| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Storm cloudsStorm cloudsPosted Dec 17, 2010 3:49 UTC (Fri) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313)In reply to: Storm clouds by giraffedata Parent article: Storm clouds
I really get annoyed when people are making points and use bad examples, and then you are supposed to ignore the example and just trust the point.
the initial point then becomes no more than an unsupported statement.
this is a serious issue, and it needs to be treated as such, but bringing in invalid arguments doesn't really help (it may appear to in the short term as it gets people worked up, but the long-term loss of credibility looses all that ground and more)
in the case of the e-books, I think the doctrine of first sale is getting thrown away (and the refusal of the supreme court to uphold this recently is a big problem IMHO)
but when you contract with someone for a service, and then violate your end of the contract, you shouldn't be surprised that the contract is terminated.
now, there are cases where the relative power of the two parties is so out of balance that some portions of the contract should not be enforced, but in the wikileaks case, the clause in the contract boils down to "don't use the service to do illegal things", which is a pretty fair thing to have in the contract.
(Log in to post comments)
Storm clouds Posted Dec 17, 2010 17:03 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] I really get annoyed when people are making points and use bad examples, and then you are supposed to ignore the example and just trust the point. Maybe it would be less annoying if you would look deeper at the example and see if it was meant as, and is, an example of some other point. In this case, your talking about contracts and copyrights makes it look like you're addressing some different point than the article or I was making with these examples. The point is really quite simple: If you use Amazon to provide access to your data, even if it isn't a free service, Amazon can cut off access to your data. And Amazon can take files off your Kindle. Were you thinking those points are too obvious to require examples? Maybe, but examples are nearly always the easiest way to get an idea across. I would have found the article harder to read if it just asked me to use my imagination.
Storm clouds Posted Dec 17, 2010 19:34 UTC (Fri) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
if you depend on the electric company to power your building, they can terminate your service and you are in trouble, news at 11
saying that if you depend on anyone for anything they can shut you off should not be news to anyone.
but the complaint about wikileaks carries the suggestion that you can be cut off for no reason at all, at someone's whim. If the service is terminated for breech of contract (including, but not limited to, non-payment and breeching the terms of use) you will loose the functionality, and may or may not get any pre-paid funds back.
the exact same situation exists with rented storage, you put lots of personal stuff in a room at someone else's facility, if you fall behind in your payments, or do something in the room that violates the terms of service (storing explosives, or running a meth lab for example), you can loose everything that was in there.
this is just the electronic equivalent.
Storm clouds Posted Dec 18, 2010 2:42 UTC (Sat) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] but the complaint about wikileaks carries the suggestion that you can be cut off for no reason at all, at someone's whim. See, you're discussing something totally different. Neither the article nor the comments contain a complaint about Wikileaks. What they do is ask us to consider that Amazon booted Wikileaks and be reminded that Amazon has that power and then think about, as you say, how someone who puts his stuff in the cloud might be cut off for no reason at all, at someone's whim. That second part isn't supported by anything. The article (and RMS) want us to use our imagination for that part, but the various examples in the article of how that whim might be implemented are still good examples of that.
Storm clouds Posted Dec 18, 2010 5:42 UTC (Sat) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
don't you see that the statement about Amazon and wikileaks st least strongly suggests that Amazon was wrong to do so?
this is like saying that because the electic company shut someone off who didn't pay their bills, we need to keep in mind how bad it is to rely on the electic company, and therefor everyone should run their own generator instead.
there are valid reasons to not want to depend on amazon, just like there are valid reasons to install your own power generation capacity.
but if what you want to encourage is power independence and Solar/Wind based green power, the way to do so isn't to talk about how some deadbeat had their power shut off.
Storm clouds Posted Dec 19, 2010 16:49 UTC (Sun) by nlucas (subscriber, #33793) [Link]
That point of view may be a little US-centric.
In my country some services, even if privately owned, are considered essential public services and have special rules.
The service company can't terminate the service without a valid reason, but that implies 1-2 months for the reception of a registered letter by the user stating why and when they will terminate the service and allowing the user time to comply.
For now, internet is still not an essential public service, but I believe it's just a question of time (the fixed phone was also added latter).
My point is that, for now, in my country, I can expect this automatic termination of internet services to be legal, but I can expect that some years from now they will also be added as essential public services and protect it's users from the service company acting on a whim -- this doesn't apply when a court order arrives, but that is another story and forces the involvement of a judge.
So, I can't view the electric company example as valid, and can expect the Amazon example to just be some years away from being invalid.
Storm clouds Posted Dec 19, 2010 17:30 UTC (Sun) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] That point of view may be a little US-centric. FWIW, I believe it's the same way throughout the US; certainly in the parts in which I've lived.
|
|
||||||||||||