Slashdot Log In
CueCat At It Again
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Tue Sep 26, 2000 08:58 AM
from the even-lawyers-can't-stop-some-things dept.
from the even-lawyers-can't-stop-some-things dept.
Michael Rothwell
(the author of Foocat)
wrote in to tell us that our friends at Digital Convergence are not giving up on their quest to defend their
3rd grader calibre
"encryption" of their "intellectual property". Since they've
changed their EULA,
and mass mailed California, they have no excuse (the old EULA has no restrictions on reverse engineering the hardware, and mass mailing in California makes it irrelevant anyway). Anyway, you can read
DC's response (a misnomer since they don't actually answer any of the questions). The site has other fun tidbits like reports of DC visits, and linkage to all sorts of good info about how to remove the serial number from the CueCat, and what DC is planning on doing with your info (besides giving it to
crackers).
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
CueCat At It Again
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 193 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Re:Desperation Kicks In! (Score:3)
They're not going anywhere for awhile. They're through their first and second rounds already.
This is not your typical dot-com startup. The people behind this are big.
Re:Um, chill? (Score:3)
This is an important battle over the legality of shrink-wrapped licenses that UTICA makes legal, though it seems to obviously violate past legal actions (ownership of mailed items, etc). Yes, I don't think this particular story has as much substance, but like MS/DoJ, Napster, and DeCSS, we're in the period where DC/CueCat issues are being laid down, and until either a trial or DC's backing down, we'll have to live with these short tidbits.
Besides, we're all waiting word on if the Supreme Court will take the MS case :D
Re:Could someone explain to me... (Score:3)
DC's problem with the new drivers is that people can use the cue::cat; to access publc UPC databases, or the library of Congress, instead of DC's database. If people use the scanner, but not with DC's servers, DC's (poorly thought out) business model goes right out the window.
Re:Could someone explain to me... (Score:3)
You can scan the books you own and automagically build a card catalog. If you lend a book to a friend, you can swipe the code and keep track of who's got it.
You can also print your own barcodes and make up your own inventory system.
The scanner itself simply converts the barcode into a a keyboard sequence including the serial #, bar code type & bar code # (all wrapped up in pseudo-encrypted base64).
Flog! (Score:3)
--K
---
Re:Stuff that's used to be legal (Score:3)
Actually, not quite: "remove immediately those portions of the Web site that contain unauthorized or illegal [and still undefined] misappropriations of [DC's] intellectual and proprietary rights, or which assist or induce others to do so"
What the blistering three-nippled fuck are they talking about?
What are intellectual rights? What are proprietary rights? Or do they mean "intellectual-and-proprietary rights" as a long way of saying "IP rights". Can any lawyers comment on that wording? Seems a weird way to say it, but IANAL.
And what does "to do so" mean? The only fsckin' verb in that sentence is "to contain unauthorized or illegal misappropriations of DC's [whatever]". Do you see any portions of that web site which assist or induce others to contain information? I sure don't.
Sigh. At least it's an improvement in that they've hired a real lawyer to do the blustering, as opposed to someone with Robert McElwaine's command of the English language.
But it's still a crock. Unless and until DCNV informs Kenyon & Kenyon as to which material - specifically - it believes is infringing, and K&K informs the owner of Flyingbuttmonkeys.com, it's still a load of freshly spat-up cat vomit.
Speaking of unauthorized use of these things and the phrase "IANAL", I just realized that two of 'em, glued together (flat end to flat end), and with any sharp flashing edges on the plastic properly-smoothed, would serve as a pretty useful dildo. Or better yet, a buttplug.
You could bend over on all fours, insert the modified cats, have a good friend give a really good yank on the cord, and plastic barcode-reading cats would fly out of your butt.
Re:The trashcan solution (Score:3)
Electronic circuitry contains lead and cadmium, both of which can leach out of landfills and contaminate groundwater. Recycle your :Cue:Cats or dispose of them at your community's "HazMat Dispozal Daze" or whatever. Please, do not throw heavy metals in the trash!
John
The Church of the SubGenius [subgenius.com] -- because somebody had to put all that slack in there...
GM sues millions for people altering their car! (Score:4)
THEN YOU ARE A THEIF, AND A PIRATE!
Ford, GM, and Daimler-Chrysler have recently hired DC's team of lawyers to file suit against roughly 92.7 million US car owners who have made "unauthorised modifications" to their cars. Numerous auto parts store chains have been subpoenaed for their receipts to obtain lists of customers who may have purchased parts to "illegally modifiy" their vehicle or purchased reverse engineered documentation on their car's inner workings (Haynes/Chilton manuals). It is the car maker's position that all of these acts constitutes THEFT OF IP under the recently passed DMCA. And as computers are integral parts of all modern cars since the mid to late 1980s, the DMCA applies as much to cars as to computers and software. The Clinton/Gore administration has applauded the move citing studies that show that of the 9 out of 10 CHILDREN injured or killed in automobile accidents, at least one of the vehicles has been modified by its owner in some way. Backed by the radical right wing AAA and the NHRA, Presidential candidate George W Bush has irresponsibly asserted that gov't ought to stay out of people's garages. We will bring you more details as this case unfolds.
stay on this story (Score:4)
I am glad that Slashdot is covering this matter closely.
Volunteer software developers are personally vulnerable to legal assault in a way that corporate developers never are. Most of us routinely rely on the contributions of such individuals, even if not for something as esoteric as barcode scanners in particular. I believe that there is a reciprocal community responsibility not to let Michael Rothwell and others who work without compensation for the public benefit be mugged in the dark by lawyers and forgotten.
I'm glad Slashdot is keeping a bright light shining on the matter.
Trial through intimidation (Score:5)
While many here are of the opinion "we cannot be stopped". The marketing media are not trying too stop us. They are trying to stop Johnny from growing up and playing with the toaster. So when the "ViewCat" can begin taking photos, we do not concern ourselves with the fact the EULA says ViewCat Inc. owns them and may sell them as marketing information. Or, as we have seen with recent carnivore events, we find the government would like the ISPs to release those photos to them as part of an ongoing investigation.
It is very subtle, the approach was missed by many because the laws were changed before most people were anywhere near the Internet. They are being fed the lines they need to hear to support the positions of the few in status quo. We end up dismissed as "hackers," who are breaking the law (EULA), or radical conspiracy theorist.
Sadly, it is going to take some marketing site releasing information about a major player in the government before we see any type of real action. However, to do that would require that more than a few know how to traverse the Internet or have an experience with shopping on-line. Not a real optimistic prospect.
You can't ambush somebody with a contract. (Score:5)
My sister asked for me to look after her dog recently while she went on vacation. Nice dog, but I took this dog into my house and looked after it, with the understanding that I would have to give it back. I had to be responsible for this animal. It was a favor, and I had the right to say no. With DC sending you this in the mail they are saying "here, take care of this thing for us. You're responsible for returning it eventually."
This company is asking for you to do them a favor (enter into a contract to take care of and return their private property) without asking you if you are willing to participate. If I was never given the chance to say "NO", why should I be obligated? DC is abandoning this equipment in my mailbox.
So, let's say my sister had been a further pain it the butt by saying "Checkers (her dog) likes to play the game fetch with a stick, and only with a stick. Not a frisbee. And she only eats Alpo." If my sister had said this, I'd tell her to find someone else to take care of her dog. I'm doing her a favor, so she can cut me some slack. Well, in the case of DC, I didn't ask for this responsibility, so I'll do what I damn well please. Don't like it, DC? Include some return postage.
The other aspect of this is the personal information being collected. Where does it tell me in the EULA that I can't use the Cue-cat to collect personal information about myself for myself? Why can't I use this thing to index my stuff and keep the info in MY DB instead of theirs?
I'm not an enemy of this company. I have no problem with someone trying to make a buck. But if I receive one of these in the mail without my consent, it's mine, and I bet the laws governing the US mail would take priority over DC's EULA.
Desperation Kicks In! (Score:5)
Both companies gave away/sold loss-leaders in the hope of having customers sign up for a service. In Netpliance's case, the service was charged to the consumer while DC requires the customer to use the service so it can sell info to advertisers, but the net effect is the same: if the consumers obtain the loss-leader but do not sign up for the service, they are screwed.
Unless Digital Convergence challenges the manufacturers of alternative drivers, they will have absolutely no source of revenue to show potential second/third round investors and they may as well close their doors today. Personally, I think giving away thousands of CueCats in the hope of having people sign up for a service and scan ads is about the *stupidest*
That being said, they will not devote some of their rapidly depleting cash supply to fight a legal battle they cannot possibly win. Their goal was to get people to remove the drivers in the same way that the MPAA got people to remove DeCSS--by telling their *service providers* that their customer is engaged in illegal activity. Since DC has no legal basis for their claims (the DMCA does not cover hardware), people are not complying with their cease and desist letters. With the failure of this strategy, their company should not last more than another few months.
Legal Buttmonkeys (Score:5)
I think this whole thing is worth it just to see the word flyingbuttmonkeys appear 8 separate times under the Kenyon & Kenyon official letterhead.
What laws are they mangling now? (Score:5)
"Although we appreciate your apparent curiosity and interest in determining how Digital Convergence's proprietary :CueCat and :Cue technology operates, you must appreciate that Digital Convergence will enforce its rights against those unlawfully using its proprietary technology."
Since they gave :CueCat away, what makes them think we can't take it apart? I got a :CueCat in the mail, unsolicited. I did not install the software as I have no use for the thing, and therefore I saw no license or agreement of any kind. I got something in the mail without asking for it, and if I want to take it apart I can.
Two analogies come to mind:
1. Receiving 'something for nothing' in the mail in order to encourage you to buy a product or perform a service (such as getting a dollar bill attached to a survey they would like you to take). The law says that I am under no obligation to perform the service, and I am welcome to the dollar.
2. When you own a physical object, such as an alarm clock, you are welcome to throw it against the wall, or smash it with a hammer, or take it apart into little pieces, or disconnect the alarm, or whatever you feel like. It's your clock.
With :CueCat, they sent it to me in the mail, unsolicited. Therefore it is now legally mine, and item 1 has legal precedence. Then, as item 2 follows, if I own this thing, I can take it apart if I want.
So when DC says we are "unlawfully using its proprietary technology," I'm curious to know which laws they are pretending apply in this case?
________________