Shrinkwrapped Books 406
NortWind writes "I just saw this in the InfoWorld paper, in the "The Gripe Line" by Ed Foster. It describes how a "...book arrived wrapped in plastic with a shrinkwrap license on the front". Just when you thought it couldn't get any worse..." I wrote an essay about this a year or two ago.
Great, there goes more of our freedom (Score:2, Insightful)
EULA books. EULA software. Companies being forced to sell PCs with Operating Systems. Giving private enterprises the rights to hack individuals that they suspect are pirating songs.
STOP THE INSANITY!!! STOP IT!!!
Re:Great, there goes more of our freedom (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.eff.org
http://aclu.org/
Just kicking an issue around a message board never solved anything. If you feel strongly about it, dollars really do speak louder than words -- you really don't need to donate a lot of money.
Re:Great, there goes more of our freedom (Score:3, Interesting)
Thou shalt not threaten litigation prior to having evidence of illegal activity by the defendant.
The way I see it, ignorance of the law is exactly how these folks get away with it. Most people dont know theres no law that says these things are legally binding, so the threats themselves become the law. Making threats that are not backed up by law should be illegal, as one is simply plying on the fact that customers have 24 hours in their days, and we cannot all hire personal lawyers to vet the threats we are presented with every single day.
You're not allowed to threaten somebody with their life; whats the difference if you threaten to make somebody so poor through litigation that their life would never be the same? I really dont see a functional difference unless you claim that having your wealth erased through litigation is infintesimally smaller a threat than ones life.
Re:Great, there goes more of our freedom (Score:3, Interesting)
Look up the Barratry statutes in your jurisdiction and you'll find this is already there. It's a disbarrable offense for a lawyer to engage in that kind of conduct.
Re:Great, there goes more of our freedom (Score:2)
Re:Great, there goes more of our freedom (Score:2)
Re:Great, there goes more of our freedom (Score:2, Funny)
Heinlein had a good suggestion... (Score:3, Interesting)
to paraphrase from a dim memory, basically, require Congress to have 2 separate houses. In one, laws are passed, requiring a 2/3 majority. In the other, laws are repealed, requiring a 1/3 minority. If a law cannot be supported by 2/3 of the people, what good is it? And if 1/3 of the people cannot tolerate its existence, why have it?
my own view would be very similar to the above, except that repealing a law would take a simple 1/2 majority, to prevent "thrashing".
anyway, what do I know? I'm just a stupid WC3-nicked troll.
Re:Great, there goes more of our freedom (Score:2, Insightful)
If individual citizens paid more attention to politics, voted more based on those, contacted their representatives with informed well-written arguments, and contributed more to campaigns, they'd get more attention paid to them.
Votes and attention are worth more than dollars to a politician since you can't outright buy a seat. However, running
Re:Great, there goes more of our freedom (Score:2)
Governments also side with big business because big business employs people. Maybe not as many as you want them to but there are still a lot of paychecks written out by big business.
Re:Great, there goes more of our freedom (Score:4, Insightful)
And yet it's the small businesses that employ and drive our economy much more than the big businesses. Yet small businesses don't get much more say than individuals.
Of course it was shrink-wrapped (Score:4, Funny)
That's how most mail-order porn mags arrive. It means the seller can accept returns that are still wrapped and be confident the pages aren't stained with jizz. Retailers of regular fiction don't suffer from this problem.
Without reading the actual article.... (Score:4, Funny)
Terms (Score:5, Funny)
To see the agreement, open the book to page 1.
For technical assistance call 724-987-1192, however, by calling this number you release us from any obligation of helping you.
Thank you and have a good day.
Some Java books are even worse (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Some Java books are even worse (Score:4, Interesting)
shows bad faith by Sun (Score:2)
Nevertheless, it shows bad faith on the part of Sun when it comes to promoting Java as an "open" language standard. In reality, Sun appears to be worse than Microsoft--at least Microsoft put parts of C# through ECMA, resulting in the kinds of open documents and guarantees that standards go with (not perfect, but a whole lot better than what Sun is doing).
Re:Some Java books are even worse (Score:2)
Trash it (Score:5, Informative)
I'd just trash it and forget it. It's illegal to send unsolicited items and then try to collect for it - just because they slap a boilerplate on something that arrives unsolicited in your mail you can still just treat it like any bulk business mail, crapcan it. All they are claiming ownership rights to is the contents. If you want to get in a moral quandrary over it, or become play the OmniCare game that's fine too.
Unenforceable, not illegal (Score:5, Informative)
But if they try to collect money from you in exchange for the goods (or demand you send it back at your expense) by claiming that a contract exists, that's unenforceable. There were some abusive practices in the 60s, and now this practice is explicitly named unenforceable.
Of course, back then I think the problem was charities counting on guilt as much as anything else. Now it's outright scam artists sending unsolicited toner, fax supplies, etc., with overpriced POs. A tightly run company will have a single vendor and can tell them to shove off, but many companies will automatically pay low-value POs for office supplies.
Re:Unenforceable, not illegal (Score:4, Informative)
"The Supply Room" (Score:4, Interesting)
There was a phone scam something like that maybe 20 years ago - back when the long-distance rate wars were just starting.
Company on the west coast named itself "The Supply Room". In the morning (when night rates were still in effect on the west coast) they'd war-dial the office phones of businesses in the Eastern time zone. If they got a human (no doubt groggy in the morning) they'd say something like:
"This is 'The Supply Room'. Do you need any supplies? Xerox paper? Toner? Pens?"
If the poor sap at his desk said yes they'd ship some stuff to his office, and a large bill to the company's accounts-payable. (I hear they recorded the call as proof that the stuff had been "ordered", too.)
(I got one of those calls when consulting at an auto company's process automation department. Told 'em they were talking to the wrong person. Found out what they were when the company sent warnings around a few days later.)
Make the bastards pay (Score:2)
There is a third option: Put the book on your bookshelf, and send a monthly bill for storage. If they don't pay, then turn the bill over to bill collectors.
Re:Trash it (Score:5, Informative)
"UNSOLICITED GOODS AND SERVICES ACT
The Unsolicited Goods and Services Act 1971 is designed to prevent traders charging for goods you have not ordered. If you receive something unsolicited, this law states that you are under no obligation to return it. All you need do is keep it for six months or just one month if you contact the supplier. If a trader demands payment for unsolicited goods, he is guilty of a criminal offence." - BBC [bbc.co.uk]
The Law Goes Further Than That: It is Yours (Score:3, Insightful)
The law in the USA goes even further (unless the last fifteen years of anti-consumer legislation has repealed it, I admit I don't keep current on all the latest consumer news): if someone sends you an item in the mail unsolicited it belongs to you.[1] Not only can they not tack on restrictions a la this EULA nonsense, they can't even demand you return it.
It is yours, to keep, to shitcan, to donate to a public library (if it is a book), in short, to do with whatever you want.
[1]There are obvious exceptions, such as when it is addressed to someone else and mailed to your address by accident. But, in cases where it is addressed to "Current Occupant", your name, or no name at all, and your address, the item in question is a non-refundable gift to you, with no legal obligation attached whatsoever.
Re:The Law Goes Further Than That: It is Yours (Score:2, Interesting)
Postal Code covers this (Score:5, Informative)
There used to be a lot of scams where companies would send products to people along with a bill, figuring that enough people would pay to make it worth it. For one thing, the company did not provide return postage, so any return would be at the customer's expense.
Each and every one of those doctors now owns the book that was sent to them. I suggest they throw away the shrinkwrap, and use them for doorstops.
Found the listing (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.usps.com/websites/depart/inspect/mer
Fixed URL (Score:5, Informative)
So, here's how to screw them over (Score:5, Insightful)
Misdirected mail (Score:3, Informative)
But in these cases the sender has to cover the cost of pickup and re-delivery.
Re:Postal Code covers this (Score:2)
Well, after so long they threatened to turn his account over to a collection agency, and he finally broke down and called them and told them he never ordered TV Guide and challenged them to prove that he did. They responded by telling him when he signed up for such-and-such contest (he put his address in a million forms on the web, trying to get free stuff) he agreed to a subscription of TV Guide. He then sheepishly wrote them a check and canceled his subscription.
Just thought I'd share a funny story.
Re:Postal Code covers this (Score:3, Informative)
Interesting, but also completely, 100% untrue.
Re:Postal Code covers this (Score:2, Informative)
The only possible way out for anyone vending this kind of thing is if they sent it to you by mistake, but in the story's case of the doctor getting the pharmacy tome, that's clearly not the case.
Kierthos
Re:Postal Code covers this (Score:2, Informative)
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
Re:Postal Code covers this (Score:2, Informative)
article talks about an unsolicited mailed book (Score:2)
Re:article talks about an unsolicited mailed book (Score:2)
Which is to say, not bound at all (in the case of a book).
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Civil disobedience (Score:2)
That's correct, but you have to be willing to suffer the legal consequences of your disobedience, be it going to jail or whatever. At least, according to the champions of civil disobedience (MLK, Ghandi, etc).
Of course, when the Book Police start roaming the streets looking for license violations, then it's time to worry. Until then your chances of facing any punishment are pretty much nil.
Go to a college bookstore. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Go to a college bookstore. (Score:2)
I have tried dealing with these guys. They only gave me about ~10% of what I paid for the new book. I can easily get up to 90% of what I paid or even more that 100% if I bought the book used when you sell directly to other students.
I think that what's described in your post is the natural action of the market. The problem is the governments are 'stepping in' and are being paid (bribed) by the big companies to make stupid laws to prop up the corrupt business model. This seems to be happening in industries for music, movies, and now books. It makes me sick.
Maybe some straw will help break the camel's back? (Score:4, Informative)
Each new insult is also one more bit of evidence that fair use is threatened. If this goes on -- and if we keep writing Congress, etc., every time it happens -- at some point, maybe things will be so visibly out of hand that there'll be serious public pressure to swing the pendulum back.
It won't happen by itself, but I cling to a shred of hope, no matter how thin. (Giving into despair doesn't help; think of hope as a modified Pascal's Wager.)
Bulshit license. (Score:5, Informative)
Basically this is an article about a publisher being stupid and wasting paper; probably not nearly as much paper as the company that publishes "Internet Explorer for Dummies," so if you want to harrass somebody, you'd be better off harassing them.
Re:Bulshit license. (Score:3, Insightful)
In society, things change slowly. Early in any major change, there are harbingers; this is one. Years ago we would never have given serious thought to shrink-wrap agreements in software, since they did not hold any real legal weight; now, because of UCITA, they do have legal backing in some states.
Just because it seems ridiculous now doesn't mean it will remain ridiculous. Obvously, *some*one is taking it seriously enough to attempt it. Our only hope it to nip this in the bud, and maybe roll back UCITA at the same time.
Otherwise, we will only take it seriously after it is too late.
Re:Bulshit license. (Score:2)
First software licenses were placed on the inside of the box. But that was absurd, so they were then placed on the outside of the box. But that still wasn't legally binding. So they displayed the license during install. But there still was no indication of acceptance, so they resorted to click-wrap. Now the general consensus among lawyers (not the public) is that click wrap is every bit as binding as those twenty signatures you need to on a mortgage contract.
But all through this process no one ever stopped to stay "hey, isn't the whole concept of licensing consumer software stupid?"
Now it's starting with books. Some lawsuit is going to occur, one side or the other will win, and the entire concept of licensing books is going to be validated.From that point onward we are screwed.
Re:Bulshit license. (Score:2)
Besides, the idea of licensing software isn't stupid. The fact that people will agree to any licence that's put in front of them is what's stupid. You don't accept the AOL software license because an AOL CD showed up in your mailbox. It works the same way as with the book. You can do whatever you want with the bits on the disk as long as you don't violate the copyright (or any of the new laws that apply to software, but not to books), and you don't execute and then click through the part that contains the license agreement.
zerg (Score:2)
Even if it's a textbook you need for a class, don't buy it.
Look at me, I'm a big boy I can read an article!
The book was unsolicited! My God, it's like spam! "By opening this email, you agree to buy this all natural penis enlarging formula, this is not spam."
License on the Front? (Score:2)
I like to see if the butler really did it.
I guess I never got a chance to see the license
Totally unenforcable (Score:2, Insightful)
So far, the only thing that keeps people obeying the terms of EULAs is that publishers generally have more and better lawyers than the users of their content. The fear of getting dragged to court is what forces any compliance.
More similarities (Score:3, Funny)
Here's the text (Score:4, Informative)
wget is a wonderful thing:
The Gripe Line
Ed Foster
Open with caution
I SUPPOSE IT was inevitable. With sneakwrap terms showing up in everything from charity Web sites to pornographic spam, it was just a matter of time. Books with shrinkwrap license agreements have arrived.
The first report of this phenomena to The Gripe Line came a few months ago when a reader who is a physician received an unsolicited tome in the mail entitled Geriatric Pharmaceutical Care Guidelines, 2002 Edition, from Omnicare. "This book arrived wrapped in plastic with a shrinkwrap license on the front," the doctor wrote. "It plainly says that by breaking the seal you agree to the terms of the license and if you don't agree you should return the book unopened. Is this what software licensing has led us to? This license says the book remains the property of Omnicare. Will they come up with a way to remotely disable the book if someone else reads it?"
The doctor obligingly faxed me a copy of the license, and I saw that it was indeed a sneakwrap agreement worthy of Microsoft or VeriSign. "In the event that you do not agree with any terms of this agreement you should promptly return the material unopened to your local Omnicare pharmacy," it read in bold letters near the top.
The license was nontransferable and would "terminate immediately if the Licensee or his or her employer ceased to be an Omnicare customer." And although the Omnicare "Guidelines are intended only to provide guidance as to which pharmaceutical products Omnicare believes to be most effective" the "licensee" was nonetheless prohibited from disclosing any of the information in the book to third parties.
It struck me that this license put the doctor in an awkward position. As far as he knew, neither he nor any of the other doctors in his office (most of whom had received their own copies the book) were Omnicare customers, and he did not know where his "local Omnicare pharmacy" might be. Even if he wanted to keep the book, as a non-Omnicare customer the license prohibited him from doing so. And since Omnicare claimed to retain ownership of his copy, he couldn't destroy it either. If the license agreement was to be taken seriously, he either had to go to the trouble of trying to ship the book back or he had to become an Omnicare customer somehow.
The doctor wondered if Omnicare was trying to make him feel obligated to them. "Sometimes my less-than-favorite charities send me greeting cards or stickers or a writing instrument in the mail," the doctor noted. "They are hoping to provoke enough sense of obligation in me to extract a contribution, but legally I am not required to acknowledge, or pay for, or return, or refrain from using what they send. So what is my obligation when sent an unsolicited book? Am I legally required not to use it or to return it if I don't agree with the sender's intended use?"
So just what was Omnicare's purpose in putting a classic shrinkwrap agreement (it was even printed in small, poorly-contrasted type) on a book that was clearly intended to promote use of the company's pharmaceutical products? I hoped Omnicare officials might have a simple explanation, but if they did, they decided not to share it with me. After two months of going back and forth with their public relations staff, I did not even get an answer on the basic question of what a noncustomer was supposed to do with the book.
While I was waiting in vain for answers from Omnicare, though, I heard from another reader with a shrinkwrapped book. Interestingly enough, he was also a doctor, but his book was a membership directory published by a medical society. I'm not going to identify the organization, partly because my deadline didn't allow them much time to respond to my questions and partly because their license was much less restrictive than Omnicare's. But their spokesperson was also unable to offer any explanations for why they felt it necessary to attach a license agreement to that book.
As I thought about it, however, it occurred to me that it doesn't really matter why we're suddenly seeing these books in the medical field with shrinkwrap licenses. Perhaps the publishers have good reasons for using them, perhaps they don't. But if someone wants to slap some legalese of dubious merit on the front of a book, why shouldn't they? Software publishers have been doing it for years, after all, so it only seems fair that publishers of other forms of intellectual property should have the same right to try to put restrictions on how customers use their products.
And, if there's no real justification for prohibiting book publishers from doing what software publishers do, how can we draw the line even at products containing intellectual property? Perhaps lamps will soon come with fine print legalese on the inside of the lampshade banning them from being resold at yard sales without the manufacturer's permission. And tearing that tag off your mattress really will bring the police pounding on your door.
Last week we talked about how we've already lost some of the basic rights we used to enjoy under traditional interpretations of copyright law. Loaning a book to a friend is not yet one of them, but who knows how much longer we'll be able to say that. Today we might still reasonably expect that any sane judge would just laugh if someone tried to get him or her to enforce a license such as Omnicare's limited-use license agreement. We must remember though that there are very powerful forces in this country working to give all sneakwrap agreements the full force of a binding contract. Next week we'll pay them another visit.
Have you received any sneakwrap agreements on books or other products? Write to Ed Foster, InfoWorld's reader advocate. You can reach him at gripe@infoworld.com.
Hmmmmm..... (Score:4, Insightful)
The license was nontransferable and would "terminate immediately if the Licensee or his or her employer ceased to be an Omnicare customer." And although the Omnicare "Guidelines are intended only to provide guidance as to which pharmaceutical products Omnicare believes to be most effective" the "licensee" was nonetheless prohibited from disclosing any of the information in the book to third parties.
Wouldn't the Doctor's patients be considered "Third Parties" in this scenario?
High cost of malpractice insurance (Score:3, Funny)
Disclaimer: The preceeding argument should have been reducto ad absurdum. By reading the above comment, you agree to not post any flames. Furthermore, you may not read the comment out loud, nor can you discuss it in any forum (eg. Slashdot) without prior written permission by the author. You may also not correct the spelling or improper use of Latin phrases present in this disclaimer. If you do not agree to these terms, you must destroy all copies that may have been made, including the imprint on your retina. Terms enforced where prohibited by law.
Re:High cost of malpractice insurance (Score:2)
Re:High cost of malpractice insurance (Score:2)
Fuck you, you are a retard.
Now sue me
--
Note to mods, funny not flamebaiting. Dont like it, shove it up your ass
Only logical. (Score:4, Insightful)
The really insideous part of this is that, in order to protect strictly financial interests, copyright barrons like Disney and Microsoft and the politicians they (let's be honest) bribe with large campaign contributions have pushed us to a place where information and knowledge can be proprietary and restricted in a way that hasn't been feasible since the invention of the printing press.
To protect profits from Britney's new crappy CD, these companies have harkened in a world where information can be (at least in theory) totally controlled. Naturally, the fact that this is completely hostile to the basic presumptions of democracy is completely peripheral -- next we'll have printing of bills restricted, politicians suing to keep the gaffes in their public releases supressed under the auspices of the DMCA and an even more uninformed public.
Hopefully, this sort of thing will spur some sort of public outrage at it progresses, pushing the pendulum back the other way -- it'll happen eventually. The question is how far things will have to go before Joe and Jane Sixpack start to give a shit.
In the mean time, might I suggest a contribution to the ACLU or EFF? Remember that the RIAA, MPAA and other four-letter-orgs-'o-evil have to spend to overcome common sense, where those of us on the "right" side don't, so your $25 contribution means a lot.
Unsolicited merchandise? (Score:3, Interesting)
When one buys a product with a shrink-wrap license, the vendor can at least claim the customer made a decision to acquire it. This new scam is beyond outrageous.
Licensed Books are not New (Score:5, Interesting)
There are two new aspects to this idea. I'm not a lawyer, so perhaps the more legal minded can answer these.
First, can I attach a shrinkwap license to anything? It seems well accepted for software. But what about apples? Can I enforce a shrinkwrap agreement that says you won't sell the apple to somebody else?
Second, are you bound by a shrink wrap license one receives unsolicited through the mail? One is *not* bound to return anything or even acknowledge merchandise that one receives unsolicitied through the mail.
Re:Licensed Books are not New (Score:4, Informative)
No one's tried that with apples, but I expect the same rule would apply. The one place shrink-wrap licenses currently might hold up in court is on software. The software vendor's argument is that the user owns the CD and the copy of the software on it, but to use the software you have to make copies (to your hard drive, then from HD to RAM), and this violates the copyright act unless it is done under the license from the vendor. Counterarguments (1) When I read a book, a copy of the text is created in my neurons. Furthermore, I once recited Tolkien's short story "Farmer Giles of Ham" from memory to my little sister, creating a secondary copy in her head. Congress did not intend to outlaw that, nor require that I get a license from the publisher to read the book or tell the story. I don't think they intended to outlaw copies of software created in the course of normal use, either. (2) Many of these licenses now contain unconscionable provisions.
The NDA is something else again. You signed a contract before you could get the book. It may specify that you don't own the book, you just get to look at it for a while. And quite obviously, if NDA's are to have any force at all, they must be able to prevent you from reselling the documents. But as I said, this is a contract agreed to before the documents are sent to you, not a surprise after purchase.
The medical directory _might_ come under the a similar exception as the NDA - assuming it was a sort of membership list for an organization of doctors, you have to join the organization to get it, and one of the bylaws you agreed to when you got your membership was that you don't let outsiders get the membership list...
A shrink wrap license on unsolicited merchandise goes beyond these precedents in some ways. For sure they cannot require you to spend time or money trying to return the item. You can certainly toss it in the dumpster unopened. You can use those AOL CD's as frisbies, coasters, and skeet targets without bothering to read the EULA. However, you connect to AOL and you are using their service, so you'd better check out what you are contracting to do in return.
Beyond that, would first sale apply when there wasn't any sale? I'd figure that, since postal regulations say unsolicited merchandise is your property, you've got the same freedom with that book that you do with a book yuu just bought from Barnes and Noble. The doctor should even be able to auction it on e-bay - but if they sue, his legal fees to establish that right are going to make his malpractice insurance look cheap!
Re:Licensed Books are not New (Score:3, Insightful)
If that's their best argument, then they don't have a leg to stand on: 17 USC 117(a)(1) [cornell.edu].
Even if that law weren't there, I agree with you that it would be ridiculous if incidental copying needed to use your own copy would violate the law. That would probably be enough to get any EULA tossed out, assuming you could find a judge who still believes in the original intent of copyright.
Re:Licensed Books are not New (Score:3, Insightful)
I think an apple is a bad example, because unlike a book, you can 'use' an apple only one time. Once it is consumed, you can't resell it to someone else. (At least not very easily.)
A book can be resold and 'consumed' again, thus bringing up 'questions' about the rules of reselling.
That's it. I give in. (Score:3, Interesting)
Naturally, Mondays will be black.
Anybody caught wearing their clothing on the wrong day of the week will be reported to the Thought Pol^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HAuthorities and be detained for breaking copywrite violations.
And everybody says that corporations aren't taking away our freedoms.
Once again, this is another case of "You want ice cream. You need ice cream. Your existence is meaningless without ice cream."
My Oh-Face (Score:2, Funny)
Really? (Score:2)
Either that or I'll just install the superman III virus on their computer systems....
Re:That's it. I give in. (Score:2)
Re:That's it. I give in. (Score:3, Insightful)
I have no problem with you refusing to sell the clothing without a signature. That's how they sell houses, and I've seen house deeds with even stranger provisions.
The problem with this book, and the entire software industry, is that they sell or give you a product before you have agreed to any license or contract. Furthmore, they are claiming contractual agreement where none exists.
I think there is something that usurps this (Score:3, Informative)
In short, if you recieve something in the mail, you have full rights to the article.
This was put into effect when many magazine publishers would start sending magazines to a customer and later charge him for a subscription rate. I see no fundamental difference in this case.
Re:I think there is something that usurps this (Score:2)
He should have sent it back with this . . . (Score:2, Insightful)
I have long been interested in Omnicare products and had hoped this book would have assisted me in becoming a customer, however, since the licensing terms forbid me from reading it (not being a current Omnicare customer) I am returning the book to you unopened . . .
charge a storage fee (Score:5, Interesting)
Every month I would send a new invoice for the elapsed period, less payments, plus any late payment fees and interest.
When the total amount owed exceeded the local small-claims limit, I would confiscate the licensors' property for auction and file suit to recover the debt.
It doesnt matter... (Score:3, Interesting)
I dont care what a scumbag lawyer writes or says.. if it goes against a federal law it's worthless drivel...
Come to think of it, Most everything a lawyer says is drivel....
nevermind.
it's all about lawyers (Score:2, Insightful)
All bad precedents begin with justifiable measures." - Julius Ceasar
Break your leg and say that (Score:2)
Or better yet, get your drunk ass into a custody fight with your ex trailer bride. You'll be demanding your lawyer personally piss on them.
Some uses for a shrink-licensed book (Score:2, Funny)
not unexpected (Score:2)
This is inevitable. Anything with someone's "intellectual property" in it (i.e., pretty much everything you buy, in some cases a lot of the stuff you make yourself) is subject to this nonesense.
Examples of shrink-licensable stuff:
So pretty much everything. All they have to do is hinge it on the fact that they never explicitly authorized you to display that trademark in public, or allowed you to use the patented pen in your place of business. Ignoring the fact that they actually sold it to you.
The only recourse seems to be: don't buy it and hope that you can function in the world without it.
Something kind of like this happened to me... (Score:4, Funny)
One day, I get a bill in the mail, saying I owed them for the subscription, and that if I didn't pay they'd forward it to Collections.
I wrote back, informing them that
<voice font="Jim Nabors">Sur-Prize Sur-Prize Sur-Prize!</voice> I got a mail back from them saying "Uhhh, we checked our records, and we can find no evidence you ever signed up for this. Our collections is purely internal, and never would have shown up on your report. We're sorry, please don't kill us!". I figure it was the old "send them crap and bill them" scam, and when they found out that I wasn't going to play, they backpedaled faster than BillG on Palladium being DRM....
It's the Virus from Snowcrash! (Score:2)
For example,
By reading this book:
You agree to subscribe unconditionally to the ideas contained therein (hence "those ideas"), without possibility of doubt. You agree not to criticise those ideas, publically or within your own mind, or to find in them any fault, including inconsistencies or errors of fact or of logic. You agree to subsrcibe unconditionally to any interpretation or alteration of those ideas put forth by the publisher, in the same fashion.
You agree to incorporate those ideas into your world view, and that those ideas will be reflected in your activities within the public sphere, including but not limited to: voting, participation in public discourse, and donations to political causes, parties or campaigns.
You agree that those ideas will be reflected in your decisions in the economic sphere, including but not limited to: choice of business associates, choice of place of employment and purchasing decisions, either on your own part or on behalf of any persons or corporate entity which you represent, in any capacity.
You agree to engage in missionary activities to spread those ideas, and to encourage other persons who have not read this book and agreed to this license to do so, as directed by the publisher.
You agree to assist in any way possible with the publisher's efforts to punish those who violate the terms of this license, as directed by the publisher, without regard to the legality or morality of the directives of the publisher. You agree not to even consider violating this license as a possibility. You agree never to disclose embarassing or legally compromising information about the publisher, even if compelled to do so in a court of law.
You agree not to associate socially with those who do not ascribe to the ideas contained herein, except as necesarry to fulfill your obligations detailed previously.
If you do not agree to the terms of this license, return the book, without reading it, along with a point by point refutation of all ideas contained therein, within 30 days of receipt.
Prophetic rms (Score:3, Interesting)
Two absurd scenarios (Score:3, Interesting)
When common sense goes out the window, what else is left but uncommon nonsense?
In both scenarios, the only people who benefit are the lawyers.
Something should be done to restore common sense in our daily lives. When you get a book, what you can do with the book should follow common sense and not be governed by some stupid license agreement. The recepient should not be able to sue the publisher if he tries to flush the book down and floods his own house. On the hand, the sender should not try and dictate what the consumer does with the book. "Do what you want, but remember that you are responsible for doing it."
Different, but the same? (Score:2, Interesting)
I once threw a party in which I put signs up everywhere that read, "Party at your own risk - you accept full responsibility for your own actions." I hadn't really mitigated my own liability with those notices - they were not legally binding and would not stand up in court.
In the case of EULA's for books I think the same principle applies - I can post whatever the hell legal notices that I want, but it doesn't mean that there is any enforcability or legality to it. If this crap was to withstand a court-test then I am going to start taking out ads in my local newspaper that say, "My house is proprietary property. Looking at my property constitutes acceptance of the user license posted in the front yard." Of course, the sign on the front yard reads, "Looking at this house obligates you to a nominal 'usage' fee. Please deposit $100.00 in the cast iron box to avoid prosecution and litigation."
Just because I told you to doesn't mean your not smart enough not to.
SmR
smr@mayanproductions.com [mailto]
What Omnicare does (Score:3, Insightful)
While Omnicare claims their guidelines aren't based on drug prices, their marketing (which is to nursing homes, not patients) emphasises cost reduction.
It's thus more like a manual for a proprietary service than a published book. I'd worry more about the service than the book.
The new EULA (Score:2)
1) This book and all material contained herin is property of the publisher and may not be copied, reproduced or redistributed in any form without the written consent of the publisher, the publisher's wife and his dog (here after refered to as publisher and co.)
2) All ideas, thoughts, philosophies and like products developed during the reading of this book are property of the publisher. They may not be patented, copied or distributed without concent of the publisher and co.
3) The reading of this book aloud to any person, the quoting of passages or the display of the book in a public place is expressly forbidden.
4) If you do not agree to these terms you may not read the book. You must reshrikwrap it (at your own cost). Include the official holographic seal of authenticity and return it to the publisher with a $50 restocking fee.
5) By accepting this agreement, you also agree to pay a $20 monthly charge for the continued licence to read the book
I know who owns THAT book! (Score:3, Informative)
It will have to go. (Score:2)
Here's my proposal.
Let's make shrink-wrap licenses illegal.
No, I do not mean "unenforceable".
I mean, a law that makes putting a shrink-wrap license on something punishable by a large fine.
-- this is not a
Borland (Score:2)
There goes Borland's "No-Nonsense" "Like a book" license agreement!
And, yes, AFAICT, they did restore it for C++Builder 5.
EULA *After* the Sale? (Score:2)
It appears to be analagous to these department stores which post their return policy on the back of the receipt of the product which you purchased. Under these circumstances, I know for certain that the return policy is legally void.
The same logic should follow for shrinkwrapped/electronic EULA: if the purchaser has been presented with the agreement after the purchase, the EULA is void.
....or what? (Score:2)
The case for software licences is lame, but well set-out. The argument is that by making a copy of the software to have it run on your computer, you're making a copy of the whole piece of software, beyond fair-use rights. So you're breaking copyright law if you install or run the software. The license agreement allows you to install or run the software, so if you don't abide by the license agreement, you're in violation of copyright law and Bad Things can be done to you.
That argument is clearly bogus, but that's the state of Copyright case law at the moement.
But what could you possibly be in violation of if you shred the license on a book? For the license to be valid, it has to be giving *you* something as part of the deal. (IANAL, etc.) What could the book license possibly grant you that you can't get just by owning the book? The right to read it? No. You get to keep the book? No -- I either bought it, or in this case it arrived free; I own it, tough. So how could a book shrinkwrap possibly be valid?
Now, the DMCA puts some enforcable provisions in if its an e-book (hiss, spit). And signing an agreement before being given a book -- NDAs, or something -- that's a different story entirely. But I am having trouble imagining what legal leg these book-wrap licenses could possibly be standing on.
Re:Too Bad... (Score:2)
Re:Dear AOL, (Score:2)
Re:A circumvention (Score:2, Interesting)
1) How can OmniCare prove it was me who opened it? (They can't.)
2) How can they prove it even arrived unless they send it certified mail? (They really can't.)
3) How can they prove that I unwrapped the book? (Again, they can't.)
Seems to me that they (OmniCare) is going to extreme lengths in order to try and ensure that the doctors who receive these books keep them. Big deal. I could always use another doorstop.
Kierthos
Re:A circumvention (Score:2)
Anyone can take you to court for almost any reason. This fraudulent license they wrapped the book in is merely an excuse to claim grounds for a lawsuit. It's barratry. Barratry is a crime, but it's a crime committed by lawyers, so no one ever gets prosecuted for it.
Re:"Phenomena" is plural; singular is "phenomenon" (Score:2)
Re:Idiot. (Score:2)
No, Oliver Wendell Jones is the name of the hacker character from Bloom County, and he was my idol growing up.
If not, does that mean you're gay? By your logic, yes!
Where the hell does that come from? Because I use the name of a fictional cartoon character I'm gay?
Now that I've "proven" you to be homosexual, does that prove that your post is idiotic? As a matter of fact, no, it doesn't. It's a non sequitur. Fortunately, the idiocy of your post can be demonstrated quite easily by other means, so it's not a big issue.
You've proven nothing except what an ass you can be. My post is not idiotic, it's just pointing out that unlike some mentally challenged individuals (to remove all doubt, that would be you that I'm referring to), the author of the original article lists his name (or at least A name) and takes credit for his work.
I do have one question, though: Were you born that stupid, or did you have to get surgery?
Don't you remember? I was in the waiting room with you for our surgery, but I chickened out. Glad to see you were more brave than I was.
Re:Okay, let's try this again, with shorter words. (Score:2)
Ok, my browser apparently didn't properly render the sarcasm or humor tags in your first reply...
Actually as an employee of Omnicare... (Score:3, Informative)
It's likely that the book had a CD with pharmacy related software (as that is one of the companies primary functions, provide drugs and the systems to control the distribution of said drugs).
However, if it is just for the book and you didn't request/pay for it, simply trash the book. Who cares?
Re:Actually as an employee of Omnicare... (Score:3, Insightful)
Kierthos
Re:Actually as an employee of Omnicare... (Score:2)
If you can keep it for free due to postal regulations, I wonder if that could be interpreted to mean that the copyright on the content has also been transferred to you.
Re:So if me and my wife read a book b4 bed (Score:2)
Their contact e-mail is
webadministrator@omnicare.com
Flame away.
That's not the point. (Score:2)