How can the court "legalize" jailbreaking of phones?

[WaltM]

Didn't consumers voluntarily agree to a contract that they either will not do it, or if they do they void their warranty?

Is the court ruling saying that the contract can't be enforced?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ytech_wguy/20100726/tc_ytech_wguy/ytech_wguy_tc3236_2

Can Apple then stop "selling" phones, and only "lease" them, and consider jailbreaking "property destruction" which warrants a fine (or replacement cost)?

[rckt24]

Didn't consumers voluntarily agree to a contract that they either will not do it, or if they do they void their warranty?

Is the court ruling saying that the contract can't be enforced?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ytech_wguy/20100726/tc_ytech_wguy/ytech_wguy_tc3236_2

Can Apple then stop "selling" phones, and only "lease" them, and consider jailbreaking "property destruction" which warrants a fine (or replacement cost)?

This will make it illegal for Apple to sue consumers and they will still can void the warranty if you jailbreak it.

[ChaosControl]

Well if they can say you cannot do "X", then they aren't really selling the product anyway. If I cannot hack into a phone or game system I purchase, then can it be said I even own it?

Sure I have no problem if a company wants to stop service to items found to be hacked, but I don't think there should be any legal ramifications. Thus, legal.

I support it being "legal".


Professors, students and documentary filmmakers are now allowed, for “noncommercial” purposes, to break the copy protection measures on DVDs to be used in classroom or other not-for-profit environments.

That is also interesting. So I guess if a school buys one DVD, they can make copies and use it throughout the school. Wonder if they will do this for software. That'd save a lot of money from having to buy microsoft windows/office licenses.

[WaltM]

This will make it illegal for Apple to sue consumers and they will still can void the warranty if you jailbreak it.

Even if they consumer agreed to it?

[WaltM]

Well if they can say you cannot do "X", then they aren't really selling the product anyway. If I cannot hack into a phone or game system I purchase, then can it be said I even own it?


No, it can't, and that's what the terms of agreement is for, to make sure you agree to it before you purchase, or else you cannot and should not.



Sure I have no problem if a company wants to stop service to items found to be hacked, but I don't think there should be any legal ramifications. Thus, legal.

I support it being "legal".


Do you support violating a contract you weren't forced to sign?



That is also interesting. So I guess if a school buys one DVD, they can make copies and use it throughout the school. Wonder if they will do this for software. That'd save a lot of money from having to buy microsoft windows/office licenses.

They already DO do group licenses, which is cheaper per unit, but not free.

Sadly, when it comes to software, lots of it works exactly backwards to what you think, they count on the fact you have people who need it, and some money, and will probably pay regardless of how, so they charge whatever they think they can get away with.

[ChaosControl]

Well I don't really support "licenses" so anything that eases up on them is something I am generally going to support.

I support the buying and selling of the actual product. So if I buy an iphone, I think I should be able to "jailbreak" it if I want. I also think apple has the right to void my warrante and refuse to do future business with me. So to that extent, yes their contract can be enforced. I do not think they can enforce a right to sue you for it though.

Likewise if I buy a software, I think I should be able to install it on all computers I own, which I do anyway...

[WaltM]

Well I don't really support "licenses" so anything that eases up on them is something I am generally going to support.


That's like saying I don't like paying, so anything that lets people free load I'm generally going to support.




I support the buying and selling of the actual product. So if I buy an iphone, I think I should be able to "jailbreak" it if I want.


If the conditions were changed, Apple wouldn't sell it to you for the same price.

If they're smart, they'll probably say that jailbreaking violates the contract and you agree to pay $2000 to replace the phone. Which would be interesting to know, what they'd do to people who actually smash and destroy the phone.



I also think apple has the right to void my warrante and refuse to do future business with me. So to that extent, yes their contract can be enforced. I do not think they can enforce a right to sue you for it though.


If they have a right to sue you, they can exercise it any time.



Likewise if I buy a software, I think I should be able to install it on all computers I own, which I do anyway...

most softwares are NOT BOUGHT, if you've installed it once, you've clicked and agreed to the licensing agreement (otherwise you have the right to return the item and get your money back if you disagree).

[heavenlyboy34]

Didn't consumers voluntarily agree to a contract that they either will not do it, or if they do they void their warranty?

Is the court ruling saying that the contract can't be enforced?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ytech_wguy/20100726/tc_ytech_wguy/ytech_wguy_tc3236_2

Can Apple then stop "selling" phones, and only "lease" them, and consider jailbreaking "property destruction" which warrants a fine (or replacement cost)?

Apple cannot do anything to stop people from doing what they want with their phones. They can limit the warranty however, thus disincentivizing "property destruction".

[dannno]

Even if they consumer agreed to it?

That in my mind is like an un-enforceable contract.

If I sell you a bag of lettuce to make salad, and you agree to use your salad fork to eat it and not a dinner fork or a spork, can I sue you if you eat your salad the wrong way :confused: Even if you "agree" to that when purchasing the item :confused:

[Rael]

I guess this is a good thing, but like anything from government, at best they will be behind the curve. Nobody waited for a decision like this to decide to jailbreak their phone.

[WaltM]

Apple cannot do anything to stop people from doing what they want with their phones. They can limit the warranty however, thus disincentivizing "property destruction".

can't they have them sign an agreement that they don't do it, and enforce the punishment?

[WaltM]

That in my mind is like an un-enforceable contract.


un-enforceable says who?




If I sell you a bag of lettuce to make salad, and you agree to use your salad fork to eat it and not a dinner fork or a spork, can I sue you if you eat your salad the wrong way :confused: Even if you "agree" to that when purchasing the item :confused:

if you have a reason to sue, yes, since I agreed to it.

I'm not sure if you can translate that into a financial loss, but it's most likely you can to want to have such a rule and desire to sue.

[Anti Federalist]

Why anybody would buy/use one of these electronic cattle tags is fucking beyond me anyway.

It's like painting a big target on your forehead saying "HERE I AM".

[WaltM]

I guess this is a good thing, but like anything from government, at best they will be behind the curve. Nobody waited for a decision like this to decide to jailbreak their phone.

why is the government ruling against Apple's property a good thing?

[WaltM]

Why anybody would buy/use one of these electronic cattle tags is fucking beyond me anyway.

It's like painting a big target on your forehead saying "HERE I AM".

agreed, but that's their choice

[kahless]

why is the government ruling against Apple's property a good thing?

I brought their property, now I own it and should be able to do what I want with it.

If I sell you a blender I do not have the right to say you cannot make Margarita's with it since it is your property.

[heavenlyboy34]

can't they have them sign an agreement that they don't do it, and enforce the punishment?

They theoretically can-this could fall under EULA (end user license agreement) or a variant of the commodatum contract. But I don't know of anyone who would sign such an agreement, so it wouldn't be good for sales. ;)

[Mini-Me]

My turn to troll:
Josh_LA, what about second-hand consumers who sign no agreements or contracts whatsoever?

Similarly, are you certain that even initial consumers are necessarily agreeing to any terms upon purchase? We're talking about phones here, so that's probably the case (since phones usually come tied to contracts, etc.). However, if the agreement/contract is an EULA alone, what about consumers who manage to jailbreak the phone before agreeing to the EULA? Finally, consider the point that many EULA's are not legitimately enforceable contracts anyway: They are forced upon consumers after purchase, so unless the consumer can freely return the [opened] product for a full refund, they are essentially invalid terms being retroactively added to a contract by one party after the simpler contract (mere purchase) was already agreed upon.

[WaltM]

They theoretically can-this could fall under EULA (end user license agreement) or a variant of the commodatum contract. But I don't know of anyone who would sign such an agreement, so it wouldn't be good for sales. ;)

they already DO have some sort of this, from not accepting cash to making you agree you won't resell the phone, plus you can only buy 1 at a time..etc

[Rael]

why is the government ruling against Apple's property a good thing?

Apple can do whatever they want with their property. Once I buy the phone, it becomes MY property.

[WaltM]

My turn to troll:
Josh_LA, what about second-hand consumers who sign no agreements or contracts whatsoever?


Ignorance is not an excuse, first of all. Secondly, if the agreement is it the item cannot be transferred, and "first sale doctrine" does not apply, than the second hand consumer has no right to access the item to begin with. In other words, if the agreement or protection was meant to be enforced, it'd cover these types of "loopholes" to prevent liability pushing.

This is no different than a person who never agreed to the government how he'll use his gun, or if a person bought a gun off the black market without signing any agreement.



Similarly, what about first-hand consumers who manage to jailbreak it BEFORE agreeing to any kind of EULA?

that's impossible, as the EULA would be signed before you walk home with the item (or installed the software), otherwise you already stole the item.

[Rael]

Why anybody would buy/use one of these electronic cattle tags is fucking beyond me anyway.

It's like painting a big target on your forehead saying "HERE I AM".

*Sigh* I am one of those people. I have about a year left on my contract. I have since learned about all the privacy issues involved. But my God, the iphone is convenient, especially when jailbroken, it is hands down the most useful gadget I have ever bought, and an amazing piece of hardware.

I'm considering switching to prepaid phones for privacy...but I will miss my iphone. :(

[Rael]

A cell phone faraday bag might help.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=2811105#post2811105

[WaltM]

Finally, consider the point that many EULA's are not legitimately enforceable contracts anyway: They are forced upon consumers after purchase, so unless the consumer can freely return the [opened] product for a full refund, they are essentially invalid terms being retroactively added to a contract by one party after the simpler contract (mere purchase) was already agreed upon.

you're referring to shrink wrap contracts, or click through agreements.

the famous case on this is Vernor Vs Autodesk, where Vernor argued, he never agreed to any licensing agreement, but Autodesk argues his ignorance is no defense, the products were, and still are, property of Autodesk.

So you found cases where they're not legitimately enforceable (or hard to reasonably defend), do you at least agree with legitimately enforceable ones?

[WaltM]

*Sigh* I am one of those people. I have about a year left on my contract. I have since learned about all the privacy issues involved. But my God, the iphone is convenient, especially when jailbroken, it is hands down the most useful gadget I have ever bought, and an amazing piece of hardware.

I'm considering switching to prepaid phones for privacy...but I will miss my iphone. :(

those who would give up necessary privacy for short term convenience deserve neither.

convenience and comfort are ALWAYS at odds with security and privacy.

[WaltM]

I brought their property, now I own it and should be able to do what I want with it.


No, you didn't buy it and own it unless and until they say you have.

Even if you colloquially say "I bought it because I paid for it", if they've not exhausted and surrendered their rights, they still have them.



If I sell you a blender I do not have the right to say you cannot make Margarita's with it since it is your property.

Yes you do, if you made me sign an agreement that I won't do it.

[WaltM]

A cell phone faraday bag might help.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=2811105#post2811105

I'm surprised this anti-RFID paranoia has been advertised on Drudgereport and hitting the mainstream.

[WaltM]

Apple can do whatever they want with their property. Once I buy the phone, it becomes MY property.

you didn't buy the phone unless they said you bought it, if you agreed to anything about the phone, they can enforce it, if they didn't say "you bought the phone, now it's yours to do as you please" you don't own it, even if you think you do.

[Anti Federalist]

*Sigh* I am one of those people. I have about a year left on my contract. I have since learned about all the privacy issues involved. But my God, the iphone is convenient, especially when jailbroken, it is hands down the most useful gadget I have ever bought, and an amazing piece of hardware.

I'm considering switching to prepaid phones for privacy...but I will miss my iphone. :(

I have a 10 year old i 700 phone that spends the majority of it's time in a Faraday bag in my briefcase.

You'll find it liberating to ditch the nuisance phone.

[Rael]

those who would give up necessary privacy for short term convenience deserve neither.

convenience and comfort are ALWAYS at odds with security and privacy.

Yeah yeah :D. It's true but only up to a point. Should I go live in a cave? I would have plenty of privacy, but it would not be much of a life.

[Anti Federalist]

I'm surprised this anti-RFID paranoia has been advertised on Drudgereport and hitting the mainstream.

Better late than never.

A pox on electronic big brother.

I hope the paranoia becomes hysteria.

[WaltM]

Yeah yeah :D. It's true but only up to a point. Should I go live in a cave? I would have plenty of privacy, but it would not be much of a life.

you can't have everything :)

[Rael]

you didn't buy the phone unless they said you bought it, if you agreed to anything about the phone, they can enforce it, if they didn't say "you bought the phone, now it's yours to do as you please" you don't own it, even if you think you do.

I went to a store. Money exchanged hands, the phone was given to me, I left the store without setting off the alarm. The phone is in my possession. How is it not my property? They don't have to "say" that I bought it, we completed a transaction and agreed to trade money for phone.

If it is still their property why don't they repair it at no charge if it breaks?

[Mini-Me]

Ignorance is not an excuse, first of all.

Secondly, if the agreement is it the item cannot be transferred, and "first sale doctrine" does not apply, than the second hand consumer has no right to access the item to begin with.

that's impossible, as the EULA would be signed before you walk home with the item (or installed the software), otherwise you already stole the item.

In this case, the consumers' hands would be pretty well tied under contract law, and excepting any mitigating circumstances, nullifying the contract would be an overstep of the court's authority.

That said, Apple does benefit from state intervention in the form of patents, copyrights, and the DMCA. Those are all means of using force to limit competition, giving consumers fewer alternatives to signing onerous contracts than they'd otherwise have. In that vein, I won't lose any sleep whatsoever over Apple's contracts being nullified. I just can't really sympathize with anyone who colludes with the state to use force against others, then turns around and cries about contract law and their rights.

[Rael]

I have a 10 year old i 700 phone that spends the majority of it's time in a Faraday bag in my briefcase.

You'll find it liberating to ditch the nuisance phone.

Where did you get your faraday bag?

[Anti Federalist]

A cell phone faraday bag might help.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=2811105#post2811105

I made one of my own from SS mesh cloth and sewn together with copper motor winding wire.

I love the reaction I get from the TSA humps (the ones that are actually paying some kind of attention) when I fly.

[Rael]

I made one of my own from SS mesh cloth and sewn together with copper motor winding wire.

I love the reaction I get from the TSA humps (the ones that are actually paying some kind of attention) when I fly.

SS mesh cloth? where do you get that?

[Anti Federalist]

Where did you get your faraday bag?

Made from stuff like this

http://img.diytrade.com/cdimg/833007/7515900/0/1228699898/stainless_steel_wire_mesh.jpg

[Anti Federalist]

SS mesh cloth? where do you get that?

I was able to order a 2 square foot piece, special order, through my local NAPA store.

Cost about $30 bucks IIRC

It has specialized uses in autobody work.

I folded over the section and stitched the sides with the copper wire to make a 1 square foot bag.

I seal the opening with two large metal paper clamps.

[QueenB4Liberty]

So now my iPhone is being used to spy on me?

[Anti Federalist]

My turn to troll:Josh_LA

Well, that explains a lot.

[WaltM]

In this case, the consumers' hands would be pretty well tied under contract law, and excepting any mitigating circumstances, nullifying the contract would be an overstep of the court's authority.


Which I think is exactly what happened in the current case.




That said, Apple does benefit from state intervention in the form of patents, copyrights, and the DMCA. Those are all means of using force to limit competition, giving consumers fewer alternatives to signing onerous contracts than they'd otherwise have.


Yes, all property owners benefit from property protection and state intervention. Nobody wants competition if they don't need it.



In that vein, I won't lose any sleep whatsoever over Apple's contracts being nullified. I just can't really sympathize with anyone who colludes with the state to use force against others, then turns around and cries about contract law and their rights.

they use force when it's necessary or they can't remedy on their own. Don't you believe people who can't physically defend themselves from robbery, or intelligently defend themselves from fraud have a right to use government force to protect them?

[WaltM]

I went to a store. Money exchanged hands, the phone was given to me, I left the store without setting off the alarm. The phone is in my possession. How is it not my property? They don't have to "say" that I bought it, we completed a transaction and agreed to trade money for phone.


I can do the same with renting a car, doesn't mean I own the car.




If it is still their property why don't they repair it at no charge if it breaks?

because you agreed they don't have to.

[WaltM]

So now my iPhone is being used to spy on me?

cellphones have been able to spy you for a while, but iPhones have more functions, and make it easier.

[Anti Federalist]

SS mesh cloth? where do you get that?

Here's where NAPA ordered it from.

12" x 12" sheets.

1" * 0.080 0.920 84.6 $13.81

http://www.bwire.com/standard_space_wire_cloth.htm

[Mini-Me]

Which I think is exactly what happened in the current case.




Yes, all property owners benefit from property protection and state intervention. Nobody wants competition if they don't need it.



they use force when it's necessary or they can't remedy on their own. Don't you believe people who can't physically defend themselves from robbery, or intelligently defend themselves from fraud have a right to use government force to protect them?

Unlike you, I differentiate between initiating force (bad) and using force defensively or to exact restitution for crimes committed (doubleplus good). That pretty much sums up our differences here.

[WaltM]

Unlike you, I differentiate between initiating force (bad) and using force defensively or to exact restitution for crimes committed (doubleplus good). That pretty much sums up our differences here.

nobody admits they're bad or wrong, they'll always justify their use of force with "I'm just defending myself"

[Mini-Me]

nobody admits they're bad or wrong, they'll always justify their use of force with "I'm just defending myself"

...so? It's not particularly difficult to determine the truth of such claims, except when you're considering one person's word against another's regarding an incident only they know the facts of.

I know you revel in subjectivity, but determining the difference between offense and defense [in any but the most contrived or extreme cases] is generally not rocket science. It's something the average person has been able to do pretty well since the dawn of civilization, at least regarding mundane matters between ordinary people. The snag is that people have long been brainwashed into thinking that the government is somehow an exception to the ordinary rules. Still, aside from that, objectively telling the difference between offensive force and defensive force is not the completely intractable issue you make it out to be.

[WaltM]

...so? It's not particularly difficult to determine the truth of such claims, except when you're considering one person's word against another's regarding an incident only they know the facts of.

I know you revel in subjectivity, but determining the difference between offense and defense [in any but the most contrived cases] is generally not rocket science. It's something the average person has been able to do pretty well since the dawn of civilization, at least regarding mundane matters between ordinary people. The snag is that people have long been brainwashed into thinking that the government is somehow an exception to the ordinary rules. Still, aside from that, objectively telling the difference between offensive force and defensive force is not the completely intractable issue you make it out to be.

I don't happen to be one of those people who believe the government is exempt.

I do however, disagree with certain things people regard as property (and I think you do too), and there's the difference. One person believes he's entitled to protect his property, the other says it's not his to protect, another say he's competing fairly, another says he's being infringed.

[Mini-Me]

I don't happen to be one of those people who believe the government is exempt.

I do however, disagree with certain things people regard as property (and I think you do too), and there's the difference. One person believes he's entitled to protect his property, the other says it's not his to protect, another say he's competing fairly, another says he's being infringed.

You're right that there is a dispute over the meaning of property, which makes matters of property a more interesting problem than matters of life and liberty. Strict "intellectual property" is a particularly interesting notion, since even libertarians are divided on it.

Honestly speaking, strict "intellectual property" is incompatible with strict physical property rights, and it is also incompatible with personal liberty (such as making use of an idea you came up with independently of the guy who obtained the exclusive privilege to use it from a bureaucracy...just to give one example). Assuming strict physical property rights exist, "intellectual property" forms a contradiction, and so copyrights and patents are unjust initiations of force (let alone the DMCA, which is a completely arbitrary use of force). So, in this particular case, the consumer would ordinarily be legally bound to Apple's contract (assuming such a contract exists - I'm taking your word for that, since I'm commenting off-the-cuff)...but the circumstances leading up to the contract resulted from unjust government force on behalf of Apple, so that's a mitigating factor. As I said before, I can't really sympathize with anyone who uses the government to initiate force on their behalf, then turns around and cries about contract law and property rights.

Of course, all of that is assuming the libertarian view of property rights, which brings the conversation closer to the heart of the matter. I've given my position, but that by itself doesn't necessarily mean my position is correct/justified. Libertarians say, "homestead land and it is yours." Georgists say, "what you make is yours, but the land of the earth ultimately belongs to us all, so a tax on land is justified." Communists say, "everything is everyone's, and the dictatorship of the proletariat shall decide how to use it." You say, "might makes right, you silly apes."

Who's right? Just because a dispute exists does not necessarily mean any answer is equally valid, or that force is the only capable decider. The truth is a matter for philosophers to decide, but we already know we can't arrive at objective moral certainty from our limited vantage point. The best we can do is determine which is most likely to be true. I've argued before that Occam's Razor craps all over pretty much every political philosophy except for libertarianism [and your very own "might makes right," if we wish to add that to the mix]. Assuming this is the case (since I don't feel like arguing that point at the moment), it comes down to this: If libertarianism is true, libertarianism is true. If "might makes right" is true, then anything goes, and I'll still do what I can to promote libertarianism as a practical solution to human problems anyway.

All that said, I've been toying around with another moral idea: What if I believed in the non-aggression principle by default, but decided that anyone who doesn't believe in it is fair game for treating according to their own moral philosophy? ;) (Of course, if you put two people with such a philosophy in the same room, you'd probably be looking into a hall of mirrors, and who knows what the result would be.)

[Chase]

Unless I'm missing something, this has nothing to do with nullifying contracts -- its really just about scaling back an existing law, the DMCA, which very much needed to be scaled back (if not entirely repealed). Basically, the law enabled companies to encrypt or otherwise protect some kind of interface, claim they are doing so to protect their copyrighted material, and hence use the government to stop anyone from reverse engineering the interface -- even if there was no contract between the parties aside from a basic sale at the counter.

The law has been used by electronic garage door manufacturers to sue companies attempting to compete with them by developing cheaper universal remotes. Supposedly the garage door protocol and/or its software is protected by copyright and so attempting to interface with it violates the DMCA.

This law also prevented GNU/Linux distributions from being able to legally play DVDs within the United States for years. Even though clean room implementations of a DVD decoder/decrypter had been developed, that code was considered a DMCA infringement. In fact, in Universal v. Reimerdes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_v._Reimerdes), 2600 magazine was forced to stop publishing the source code of DeCSS. Even though they had permission from the copyright holder of that source code, it was effectively made into contraband by the court.

Yes, sometimes the quest for 'consumer rights' tries to do nasty things like net neutrality or nullifying contracts. But there are lots of anti-consumer laws that should never have been passed and we should all cheer when we manage to chip away at them.

[WaltM]

You're right that there is a dispute over the meaning of property, which makes matters of property a more interesting problem than matters of life and liberty. Strict "intellectual property" is a particularly interesting notion, since even libertarians are divided on it.


Thanks for admitting it's debateable.




Honestly speaking, strict "intellectual property" is incompatible with strict physical property rights, and it is also incompatible with personal liberty (such as making use of an idea you came up with independently of the guy who obtained the exclusive privilege to use it from a bureaucracy...just to give one example).


I've heard this before, but I just don't see how it's any less compatible, defensible than physical property.

Every claim that "i don't need to defend and respect your (intellectual) property" is just another one we can use against physical property (you just have more people who agree with physical property).

there's an obvious difference between discovering and arriving at an idea independent from another person, and directly making copies of information which you did not. not all ideas are equal, not all information is protectable. (with that said, not all physical objects can be property)




Assuming strict physical property rights exist, "intellectual property" forms a contradiction, and so copyrights and patents are unjust initiations of force (let alone the DMCA, which is a completely arbitrary use of force).


Even if physical property rights exists, there's dispute what's ownable as physical property.



So, in this particular case, the consumer would ordinarily be legally bound to Apple's contract...but the circumstances leading up to the contract resulted from unjust government force on behalf of Apple, so that's a mitigating factor.


Everybody on the losing end will cry "unjust use of force".



As I said before, I can't really sympathize with anyone who uses the government to initiate force on their behalf, then turns around and cries about contract law and property rights.


Understood.



Of course, all of that is assuming the libertarian view of property rights, which brings the conversation closer to the heart of the matter. Libertarians say, "homestead land and it is yours."


I don't agree with homesteading.



Georgists say, "what you make is yours, but the land of the earth ultimately belongs to us all, so a tax on land is justified."


to a degree, I can understand that



Communists say, "everything is everyone's, and the dictatorship of the proletariat shall decide how to use it." You say, "might makes right, you silly apes."


Communists wouldn't respect IP either, just saying.



Who's right? Just because a dispute exists does not necessarily mean any answer is equally valid, or that force is the only capable decider.


I agree.



The truth is a matter for philosophers to decide, but we already know we can't arrive at objective moral certainty from our limited vantage point. The best we can do is determine which is most likely to be true. I've argued before that Occam's Razor craps all over pretty much every political philosophy except for libertarianism [and your very own "might makes right," if we wish to add that to the mix].


So philsophers decide and we follow? Or do we just follow what works best for us?




Assuming this is the case (since I don't feel like arguing that point at the moment), it comes down to this: If libertarianism is true, libertarianism is true. If "might makes right" is true, then anything goes, and I'll still do what I can to promote libertarianism as a practical solution to human problems anyway.


Ok then.




All that said, I've been toying around with another moral idea: What if I believed in the non-aggression principle by default, but decided that anyone who doesn't believe in it is fair game for treating according to their own moral philosophy? ;)

I think you SHOULD believe that.

[WaltM]

(Of course, if you put two people with such a philosophy in the same room, you'd probably be looking into a hall of mirrors, and who knows what the result would be.)

which is why I believe my Occam's razor is the easiest solution

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

This is why I stick with 90's tech

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_X3DT-aRCXRg/RYZr9OtPshI/AAAAAAAAAHA/Dy12B9VKWss/s400/zackphone.jpg

[micahnelson]

Walt how do you always end up on the wrong side of these things?

If you purchase something it is yours and you can do what you want with it.

Apple can suspend your service (contract enforcement), Apple can void your warranty (contract enforcement), but what they can't do is sue you for you using your phone for things outside of what they want you do with it (Property Rights). If they want to retain rights, then they need to retain ownership, IE they need to lease the phone to you.

But, they aren't leasing. They are selling- and as such they don't have any (at all) right to what is done to that phone.

[Rael]

I can do the same with renting a car, doesn't mean I own the car.

.

That's a ridiculous comparison. When you rent a car you have no expectation of keeping the car.


Point to something in the Apple disclaimer that says they still own the physical phone.

[WaltM]

Walt how do you always end up on the wrong side of these things?


Why are you so sure you're always right?



If you purchase something it is yours and you can do what you want with it.


Not if you agreed otherwise.

I don't get to drive or park my car anywhere just because it's mine, I don't get to use my gun how I please just because it's mine.



Apple can suspend your service (contract enforcement), Apple can void your warranty (contract enforcement), but what they can't do is sue you for you using your phone for things outside of what they want you do with it (Property Rights).


Why can they suspend your service? Don't you have a right to your service after you paid for it?

Why can they suspend service and void warranty under contract enforcement, but not tell you what to do with the phone if it was part of the agreement?



If they want to retain rights, then they need to retain ownership, IE they need to lease the phone to you.


Which is probably what they'll do next. Or perhaps their contract already made that a fact in practice.



But, they aren't leasing. They are selling- and as such they don't have any (at all) right to what is done to that phone.

if they made you sign an agreement, which they did (such as you cannot resell the phone), you don't own it fully in that respect.

[WaltM]

That's a ridiculous comparison. When you rent a car you have no expectation of keeping the car.


How do you know I don't?





Point to something in the Apple disclaimer that says they still own the physical phone.

I don't have one with me.

They don't need to say they actually own the phone, they can simply say "you agree not to do such and such"

[Mini-Me]

So philsophers decide and we follow? Or do we just follow what works best for us?
People are using force against each other left and right; it's up to philosophers not to decide (as in choose) who is correct, but simply to discover who is correct.

Getting people to actually listen is always another story though. I think we both agree that "might makes happen," even though I disagree with the notion that "might makes right." Being correct only means you're correct, not that you're necessarily going to win. Still, philosophical arguments are a form of might in and of themselves, because some people do place value in them (apparently enough to win the Revolutionary War...to the best of my knowledge, the publication of Common Sense was the turning point that really popularized revolutionary ideals).

Besides, the simpler and more consistent your moral philosophy, the more conducive it is to social harmony, and the more practical it is to construct a legal framework for implementing it with fewer opportunities for corruption/abuse/etc. (Note that I would argue "might makes right" inconsistent in this sense, because the "morality" of the same action is different every time depending on the actors, circumstances, etc. In comparison, given libertarianism, the morality of an action is much easier to determine a priori.) For instance, socialism is inherently unwieldly and reliant on arbitrary centralized power...and it will always fail, usually due to economics, corruption, and/or outright tyranny. Every time it fails, libertarians get another opportunity to win people over. We have a disadvantage in that we can't just convert people by force (since it would be inconsistent), but we also have an advantage: Since libertarianism is much simpler, more balanced, and more consistent, it has a much better chance of stability after initially taking hold. I don't think this [expected ;)] practicality is a coincidence, and I think it goes hand in hand with being more correct from the moral standpoint as well.

Anyway, as you imply, being correct alone does not necessarily mean you'll win the dispute, since the opposing party still doesn't know [or care] that you're correct. Similarly, nobody can ever be 100% certain they're correct anyway. Still, stronger philosophical arguments make for greater confidence, and people empowered by their idealistic beliefs (right or wrong) have a stronger resolve than those fighting only for their individual interests.


Michael Corleone: [about the unrest in Cuba] We saw a strange thing on our way here. Some rebels were being arrested, and instead of being arrested, one of them pulled the pin on a grenade he had hidden in his jacket. He took himself and the captain of the command with him.
Guest: Ah, the rebels are insane!
Michael: Maybe. But the soldiers are paid to fight; the rebels aren't.
Hyman Roth: What does that tell you?
Michael: They can win.


I think you SHOULD believe that.
As someone who claims to have no moral compass beyond "might makes right," it seems odd that you'd actually encourage others to adopt your thinking. Wouldn't you rather people treat you with respect, even if they're stronger? I mean, if you truly believed that might made right, I think you'd be more likely to at least push the philosophy leading to the least vulnerability for yourself, if not the one providing the most opportunities to advance yourself at their expense.

[micahnelson]

Why are you so sure you're always right?



Not if you agreed otherwise.

I don't get to drive or park my car anywhere just because it's mine, I don't get to use my gun how I please just because it's mine.

Why can they suspend your service? Don't you have a right to your service after you paid for it?

Why can they suspend service and void warranty under contract enforcement, but not tell you what to do with the phone if it was part of the agreement?

Which is probably what they'll do next. Or perhaps their contract already made that a fact in practice.

if they made you sign an agreement, which they did (such as you cannot resell the phone), you don't own it fully in that respect.

The iphone service is a contract. The iphone is a device.

You own the phone. You have a contract to use the service. The only connection the phone and the service have is that you were given a discounted price on the phone in return for signing a two year service contract agreement.

They can cancel your right to use the service because they own the network (sort of), they own the servers, they pay the employees that run it. The contract allows them to cancel the contract at any time if the terms of the contract are violated.

If you violate the terms of the contract, they can cancel your phone service and charge your the cancellation fee and the rebate they issued when the phone was purchased. They can take you to court to recoup these costs.

What they can't do, according to this ruling, is sue you for altering your phone. The phone is your property.

I purchased my iphone from someone who had upgraded. I reprogrammed it to work with tmobile and used a service through them. I never signed anything from ATT. I never made any agreement with anyone whatsoever. I purchased a device from someone who owned it, I programmed it to work with TMobile, and I bought minutes on a tmobile prepaid account.

What exactly should my sentence be? Who have I wronged? Who do I owe money to?

[WaltM]

As someone who claims to have no moral compass beyond "might makes right," it seems odd that you'd actually encourage others to adopt your thinking. Wouldn't you rather people treat you with respect, even if they're stronger? If you truly believed that might made right, wouldn't you want to convince people to at least follow the philosophy giving you the least problems, if not the philosophy leading most to your own empowerment over them?

so when I wanna be fair and nice you cry foul too?

Damn, what do you want?

Ok, let me put it this way, as simple an unsarcastic as possible.

I wouldn't be talking about what I believe if I didn't think others would say "hey, would you like it if you were on the wrong end?"

I could, very well, pretend like I'm for NAP, and take advantage of people when we get to an NAP society, instead, I am honest and I warn people of the dangers. Why am I doing people such a favor? Because I believe overall, over time, for long term benefit, it's better for people to be armed.

Would I rather people be my slave than not be my slave? OF COURSE.
But would I rather tell people "my rules only apply to me"? Won't matter.
This is what makes my belief "superior", it ultimately doesn't matter what you believe, you can choose to be talker, or an arguer, and the person who has more arms won't care whether you're NAP or Constitutionalist or Christian.

Does that answer your question?

[WaltM]

The iphone service is a contract. The iphone is a device.

You own the phone. You have a contract to use the service. The only connection the phone and the service have is that you were given a discounted price on the phone in return for signing a two year service contract agreement.


Therefore, a violation of the contract is grounds for charging you the undiscounted price?




They can cancel your right to use the service because they own the network (sort of), they own the servers, they pay the employees that run it. The contract allows them to cancel the contract at any time if the terms of the contract are violated.


Wouldn't that, somehow include the initial discount on the phone?



If you violate the terms of the contract, they can cancel your phone service and charge your the cancellation fee and the rebate they issued when the phone was purchased. They can take you to court to recoup these costs.


Ok, so what's the problem?



What they can't do, according to this ruling, is sue you for altering your phone. The phone is your property.


pfft, you just said they can charge the fees and take you to court to recoup the costs, how is that not suing?

Why can't they sue you for violating the alteration agreement or contract (terms of use, terms of sale)?



I purchased my iphone from someone who had upgraded. I reprogrammed it to work with tmobile and used a service through them. I never signed anything from ATT.


So if I bought a gun from the black market I don't need to abide by manufacterer's suggestions and gun laws?



I never made any agreement with anyone whatsoever. I purchased a device from someone who owned it, I programmed it to work with TMobile, and I bought minutes on a tmobile prepaid account.


And I never agreed with anybody how I intend to use my guns, so I'm free from all laws regarding gun use?



What exactly should my sentence be? Who have I wronged? Who do I owe money to?

Most likely a fine, you wronged the manufacterer who sold (or leased) the phone with certain conditions attached to it. You owe money to whomever can enforce his contract and property.

[Mini-Me]

so when I wanna be fair and nice you cry foul too?

Damn, what do you want?


Ok, let me put it this way, as simple an unsarcastic as possible.

I wouldn't be talking about what I believe if I didn't think others would say "hey, would you like it if you were on the wrong end?"

I could, very well, pretend like I'm for NAP, and take advantage of people when we get to an NAP society, instead, I am honest and I warn people of the dangers. Why am I doing people such a favor? Because I believe overall, over time, for long term benefit, it's better for people to be armed.
Can you elaborate on the latter point here? How is it better for your own personal long-term benefit for other people to be armed against you?

(Still, I do think you overestimate how easy it would be to take advantage of someone in an NAP society: Any and every society with a judicial system already presupposes the existence of amoral people who do not follow laws and do whatever they can get away with; if the society were completely oblivious, as you seem to imply, then no judicial system would exist. This point is a bit tangential though.)


Would I rather people be my slave than not be my slave? OF COURSE.
But would I rather tell people "my rules only apply to me"? Won't matter.
This is what makes my belief "superior", it ultimately doesn't matter what you believe, you can choose to be talker, or an arguer, and the person who has more arms won't care whether you're NAP or Constitutionalist or Christian.

Does that answer your question?
It mostly does, but I think it's foolish to dismiss the way ideals translate into power. I think you focus too much on one kind of power (who has the most arms today), when the power of idealism has been shown to change that situation very quickly in the past.

Also, there's a bit of irony here to your last sentence: Wouldn't you say you're even more of a talker/arguer than most people here, with 1987 posts since January alone (not counting your old accounts)? ;)

[WaltM]

Can you elaborate on the latter point here? How is it better for your own personal long-term benefit for other people to be armed against you?


How about, it's better if I can have armed friends, than enemies?




(I do think you overestimate how easy it would be to take advantage of someone in an NAP society: Any and every society with a judicial system already presupposes the existence of amoral people who do not follow laws and do whatever they can get away with; if the society were completely oblivious, no judicial system would exist. This point is a bit tangential though.)


No, I don't. If NAP worked, communism would too.



It mostly does, but I think it's foolish to dismiss the way ideals translate into power. I think you focus too much on one kind of power (who has the most arms today), when the power of idealism has been shown to change that situation very quickly in the past.


I don't doubt it's happened, can you give an example?

If you're simply saying, it's better to get people to agree, than to force them? I agree. But it's still better to force people, than to be unable to force people.




Also, there's a bit of irony here to your last sentence: Wouldn't you say you're even more of a talker/arguer than most people here, with 1987 posts since January alone (not counting your old accounts)? ;)

I'm a talker because I have no incentive to use force, how is that irony?

[Mini-Me]

How about, it's better if I can have armed friends, than enemies?
Perhaps, but isn't it a bit difficult to make friends with individualist idealists when you're openly Machiavellian? After all, you know you couldn't count on libertarian friends to stick by you in the event you did something counter to our morals.

It seems that either you're making a mistake, or you believe that living peacefully according to our morals (thereby remaining friends with us) would be in your best interests. If the latter is the case, wouldn't it imply that you secretly believe the NAP does in fact work? ;)


No, I don't. If NAP worked, communism would too.
Your argument doesn't really seem to follow from your premise. Communism doesn't "work" because command economies don't "work." Communism is despotic because centralized power necessarily becomes despotic (and it's easy for psychopaths to completely take over a centralized judicial system).

Neither of those failings apply to libertarianism though, and its power structure is the farthest possible from communism's, so the NAP could easily work while communism does not. That doesn't mean it's impervious to failure or anything like that, but decentralization of power is the most powerful tool available against the influence of amoral people.

Long story short: You can still argue that a libertarian society would fail, even though I disagree (and it seems above that you might as well ;)). However, the specific argument that communism's failure implies the NAP's failure is completely invalid, and I think you know it.


I don't doubt it's happened, can you give an example?
Well, I've cited the example of the American Revolution and the publication of Common Sense numerous times, but pretty much every revolution ever was sparked by an ideological battle first. There would have been no Lenin without Marx, for example (or no Lenin with followers, at least).


If you're simply saying, it's better to get people to agree, than to force them? I agree. But it's still better to force people, than to be unable to force people.
I'd be happy with the power to simply resist anyone trying to force me (given the libertarian notion of rights that divide aggressive and defensive force, that is).


I'm a talker because I have no incentive to use force, how is that irony?
It is only ironic given your prior dismissiveness about the power of talkers; if you agree that words have power, then I agree it's no longer ironic. ;)

[WaltM]

Perhaps, but isn't it a bit difficult to make friends with individualist idealists when you're openly Machiavellian? After all, you know you couldn't count on libertarian friends to stick by you in the event you did something counter to our morals.

It seems that either you're making a mistake, or you believe that living peacefully according to our morals (thereby remaining friends with us) would be in your best interests. If the latter is the case, wouldn't it imply that you secretly believe the NAP does in fact work? ;)


No, NAP only works for certain people. I don't secretly believe it, but I don't use it as a long term policy.




Your argument doesn't really seem to follow from your premise. Communism doesn't "work" because command economies don't "work." Communism is despotic because centralized power necessarily becomes despotic (and it's easy for psychopaths to completely take over a centralized judicial system).


So much for "you overestimate how easy it is to take over an NAP society".




Neither of those failings apply to libertarianism though, and its power structure is the farthest possible from communism's, so the NAP could easily work while communism does not. That doesn't mean it's impervious to failure or anything like that, but decentralization of power is the most powerful tool available against the influence of amoral people.


only if amoral people are also scarce and unorganized



Long story short: You can still argue that a libertarian society would fail, even though I disagree (and it seems above that you might as well ;)). However, the specific argument that communism's failure implies the NAP's failure is completely invalid, and I think you know it.


You believe communism doesn't require NAP to work?



Well, I've cited the example of the American Revolution and the publication of Common Sense numerous times, but pretty much every revolution ever was sparked by an ideological battle first. There would have been no Lenin without Marx, for example (or no Lenin with followers, at least).


The American revolution was NAP??





I'd be happy with the power to simply resist anyone trying to force me (given the libertarian notion of rights that divide aggressive and defensive force, that is).


Sometimes I want some more.



It is only ironic given your prior dismissiveness about the power of talkers; if you agree that words have power, then I agree it's no longer ironic. ;)

words have some power, not always enough for me, and I dont always need to use force if I don't see the incentive.

[JeNNiF00F00]

Jailbreaking is overrated. The only reason people jailbreak their ipod touches/phones/pads is because they want to modify their device. Just like any motor head out there would want to modify his/her car to make it run better, or any computer geek out there that modifies his case, or unlocks the CPU etc., to make the system run faster and look better.

By jailbreaking you can overclock, and put whatever modifications you want on the system without being stuck in apples box of boring. If you don't jailbreak, then you are pretty limited, when the machine is more capable to do more. And when you are paying 500 dollars and up for a stupid Ipad, you better believe I would want to use that system up to its capability.

When it comes down to it, its a simple case of supply and demand. If Apple can't/won't meet the demand for better aps, another market is going to develop in order to supply that demand, and Apple will simply lose out. Its what happens when you become too greedy and want to control everything.

[WaltM]

Jailbreaking is overrated. The only reason people jailbreak their ipod touches/phones/pads is because they want to modify their device. Just like any motor head out there would want to modify his/her car to make it run better, or any computer geek out there that modifies his case, or unlocks the CPU etc., to make the system run faster and look better.

By jailbreaking you can overclock, and put whatever modifications you want on the system without being stuck in apples box of boring. If you don't jailbreak, then you are pretty limited, when the machine is more capable to do more. And when you are paying 500 dollars and up for a stupid Ipad, you better believe I would want to use that system up to its capability.

maybe the device itself is overpriced and overrated

[JeNNiF00F00]

:D

[Mini-Me]

No, NAP only works for certain people. I don't secretly believe it, but I don't use it as a long term policy.
Well, if I take you at your word (you warn us because you want well-armed friends), it's pretty simple: You'd be foolish to want libertarians as friends (especially after warning us of your Machiavellian philosophy, making us alert to betrayal), unless you planned on playing by our rules.

Of course, this is a bit hypothetical anyway, since most of us here are unlikely to ever enter your life outside this board anyway...but that's less of an obstacle to my reasoning than it is to your purpose in "warning" us and making friends in the first place.


So much for "you overestimate how easy it is to take over an NAP society".
Honestly, that's so much of a non sequitur that I don't even know what kind of argument you're trying to make with this comment. It makes zero sense as a rebuttal to what I said.


only if amoral people are also scarce and unorganized
The more decentralized power becomes, the more numerous amoral people need to be [everywhere] to secure dominance everywhere...and if we're talking about the same gang all over the board, they need to be much more organized as well. Nothing's foolproof, again, but avoiding centralized power - the one-stop shop for domination of all - means avoiding the single largest vulnerability.


You believe communism doesn't require NAP to work?
The NAP - as used by libertarians - is completely incompatible with [state] Communism, and you know that. Now, in case you're trying to play games with semantics: Communists can come up with whatever rule they like and call it the NAP if it floats their boat, but that still doesn't make it the NAP.


The American revolution was NAP??
Non sequitur. I cited the American Revolution, and every other revolution, as examples of the point that movements based on ideals/philosophies can quickly turn the tides in terms of who has the most arms. That part of the conversation was entirely unrelated to the discussion of the NAP, and you know it.


Sometimes I want some more.
Be careful not to have eyes bigger than your stomach.


words have some power, not always enough for me, and I dont always need to use force if I don't see the incentive.
I see.

[ClayTrainor]

Honestly, that's so much of a non sequitur that I don't even know what kind of argument you're trying to make with this comment. It makes zero sense as a rebuttal to what I said.

Welcome to WaltM's world, where you can justify the initiation of aggressive force against non-violent people using subjective reasoning.

[WaltM]

Well, if I take you at your word (you warn us because you want well-armed friends), it's pretty simple: You'd be foolish to want libertarians as friends (especially after warning us of your Machiavellian philosophy, making us alert to betrayal), unless you planned on playing by our rules.


Maybe you're still missing the point. I don't want to betray anybody, I like to be honest, so I don't need to remember what I said, that would be one weakness on my part. I don't necessarily want libertarians as friends, but I prefer pacifists as slaves.




Of course, this is a bit hypothetical anyway, since most of us here are unlikely to ever enter your life outside this board anyway...but that's less of an obstacle to my reasoning than it is to your purpose in "warning" us and making friends in the first place.


I'll worry about that myself.



Honestly, that's so much of a non sequitur that I don't even know what kind of argument you're trying to make with this comment. It makes zero sense as a rebuttal to what I said.


You can't grasp the fact your argument that "NAP is hard to take advantage of and exploit" has been refuted.



The more decentralized power becomes, the more numerous amoral people need to be [everywhere] to secure dominance everywhere...and if we're talking about the same gang all over the board, they need to be much more organized as well. Nothing's foolproof, again, but avoiding centralized power - the one-stop shop for domination of all - means avoiding the single largest vulnerability.


You assume thugs and amoral need to be dominant, organized and in agreement to achieve their goals, as if, some can't be satisfied with some petty theft or petty murder. You seem to think people must be sure they'll win, or else they should give up (on being evil).



The NAP - as used by libertarians - is completely incompatible with [state] Communism, and you know that. Now, in case you're trying to play games with semantics: Communists can come up with whatever rule they like and call it the NAP if it floats their boat, but that still doesn't make it the NAP.


So NAP used by libertarians is compatible with voluntary communism? I rest my case. Oh, so now you're saying "NAP is only what WE CALL NAP"? How would that be any more fair than me saying "Property is only what I CALL property"?



Non sequitur. I cited the American Revolution, and every other revolution, as examples of the point that movements based on ideals/philosophies can quickly turn the tides in terms of who has the most arms. That part of the conversation was entirely unrelated to the discussion of the NAP, and you know it.


I forgot it, so you admit it's still ultimately armed. Don't you think if US could've been independent from Britain without violence, they'd do it? DOn't you think if Indians would voluntarily give up their land for settlers, settlers would accept it (rather than use unnecessary violence)?

Who wants violence unless it's necessary?



Be careful not to have eyes bigger than your stomach.


Be careful not to wish for things that never happened or lasted in history



I see.

So you do.

[kahless]

Perhaps Walt thinks we are some how harming Apples property. I cannot see how this is possible when you own the device and what you do with it at home has no effect on their property - network. It is like buying a blender and being told you are only approved to mix eggs but mixing a Margarita is illegal.

Here is another example. I paid near $400 to own an Ipod Touch and have no contract to use their cellular network. The Ipod Touch has no cellular functionality. After using it a bit I found the wifi search feature lacking. Apple allowed 3rd party vendors to sell wifi search utilities at the app store. I purchased one and was able to use it until the last OS update from Apple.

I went to get a new version of the utility but Apple removed all the 3rd party wifi convenience apps from the app store. The only choice I have now is to jailbreak the Ipod so I can continue to download an app that provides this convenience from somewhere else.

There is nothing in what I wrote above that effects Apples property since I am not at all using their property.

[ChaosControl]

That's like saying I don't like paying, so anything that lets people free load I'm generally going to support.
No, it means I don't support licenses specifically. I think you should own what you buy.



If the conditions were changed, Apple wouldn't sell it to you for the same price.

If they're smart, they'll probably say that jailbreaking violates the contract and you agree to pay $2000 to replace the phone. Which would be interesting to know, what they'd do to people who actually smash and destroy the phone.
They aren't selling it to begin with if they are putting such strict conditions on it, they are treating it like a license. And luckily such a stupid move would probably be ruled against considering the current ruling. I shouldn't have to pay money to replace a phone if I am completely satisfied with the state of the phone. Now if they want to charge $2000 for me to buy one if I so choose to buy a new one since I broke an agreement, then fine, but they cannot force me to pay the $2000 for a new one just as they have no right to sue me for messing with a product I bought.



If they have a right to sue you, they can exercise it any time.
Thankfully they don't have that right.



most softwares are NOT BOUGHT, if you've installed it once, you've clicked and agreed to the licensing agreement (otherwise you have the right to return the item and get your money back if you disagree).
I don't care, as I mentioned I think software licenses are stupid. It is one reason I dislike a lot of the digital distribute for games. No ability to loan games out to friends or buy used or resell your game. It just decreases your ownership rights, screw that.

[WaltM]

No, it means I don't support licenses specifically. I think you should own what you buy.


And I don't support buying, I think you should have what you want.



They aren't selling it to begin with if they are putting such strict conditions on it, they are treating it like a license.


Yes, and people agree to it.



And luckily such a stupid move would probably be ruled against considering the current ruling. I shouldn't have to pay money to replace a phone if I am completely satisfied with the state of the phone. Now if they want to charge $2000 for me to buy one if I so choose to buy a new one since I broke an agreement, then fine, but they cannot force me to pay the $2000 for a new one just as they have no right to sue me for messing with a product I bought.


As you said above, you never bought it. You agreed to conditions.

Why can't they force you to pay what you agreed to?



Thankfully they don't have that right.


Let's hope you never find yourself on the wrong end of this situation.



I don't care, as I mentioned I think software licenses are stupid. It is one reason I dislike a lot of the digital distribute for games. No ability to loan games out to friends or buy used or resell your game. It just decreases your ownership rights, screw that.

You have a right to think they're stupid, you don't have a right to say you don't care after you agreed to it. If you don't like their terms and pricing, they didn't make the games for you, save your money.

[Krugerrand]

I'm leaning towards Walt's line of thinking. Contracts happen as terms of sale.

Consider - you breed dogs. You've invested heavily in time and money to have a dog whose pups sell for a high premium because of the work you've put into the product. A person looks to purchase a dog from you as a pet and not as a show dog. You decide to discount that purchase on the condition that they do not breed the dog. If you later discover they have bred the dog you are entitled to sue them for breech of contract. Yes, they own their dog, but the terms of the sale were that the dog would not be bred.

[WaltM]

Perhaps Walt thinks we are some how harming Apples property. I cannot see how this is possible when you own the device and what you do with it at home has no effect on their property - network.


It does harm Apple's property, even if it's not directly measurable.
You don't actually think property, loss, violation must always have numerical and monetary value, do you?

You violate their terms of agreement if they sold or leased the deviced to you on the condition that you won't do it, if you didn't agree, they'd have not sold (or leased) it to you.



It is like buying a blender and being told you are only approved to mix eggs but mixing a Margarita is illegal.


But not like buying a gun and telling you shooting people is illegal?



Here is another example. I paid near $400 to own an Ipod Touch and have no contract to use their cellular network.


Ok?



The Ipod Touch has no cellular functionality. After using it a bit I found the wifi search feature lacking. Apple allowed 3rd party vendors to sell wifi search utilities at the app store. I purchased one and was able to use it until the last OS update from Apple.

I went to get a new version of the utility but Apple removed all the 3rd party wifi convenience apps from the app store. The only choice I have now is to jailbreak the Ipod so I can continue to download an app that provides this convenience from somewhere else.


That's not the only choice you have, it's the only choice you prefer to have.




There is nothing in what I wrote above that effects Apples property since I am not at all using their property.

property might not be the best word, interests, rules, rights would be better.

Do you violate Apple's rights by altering their device? Maybe, if their agreement terms say so (and you agreed to them).

Just because you bought a gun off the black market doesn't mean you're free from gun laws on how you use it. How you use your gun might not violate another person's property per se, but you can easily violate the interests, rules and rights of the government.

[WaltM]

I'm leaning towards Walt's line of thinking. Contracts happen as terms of sale.

Consider - you breed dogs. You've invested heavily in time and money to have a dog whose pups sell for a high premium because of the work you've put into the product. A person looks to purchase a dog from you as a pet and not as a show dog. You decide to discount that purchase on the condition that they do not breed the dog. If you later discover they have bred the dog you are entitled to sue them for breech of contract. Yes, they own their dog, but the terms of the sale were that the dog would not be bred.

Yep. Exactly, a dog is a very convoluted example, as they're slow to breed and the genes are not your property, but you no less had control over it up until you gave up some of it on CERTAIN CONDITIONS.

People who say "it's mine, don't tell me how to use it" must answer "why can't I use my gun how I please? It's MINE!" (this is a much better example as, laws apply to you regardless of whether you voluntarily agreed to it)

[GunnyFreedom]

As far as I know, the only thing that jailbreaking does is void the warranty. I've never heard of Apple suing anybody for jailbreaking, just voiding the warrantee, and that mostly from the old hardware basted jailbreak methods more than the current software based method.

If you use the software method and something breaks (other than an entire bricking of the phone) just restore the original software and then take it in for warranty work without issue.

I think it's a little asinine, but I can see the point of reducing warranty work for the earlier hardware hacks. I see a lot less of a point in doing it for the current software hacks, but it's still worlds different than the notion of suing someone just for jailbreaking their phone, which I have never heard of. Just voiding a warranty.

Doing stuff that voids a warranty is already perfectly legal, it just means if something breaks you are on your own.

[WaltM]

As far as I know, the only thing that jailbreaking does is void the warranty. I've never heard of Apple suing anybody for jailbreaking, just voiding the warrantee, and that mostly from the old hardware basted jailbreak methods more than the current software based method.


They haven't, most likely because it's not worth their time.




If you use the software method and something breaks (other than an entire bricking of the phone) just restore the original software and then take it in for warranty work without issue.

I think it's a little asinine, but I can see the point of reducing warranty work for the earlier hardware hacks. I see a lot less of a point in doing it for the current software hacks, but it's still worlds different than the notion of suing someone just for jailbreaking their phone, which I have never heard of. Just voiding a warranty.


Sounds like you're saying, one is unnecessary, but the other is reasonable and easy



Doing stuff that voids a warranty is already perfectly legal, it just means if something breaks you are on your own.

it may not be legal if you agreed not to do it.

[ChaosControl]

And I don't support buying, I think you should have what you want.
Good for you.


Yes, and people agree to it.
It is an unreasonable condition that I don't think you really can agree to. A company cannot sell something with the condition they can sue you and expect that enforceable. At most they can deny to do future service with you. I don't care if the contract explicitly says they can sue me if I break this device I purchases from them, it is an unreasonable condition and I do not consider such enforceable.



As you said above, you never bought it. You agreed to conditions.


Why can't they force you to pay what you agreed to?
Because it doesn't matter if you agreed to it. Being able to sue you involves outside parties, it involves the courts and the law. It is no longer merely a two party issue. Thus the courts and the people of the land have the right to craft the law to not allow such. Unreasonable contracts shouldn't be enforceable.



Let's hope you never find yourself on the wrong end of this situation.
Let's hope no one does. No reason to want corporations to screw the little guy like they always do.



You have a right to think they're stupid, you don't have a right to say you don't care after you agreed to it. If you don't like their terms and pricing, they didn't make the games for you, save your money.

I have a right to say anything I want. Yes I can refuse to do business with them and personally I do. I don't want the piece of **** corporations like Apple to get my money. However, that doesn't mean I am not going to be on the side of the people when Apple tries to screw them over.

The people are more important than the corporations. Corporations shouldn't even exist, I don't understand why anyone would defend them when they're what has screwed this country over so much.

[ChaosControl]

I'm leaning towards Walt's line of thinking. Contracts happen as terms of sale.

Consider - you breed dogs. You've invested heavily in time and money to have a dog whose pups sell for a high premium because of the work you've put into the product. A person looks to purchase a dog from you as a pet and not as a show dog. You decide to discount that purchase on the condition that they do not breed the dog. If you later discover they have bred the dog you are entitled to sue them for breech of contract. Yes, they own their dog, but the terms of the sale were that the dog would not be bred.

I disagree with them being able to sue you for that. You didn't have to give them that discount, that was your own error.

[GunnyFreedom]

They haven't, most likely because it's not worth their time.




Sounds like you're saying, one is unnecessary, but the other is reasonable and easy

No. Mine is not jailbroken. I'm saying that if you ARE a jailbreaker, now that every method is software-based, it is a simple mater to restore your phone.

Warranty work can be a cracked LCD screen or a bum data/charging port. Software has no effect on these. The whole glory behind software is the "undo" button.


it may not be legal if you agreed not to do it.

Contract law for the iPhone and jailbreaking specifies a voiding of the warranty. Unless you are familiar with a different contract than I am... ?

In any case, no matter how the contract is written it remains contract law and not criminal law. Two entirely different things.

If you are willing to void your warranty, then I say go for it! That's what the contract specifies, and I actually have no problem with that. If you want to maintain your warranty intact, then don't jailbreak.

Seems pretty simple to me.

Sure the phone is yours to do with what you please. Roll over it with a truck, flush it down the toilet, whatever, who cares.

Warranty work is an extra value added service which the customer receives in exchange for NOT rolling over it with a truck or flushing it down a toilet...or jailbreaking it.

The entire thing started back when jailbreaking required a physical modification of the phone's hardware that caused a lot of phones to die altogether. People were bringing them back with wires hanging out and solder dripping out of the circuits and demanding a new phone. Anybody in their right mind should know THAT is crap.

Now that it's just a few settings in the software, I do not see a problem with it, just make sure you restore the software before you take it in for that cracked screen.

[kahless]

It does harm Apple's property, even if it's not directly measurable.

It is not their property. I paid $400 for the dam thing. I brought the device and are using it in my home with no connection to their network. That is in no way harming their property since it is my property to do with it as I wish. If I want to trash it with a hammer it is my right to do so.



But not like buying a gun and telling you shooting people is illegal?

Just because you bought a gun off the black market doesn't mean you're free from gun laws on how you use it. How you use your gun might not violate another person's property per se, but you can easily violate the interests, rules and rights of the government.

That is a ridiculous comparison. There are no laws regarding mixing drinks in a blender and if I do so in my home with my blender it will in no way harm anyone else. Just like using a jailbroken Ipod Touch does not harm anyone or Apples property. I paid for the Ipod Touch with cash and have no contract with Apple. This is no different from buying a blender, lamp or mattress.

It is like selling a mattress and saying to the new owner you are not allowed to lay on your left side with it. That is just nuts and defending such a policy would be insane.

I suspect those that are against the decision would not be if their Republican or Libertarian policy makers had made the same decision. It is just amazing the bullshit people try to defend for the sake of partisan politics.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Didn't consumers voluntarily agree to a contract that they either will not do it, or if they do they void their warranty?

Is the court ruling saying that the contract can't be enforced?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ytech_wguy/20100726/tc_ytech_wguy/ytech_wguy_tc3236_2

Can Apple then stop "selling" phones, and only "lease" them, and consider jailbreaking "property destruction" which warrants a fine (or replacement cost)?

The phone companies were working with the debt collection agencies and the criminals to get rid of old phones. Here is how the scam worked. Allow the criminal to purchase a lot of minutes knowing good and well that they ill never pay any of it. For this service, the criminal agrees to purchase the old phone. The victims Identification and their debt are then sold to a debt collector for a dime on the dollar. The debt collector then collects as much as possible tempting the victim to pay just a small portion of the bill they aren't responsible for.
In other words, the times are evil.

[WaltM]

It is not their property. I paid $400 for the dam thing. I brought the device and are using it in my home with no connection to their network. That is in no way harming their property since it is my property to do with it as I wish. If I want to trash it with a hammer it is my right to do so.


In the case of an iPod, there was no subscription service attached to it, so it's probably less of a problem to them monetarily.

Just because you paid $400 doesn't mean it's yours, just because you paid $50 a day doesn't mean you own the car.

Just because I paid for a prostitute doesn't mean I own her.



That is a ridiculous comparison. There are no laws regarding mixing drinks in a blender and if I do so in my home with my blender it will in no way harm anyone else.


What constitutes harm?



Just like using a jailbroken Ipod Touch does not harm anyone or Apples property. I paid for the Ipod Touch with cash and have no contract with Apple. This is no different from buying a blender, lamp or mattress.


But a gun is somehow a special case?



It is like selling a mattress and saying to the new owner you are not allowed to lay on your left side with it. That is just nuts and defending such a policy would be insane.


Insane says who?




I suspect those that are against the decision would not be if their Republican or Libertarian policy makers had made the same decision. It is just amazing the bullshit people try to defend for the sake of partisan politics.

i have no partisan leaning.

[Sentient Void]

The difference between your car (or whatever) and the phone, software, etc - is that with the book, it's a simple contract that merely involves a transfer of property between two parties (money for goods). With the phone, they are selling you the phone under a contract agreement (End User License Agreement, aka EULA), with you acknowledging that you will not use the phone for this, this and this, and in the manner described as terms for the use of said product. By clicking next, or signing, or whatever - you agree to said terms. Also, in law - claiming ignorance of an agreement is not a valid argument for breaking it (same thing with breaking laws in general) - in case you say stuff like how you 'just clicked next' or 'didn't read the agreement'.

I've talked to some people who think the government should 'crack down on such contracts, EULAs, etc... I don't think the government should crack down on it - if anything, this shows how the government is simply behind the curve (as usual), and such 'cracking down' isn't even necessary (and will probably lead to setting some ugly precedents and unintended consequences, as usual) - just due to the fact that people have been jailbreaking their phones even before this suit happened.

Personally, I'm leaning towards the idea that *all* contracts should/must be enforced, somehow, always - and in the end, if such contracts even *could* be enforced (and I think these types are unenforcable anyways, at least for now), and people understood this, then not only would it be bad business and bad for customer opinion/loyalty/satisfaction for which companies tried to enforce such contracts (Apple, for example), but many people would simply stop buying or reduce buying their products until they repealed such parts of their contract. The market would easily take care of such 'contracts'. As a matter of fact, a *lot* of very nice competition is building up to challenge the iPhone's and Apple's smartphone market dominance as is(HTC Evo, Microsoft's upcoming new phone, and others), for these and other reasons.

Also, what precedent does it set that contracts between two voluntary adults can be ignored? How can/will this precedent affect commerce if contracts won't be enforced? Is such a contract valid at all - why or why not? Or is a contract, in and of itself, merely enforcable only between parties in the transaction, society as a whole (through the use of ostracism/credit ratings, etc), and is, or can government be, largely irrelevant in regards to contracts (being an AnCap, I subscribe to this view anyways, especially since more and more people are opting for private arbitration)? Can government only be destructive in the enforcability or the lack thereof in regards to contracts, leading to moral hazard and other unintended consequences in commerce (again, this is my position regardless)?

I do believe that if you purchase something outright - you and you alone own it (unless it's some kind of joint ownership obviously), and if you own it, you should be able to do with it as you wish. I think the vast majority of people would agree. Assuming contracts are and should be enforceable, does such a contract essentially mean that there was not an actual transfer of ownership? If so, then how is this justified? Who actually owns the item? Or if there is a legitimate transfer of ownership, how can a separate party dictate what you can and can't do with your own property? Is the contract itself merely conflative and self-contradictory and are such parts then, thus, unenforceable and automatically void?

These and other reasons are why I think this will/should lead to a lot of debate.

I feel that the debate surrounding this issue, in the end, involves the conflation of property rights and contract rights, which is a mistake that is often made. That being said, I'm wondering how other AnCaps (who are the ultimate propertarians / contractarians ) feel about this issue. I'm leaning towards upholding contracts, and that the market can and will take care of such issues over time regardless.

[WaltM]

I feel that the debate surrounding this issue, in the end, involves the conflation of property rights and contract rights, which is a mistake that is often made. That being said, I'm wondering how other AnCaps (who are the ultimate propertarians / contractarians ) feel about this issue. I'm leaning towards upholding contracts, and that the market can and will take care of such issues over time regardless.

Ancaps somehow believe that a person can't (even if he wanted to) sign away his property rights. Or that corporations are always wrong if they try to enforce something, and that whatever the little guy claims, is his "right".

[heavenlyboy34]

Ancaps somehow believe that a person can't (even if he wanted to) sign away his property rights. Or that corporations are always wrong if they try to enforce something, and that whatever the little guy claims, is his "right".

Not so. A person can easily sign away his rights (for those that believe in positive rights). This is called voluntary servitude. People who sign up for the military do this all the time. Seriously, you should actually learn about anarcho-capitalism before you start making these silly claims.

[WaltM]

Because it doesn't matter if you agreed to it. Being able to sue you involves outside parties, it involves the courts and the law. It is no longer merely a two party issue. Thus the courts and the people of the land have the right to craft the law to not allow such. Unreasonable contracts shouldn't be enforceable.



Nobody wants to get a 3rd party involved, EVER.

The 3rd party is only called because one party refuses to uphold his end of the agreement.

I respect the position that only reasonable contracts should be enforceable, and the law regularly recognizes that (which is probably what lead to the ruling), but I fear this may later be slippery slope, that if the common man believes its "unreasonable" to pay for something, or it's "unreasonable" for somebody to have property, courts ultimately rule against property just on the basis of "reason" according to the common mob (man).

[WaltM]

Not so. A person can easily sign away his rights (for those that believe in positive rights). This is called voluntary servitude. People who sign up for the military do this all the time. Seriously, you should actually learn about anarcho-capitalism before you start making these silly claims.

so then, is it fair to say that an ancap has no problem with Apple suing and enforcing the contract if the agreement upon purchase was "you agree you won't jailbreak the device, or you agree to pay $1000 as a fine".

[Sentient Void]

Ancaps somehow believe that a person can't (even if he wanted to) sign away his property rights. Or that corporations are always wrong if they try to enforce something, and that whatever the little guy claims, is his "right".

Being an AnCap, I can tell you that everything you just said is absolutely incorrect.

Hell, as one example, I posted a discussion thread about the movie 'Repo Men', which took such a debate to it's extreme. I actually took the side of the corporation for moral and practical reasons. Definitely takes some deep thinking and udnerstanding about morality, potential precedence, and implication to come to such a conclusion though without feeling like a complete scumbag, though... hahahah.

[WaltM]

Being an AnCap, I can tell you that everything you just said is absolutely incorrect.

Hell, as one example, I posted a discussion thread about the movie 'Repo Men', which took such a debate to it's extreme. I actually took the side of the corporation for moral and practical reasons. Definitely takes some deep thinking and udnerstanding about morality, potential precedence, and implication to come to such a conclusion though without feeling like a complete scumbag, though... hahahah.

thanks for the correction.

Maybe I'm just an ancap in denial.

[ClayTrainor]

Being an AnCap, I can tell you that everything you just said is absolutely incorrect.

I think he might be basing that on debates he's had with me. I poorly represented the an-cap position in regards to rights, and other an-caps called me out on it as well. Needless to say, I've been re-evaluating my position on rights.

[Sentient Void]

so then, is it fair to say that an ancap has no problem with Apple suing and enforcing the contract if the agreement upon purchase was "you agree you won't jailbreak the device, or you agree to pay $1000 as a fine".

I think I'm leaning towards the idea that 'A contract is a contract'. Seems to me (and I'm still open to debate on this) that if we want to be consistent, this should be the position of AnCaps and libertarians. At the same time, I'm pretty sure Apple's EULA just says that jailbreaking voids their warranty, which I don't have a problem with at all, and is completely enforceable.

That being said, I think it will be found that enforcing such a policy would hurt their company and profits more than help it... through people who planned on jailbreaking it refusing contracts with them at all, and also empowering competitors who take the approach of allowing reverse-engineering.

This might be why most companies don't really try to enforce it in the first place... and just try to prevent it through technical means.

[Sentient Void]

thanks for the correction.

Maybe I'm just an ancap in denial.

;)

You might be!!!

I know I, and most AnCaps go through a denial stage before accepting the AnCap philosophy. Some sort of 'stockholm syndrome' or something trying to seek out accepting the legitimacy and necessity of the state (when it is, ultimately, neither moral, practical or needed)...

[WaltM]

I think he might be basing that on debates he's had with me. I poorly represented the an-cap position in regards to rights, and other an-caps called me out on it as well. Needless to say, I've been re-evaluating my position on rights.

no, it's not entirely your fault.

it's a lot to do with the ancaps who don't respect IP, or think fractional reserve bank is outright fraud.

The reason I don't consider myself AnCap or NAP, is because I don't think there's a good definition of rights & property.

[WaltM]

I think I'm leaning towards the idea that 'A contract is a contract'. Seems to me (and I'm still open to debate on this) that if we want to be consistent, this should be the position of AnCaps and libertarians.


I AGREE!

and that's what I find quite hypocritical about these "I bought it so it's mine" people, who seem to be no different than anti-property communists when they find themselves on the wrong end of a contract or property claim.



At the same time, I'm pretty sure Apple's EULA just says that jailbreaking voids their warranty, which I don't have a problem with at all, and is completely enforceable.

That being said, I think it will be found that enforcing such a policy would hurt their company and profits more than help it... through people who planned on jailbreaking it refusing contracts with them at all, and also empowering competitors who take the approach of allowing reverse-engineering.


It probably will, just like how keeping iPods at a fixed price hurts some of their sales, but that's their loss and their decision.




This might be why most companies don't really try to enforce it in the first place... and just try to prevent it through technical means.

yes, most likely, including Apple.

[ClayTrainor]

no, it's not entirely your fault.


Hopefully only a little bit. :p



The reason I don't consider myself AnCap or NAP, is because I don't think there's a good definition of rights & property.

I'm still evaluating my position on those things, so I'm probably not the best to suggest one thing or another.

Do you have trouble accepting the concept of self-ownership? IOW, The idea that individuals own and control their own minds and bodies?

[Sentient Void]

no, it's not entirely your fault.

it's a lot to do with the ancaps who don't respect IP, or think fractional reserve bank is outright fraud.

The reason I don't consider myself AnCap or NAP, is because I don't think there's a good definition of rights & property.

As an AnCap, I have no problem with FRB - that is, as long as it's under a Free Banking system (which is free-market). As a matter of fact, I believe an FRB system under Free banking might actually be the best form of banking, and is unavoidable in a free market (not that I would want to avoid it). There's a debate on this somewhere in the forums as well. personally, I believe Rothbard and other AnCaps are wrong in the view that it's fraud - on the basis that they are conflating contract and property rights, similar to the debate here with the Apple EULA. not all Austrians agree on FRB (under Free Banking) - there is actually much debate. The fact is this, the only way to *prevent* FRB under Free Banking is to engage in force against adults engaging in a voluntary transaction/contract.

IP is another issue - Apart from the immorality of IP, IP is more destructive than helpful and grants a government-mandated monopoly through force. Some (non ancaps) argue about how this would hinder innovation and not properly award inventors - but historical evidence shows this is just not the case. Many great innovations were made without IP 'rights', and the innovators/inventors were still very well accomodated through the market based on them being 'first' with their product to the market. People haven't, and wouldn't, stop innovating because of IP.

I think if you follow the NAP, follow contractarian and propertarian principles, the Lockean view of property (sticky property), you can still have a solid definition of 'property', and rights - the debate among even some AnCaps is whether or not rights actually exist in the first place, or if they do at all - what those 'rights' actually are (perhaps self-ownership is the only one for example), and where they derive from (I believe that if rights *do* exist, they derive from our *sapience*).

There's lots of great debate about this stuff in the Philosophy forum as well (read: basement).

Sorry for slightly derailing the discussion - but I definitely believe contracts should be respected in any and all situations, and the market could and would always take care of issues such as this. And again, you don't need a government for this - ostracism takes care of this (through reputation, social response, credit ratings, etc), as well as private arbitration. Not to mention that the vast majority of contracts are upheld simply through the honor system as is.

[heavenlyboy34]

I AGREE!

and that's what I find quite hypocritical about these "I bought it so it's mine" people, who seem to be no different than anti-property communists when they find themselves on the wrong end of a contract or property claim.


So, you're denying the legitimacy of private property? :eek:

[dannno]

So, you're denying the legitimacy of private property? :eek:

If WaltM purchased a CD, and inside the CD was a contract stating "By purchasing this CD you agree to the following: You must return this CD to the store and send me $100!!!" apparently when he gets home to open the CD he would look for his keys and get out his check book.

The way I see it, if Apple were leasing the phones and you were required to return it, you'd have to return it in the condition stated on the contract otherwise the contract would lay out the terms of what happens otherwise... BUT... if Apple doesn't want the phone back, then it is your property.. they can't tell you how to use it.

Even if you're renting it and they want it back in a certain condition, you can still use it how you want if you are able to get it back to the condition required per the contract.

[Sentient Void]

So, you're denying the legitimacy of private property? :eek:

No, he's talking about the people who are conflating property rights and contract rights.

[Sentient Void]

If WaltM purchased a CD, and inside the CD was a contract stating "By purchasing this CD you agree to the following: You must return this CD to the store and send me $100!!!" apparently when he gets home to open the CD he would look for his keys and get out his check book.

1)That wouldn't be a valid contract, 2) nor would it be a good business model 3) and is an absurd hypothetical.

[heavenlyboy34]

No, he's talking about the conflation of property rights and contract rights.

If that's so, he seems to misunderstand property right as well as contract rights. He appears to be bending the definition of "property" to include IP, which is simply false. IP (a misnomer, btw) was invented out of thin air by the State. It has no basis in reality whatsoever. Property is finite and real-it is objective. IP bears none of these traits.

[dannno]

1)That wouldn't be a valid contract, 2) nor would it be a good business model 3) and is an absurd hypothetical.

What is the difference between that and a EUA or EUL?

My point is you can't make people agree to something unless they sign it.. you can't 'agree' to something just by buying it.. but even IF you sign something when you buy it I think there are limitations to what can be put into those type of contracts.

[heavenlyboy34]

What is the difference between that and a EUA or EUL?

My point is you can't make people agree to something unless they sign it.. you can't 'agree' to something just by buying it.. but even IF you sign something when you buy it I think there are limitations to what can be put into those type of contracts.

I agree 10000%. :)

[WaltM]

So, you're denying the legitimacy of private property? :eek:

No, I'm denying certain claims people make as legitimate.

[WaltM]

If WaltM purchased a CD, and inside the CD was a contract stating "By purchasing this CD you agree to the following: You must return this CD to the store and send me $100!!!" apparently when he gets home to open the CD he would look for his keys and get out his check book.


If I DO do that, I'd also warn everybody about it and make sure nobody else falls for it.

Which is what many people HAVE done for this item
(I wasn't one of the suckers)
http://www.ripoffreport.com/Corrupt-Companies/Bruce-Berman-Differe/bruce-berman-differential-ripo-j947a.htm

However, that's not common practice in either software or music.

Copyright law applies to all people even if they didn't agree to it.
Consumer laws protect consumers from being forced agreements they couldn't reasonably exit (which includes couldn't enter).
Softwares always give you the warning BEFORE installing it.

[WaltM]

What is the difference between that and a EUA or EUL?

My point is you can't make people agree to something unless they sign it.. you can't 'agree' to something just by buying it.. but even IF you sign something when you buy it I think there are limitations to what can be put into those type of contracts.

fair enough. thanks for agreeing to my point that many people here agree certain rights can't be signed away even if one wanted to.

[WaltM]

If that's so, he seems to misunderstand property right as well as contract rights. He appears to be bending the definition of "property" to include IP, which is simply false. IP (a misnomer, btw) was invented out of thin air by the State. It has no basis in reality whatsoever. Property is finite and real-it is objective. IP bears none of these traits.

Why isn't property invented out of thin air by the State?
Did IP not exist before the State?
What does property have as basis in reality other than the fact most people are brainwashed into supporting it?
How is property objective, real?
Is everything that's finite ownable?
IP bears the trait of being finite.

[WaltM]

Hopefully only a little bit. :p



I'm still evaluating my position on those things, so I'm probably not the best to suggest one thing or another.

Do you have trouble accepting the concept of self-ownership? IOW, The idea that individuals own and control their own minds and bodies?

I have no trouble accepting it as a preference, I have trouble enforcing it against people who disagree and I don't know how to convince them without using force. I know that people can violate me even if I say (or wish) I have self ownership, that's my problem of reconciling reality with ideal.

[dannno]

If I DO do that, I'd also warn everybody about it and make sure nobody else falls for it.



Wait, so you would actually return the CD and give the artists $100 just because of a license agreement contained within the property you bought that you didn't even know about :confused: Really :confused:

[dannno]

Why isn't property invented out of thin air by the State?
Did IP not exist before the State?
What does property have as basis in reality other than the fact most people are brainwashed into supporting it?
How is property objective, real?
Is everything that's finite ownable?
IP bears the trait of being finite.

What he's saying is that property has to be physical for it to be objective. If I own a couch or a piece of land, that is physical and objective. You can't say you own an idea or a certain type of music, because every time the music is performed it is slightly different.. on top of that, there is nothing physical to own.

[WaltM]

Wait, so you would actually return the CD and give the artists $100 just because of a license agreement contained within the property you bought that you didn't even know about :confused: Really :confused:

it's not common practice, so I'd probably sue or resist on the basis I was deceived.

And the person who sold me the copy would probably be considered complicit.

[WaltM]

What he's saying is that property has to be physical for it to be objective. If I own a couch or a piece of land, that is physical and objective.


It's physical, but does it make it objectively yours?

Doesn't objective mean it's true regardless of who agrees?



You can't say you own an idea or a certain type of music, because every time the music is performed it is slightly different.. on top of that, there is nothing physical to own.

Yes, there's something physical to own, though very differently.

I agree, ideas and types of music are hard to own, but not the case for copyright, or patents.

[dannno]

it's not common practice, so I'd probably sue or resist on the basis I was deceived.

And the person who sold me the copy would probably be considered complicit.

Why would you sue? I believe they have their first amendment right to put that in the CD, but it certainly cannot be upheld. I'd just keep the CD.

[WaltM]

Why would you sue? I believe they have their first amendment right to put that in the CD, but it certainly cannot be upheld. I'd just keep the CD.

I would resist, and you are right, it's unlikely it can be upheld or enforced, as I can argue I was decieved and what they do is not what a person can expect on a regular basis.

The same excuse CANNOT be made if, I violated copyright, as it's common practice to expect music is copyrighted, protected and violators are warned before buying, before opening, before listening.

[Sentient Void]

No need for any suing or hassle, WaltM ;)


What is the difference between that and a EUA or EUL?

My point is you can't make people agree to something unless they sign it.. you can't 'agree' to something just by buying it.. but even IF you sign something when you buy it I think there are limitations to what can be put into those type of contracts.

The difference is that the situation you raised assumes that the person must agree to the agreement before he saw it (during the act of purchasing, as stated by the contract) - that's mostly what makes the 'contract' invalid.

Also, under an EULA, at least the ones I've seen, are not only based on it's *use* and not the purchase after the fact (like your situation is with the CD), but also, you agree to it by taking an action such as checking a box saying 'I agree' and/or clicking the 'next' button, which states in the EULA it would be the same as agreeing to it (clicking next would be the same as signing a contract in this case, just without a witness).

Now, you may simply argue - fine, change it to:

By using this CD you agree to the following: You must return this CD to the store and send me $100!!!" apparently when he gets home to open the CD he would look for his keys and get out his check book.

This does, though - change the situation entirely. That would be more accurate to be a more 'valid' contract, and also be a lot closer to what an EULA is like.

Based on that - you could actively refuse the contract and thusly return it for a full refund (just like you could with an iPhone to an ATT Store or Apple store, or a disc with software to it's manufacturer if you cared enough), while not having to pay the $100. At the same time - apart from being a hypothetical absurdity that no one in their right mind would ever do, this is obviously not a very good business model, unenforceable, and not many would even pay it any attention.

[WaltM]

No need for any suing or hassle, WaltM ;)



The difference is that the situation you raised assumes that the person must agree to the agreement before he saw it (during the act of purchasing, as stated by the contract) - that's mostly what makes the 'contract' invalid.

Also, under an EULA, at least the ones I've seen, are not only based on it's *use* and not the purchase after the fact (like your situation is with the CD), but also, you agree to it by taking an action such as checking a box saying 'I agree' and/or clicking the 'next' button, which states in the EULA it would be the same as agreeing to it.

Now, you may simply argue - fine, change it to:

By using this CD you agree to the following: You must return this CD to the store and send me $100!!!" apparently when he gets home to open the CD he would look for his keys and get out his check book.

This does, though - change the situation entirely. That would be more accurate to be a more 'valid' contract, and also be a lot closer to what an EULA is like.

Based on that - you could actively refuse the contract and thusly return it for a full refund (just like you could with an iPhone to an ATT Store or Apple store, or a disc with software to it's manufacturer if you cared enough), while not having to pay the $100. At the same time - apart from being a hypothetical absurdity that no one in their right mind would ever do, this is obviously not a very good business model, unenforceable, and not many would even pay it any attention.

thanks, much appreciated.

the main difference here is, as you've pointed out, one can't be held to a contract he didn't have a chance to read (that's different than, he thought he read it and didn't understand it, or he accidentally signed it not knowing what he read). I'm pretty sure even shrink wrap contracts offer you to refund if you refuse.



I don't know of any contract that traps you in without letting you back out.

[Sentient Void]

thanks, much appreciated.

the main difference here is, as you've pointed out, one can't be held to a contract he didn't have a chance to read (that's different than, he thought he read it and didn't understand it, or he accidentally signed it not knowing what he read). I'm pretty sure even shrink wrap contracts offer you to refund if you refuse.



I don't know of any contract that traps you in without letting you back out.

NP.

You should watch the movie 'Repo men' and read the RPF thread discussion on it ;)

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=253203&highlight=repo+men

[Pizzo]

Reading this thread I think it is possible that everyone in a way can be right, here's why: I think the physical device and Apple's software are two different things. You do own the device, However you do not own the software running on the device, but you are able to use it under an agreement with the manufacturer in this case Apple. So if you jailbreak, it is not like Apple can confiscate your device, but they can refuse to service your device on the grounds that you violated the contract by messing with the software which possibly is the cause for the device needing service in the first place. Or I could be way off. Just a though.



Posted from my jailbroken iPad.

[kahless]

In the case of an iPod, there was no subscription service attached to it, so it's probably less of a problem to them monetarily.

Just because you paid $400 doesn't mean it's yours

I purchased it and did not rent it or have contract for it. Therefore I own it.




just because you paid $50 a day doesn't mean you own the car.


Again with the car rental example. If I were renting or leasing you would be correct. However in this example I would be purchasing the car. Therefore again I own it and can change the computer software that runs the car as I see fit.

You can respond like you did before with a scenario like what if the gun or in this case car kills someone. If that happens it still does not harm Apples property.



Just because I paid for a prostitute doesn't mean I own her.


You paid for her time and did not purchase her outright to become your property like I did the Ipod Touch.




But a gun is somehow a special case?


If Apple sold me a gun and I modified the gun to kill more people than it allowed it still does not harm their property. You keep using rental and gun examples which do not make any sense.

Do you own stock in Apple?

[WaltM]

Reading this thread I think it is possible that everyone in a way can be right, here's why: I think the physical device and Apple's software are two different things. You do own the device, However you do not own the software running on the device, but you are able to use it under an agreement with the manufacturer in this case Apple.


But using the device for a purposes of a phone, is under your service agreement/terms of sale.



So if you jailbreak, it is not like Apple can confiscate your device, but they can refuse to service your device on the grounds that you violated the contract by messing with the software which possibly is the cause for the device needing service in the first place. Or I could be way off. Just a though.


you're not that off, seems like nobody disputes voiding warranty, they just don't like the idea you can pay $200 for a device and still not actually own it.



Posted from my jailbroken iPad.

what does a jailbroken iPad allow more? Just curious.

[WaltM]

I purchased it and did not rent it or have contract for it. Therefore I own it.


Ok.



Again with the car rental example. If I were renting or leasing you would be correct. However in this example I would be purchasing the car. Therefore again I own it and can change the computer software that runs the car as I see fit.


Not if you agreed otherwise. Unless they said "you bought it and own it", they can still claim you're on a lease, license, or rent, without ownership. You don't own something just because you felt you paid enough for it. And if you agreed to surrender certain rights, you can't claim them later on the grounds that "you own it".

There's a difference between a person changing his mind after agreeing to something, and a person never having a chance to agree to something. There's a difference between a person not knowing he signed something, and a person never seeing something, and never signing it.



You can respond like you did before with a scenario like what if the gun or in this case car kills someone. If that happens it still does not harm Apples property.


It may not harm Apple's property, but it harms their interests, or violates their rights.



You paid for her time and did not purchase her outright to become your property like I did the Ipod Touch.


Says who I didn't purchase her outright?
What need I do to purchase her outright?




If Apple sold me a gun and I modified the gun to kill more people than it allowed it still does not harm their property. You keep using rental and gun examples which do not make any sense.


But you'd still have violated either gun laws or an agreement if you agree not to do it. Do you believe you can violate a contract? Or you believe a contract can't be valid?



Do you own stock in Apple?
I own no stock in any company, and I hate overpriced Apple products.

[silus]

I think therefore I am.

[Krugerrand]

I think therefore I am.

I doubt therefore I am.

[GunnyFreedom]

I own no stock in any company, and I hate overpriced Apple products.

You mean like selling an enterprise-level server with both hardware and software w unlimited clients for $999 (http://www.apple.com/macmini/server/)? Yeah, why would anybody in their right mind do that when they can have a Microsoft Windows enterprise-level server with 1000 clients for something closer to $10,000? :rolleyes:

Perception can become a more powerful force than any government, I think.

[Pizzo]

But using the device for a purposes of a phone, is under your service agreement/terms of sale.



you're not that off, seems like nobody disputes voiding warranty, they just don't like the idea you can pay $200 for a device and still not actually own it.



what does a jailbroken iPad allow more? Just curious.



I don't own an iPhone, just an iPod and an iPad, so I never signed any agreement so there's a difference there i guess. My point was you do own the device. No matter what you do to it, it can not be taken away once you pay for it by apple or anyone else. The device is the physical hardware, nothing more. BHowever, you do not own the software running on the device, Apple lets you use it under a licensing agreement. The software is what gets jailbroken. So there is no ownership issue with the phone, you paid for it, it's yours. the software running on the phone is a different story. As far as why jailbreak, there are different reasons. I did it so i can have multi-tasking mostly. Others do it for customization purposes, and some do it so they can install cracked (stolen) apps. Once Apple comes out with the new software update for the iPad, I'll upgrade to that and likely won't have any reason to jailbreak. Others also do it just because they like to tinker.

[Krugerrand]

Let me borrow another thread. Here's another case of terms of sale restrict use of ownership.

I buy from these people, not too far away from me, beautiful, historic farm, nice pleasant people and the best of veggies.

But yeah, I guess the human shit fertilized vegetables from China or Guatemala at the Wal Marx that are 25 cents cheaper are really worth it.

That sucks. :mad:

Nation's oldest family farm up for sale

Published: July 27, 2010 at 5:15 PM

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/07/27/Nations-oldest-family-farm-up-for-sale/UPI-71271280265330/

DOVER, N.H., July 27 (UPI) -- A New Hampshire farmer said he is selling his property, the nation's oldest continually operating family farm, because of dwindling demand for his crops.

Will Tuttle, 63, of Dover, has worked since age 6 to make his living from farming his land, The Boston Globe reported Tuesday.

The farm was founded by English settler John Tuttle, who came to the New World with a land grant from King Charles II, the Globe said.

Tuttle's landmark property has passed from father to son since 1632, the Globe said.

"This is a different business now. Farming at any level is a labor of love, but now the future is so uncertain. Looking forward, I don't see much opportunity for small farms to thrive. It's a tough grind," Tuttle said.

The 134-acre property, which has been put on the market for $3.35 million, has seen a slow encroachment by suburban homes. It is protected by a conservation restriction that bars it from being developed after it is sold, the newspaper said.

(yeah right, watch the lawyers get around that, there'll be McMansions all over that property in five years.-AF)

"We're not in a plaza, A lot of people won't drive a few extra miles for fresh vegetables. They are going to Wal-Mart and Target and trying to save whatever they can, and we don't have the buying power to compete," said Tuttle's wife, Michelle. "

[WaltM]

You mean like selling an enterprise-level server with both hardware and software w unlimited clients for $999 (http://www.apple.com/macmini/server/)? Yeah, why would anybody in their right mind do that when they can have a Microsoft Windows enterprise-level server with 1000 clients for something closer to $10,000? :rolleyes:

Perception can become a more powerful force than any government, I think.

is it a real comparison?

Can the minimac actually handle over 100 clients?
(So you're telling me that a mac mini server can handle more than 100 clients, at the cost of 2 iPads)

By the way
Is an iPad (laptop with no keyboard, no USB input, no DVD player) for $500 fair? Compared to a netbook or laptop under $500?
http://shopping.yahoo.com/articles/yshoppingarticles/406/best-laptops-under-500/

or how about Macbook Air
http://macmegasite.com/files/lenovo-x300-vs-macbook-air-440.jpg
Yeah, who in their right minds would buy ONE laptop at the cost of 3 SERVERS THAT CAN HANDLE UNLIMITED CLIENTS? (what's 3 times unlimited?)


Here's another comparison
(might be wrong about the microphone feature)
http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/thumb/1/10/Macbookair.jpg/734px-Macbookair.jpg

[GunnyFreedom]

is it a real comparison?

Can the minimac actually handle over 100 clients?
(So you're telling me that a mac mini server can handle more than 100 clients, at the cost of 2 iPads)

Yes.


By the way
Is an iPad (laptop with no keyboard, no USB input, no DVD player) for $500 fair? Compared to a netbook or laptop under $500?
[/URL][URL]http://shopping.yahoo.com/articles/yshoppingarticles/406/best-laptops-under-500/ (http://shopping.yahoo.com/articles/yshoppingarticles/406/best-laptops-under-500/)

or how about Macbook Air
http://macmegasite.com/files/lenovo-x300-vs-macbook-air-440.jpg
Yeah, who in their right minds would buy ONE laptop at the cost of 3 SERVERS THAT CAN HANDLE UNLIMITED CLIENTS? (what's 3 times unlimited?)


Here's another comparison
(might be wrong about the microphone feature)
http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/thumb/1/10/Macbookair.jpg/734px-Macbookair.jpgLMAO - why on earth would you compare a standard form-factor laptop vs a slim form-factor MacBook Air?

The MacBook Air is more about "ooohhh pretty" than about hard-core computing power.

If you were actually serious about comparing product vs product then you would have compared it to the MacBook or the MacBook Pro

To use the AIR as a comparison to prove that Apples are more buck for your bang than a Windows PC is asinine, and an intentional perversion of the facts to lead to a predetermined outcome.

Just like our jerk politicians do. :rolleyes:

So let's see:

PRICE: $1,199.00 for 2.4 Ghz $1,499 for 2.66 Ghz Intel Core-Duo
Screen: 13.3in 1280x800 mDVI out, over 1080p resolution output
Speaker: Built In Stereo
USB: 2 (3 on the 17 inch)
Battery: 8hr+
Camera: 1
Wireless: 802.11N
Gigabit Ethernet
Modem: External USB or Firewire Available
Firewire: YES
Bluetooth: YES, 2.1
Full size backlit keyboard
Up to 8GB RAM

Which means that you get more power and more features than the laptop in your comparison, FOR ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS LESS than your PC laptop.

That's right, when you actually compare the equivalent devices, the Apple comes out ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS LESS than the PC Laptop you are bringing up.

Not to mention that the MacBook Air is actually $1499, and NOT $3098. So even the MacBook Air (which is the wrong device to compare) is $700 less expensive than your comparison PC.

So how about trying again, and this time do please try to stick with facts and not 'made-up-out-of-thin-air' propaganda. :rolleyes:

So let's recap, the comparison you provided compared the wrong form-factor device, outright lied about it's price, and tried to make it look like the PC was $900 less than the MBA, when in fact the MBA is $700 less than that PC, AND when comparing the equivalent device, the MBP actually offers more and better features for a cool thousand less.

Does that surprise you? Does it change your mind as to the price-point on Apple vs PC? or will you simply continue to cling to the false propaganda that you pay more for the same stuff when you buy an Apple, which hasn't actually been true since...ohhh....the mid 90's ?

ETA: Oh yeah, and Macs also run Widows and Linux without issue. :D

[WaltM]

Yes.


Then you agree something is overpriced.

At best you found one exception.



LMAO - why on earth would you compare a standard form-factor laptop vs a slim form-factor MacBook Air?

The MacBook Air is more about "ooohhh pretty" than about hard-core computing power.


Which supports my point, OVERPRICED.





If you were actually serious about comparing product vs product then you would have compared it to the MacBook or the MacBook Pro


That wouldn't tell you whether Apple products are overpriced.
Do you compare whether you're winning a campaign by comparing yourself to yourself?



To use the AIR as a comparison to prove that Apples are more buck for your bang than a Windows PC is asinine, and an intentional perversion of the facts to lead to a predetermined outcome.

Just like our jerk politicians do. :rolleyes:


Not just Air, iPad, was another example which you acknowledged.




So let's see:

PRICE: $1,199.00 for 2.4 Ghz $1,499 for 2.66 Ghz Intel Core-Duo
Screen: 13.3in 1280x800 mDVI out, over 1080p resolution output
Speaker: Built In Stereo
USB: 2 (3 on the 17 inch)
Battery: 8hr+
Camera: 1
Wireless: 802.11N
Gigabit Ethernet
Modem: External USB or Firewire Available
Firewire: YES
Bluetooth: YES, 2.1
Full size backlit keyboard
Up to 8GB RAM

Which means that you get more power and more features than the laptop in your comparison, FOR ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS LESS than your PC laptop.


which PC laptop are we comparing?

See below post, if you want to compare TODAY'S PRICE, COMPARE IT WITH TODAY'S ALTERNATIVE.




That's right, when you actually compare the equivalent devices, the Apple comes out ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS LESS than the PC Laptop you are bringing up.


And there's no other comparable PC laptop?
See below post, if you want to compare TODAY'S PRICE, COMPARE IT WITH TODAY'S ALTERNATIVE.




Not to mention that the MacBook Air is actually $1499, and NOT $3098. So even the MacBook Air (which is the wrong device to compare) is $700 less expensive than your comparison PC.


$3098 was the price in Q1 '08, before it was ready to ship.




So how about trying again, and this time do please try to stick with facts and not 'made-up-out-of-thin-air' propaganda. :rolleyes:

So let's recap, the comparison you provided compared the wrong form-factor device, outright lied about it's price, and tried to make it look like the PC was $900 less than the MBA, when in fact the MBA is $700 less than that PC, AND when comparing the equivalent device, the MBP actually offers more and better features for a cool thousand less.


I didn't outright lie, and I didn't make it up.

Prices change, I'll go find another example. Though you admitted and iPad vs Mac Mini, makes an iPad overpriced (I never said all Apple products are overpriced either).See below post, if you want to compare TODAY'S PRICE, COMPARE IT WITH TODAY'S ALTERNATIVE.




Does that surprise you? Does it change your mind as to the price-point on Apple vs PC? or will you simply continue to cling to the false propaganda that you pay more for the same stuff when you buy an Apple, which hasn't actually been true since...ohhh....the mid 90's ?

ETA: Oh yeah, and Macs also run Widows and Linux without issue. :D

no, I don't believe you always pay more for the same stuff.
For some people any Mac is worth the extra.

[WaltM]

PRICE: $1,199.00 for 2.4 Ghz
CPU : Intel Core 2 Duo (if you want i5, that'd start at $1799)

Screen: 13.3in 1280x800 mDVI out, over 1080p resolution output
Speaker: Built In Stereo
USB: 2
Battery: 8hr+
Camera: 1
Wireless: 802.11N
Gigabit Ethernet
Modem: External USB or Firewire Available
Harddrive : 250GB (not important)
Firewire: YES
Bluetooth: YES, 2.1
Full size backlit keyboard
HDD 4GB 1066MHz DDR3 SDRAM - 2x2GB (unless you pay $400 more)


Let's see

Where PC wins, its marked in red.
Where they are the same, is marked in blue

Tech Specs
Screen Size: 14"
LCD Resolution: HD (1366 x768) (LED)
CPU: i5-430M (2.26GHz)
RAM: 4G DDR3
VGA: ATI 5470 1G DDR3 VRAM
HDD: 500G 7200RPM (not that this is important)
ODD: Super Multi
OS: Windows 7 Home Premium (64bit)
WLAN: 802.11 bgn
Fingerprint Reader: N
Blue Tooth: N
Webcam: 0.3M
Trusted Platform Module (TPM): N
Battery: 6 cell
MS Office Ready (60 Day Trial): Y
Energy Star 4.0: Y
EPEAT: N

Cost?

UNDER $900
http://www.buy.com/prod/asus-k42jr-a1-14-laptop-intel-core-i5-430m-2-26ghz-4gb-500gb-hdd-802/q/loc/101/213725217.html
Sorry I gave an outdated example earlier.
The $2200 laptop above was introduced in '08, when Macbook Air was not ready to ship. It's no longer $1000 more than the MacBook pro today.
(Today, if you wanted a Sony VAIO TZ, 13.3", i7, it's actually under $800)


Feel free to Google ASUS i7, which is $1000 last time I checked
Compare that to MacBook Pro $2200 (i7 starts there)
Both 4GB memory, ASUS 16" screen, MacBook pro 15"

Or, try searching Sony VAIO i5 17", they're well under $1000 vs MacBook Pro i5 17" $2300
Are you paying an extra $1300 for 5 hours more of battery life? (or to run Linux & Windows? personally I prefer to have 2 laptops if I was going to pay $2300)

[Sentient Void]

This thread has been officially and completely DERAILED.

Good fight.

[WaltM]

This thread has been officially and completely DERAILED.

Good fight.

wasn't my fault somebody asked me if I was an Apple shareholder, then another challenged me to compare PC laptops vs MacBooks to prove the obvious point that Apple products are overpriced with few exceptions.

[GunnyFreedom]

wasn't my fault somebody asked me if I was an Apple shareholder, then another challenged me to compare PC laptops vs MacBooks to prove the obvious point that Apple products are overpriced with few exceptions.

You are the one who asked you to make comparisons, brother. :rolleyes: I get the best hardware and software combination for the job, every job, every time. You claim Apple people are the cult, but this Apple person uses every platform that exists to match it to the right job at the right cost, including Windows, Linux, *ux, and Apple...while you just take an irrational hatred of anything Apple and use it to justify "just making stuff up out of thin air" in an attempt to make others hate Apples too.

That's fine, it's a free country, but I'll stick with facts over propaganda every day of the week thankyouverymuch. :)

[jmdrake]

Why anybody would buy/use one of these electronic cattle tags is fucking beyond me anyway.

It's like painting a big target on your forehead saying "HERE I AM".

Word! Look how they're now pushing this as a "feature".

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_odd_iphone_theft_gps

What I'd like to do is build an app that sends out a fake GPS signal. One that will say I'm in Los Angeles when I'm really in New York. :D

[WaltM]

Word! Look how they're now pushing this as a "feature".

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_odd_iphone_theft_gps

What I'd like to do is build an app that sends out a fake GPS signal. One that will say I'm in Los Angeles when I'm really in New York. :D

I'm not at all surprised if pro-privacy geeks (or criminals) are doing it.

there's been little applications that give out fake IP addresses for stalkers in the past.

[Pizzo]

How are Apple products overpriced if people are willing to pay what they charge? Isn't the seller's job to get as much for a product as they can? I understand the point that is trying to be made, but the word "overpriced" is used incorrectly IMHO. Things that do not show up in feature comparisons are the look of a product, ease of use, availability and price of applications for that product and/or platform, customer service, build quality, whether or not there is a need for anti-virus software, quality of peripherals, etc. Some of those things are very important to some people, and not as important to others.

[WaltM]

You are the one who asked you to make comparisons, brother. :rolleyes: I get the best hardware and software combination for the job, every job, every time.


No, I wasn't. I said I'm against overpriced products, I never said ALL Apple products are overpriced, so you started by bringing up an exception. I answered by showing how iPad, MacBook Air are more typical (which you affirmed).

You then said that my pricing is wrong (when its merely outdated), claim I lied, then I provided an updated pricing as comparison. I cannot however, argue with preference, functionality and software the laptops come with.






You claim Apple people are the cult,


Hahah, no I didn't.

I was though, accused of being a shareholder just because I refuse to accept the court's ruling against Apple (which, I hope I misunderstood, otherwise I believe it's unfairly biased against the company).



but this Apple person uses every platform that exists to match it to the right job at the right cost, including Windows, Linux, *ux, and Apple...while you just take an irrational hatred of anything Apple and use it to justify "just making stuff up out of thin air" in an attempt to make others hate Apples too.


I don't want anybody to hate Apple products. I don't hate them per se either, I just like making comparisons, I am not dogmatically pro-Windows or pro-Linux, and using alternative platforms doesn't change any fact of your purchasing preferences. For me, it's almost always about money, as I'm neither a programmer nor a graphic designer.



That's fine, it's a free country, but I'll stick with facts over propaganda every day of the week thankyouverymuch. :)

So you can't respond to what I eventually said? That if you actually compare
a ) laptop to laptop
b) comparable CPU, RAM, screen size (nevermind HDD)
c) updated prices
Apple laptops almost always cost more (the only reason you found that it's $1000 less is because you compared prices at 2 different times, 2 years apart)

I didn't say it's not worth it, I didn't say aesthetics, functionality, battery life, software aren't eventually and overall more bang for the buck. I NEVER EVER said that you're paying more for the same thing.

[jmdrake]

I'm not at all surprised if pro-privacy geeks (or criminals) are doing it.

there's been little applications that give out fake IP addresses for stalkers in the past.

Spoofing an IP address is easy. You just have to go through a proxy server. A 10 year old kid (or younger) could do it.

Hacking GPS seems conceptually more difficult. You either need to patch the code which is probably running at kernel level, or perhaps hack/replace the chip itself. The last would be the most sure way to do this since it would still work if the kernel got updated. (And of course it would void the warranty, but I could care less). Patching the kernel might be the best way to go on an Android since it's open source.

[WaltM]

How are Apple products overpriced if people are willing to pay what they charge?


They're not for those people.



Isn't the seller's job to get as much for a product as they can?


Yes it is.



I understand the point that is trying to be made, but the word "overpriced" is used incorrectly IMHO.


You mean overpriced is an objective term?



Things that do not show up in feature comparisons are the look of a product, ease of use, availability and price of applications for that product and/or platform, customer service, build quality, whether or not there is a need for anti-virus software, quality of peripherals, etc. Some of those things are very important to some people, and not as important to others.

Yes, but not all people. So when I say something is overpriced, I can only speak for myself. I was accused of being a shareholder so I just made the point I own none of their products, not at all that I'm against buying them unconditionally.

[Pizzo]

They're not for those people.



Yes it is.



You mean overpriced is an objective term?



Yes, but not all people. So when I say something is overpriced, I can only speak for myself. I was accused of being a shareholder so I just made the point I own none of their products, not at all that I'm against buying them unconditionally.

Gotcha.

[jmdrake]

Oh, and as for the OP, the right to contract has never been absolute. Besides, even if an Apple "jailbreaking" contract were valid, that wouldn't justify punitive damages against the consumer. If a contract is breached the job of the court is supposed to be to put both parties back in the same position that they would have been if there had never been a breach. That would mean that if Apple "sued" a consumer and won over "jailbreaking" the consumer should have to return the phone and Apple should have to refund the money. Do you really think Apple (or any other company) would want to do that?

[WaltM]

Oh, and as for the OP, the right to contract has never been absolute. Besides, even if and Apple "jailbreaking" contract were valid, that wouldn't justify punitive contracts against the consumer. If a contract is breached the job of the court is supposed to be to put both parties back in the same position that they would have been if there had never been a breach. That would mean that if Apple "sued" a consumer and won over "jailbreaking" the consumer should have to return the phone and Apple should have to refund the money. Do you really think Apple (or any other company) would want to do that?

Thanks.

No, realistically and practically they would not.

I was wondering if they had the right to do so if the contract said so though.

[GunnyFreedom]

No, I wasn't. I said I'm against overpriced products, I never said ALL Apple products are overpriced, so you started by bringing up an exception. I answered by showing how iPad, MacBook Air are more typical (which you affirmed).

the MacBook Air is by no means 'more typical.' the more typical Mac OS laptops are the MacBook and the MacBook Pro. The MacBook Air was made to be a showpiece. More about making your coffee table look pretty than actual computing power.


You then said that my pricing is wrong (when its merely outdated), claim I lied, then I provided an updated pricing as comparison. I cannot however, argue with preference, functionality and software the laptops come with.

I have NEVER seen the price you cited for the MBA. If you cited that price without knowing that it was never accurate, then I apologize for thinking that it was intentional



You claim Apple people are the cult,Hahah, no I didn't.


yeah, we're not the kind who make you wear stupid uniforms
http://obviousdiversion.com/images/cult.jpg

:rolleyes:


I was though, accused of being a shareholder just because I refuse to accept the court's ruling against Apple (which, I hope I misunderstood, otherwise I believe it's unfairly biased against the company).



I don't want anybody to hate Apple products. I don't hate them per se either, I just like making comparisons, I am not dogmatically pro-Windows or pro-Linux, and using alternative platforms doesn't change any fact of your purchasing preferences. For me, it's almost always about money, as I'm neither a programmer nor a graphic designer.

I do graphics design, I do scripting, I am a network technician, I am a computer hardware technician, and I have serviced laptops. I am a systems administrator, and I am intimately familiar with most commonly used platforms.

While I service Windows machines professionally, in my personal life I use nothing but Apple, Linux, and BSD platforms, as they without fail offer more bang for my buck and superior reliability across the board.


So you can't respond to what I eventually said? That if you actually compare
a ) laptop to laptop
b) comparable CPU, RAM, screen size (nevermind HDD)
c) updated prices
Apple laptops almost always cost more (the only reason you found that it's $1000 less is because you compared prices at 2 different times, 2 years apart)

I'm not the one who quoted a fictitious price on Apple's hardware to make a point, nor did I compare apples to oranges by selecting the non-equivalent device in the hopes of exaggerating the point.

The price differential you cite is nothing remotely resembling your claims. A MacBook is under $1000. The MacBook Pro starts under $1200. Residual costs also count, they cost less to service, they tend to last longer, and they take longer to go obsolete.

The only way people can justify calling Apple equipment obscenely overpriced is to cite fictitious data.


I didn't say it's not worth it, I didn't say aesthetics, functionality, battery life, software aren't eventually and overall more bang for the buck. I NEVER EVER said that you're paying more for the same thing.

Hm. Sure sounded that way to me...

[WaltM]

the MacBook Air is by no means 'more typical.' the more typical Mac OS laptops are the MacBook and the MacBook Pro. The MacBook Air was made to be a showpiece. More about making your coffee table look pretty than actual computing power.


Ok, and I went ahead and compared those as well.



I have NEVER seen the price you cited for the MBA. If you cited that price without knowing that it was never accurate, then I apologize for thinking that it was intentional


It's cool.




:rolleyes:


The shirt was not made by me, I'm not even sure if it's real, but it's a joke.
Never meant to insult anybody.




I do graphics design, I do scripting, I am a network technician, I am a computer hardware technician, and I have serviced laptops. I am a systems administrator, and I am intimately familiar with most commonly used platforms.


Good, so you know how to make use of your stuff, not typical.
(need I actually say that even if your case WERE typical, what's overpriced and redundant is still my opinion?)




While I service Windows machines professionally, in my personal life I use nothing but Apple, Linux, and BSD platforms, as they without fail offer more bang for my buck and superior reliability across the board.

I'm not the one who quoted a fictitious price on Apple's hardware to make a point, nor did I compare apples to oranges by selecting the non-equivalent device in the hopes of exaggerating the point.


And I've since corrected the price comparisons.



The price differential you cite is nothing remotely resembling your claims. A MacBook is under $1000. The MacBook Pro starts under $1200. Residual costs also count, they cost less to service, they tend to last longer, and they take longer to go obsolete.


Macbook is $1000 ($1 less doesn't count, please)

This is no comparison to the laptop above (either i5 or i7, 4GB RAM...), which is under $900 (under $899 too, for the record)



MacBook default
# 2.4GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor with 3MB on-chip shared L2 cache
# 1066MHz frontside bus
# 2GB (two 1GB SO-DIMMs) of 1066MHz DDR3

I never challenged the residual costs, services costs, duration of reliability...etc.
So are you going to keep moving goal posts and make excuses? Or stop and actually make a comparison, either by price, or by hardware?





The only way people can justify calling Apple equipment obscenely overpriced is to cite fictitious data.


I never said obscenely, so looks like you're just reading what you read and keep saying I cite ficitous data.

You're no doubt a better expert at utilizing computers, so I won't argue with you how much better Apple computers are.

You've just not responded to my comparisons, and changed the fact that one costs more (not saying it's not worth it).



Hm. Sure sounded that way to me...

That's your problem, not mine.

When I brought up MacBook Air, you make excuses.
When I use Macbook Pro and compared it to a similar hardware PC Laptop, you say there's a cheaper Macbook.
I'm not even claiming that if MacBook and PC Laptop have the exact same hardware, Macbooks wouldn't work better (but you want to think I said so).