On 12/9/2011 1:19 AM, Sony Antony wrote:
A software developer can refuse software support if the customer tries
to reverse engineer their software (disasembling, modifying ). It is
their TOU that clearly prohibits such activities. However, there is no
kill switch here.
There was a situation with pirated set-top boxes that allowed users to
get cable at a vastly reduced rate where they broadcast a bunch of
"over-the-air" updates to the non-pirated boxes, which the pirates then
dutifully added to their box firmware. What they didn't know is that the
updates included bits of a new function that the cable company was
sneaking onto the pirate boxes.
Then right before (during?) the Super Bowl they broadcast a code that
would activate that secret function that they had been uploading in
pieces. The function caused the set-top boxes to check to see if they
were the pirated version -- and if they were, then they'd BRICK themselves.
We're not talking about a particular piece of software that stopped
working, but that the hardware destroyed itself. Talk about a kill
switch. Since everyone owning one of those devices was doing something
illegal, I'm pretty sure there was no follow-up lawsuit, either.
A device manufacturer (say a cd player) can cancel warranty if the
user opens the cabinet or gets it serviced by unauthorised people,
because the warranty document clearly says so and the user accepts
this when buying the product. The device still may or may not work as
usual, but the device manufacturer do not have the right to stop the
working of the device.
The BluRay standard allows discs to examine the device to determine if
it's been hacked or modified, and if it has, then it won't work [1].
Maybe we're talking semantics here, but to effectively prevent any new
disc from being played on a device is pretty well disabling the device.
Again, a hardware device that is owned by a user, that the user can no
longer use.
However banning a user all together just because he writes negative
reviews on forums is extreme. I dont think that any software
manufacturer (microsoft/oracle/...) bans users from writing negative
reviews about their product, or has ever killed the software of a user
who writes negative reviews.
No one is talking about banning users that simply write negative
reviews; that's an obvious strawman. We're talking about abusive users,
and in John's case, only 0.0004% of users (12 in 3,000,000). If he only
has 12 negative reviews, I'd be amazed, given the nature of people who
typically comment (for the record I haven't seen the app in question).
For the most part, the software manufacturers you're talking about don't
give away their software for free. Nevertheless, Microsoft specifically
prohibited people from publishing benchmarks of .NET (I see references
from 2002 [2] to 2006 [3], though I also came across a forum post
indicating it may no longer be true?). We're talking about FACTS
(benchmark results) that Microsoft specifically doesn't let you publish.
But no, there's not a kill switch in Vista if you violate that license.
Instead, if you're using software without a valid license (because
you've violated the terms), you're subject to statutory damages of $150k
per infringement. Is threat of suing your users better than having a
kill switch?
So it will take a jury to decide whether applying the "right to refuse
service" in this case is legally justified or not.
No one is talking about blocking people because of race, sexual
orientation, etc. Typically the maximum damages someone could seek
are...what they've invested. If it's an app that is holding a ton of
their data hostage, then you could have a point. If it's an app that
provides a service (or is just a game), and they've paid nothing for it,
then it would be extremely hard for them to prove any kind of damages.
If this banning logic is applied, no body will be able to make any
negative comments about anything, out of the fear of getting
disconnected / banned.
No one SHOULD ever make abusive and insulting comments. They typically
aren't constructive, and often aren't actionable. Again, no one is
talking about "negative" comments. If you want to say that the app
doesn't work the way you want, fine.
What I feel is refusal of service should be done only as an extreme
step (irrespective of whether the app is free or paid), and with
utmost caution, unless you want to open yourself up to litigations.
0.0004% is pretty extreme. Again, what could someone even potentially
sue you over?
But IANAL.
Tim
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray_Disc#Digital_rights_management
[2] http://www.leirtech.com/rick/not_a_benchmark.html
[3]
http://slashdot.org/story/06/11/02/1751222/Surprises-in-Microsoft-Vistas-EULA
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android
Discuss" group.
To post to this group, send email to android-discuss@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
android-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/android-discuss?hl=en.
