Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 18 Nov 2021 @ 1:45am
Re: Re:
"...why are you avoiding to mention the biggest difference that actually disproves your first point?"
Because old Baghdad Bob first has to lie in order to make his point. Facebook is no more a publisher than a bar owner is.
Yet our dear shill up there posting in bad faith probably knows this and therefore has to first try to make people swallow the obvious lie that Social media are publishers.
And the only people who use that arguments are the utter morons drinking the alt-right kool-aid or alt-right shills. Whether he's the one or the other Popehat's rule of goats applies.
Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 18 Nov 2021 @ 1:41am
Re:
"Difference between Facebook and online medias such as FOX news or CNN include the following: <proceeds to present false analogies>"
Fixed That For You.
A publisher is the origin of what they publish. If a publisher slanders someone, the publisher is culpable.
A social platform only provides infrastructure.
You metaphorically blaming the city road grid for people speeding, and the mall owner for the pickpocket working the crowd in it.
"Facebook puts gut level stimuli first, and prefers to have as many parties as possible engaging in verbal warfare on their site."
Yet no more so than a bar advertising slam poet night, punk theme endorsements or any other featured events.
"Facebook published the same news without any risk, thanks to section 230."
No, someone posted that same news on facebook, which means that or those someones are the people legally accountable for the slander. Facebook is simply free to choose to moderate those people or not but like the bar owner they are not liable for what their patrons say to other patrons.
Take a hint; before you decide to post your argument, at least don't present outright and obvious lies as the backing for it. You assuming everyone else is a moron just makes you the demonstrable idiot.
Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 18 Nov 2021 @ 12:53am
Re: The F Word
"You know, we're in the midst of a fascist takeover."
There are, according to Umberto Eco, 14 tangible points which define a state or organization as fascist. Some fascist states don't even hit all of them. The US GOP, however, hits all 14 of them.
And unless liberals in the US get up and realize that they need to be prepared for the successor of Trump's beer hall coup on january the 6th in 2024, they'll wake up to a nation where the candidate who lost the race will be sworn in. Because he's been very busy replacing all the weak links in his own party who used to march in lockstep with him and overturn the election last time.
Pot odds are it'll be Trump - unless they have themselves a night of the long knives and come up with an alternative strongman to helm the nation.
It's well past time for people to realize that not only can it happen here, it is happening here.
If the GOP take the house in 2022 that coup will happen in 2024.
Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 18 Nov 2021 @ 12:46am
Re: Re: Crap like this...
"The european union might be slightly larger than your average village."
The extended metaphor - every nation sending its village idiots to govern the EU - doesn't really make it better. An empire run entirely by the court jesters and the "touched" rounded up and exiled from the courts of the member states who all watch the plague of the land toddle off to Brussels while drawing sighs of relief.
Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 18 Nov 2021 @ 12:42am
Re: Re: Re:
"I think this boils down to a philosophical discussion about whether or not a contract needs to be enforceable to be a contract. I don't really care one way or the other."
You probably should care. I mean, sure, in theory an unenforceable contract will be discovered to be invalid upon closer consideration...
...but for the vast majority of people, discovering that said contract is unenforceable and thus invalid in the first place will require expensive legal representation most can't really afford.
If a "contract" becomes a legitimate way to perform what amounts to extortion, intimidation and fraud, should that still be considered a viable commercial interaction, or should it fall under the fraud clause of applicable penal codes?
Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 18 Nov 2021 @ 12:38am
Re: Re: Re: Standard enterprise license tools
"If one party doesn't agree to the contract-terms there is no contract."
That, and there's something which needs saying about contracts - no matter what the writing says you can't, as a signing party, abandon those rights which are non-dispositive. However, the law is scarce on coming down on fraudulent attempts to do just that by putting such terms into a contract anyway.
Most people just don't read the fine print and, if those clauses are pointed out to them, too shaky on their actual rights to doubt them, contributing to the uncertainty among consumers as to which rights they even have regarding their own property.
Something which shady companies are all too happy to abuse, and no few of which doing so by adding a completely redundant bluetooth chip to a piece of hardware and invoke the anti-circumvention clauses of copyright law as the mechanism to intimidate or indenture hapless consumers in their purchase of what used to be considered a physical piece of property fully in the ownership of the purchasing party.
Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 18 Nov 2021 @ 12:28am
Monkey see, Monkey do.
"Some users reported seeing the AI generate sexual content on its own without any prompts from players."
What really surprises me is that the developers failed to foresee that an algorithm dedicated to learning from online behaviors wouldn't come up with Rule 34. I'm sure the techies who programmed it will be all too happy to invoke the Abigail Oath when they gleefully inform their employers that "learns to mimic human behavior" means exactly that.
Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 17 Nov 2021 @ 7:13am
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Stop it. Misandry is not actually a thing."
Except in individual cases - usually prompted by unfortunate and tragic circumstances in the past. There are minor groups associated with misandry and those tend to be both very vocal and highly attractive to media and news for quotes - but the idea that men are a "lesser species" or "animals" is not common enough to claim it's in any way a common ideology.
"Equality is that scary? Pathetic."
Yes. Yes, it is. Stephen T. Stone quoting Cato shows just how deep the roots go. and I'll top it off with an LBJ quote;
"If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."
The same holds true, and far more commonly, when it comes to men vs women. Misogyny is that one reliable go-to any uneducated or temporarily disadvantaged man can use by ample historical precedence, to salve their ego.
Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 17 Nov 2021 @ 7:01am
Re:
"does this sort of thing remind the world of the pre-start to WWII?"
Not really, no. Poland was never part of Germany, to begin with. And his grand excellency Xi Jin *Pooh Bear" Ping may be a tad on the thin-skinned side for suppressing his likeness to a well-beloved teddy bear with a honey fetish but he's no Hitler.
No, China doesn't fit the usual western mold of tyranny. Some 95% of the population is well catered for and consider their government benevolent. And why not? In two generations more than half a billion people were swiftly moved from impoverished to affluent middle class. Education, entrepreneurism, innovation is all encouraged. Today when the world presents scientific and engineering trophies, China more often than not leads the pack.
This is a far cry from nazi germany or soviet russia. China found the way to make oligarchic dictatorial autocracy work - while keeping the majority of the citizenry happy - thousands of years ago and have stayed with that same formula ever since.
"...and the world is sitting around, thumb up ass, brain in neutral, doing absolutely nothing!"
Because cynical as it may be political analysts all over the world know that China will go to any length recovering the territories wrested from it under the century of humiliation, will go to any length to suppress anti-chinese sentiments in the territories it counts as chinese (like Tibet, Xinjiang and HK), and will go to almost any length to make Taiwan stop calling itself "China".
Beyond that China just builds a wall from which they step not outside nor allow the foreigner entry.
This is the main difference. China is, if anything, clannish and closed. The only thing they want from outside chinas borders is trade. Germany pre-ww2 otoh, was rabidly expansionist and had the dream of conquering the whole world.
"...and Xi Jinping secures another term, with even more power!"
After a brief stint of trying to be rid of the imperial figurehead as a necessary symbol of government now it's all back to normal. All hail the Son of Heaven, his august excellence emperor Xi.
Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 17 Nov 2021 @ 6:37am
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"However It does occur to me that a "you must agree not to sue us if we actually sold you a pile of crap" agreement before use of a product (but the text of the agreement is only available after purchase) smells a lot like fraud to me as well."
It is. However, courtesy once again of the US lobby, EULA's are often legally binding.
"If US fraud laws do not cover that, it seems a lot to me like they should. "
Problem is that the various courts all have separate opinions, mainly concerning the specific legal terminology. Generally speaking, however, if you had to click a button agreeing to the terms before installing you'll need a high-priced lawyer racking up a lot of hours making your case if you want to dispute.
"how legally binding EULAs are in the US had not been tested in court (since their text is only available after purchase)."
After purchase, not so much. But with software a lot of the US court system is fully on board with software being "licensed not purchased". I.e. you may spend your money thinking you bought a game or software but what you got is a limited license to use - which came with a free copy of that game or software.
Copyright is centered around the premise that you, the consumer, never own anything which could be copyrightable. In practice you only ever get to lend-lease it.
Hardware OEM's weren't dumber than that they'd notice the benefit of effectively turning a sale into an indefinite lease while retaining plenty of property rights over what they "sold" just by the expedient act of adding a microchip to what used to be pure mechanics. The consumer "buys" the license to operate the code in the microchip - the toaster/microwave/fridge/car or tractor being an "add-on".
Cue how John Deere and Tesla can suddenly demand farmers and drivers pay an extra to get their expensive agri machines or cars fixed at a licensed shop rather than letting their resident mechanic spend an hour fixing what's broken and Apple gets to sue indie phone repairmen out of existence for daring to offer replacing the battery or screen on an iPhone.
I keep saying that there is no law which is so open to exploitative abuse as copyright. And no wonder given the way it reverses a number of core principles of ownership from its most basic principles.
Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 17 Nov 2021 @ 6:16am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This made me audibly laugh out loud
"did we forget Yaoi is more my speed?"
It can, admittedly, be a bit hard to tell from the blocky look of the old atari games, but I'm fairly sure they weren't that big on inclusiveness outside of the cis paradigm. Although they did try to squeeze some more money out of their porn offers by launching the same game twice with genders reversed...
Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 17 Nov 2021 @ 1:03am
Re: Re: Re:
"One of the rights in the bundle that comes with owning property is that the owner can rescind permission at any time."
Courtesy mainly of the alt-right but also increasingly by certain democrats that right is increasingly eroded as long as it concerns the digital. What you bought and paid for is, by the going rhetoric, not yours insofar as deciding who you need to allow entry or not.
And once that principle that property rights are negotiable is established online, the precedence is already set to do the same in the real world.
Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 17 Nov 2021 @ 12:56am
Crap like this...
...is why I'm leaning toward the EU not being sustainable. Too many inept morons with dunning-kruger in positions of authority to change stuff they don't understand in order to cater to a vision of the world which wasn't even true thirty years ago when they first learned that technology was a thing.
This is why we can't have nice things. The village idiot gets to make decisions for the village.
Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 16 Nov 2021 @ 12:48am
Re:
"Section 7. Audit. Synology will have the right to audit your compliance with the terms of this EULA. You agree to grant Synology a right to access to your facilities, equipment, books, records and documents and to otherwise reasonably cooperate with Synology in order to facilitate any such audit by Synology or its agent authorized by Synology."
Note that this is actually far less outrageous than what's described in the OP. If Synology shows up to demand access you can easily dispute them on the word "reasonable". I.e. you can state that you will grant them selective access in the form of an accredited third-party auditor under an NDA whose only task is to report back only what Synology specifically needs to know.
The OP, otoh, describes the situation "without limitation". Meaning they can, by contract, walk a mob of thugs into your home with crowbars to pry open the walls looking for the secret password, force access to your computer, and - without limits - use any and all information found therein for their own purposes.
Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 16 Nov 2021 @ 12:42am
Re:
"The "without limitation" part of this particular license agreement is definitely a little concerning, but the practice of license auditing is an every day part of the business software world."
"A little concerning"?
Good grief, man, it's the metaphorical difference between a provision which allows you to check someone's car tires for sufficient air pressure and one which allows you to dismantle their car at will - and go through the wallet left in the coat, check how many condoms you have left in your pocket, and jot down the number of your s.o.
"without limitation" is an absolute which I don't see in all that many contracts and usually restricted to; termination clauses about how to sever business relations after a party has been found in money laundering or bribery charges; trademark provisions where it needs to be underlined that the original owner of a TM remains the original owner; and similar.
No one with a working legal department or contract team would let shit like this slide.
Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 16 Nov 2021 @ 12:33am
Re: Re:Wrong, sort of.
"They would then have to get a court order to permit them to do come on to your property."
Which is likely not to be forthcoming. The court might grant a third party audit of fiscal data and processes, but given that the client may be holding confidential data of other, unaffiliated parties, that could open both Capture One and the client they're investigating to lawsuits and/or penal charges.
Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 16 Nov 2021 @ 12:31am
Re: Re:
"...but if you sign that contract you have given them that permission."
You really haven't. In most cases that would be like you, leasing a car, then signing to a third party that they shall have unmitigated access to that car. Something you can't promise in the first place.
Given what Capture One's clients do - handle the data of other people - it is likely that any attempt by Capture One to exercise their rights would land both parties in very hot legal water. GDPR is not a joke.
Anyone receiving a bullshit contract like that needs to understand that it's likely they shouldn't agree to violate the law of the land in writing. And having signed to that anyway both parties should realize this is a dangerous clause to try to exercise.
Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 16 Nov 2021 @ 12:26am
Re: Standard enterprise license tools
"I have seen these installation audit terms in contracts going back decades."
Bad ones, then. I've done contract work for years and I can tell you that the cookie-cutter US templates we sometimes receive get laughed out instantly and replaced with something which doesn't deliver either party at the sole behest of the good will of the other one.
Most contracts do in fact contain a third party audit clause which calls for either party to submit to an audit of distinctive fiscal data carried out by an impartial recognized audit company under very strict NDA.
No contract - ever not written in bad faith in the first place contains right to unmitigated system access of a client. In fact I strongly suspect that in most european territories even trying to exercise such a clause is valid grounds for a fraud charge or worse by far, a flagrant violation of GDPR.
No, the wording in the OP is far from standard. This is someone grasping for the sky and hoping the clause will, should Capture One ever try to exercise it, intimidate the client into instant compliance.
The thing is, it's likely the client in question will be holding personal data of entities and people they have no right to deliver to any third party and them yielding such access could land both the client and Capture One in very hot water with the ECJ.
Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 15 Nov 2021 @ 7:49am
Re:
Well, it's the first few steps of the "Imperialist Colonialism 101" package, as practiced by the greeks, the romans, the germans, the russians, the british, the americans...etc.
Which of course both makes it utterly predictable that China would do the same. Especially to the two ethnic minorities which have a cultural identity which is non-chinese.
Every other minority in China is free to speak their own dialect and have their own culture. The ones who refused to kowtow to Beijing now being part of the dust of history.
For all that China is a rapidly modernized nation in oh so many ways it's still staunchly loyal to the old precepts first set in stone by Qin Shi Huang, well over 2500 years ago.
On the post: Media Spends Years Insisting Facebook Makes Society Worse; Then Trumpets A Poll Saying People Think Facebook Makes Society Worse
Re: Re:
"...why are you avoiding to mention the biggest difference that actually disproves your first point?"
Because old Baghdad Bob first has to lie in order to make his point. Facebook is no more a publisher than a bar owner is.
Yet our dear shill up there posting in bad faith probably knows this and therefore has to first try to make people swallow the obvious lie that Social media are publishers.
And the only people who use that arguments are the utter morons drinking the alt-right kool-aid or alt-right shills. Whether he's the one or the other Popehat's rule of goats applies.
On the post: Media Spends Years Insisting Facebook Makes Society Worse; Then Trumpets A Poll Saying People Think Facebook Makes Society Worse
Re:
"Difference between Facebook and online medias such as FOX news or CNN include the following: <proceeds to present false analogies>"
Fixed That For You.
A publisher is the origin of what they publish. If a publisher slanders someone, the publisher is culpable.
A social platform only provides infrastructure.
You metaphorically blaming the city road grid for people speeding, and the mall owner for the pickpocket working the crowd in it.
"Facebook puts gut level stimuli first, and prefers to have as many parties as possible engaging in verbal warfare on their site."
Yet no more so than a bar advertising slam poet night, punk theme endorsements or any other featured events.
"Facebook published the same news without any risk, thanks to section 230."
No, someone posted that same news on facebook, which means that or those someones are the people legally accountable for the slander. Facebook is simply free to choose to moderate those people or not but like the bar owner they are not liable for what their patrons say to other patrons.
Take a hint; before you decide to post your argument, at least don't present outright and obvious lies as the backing for it. You assuming everyone else is a moron just makes you the demonstrable idiot.
On the post: Supreme Court Takes A Pass On A Chance To Firmly Establish A Right To Record Police Officers
Re: The F Word
"You know, we're in the midst of a fascist takeover."
There are, according to Umberto Eco, 14 tangible points which define a state or organization as fascist. Some fascist states don't even hit all of them. The US GOP, however, hits all 14 of them.
And unless liberals in the US get up and realize that they need to be prepared for the successor of Trump's beer hall coup on january the 6th in 2024, they'll wake up to a nation where the candidate who lost the race will be sworn in. Because he's been very busy replacing all the weak links in his own party who used to march in lockstep with him and overturn the election last time.
Pot odds are it'll be Trump - unless they have themselves a night of the long knives and come up with an alternative strongman to helm the nation.
It's well past time for people to realize that not only can it happen here, it is happening here.
If the GOP take the house in 2022 that coup will happen in 2024.
On the post: EU's Latest Internet Regulatory Madness: Destroying Internet Security With Its Digital Identity Framework
Re: Re: Crap like this...
"The european union might be slightly larger than your average village."
The extended metaphor - every nation sending its village idiots to govern the EU - doesn't really make it better. An empire run entirely by the court jesters and the "touched" rounded up and exiled from the courts of the member states who all watch the plague of the land toddle off to Brussels while drawing sighs of relief.
On the post: Does Copyright Give Companies The Right To Search Your Home And Computer?
Re: Re: Re:
"I think this boils down to a philosophical discussion about whether or not a contract needs to be enforceable to be a contract. I don't really care one way or the other."
You probably should care. I mean, sure, in theory an unenforceable contract will be discovered to be invalid upon closer consideration...
...but for the vast majority of people, discovering that said contract is unenforceable and thus invalid in the first place will require expensive legal representation most can't really afford.
If a "contract" becomes a legitimate way to perform what amounts to extortion, intimidation and fraud, should that still be considered a viable commercial interaction, or should it fall under the fraud clause of applicable penal codes?
On the post: Does Copyright Give Companies The Right To Search Your Home And Computer?
Re: Re: Re: Standard enterprise license tools
"If one party doesn't agree to the contract-terms there is no contract."
That, and there's something which needs saying about contracts - no matter what the writing says you can't, as a signing party, abandon those rights which are non-dispositive. However, the law is scarce on coming down on fraudulent attempts to do just that by putting such terms into a contract anyway.
Most people just don't read the fine print and, if those clauses are pointed out to them, too shaky on their actual rights to doubt them, contributing to the uncertainty among consumers as to which rights they even have regarding their own property.
Something which shady companies are all too happy to abuse, and no few of which doing so by adding a completely redundant bluetooth chip to a piece of hardware and invoke the anti-circumvention clauses of copyright law as the mechanism to intimidate or indenture hapless consumers in their purchase of what used to be considered a physical piece of property fully in the ownership of the purchasing party.
On the post: Content Moderation Case Study: Game Developer Deals With Sexual Content Generated By Users And Its Own AI (2021)
Monkey see, Monkey do.
"Some users reported seeing the AI generate sexual content on its own without any prompts from players."
What really surprises me is that the developers failed to foresee that an algorithm dedicated to learning from online behaviors wouldn't come up with Rule 34. I'm sure the techies who programmed it will be all too happy to invoke the Abigail Oath when they gleefully inform their employers that "learns to mimic human behavior" means exactly that.
On the post: Josh Hawley: The War On Men (?) Is Driving Them To Porn And Video Games (Things Many Men Like?)
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Stop it. Misandry is not actually a thing."
Except in individual cases - usually prompted by unfortunate and tragic circumstances in the past. There are minor groups associated with misandry and those tend to be both very vocal and highly attractive to media and news for quotes - but the idea that men are a "lesser species" or "animals" is not common enough to claim it's in any way a common ideology.
"Equality is that scary? Pathetic."
Yes. Yes, it is. Stephen T. Stone quoting Cato shows just how deep the roots go. and I'll top it off with an LBJ quote;
The same holds true, and far more commonly, when it comes to men vs women. Misogyny is that one reliable go-to any uneducated or temporarily disadvantaged man can use by ample historical precedence, to salve their ego.
On the post: Hong Kong Government Now Directly Censoring Films In Hopes Of Shutting Down Protest-Related Documentaries
Re:
"does this sort of thing remind the world of the pre-start to WWII?"
Not really, no. Poland was never part of Germany, to begin with. And his grand excellency Xi Jin *Pooh Bear" Ping may be a tad on the thin-skinned side for suppressing his likeness to a well-beloved teddy bear with a honey fetish but he's no Hitler.
No, China doesn't fit the usual western mold of tyranny. Some 95% of the population is well catered for and consider their government benevolent. And why not? In two generations more than half a billion people were swiftly moved from impoverished to affluent middle class. Education, entrepreneurism, innovation is all encouraged. Today when the world presents scientific and engineering trophies, China more often than not leads the pack.
This is a far cry from nazi germany or soviet russia. China found the way to make oligarchic dictatorial autocracy work - while keeping the majority of the citizenry happy - thousands of years ago and have stayed with that same formula ever since.
"...and the world is sitting around, thumb up ass, brain in neutral, doing absolutely nothing!"
Because cynical as it may be political analysts all over the world know that China will go to any length recovering the territories wrested from it under the century of humiliation, will go to any length to suppress anti-chinese sentiments in the territories it counts as chinese (like Tibet, Xinjiang and HK), and will go to almost any length to make Taiwan stop calling itself "China".
Beyond that China just builds a wall from which they step not outside nor allow the foreigner entry.
This is the main difference. China is, if anything, clannish and closed. The only thing they want from outside chinas borders is trade. Germany pre-ww2 otoh, was rabidly expansionist and had the dream of conquering the whole world.
"...and Xi Jinping secures another term, with even more power!"
After a brief stint of trying to be rid of the imperial figurehead as a necessary symbol of government now it's all back to normal. All hail the Son of Heaven, his august excellence emperor Xi.
On the post: DRM Breaking Games Again, This Time Due To New Intel Chip Architecture
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"However It does occur to me that a "you must agree not to sue us if we actually sold you a pile of crap" agreement before use of a product (but the text of the agreement is only available after purchase) smells a lot like fraud to me as well."
It is. However, courtesy once again of the US lobby, EULA's are often legally binding.
"If US fraud laws do not cover that, it seems a lot to me like they should. "
Problem is that the various courts all have separate opinions, mainly concerning the specific legal terminology. Generally speaking, however, if you had to click a button agreeing to the terms before installing you'll need a high-priced lawyer racking up a lot of hours making your case if you want to dispute.
"how legally binding EULAs are in the US had not been tested in court (since their text is only available after purchase)."
After purchase, not so much. But with software a lot of the US court system is fully on board with software being "licensed not purchased". I.e. you may spend your money thinking you bought a game or software but what you got is a limited license to use - which came with a free copy of that game or software.
Copyright is centered around the premise that you, the consumer, never own anything which could be copyrightable. In practice you only ever get to lend-lease it.
Hardware OEM's weren't dumber than that they'd notice the benefit of effectively turning a sale into an indefinite lease while retaining plenty of property rights over what they "sold" just by the expedient act of adding a microchip to what used to be pure mechanics. The consumer "buys" the license to operate the code in the microchip - the toaster/microwave/fridge/car or tractor being an "add-on".
Cue how John Deere and Tesla can suddenly demand farmers and drivers pay an extra to get their expensive agri machines or cars fixed at a licensed shop rather than letting their resident mechanic spend an hour fixing what's broken and Apple gets to sue indie phone repairmen out of existence for daring to offer replacing the battery or screen on an iPhone.
I keep saying that there is no law which is so open to exploitative abuse as copyright. And no wonder given the way it reverses a number of core principles of ownership from its most basic principles.
On the post: Jury Correctly Recognizes That Print-On-Demand Website Isn't A 'Counterfeiting' Business Engaged In Infringement
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This made me audibly laugh out loud
[edit]
Should have been "...but I'm fairly sure they weren't that big on inclusiveness outside of the cis/hetero paradigm."
Mea Culpa.
On the post: Jury Correctly Recognizes That Print-On-Demand Website Isn't A 'Counterfeiting' Business Engaged In Infringement
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This made me audibly laugh out loud
"did we forget Yaoi is more my speed?"
It can, admittedly, be a bit hard to tell from the blocky look of the old atari games, but I'm fairly sure they weren't that big on inclusiveness outside of the cis paradigm. Although they did try to squeeze some more money out of their porn offers by launching the same game twice with genders reversed...
On the post: Does Copyright Give Companies The Right To Search Your Home And Computer?
Re: Re: Re:
"One of the rights in the bundle that comes with owning property is that the owner can rescind permission at any time."
Courtesy mainly of the alt-right but also increasingly by certain democrats that right is increasingly eroded as long as it concerns the digital. What you bought and paid for is, by the going rhetoric, not yours insofar as deciding who you need to allow entry or not.
And once that principle that property rights are negotiable is established online, the precedence is already set to do the same in the real world.
On the post: EU's Latest Internet Regulatory Madness: Destroying Internet Security With Its Digital Identity Framework
Crap like this...
...is why I'm leaning toward the EU not being sustainable. Too many inept morons with dunning-kruger in positions of authority to change stuff they don't understand in order to cater to a vision of the world which wasn't even true thirty years ago when they first learned that technology was a thing.
This is why we can't have nice things. The village idiot gets to make decisions for the village.
On the post: Does Copyright Give Companies The Right To Search Your Home And Computer?
Re:
"Section 7. Audit. Synology will have the right to audit your compliance with the terms of this EULA. You agree to grant Synology a right to access to your facilities, equipment, books, records and documents and to otherwise reasonably cooperate with Synology in order to facilitate any such audit by Synology or its agent authorized by Synology."
Note that this is actually far less outrageous than what's described in the OP. If Synology shows up to demand access you can easily dispute them on the word "reasonable". I.e. you can state that you will grant them selective access in the form of an accredited third-party auditor under an NDA whose only task is to report back only what Synology specifically needs to know.
The OP, otoh, describes the situation "without limitation". Meaning they can, by contract, walk a mob of thugs into your home with crowbars to pry open the walls looking for the secret password, force access to your computer, and - without limits - use any and all information found therein for their own purposes.
On the post: Does Copyright Give Companies The Right To Search Your Home And Computer?
Re:
"The "without limitation" part of this particular license agreement is definitely a little concerning, but the practice of license auditing is an every day part of the business software world."
"A little concerning"?
Good grief, man, it's the metaphorical difference between a provision which allows you to check someone's car tires for sufficient air pressure and one which allows you to dismantle their car at will - and go through the wallet left in the coat, check how many condoms you have left in your pocket, and jot down the number of your s.o.
"without limitation" is an absolute which I don't see in all that many contracts and usually restricted to; termination clauses about how to sever business relations after a party has been found in money laundering or bribery charges; trademark provisions where it needs to be underlined that the original owner of a TM remains the original owner; and similar.
No one with a working legal department or contract team would let shit like this slide.
On the post: Does Copyright Give Companies The Right To Search Your Home And Computer?
Re: Re:Wrong, sort of.
"They would then have to get a court order to permit them to do come on to your property."
Which is likely not to be forthcoming. The court might grant a third party audit of fiscal data and processes, but given that the client may be holding confidential data of other, unaffiliated parties, that could open both Capture One and the client they're investigating to lawsuits and/or penal charges.
On the post: Does Copyright Give Companies The Right To Search Your Home And Computer?
Re: Re:
"...but if you sign that contract you have given them that permission."
You really haven't. In most cases that would be like you, leasing a car, then signing to a third party that they shall have unmitigated access to that car. Something you can't promise in the first place.
Given what Capture One's clients do - handle the data of other people - it is likely that any attempt by Capture One to exercise their rights would land both parties in very hot legal water. GDPR is not a joke.
Anyone receiving a bullshit contract like that needs to understand that it's likely they shouldn't agree to violate the law of the land in writing. And having signed to that anyway both parties should realize this is a dangerous clause to try to exercise.
On the post: Does Copyright Give Companies The Right To Search Your Home And Computer?
Re: Standard enterprise license tools
"I have seen these installation audit terms in contracts going back decades."
Bad ones, then. I've done contract work for years and I can tell you that the cookie-cutter US templates we sometimes receive get laughed out instantly and replaced with something which doesn't deliver either party at the sole behest of the good will of the other one.
Most contracts do in fact contain a third party audit clause which calls for either party to submit to an audit of distinctive fiscal data carried out by an impartial recognized audit company under very strict NDA.
No contract - ever not written in bad faith in the first place contains right to unmitigated system access of a client. In fact I strongly suspect that in most european territories even trying to exercise such a clause is valid grounds for a fraud charge or worse by far, a flagrant violation of GDPR.
No, the wording in the OP is far from standard. This is someone grasping for the sky and hoping the clause will, should Capture One ever try to exercise it, intimidate the client into instant compliance.
The thing is, it's likely the client in question will be holding personal data of entities and people they have no right to deliver to any third party and them yielding such access could land both the client and Capture One in very hot water with the ECJ.
On the post: Chinese Internet Companies Are Censoring People Who Write Or Speak Tibetan Or Uyghur, Lending A Hand To China's Cultural Genocides
Re:
Well, it's the first few steps of the "Imperialist Colonialism 101" package, as practiced by the greeks, the romans, the germans, the russians, the british, the americans...etc.
Which of course both makes it utterly predictable that China would do the same. Especially to the two ethnic minorities which have a cultural identity which is non-chinese.
Every other minority in China is free to speak their own dialect and have their own culture. The ones who refused to kowtow to Beijing now being part of the dust of history.
For all that China is a rapidly modernized nation in oh so many ways it's still staunchly loyal to the old precepts first set in stone by Qin Shi Huang, well over 2500 years ago.
Next >>