Tell that to BetaMax.
It'd be a pain, but the reality is that even if only a subset of people were to do it, it could get *really* cost-prohibitive for them to violate the license.
But we're talking about a scenario where they use your content (pictures, posts, etc.) outside of the terms of license with which you licensed it to them (ad free, etc.)
At that point, they're distributing your copyrighted material without a license to do so. There is no requirement (that I can find, statutorily) to have registered the copyright. The copyright must simply be "valid" to be enforceable (which it is). 17 USC 504 is the relevant statute, and it makes no mention of a registration requirement.
You have the option of going for actual damages (generally, if you can prove that they are more than statutory damages), or you can elect to pursue statutory damages of between $750 and $30,000. If you show that they did so willfully, the upper bound becomes $150,000.
You own the copyright to any content you create.
If they distribute your content in violation of their agreements surrounding that, it's a technical violation of the DMCA, which has -- as we all know -- statutory penalties for such violations.
Ello's consideration is the content you're allowing them to reproduce.
The user's consideration is the site they're allowing you to use.
Not all consideration is cash.
It seems that it shouldn't be hard for a lawyer to craft up a change to the ToS for the site that:
- Grants Ello the right to use/reproduce user content (a normal everyday part of ToS), BUT
that right does not survive a change to either the corporate charter or the ToS without being positively re-affirmed by the end user.
In other words, Ello can use/reproduce your posts, like they need to.
- If they change the charter, users need to re-affirm "yes, you can continue to use my existing content"
- If they change the ToS to remove that language going forward, users need to re-affirm "yes, you can continue to use my existing content"
Combine that with some language about "no change to ToS or corporate charter can be binding without a 90 day review period for users", and you've got something with some teeth.
well, as noted elsewhere in this thread:
- The knockoffs *are* shit quality in this case, flaky as hell, causing FTDI to field calls for issues with hardware that isn't even theirs
- knockoff quality is "indeterminate" and -- worse -- without recourse (there is no way to trace back who did shoddy work and get them to make good on the problems they caused)
Well, as noted, it happens with watchmakers, clothing/accessory companies as well, etc., etc.
No, you fail at QC.
What you're describing is what most reputable manufacturers do - they do destructive tests on random samples of each (lot,shift,day,week,whatever), few from the beginning, few from the middle, few from the end. As noted elsewhere, I've personally seen trays and trays of 486SX/DX chips ripped apart by IBM for testing prior to those lots' "acceptance" for use in IBM branded hardware.
So after they receive the hardware (ie, after the shipment swap risk) they test what they received. If the product leaves their possession and comes back (ie, attached to a board), they test samples of THOSE (also, again, destructively).
That QC is baked into the COGS for the product in question.
It doesn't absolve you of a need to QC what you're receiving. It just decreases the likelihood of getting bad product.
So buy through their designated supply channel and QC what you receive to ensure its provenance. Ask the manufacturer for appropriate QC steps to ensure that you are receiving "genuine product" that they manufactured. Make sure there is suitable indemnification in your contract with the supplier so you have recourse if they slip in bad product.
Again - these are all problems that reputable manufacturers have solved decades ago. It's the fly by nighters who have the most difficulty.
You do realize FTDI sells direct, right?
Ah, so just because you haven't installed a working driver for that new hardware you just bought, the hardware is "broken"?
No, of course not.
Contact the manufacturer of the hardware and ask them for the driver. If they cop out and say "use FTDI's", say "FTDI's driver doesn't work with your hardware, where's YOUR driver?"
Actually, yes. China's government is very protective of ensuring that buyers are getting what they pay for, because the gov't doesn't want to upset the goose that's laying a Fort Knox worth of golden eggs in their country. The Chinese government knows exactly which side its bread is buttered on.
Chinese manufacturer management personnel who've done this sort of thing in the past with food products have been fucking executed, so don't for a minute think that there's no teeth to such an indemnification.
Not at all. It's completely accurate. The chip is still very capable of performing the task it was designed and marketed to do.
Someone just needs to write a driver that will talk to it, and it can happily do it.