amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
 ·Cox HSI
 ·magicjack.com
| reply to pandora
Re: Defcon 1?: Massive ATA failure
said by pandora  :My guess is if some people do get notices or threats about litigation, we will see a cry fest on this board. Suddenly everyone who boasted about cracking or hacking MagicJack will become pure as new snow. I doubt that will happen. Not until Dan has really closed unauthorized access, and then goes after people clearly hacking into his system.
I agree with you that I don't need the drama of illegitimate ATA use. I also respect Dan's business interests (the requirement to receive ads, even if they only advertise Dan's products and aren't generating revenue as his business model anticipated).
I'm kind of in the middle on this. I think people who used ATAs knew they were violating the ToS. Some didn't care because Dan didn't take steps to enforce the ToS (either stopping ATA use, or terminating abusers). Others didn't care because they simply don't respect EULAs (which I can understand, and sympathize to some degree).
But, talk of lawsuits (either people suing Dan over his ToS prohibition against ATAs, or Dan suing users for using them all this time) is absurd. IMO.
But, if I were an ATA user, I'd be more concerned today about trying different things to make it work. Dan tried to stop it in December. He's been more effective this week. It's a matter of time until he's going to stop kidding around. That could be service termination. Or, if he really gets tired of playing games, a DCMA lawsuit.
Anyone who continues trying to figure out how to make it work is playing an increasingly dangerous game.
I wish Dan would have waited to do this until he had a real ATA solution to sell.
Mark |
|
pagemen
join:2008-12-28
planet earth | reply to pandora
why are you so excited? Feel like a winner of the OOMA vs. MJ debate? |
|
pandora
Premium
join:2001-06-01
Outland
·ooma
·Future Nine Corpor..
·Comcast
|  said by pagemen :why are you so excited? Feel like a winner of the OOMA vs. MJ debate? No, no excitement here. Just an articulation that TOS, contracts and law should be respected. For those who happily use MagicJack via its dongle per TOS per DMCA, I have great respect. They are getting a wonderful deal.
For those who violated TOS, contract, or DMCA, I have no sympathy. Why should I? Do you?
As to MagicJack vs. Ooma, there is no debate for me. I decided to go with an ATA long ago as the dongle, adware and PC on 24/7 didn't appeal to me. My decision not to go with MagicJack pre-dates my decision to go with Ooma.
I think it may be worth mentioning to users on this forum that continued attempts to get third party ATA's working with MagicJack could be offering information to Dan about inappropriate use of credentials. Is that wrong of me to mention?
--
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| reply to r81984
said by r81984 :So do I violate the TOS when I have ads blocked from my host file? I think you do. The ToS says you agree to receive ads.
said by MagicJack ToS :
11. You also understand and agree that use of the magicJack device and Software will include advertisements. ... You also understand and agree that use of the magicJack device and Software may include certain communications, such as service announcements, administrative messages and newsletters, and you will not be able to opt out of receiving them. Right now the advertisements are simply announcements and administrative messages. By blocking them you are opting out of them. If these are required, how much more so would be revenue-generating advertisements?
But, I agree that this is a sticky issue. Does this mean you're required to look at them? Is an always-on thin client or laptop a violation? What is the definition of "receive?" Physically receive them on the computer? Or, personally?
I tend to think it means you will receive them at the computer as they are intended to be received. But, it's not reasonable to require you to actually look at them. That would involve questions of how long you should look at them? How carefully? But, physically receiving them at the computer is pretty clear. It's sufficient to give you a reasonable chance of looking at them. That's all MJ can hope for.
But, this gets back to MJ's responsibility to enforce it. Does MJ have a responsibility to detect that the ad server is unreachable? Stop service if the condition persists? If MJ doesn't take steps to enforce this term of service *where it reasonably has the ability to do so*, does that mean you shouldn't care about that term of service any more than MJ does?
I don't know. I can see both sides.
said by r81984 :Why do you applaud this? MagicJack made money of people who bought it just to use it with an ATA. MJ's interest is broader than the money transferred at the time of sale. MJ has an interest in the advertisements (even just it advertises its own ads, or service announcements such as notices of service suspension). It also has an interest in everyone using the service as expected to keep support costs lower. If someone with an ATA contacts chat support, this can increase the cost of support.
MJ has an interest in its public image (yes, I vomited a little in my mouth as I wrote that). If MJ doesn't provide ATA service, then it doesn't need the negative publicity of everyone complaining when their illicit ATA service is disrupted.
But, as I said earlier, I agree that MJ's interest in this is commensurate with the steps it takes to enforce the no-ATA policy.
said by r81984 :If there is no way to hack it to use an ATA then MagicJack should refund them for the USB device and prorate their yearly fee. Wow. That's the ultimate victim mentality. You guys knew it was contrary to the ToS. I can understand taking a gamble that Dan would allow it until he offered a real ATA service. (I wish he'd handled it that way.).
But, saying it's Dan's fault and he owes all the violators something is surreal.
said by r81984 :Agreements??? I use magic jack and I can tell you I read no agreements or agreed to anything. ... TOS's are not always legal and have no power. ... The ToS doesn't give you the luxury of neither agreeing or not agreeing. When you purchase you agree to the ToS. When you register you indicate you agree to the ToS. The ToS says if you don't agree, you cannot use the service.
There's nothing that says you can simply not be bothered by the ToS, defining your own.
If you don't respect ToSs, that's fine. But, picking and choosing ("they're not always legal") is unattractive. Because they aren't always legal mean often they are. The fact that they often are legal is a reason to be concerned with what the ToS says, and adhere to the choice to agree or disagree. (Or, at least know the parts you disagree with, and consider unenforceable.).
As far as it being a court's responsibility to decide. I agree. But, it's going to end up being your responsibility to go to court to get that decision. Not Dan's. He'll just block your unauthorized use, and cancel your service -- per the ToS. It will be very funny to listen to you in arguing to a court how the ToS that you neither agreed to, nor disagreed to, is now binding on MJ. 
Mark |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
1 edit | reply to pandora
said by pandora :Just an articulation that TOS, contracts and law should be respected. For those who happily use MagicJack via its dongle per TOS per DMCA, I have great respect. They are getting a wonderful deal. For the sake of others, ToS and DMCA are two different things. Terms within a ToS may cover things that are covered by DMCA. But, that doesn't give them the weight of DMCA. Just because a ToS doesn't include terms related to DMCA doesn't mean a company has waived their protections under DMCA.
DMCA doesn't give ToS additional (or any) enforceability. The licensor wouldn't use ToS to enforce DMCA claims. He would just terminate service.
To me, DMCA doesn't have much to do with a discussion of ToS. It's just a way to make EULAs sound like they're in the same legal category of DMCA. They're not.
EULAs are contracts giving the licensor greater power than they would have under copyright. And, because they are self-written and not consummated like a real contract, they may not carry the weight (if any) of a real contract.
DMCA is statutory law enhancing copyright for owners of digital intellectual property. It doesn't make all EULA's valid (in every respect). Therefore, it's incorrect to say "use magicJack ... per ToS per DMCA" as if ToS gains credibility or power from DMCA.
Mark |
|
pandora
Premium
join:2001-06-01
Outland | We shall see what happens. At least its an interesting thread. |
|
swanboy
join:2001-01-22
Hollywood, FL | reply to Noga
Theres always been so many paranoid mJ users... |
|
Noga
join:2004-06-30
Hollywood, FL
| reply to Noga
This reminds me of an earlier post I read on the magicjacksupport forum. It went along something along the lines of "MagicJack is evil...any company that would not let you port out your number is evil." Then there was an actual argument for a few pages...ugh. |
|
avd706
insert annoying animated gif here
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Union, NJ
| said by Noga :This reminds me of an earlier post I read on the magicjacksupport forum. It went along something along the lines of "MagicJack is evil...any company that would not let you port out your number is evil." Then there was an actual argument for a few pages...ugh. That's a different argument.
--
Team JON. |
|
Noga
join:2004-06-30
Hollywood, FL | *sigh* |
|
avd706
insert annoying animated gif here
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Union, NJ
| wudda you mean "*sigh*"?
MJ should port out numbers per FCC regulations.
users using MJ on their ATA have no basis to complain if thatfunctionality is disabled.
In one case the TOS/AUP protects the company, in another case it has no legal basis.
Go figure.
--
Team JON. |
|
swanboy
join:2001-01-22
Hollywood, FL | This site has gone insane apparently. Instead of actually trying to solve some technical issues such as on the mJsupport forums... you guys are having nonsensical debates about the ToS.
Ridiculous. |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| said by swanboy :This site has gone insane apparently. Instead of actually trying to solve some technical issues such as on the mJsupport forums... you guys are having nonsensical debates about the ToS. Maybe. But, this is the second time Dan has tried to stop ATA use in six months. At what point does this change from innocently taking advantage of a "feature," to maliciously undermining a company's service?
If I were the guy running the MJ Support forum, I'd start to worry about that. He could easily become a target of a DMCA claim.
But, for all I know, he might like havnig people uncover holes for him.
However, there's nothing nonsensical about how Dan's tried to stop the ATA activity twice now, and the nature of trying to hack his system is increasingly more risky.
And, personally, as a non-ATA user, I have to wonder how much this game has taken away from providing other services. Would I have a Linux softphone now if Dan didn't have to spend so much time trying to enforce the Terms of Service people said they agreed to?
Mark |
|
andre2
join:2005-08-24
Brookline, MA
| said by amigo_boy :And, personally, as a non-ATA user, I have to wonder how much this game has taken away from providing other services. Would I have a Linux softphone now if Dan didn't have to spend so much time trying to enforce the Terms of Service people said they agreed to? I suspect that Dan made a calculated decision to let the ATA use go on as long as it did in order to get more people to sign up, preferably for 5-year plans. The upgrade is dated April, 2 months before it was released. |
|
just my 02
@comcast.net
| reply to Noga
Consider this...
The business model is doomed to fail - selling a product/service that the incoming revenue stream less overhead expenses (including pending lawsuits) will never be profitable.
What better way to "fix" the situation than to allow peeps to up-buy the service (5 years) with a TOS agreement that states that service is subject to termination (without refund) if TOS are violated (by not using the advertising-based-soft-client).
Dan scores a big "win" by legally terminating 20% of the "prepaid" client base without providing a refund. |
|
luigi2008
join:2008-12-10 | reply to pandora
Ｉ ａｍ ｔｏｔａｌｌｙ ｗｉｔｈ ｙｏｕ． |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| reply to just my 02
said by just my 02 :
Dan scores a big "win" by legally terminating 20% of the "prepaid" client base without providing a refund.
I've had a funny feeling that the relatively large (compared to other VoIP services) number of users whose service inexplicably becomes unusable is part of Dan's business plan.
Let's say Dan has a program to examine usage patterns (more outgoing than incoming, for example) and randomly chooses users to muck up their service. Maybe it sends their dongle the instruction to display "Broken Storage." Or, deprioritizes their server connection so their calls are choppy and garbled.
The way Dan doesn't refund unused time (and makes it punitive to resolve technical problems), it could be part of his business plan that n% of users who exit early equates to $n of profit. Plug in the $ in profit you need, get the number of users that should depart, and give that number to the analysis program mentioned above.
It sounds crazy. But, the "no refund" policy combined with a lot of sleazy behaviors Dan has exhibited make it less crazy to me.
On the one hand, I can understand the "no refund" policy. At the level of $1.67 per month it's not worth the overhead of requesting or handling requests. But, that's the problem with having no concern for your own reputation (the way Dan has done). It can contribute to people thinking it's not that innocent or simple.
Mark |
|
odment
Alrighty Then
Premium
join:2002-11-30
Warren, MI | This my sound dumb but was is ATA? |
|
dbmaven
There's no shortage
Premium,Mod
join:1999-10-26
Sty in Sky
clubs: | »Re: MJ softphone upgrade |
|
odment
Alrighty Then
Premium
join:2002-11-30
Warren, MI | Thank you. |
|
