, cancel' and 'I don't agree, install anyway'...
Basically, extortion is when you try to demand something (usually money) for letting someone do something they have the right to do anyways. That's what they're doing when they don't let you use your program without giving them agreement...
Luckily, extortion is illegal.
Click-through and shrink-wrap licenses are illegal and you could actually sue over them (and likely win) if you had the money for the lawyers.
In some places the UCITA makes these licenses legal but it won't last, it goes against centuries of contract law. And it makes really stunningly illegal things legal. (The right to retroactively change a contract without notice, etc...)
Re:Another day, another CueCat article. (Score:5)
how about a dead horse!?!
thor
Unsolicited but copyrighted material (Score:3)
Re:OOh brother. (Score:3)
Now you're just trolling.
Says Enah (for real): "It's not like they fired the first shot."
Are you kidding? They've fired the only shot... this entire slashdot thread is showboating by most participants, me included. (I haven't taken any direct action. I in fact do not have a CueCat and do not want one.) DC is the one actually pulling out the lawyers.
Says Enah: "a community of people have completely bypassed their controls over their product"
Your entire argument is based on assuming the validity of those controls, which is absurd on at least three levels, one of which is the point directly in contention. Those controls are illegal according to the laws of the Postal Service. Those controls have been added after the transaction occurred. Those controls (attempt to) use a novel and hellaciously dangerous (and most likely illegal!) way of binding you to a contract, specifically, "You are playing with our gift. Here's the contract you are now bound with." Last and least, those controls are utterly unethical.
To hell with their "controls". They do not have any basis whatsoever to impose those controls. You can't obligate me by giving a free gift. It would be horrible if you could.
(ps... the true reason this is a real issue is the bit about trying to tie EULAs into hardware usage, a supremely dangerous development if allowed to continue.)
I'm afraid Mr Powers is wrong (Score:2)
This is a mirror of the copy of Title 39, Sec. 3009 , taken from Glenn Powers' site:
Title 39, Sec. 3009 of the United States Code Quoted from http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/39/3009.text.h
(a) Except for (1) free samples clearly and conspicuously marked as such, and (2) merchandise mailed by a charitable organization soliciting contributions, the mailing of unordered merchandise or of communications prohibited by subsection (c) of this section constitutes an unfair method of competition and an unfair trade practice in violation of section 45(a)(1) of title 15.
(b) Any merchandise mailed in violation of subsection (a) of this section, or within the exceptions contained therein, may be treated as a gift by the recipient, who shall have the right to retain, use, discard, or dispose of it in any manner he sees fit without any obligation whatsoever to the sender. All such merchandise shall have attached to it a clear and conspicuous statement informing the recipient that he may treat the merchandise as a gift to him and has the right to retain, use, discard, or dispose of it in any manner he sees fit without any obligation whatsoever to the sender.
(c) No mailer of any merchandise mailed in violation of subsection (a) of this section, or within the exceptions contained therein, shall mail to any recipient of such merchandise a bill for such merchandise or any dunning communications.
(d) For the purposes of this section, ''unordered merchandise'' means merchandise mailed without the prior expressed request or consent of the recipient.
What this says is that DC is not allowed to send you a BILL for any merchandise they give you that you didn't ask for. THAT would be a violation of section 45(a)(1) of title 15 as an unfair method of competition.
What they CAN do is mail you anything they want, and IF THEY DO, this section clearly states that YOU have NO OBLIGATION to pay them for it. You can keep it, use it as a door stop, as fuel for your fireplace, whatever. But they aren't in violation of anything unless they send you a bill. The fact that it isn't marked with a "clear and conspicuous statement informing the recipient that he may treat the merchandise as a gift to him and has the right to retain, use, discard, or dispose of it in any manner he sees fit without any obligation whatsoever to the sender" is a moot point, because section (b) ONLY applies if they are in violation of section (a), and they are not.
What do you mean, "Unordered"? (Score:2)
Or are you going to complain to the post office about the AOL CDs they put in there, too?
Re:Petty act (Score:2)
Wired [was unordered] (Score:3)
Inside was the scanner, a CD, documentation, and a "TV/PC Convergence Cable" which apparently listens to your TV's audio output for special encodings and sends them to your sound card, where the software does whatever, such as perhaps taking you to a Coke web site during a Coke commercial, for example.
There was also a pamphlet from Wired and Delta saying that they were bringing me the latest in web technology, and "as an added incentive to start using this amazing new technology, we've created the FAT CAT WEB HUNT," which is a sweepstakes where you enter by swiping the bar codes of advertisers in the next several issues of Wired. Full details are here [fatcatwebhunt.com], as well as the usual alternate way to enter, which is "legibly hand-print on a 3"x5" card the names of all advertisers displaying the Digital Convergence Internet Enhanced Cue barcode in either the October 2000, November or December 2000 issues of Wired Magazine."
Do I like it? No. Do I consider it snail-mail spam? Yes. Do I understand why Cue doesn't want their lousy IP broken because usage is their only revenue model? Yup. Do I pity the person who doesn't realize the privacy implications? Oh, yeah.
Do I also think the whole thing is a very clever idea? Definitely.
Michael J.
what a law that works? (Score:4)
Please write your congressmen and inform them that you dispise any laws that protect your privacy or you personally, and that you support the whoring of america for corperate uses/ greasing of government officials.
Be a good American, be a sheep.
This sarcasim brought to you by the Coalition to Protect the rights of plants.
Re:Good grief (Score:5)
None of this applies to people who asked for them at ratshack, of course.
-russ
Why they are violating the postal regulations... (Score:5)
"attached to it a clear and conspicuous statement informing the recipient that he may treat the merchandise as a gift to him and has the right to retain, use, discard, or dispose of it in any manner he sees fit without any obligation whatsoever to the sender."
This is not the case as Digital Convergence states thatt you are bound by the EULA by: "; (2) using the
The
If you were sent a
dmp
FREE vs. FREE* (Score:3)
FREE* has fine print attached somewhere. Just look for another appearance of that damned *.
Childish? (Score:5)
Why is it that "my" community is always there when it comes to ruining legitimate businesses? As soon as some company comes up with a neat device and accompanying businessmodel (I-Opener, Cuecat), there's a whole bunch of geeks that are ready to ruin the company by finding all kinds of little loopholes in some law.
What would you do if you were a company and saw your product ruined by a couple of kiddies who obviously never had anything to do with running a business before? Sit there and watch your dollars go down the drain?
I'm not saying you are doing the wrong thing, after all, there's this subarticle in some subsection of some USPO law that says you're in your right, but imagine Amazon finding some loophole in some law that enables them to ruin other people's businesses, would you agree with Amazon? Or would you despise this company?
Why is it always that "we" are right and "them companies" are wrong when it comes to finding smart ways to do business or break other people's businesses.
There goes my karma, but I had to say it.
Ivo
Re:Ok, you are all getting a bit too lame on this (Score:5)
CueCats were mailed out with Wired and Forbes Magizine.
They contain a license agreement.
The License agreement contains restrictions on the use of the CueCat Hardware. Heres the quote from the License:
:CRQ software or :CueCat reader in whole or part
you may not decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble, modify, rent, lease, loan, sublicense, distribute or create derivative works based upon the
Wired / Forbes are not claiming that the device is not a free gift.
Anything you recieve in the mail that you did not order and is not mark as a free gift is not subject to any license or other demands of the sender or manufacturer. Its yours! it belongs to you! You can give it way, sell it, use it to stop a squeek in your car, assign it in your will, hook it up to you computer and figure out what comes out of it when you scan something!
When DC trys to enforce their license on the hardware they are in violation of a Federal Law.
Here is the US Code covering such things:
Sec. 3009. Mailing of unordered merchandise
(a) Except for (1) free samples clearly and conspicuously marked as such, and (2) merchandise mailed by a charitable organization soliciting contributions, the mailing of unordered merchandise or of communications prohibited by subsection (c) of this section constitutes an unfair method of competition and an unfair trade practice in violation of section 45(a)(1) of title 15.
(b) Any merchandise mailed in violation of subsection (a) of this section, or within the exceptions contained therein, may be treated as a gift by the recipient, who shall have the right to retain, use, discard, or dispose of it in any manner he sees fit without any obligation whatsoever to the sender. All such merchandise shall have attached to it a clear and conspicuous statement informing the recipient that he may treat the merchandise as a gift to him and has the right to retain, use, discard, or dispose of it in any manner he sees fit without any obligation whatsoever to the sender.
(c) No mailer of any merchandise mailed in violation of subsection (a) of this section, or within the exceptions contained therein, shall mail to any recipient of such merchandise a bill for such merchandise or any dunning communications.
So heres what that says:
Anything you recieve thats not marked as free belongs to you. You can use it in any of the ways covered in section B. Which basicly says you can do with it as you want.
It also states that is section C that the NO ONE can send you any demands for money or on what you must be allowed to do.
So with that in mind heres how this all works out:
First, the license is "anti-competitive" for these devices when mailed. This is against the law!
Two, If and when DC mails out C&D Letters to those who has recieved this device in the mail, they have violated the law again!
This whole thing may not seem like a big deal, but YOU MUST PROTECT YOUR RIGHTS!!!! These little things are the important ones. The laws in this country are setup to allow us to improve on what we see. They are not setup to guaruntee any corporation income. This kinda thing interfeers with what made this country what it is today.
Almost forgot the AOL CD thing:
The cd you recieve is yours you can use it anyway you want for instance there is a contest going on to see the most original thing you can do with the AOL CD's. The software on that CD is covered differently, to and extent because it is labled as FREE. But the cd still belongs to you.
Re:Unsolicited Hardware? (Score:5)
I recieved one from Wired in the mail. I got another one at radio shack.
The postal service arguement only applies to the ones that are mailed. The ones that RadioShack hands out are free to Linux users because they never agreed to the EULA (since the software couldn't be installed anyway).
Either way you look at it, DC was clueless in their approach, but what they are trying to do is very dangerous to consumer rights (in many cases Citizens' rights). They are attempting to open the door to licensing physical property like intellectual property. If they get their way, then end user mods to purchased goods will be vorboden.
Re:Petty act indeed (Score:3)
If they sell the product to you, or present it to you as a gift, then no they have no rights to control your use of it whatsoever. This is pretty much the entire point.
The fact that they've tried to control the use is why people are upset. And it's not just some childish need to "pull it apart". This is a basic human right. It's something you should fight for. Instead you've rolled over and given it away.
I'm surprised you could even being to believe that a corporation has the right to control your life. What a disgusting thought. It reeks of the very things people have spent thousands of years fighting against.
I dread the day when apathy and ignorance has spread so far that corporations can get away with actions such as these. People such as yourself are speeding up the process, and it scares the almighty crap out of me.
Re:Why is everyone so hard on DC? (Score:3)
If no one fights it, this sort of action will become the rule. They have lawers and some laws on their side, but there are other laws that apply, and for this fight to become legitimate in the eyes of the public at large, the battle has to be taken up with established means, in this case, the law as it concerns the US Postal Service.
Re:Ok, you are all getting a bit too lame on this (Score:3)
While they may contain a license agreement, I have yet to see it. I've received two of the little buggers so far (total expenditure $0.00), taken them out of the package, plugged them in and used them. Nary a license agreement in site. Now, there's this CD in the package that I've never touched, so I have no idea what's on it. And, the company has a web site, that I have never had occasion to visit.
So. what license agreement are you referring to? I've not been given the opportunity to agree or disagree to one -- I've just been given some free hardware to play with.
...phil