Click and Accept Software Licenses

q2k sent in this tidbit about "click-wrap" software agreements - an analysis of a couple of court cases over such licenses. Good reading for anyone interested in the subject.

Re:Did you read the bottom of the web page?

[radja]

that would make the license invalid, causing the license to fall back to standard copyright in the Netherlands.

//rdj

web based license agreement

[bluelip]

What about all of the licenses you have to agree to before you can download sample software. Most of them are just a text field that the web designer left editable. Would it be legally binding if I changed it to say that the company I'm downloading from agrees to pay me $45/hr for demoing their software?

Re:Did you read the bottom of the web page?

[www.sorehands.com]

But, you may be trapped when going to the next page.

You may not agree when reading the first page, but once you have gone to another page could signify acceptance.

Did you read the bottom of the web page?

[plover]

Before using this site, please read our terms of use. © 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001 Hale and Dorr LLP

(I checked the document source, but there were no IRONY tags around it.)

How enforceable is that? Not only is it at the BOTTOM of the page (where you won't read it until you hit the end of the article in all Western languages), but you have to have done so BEFORE having read the page content?

John

Re:Did you read the bottom of the web page?

[AntiNorm]

How enforceable is that? Not only is it at the BOTTOM of the page (where you won't read it until you hit the end of the article in all Western languages), but you have to have done so BEFORE having read the page content?

To go along with unenforcability, here's a true story: At the beginning of this semester, I obtained a copy of Allyn & Bacon Web Edition (a PDF/web based textbook viewer) as part of my tech writing class. It came with a printed license agreement that said "By opening this package..." But the printed LA was *inside* the package, with the CD. Where the fsck is the logic in that? That makes it impossible to be able to read the fscking agreement without automatically "accepting" it.

---
The AOL-Time Warner-Microsoft-Intel-CBS-ABC-NBC-Fox corporation:

Re:Why no front page?

[Zara2]

I definately agree with you. While (as you can tell from my user number) I am not a old hand here at slashdot and dont remember the good old days I have noticed the exact same problems you have mentioned. I remember my first karma generating post. I got like a +3. So it put me where I could moderate and I cheerfully read through a few hundred posts to find out where I can spend my points. I log in the next day and my karma is at 0 agian. Yeeaaaa. This is how to encourage people to use the moderation system to help better the quality of posts on /.?

Re:web based license agreement

[JCCyC]

IANAL, but you might be on to something ('Funny' moderations aside). What if one could find a certified auditor, or a judge, or some otherwise heavy witness, and do such a thing with some software in their presence? Could you (and the vendor) be interpreted as legally bound by your edited version instead of the vendor's?

Remember, this sort of thing already happens with written contracts. Part 1 offers piece of paper. Part 2 reads it, frowns, ask for rephrasing. And so forth until they agree on a heavily changed version. If clicking "I Agree" is legally binding, I can't see how this isn't.

Is there anyone ou there with the chutzpah to try such a thing? Or, can you provide me a link to a download site with an editable agreement so I can try it myself? I'm serious. Really.

Re:Why no front page?

[GigsVT]

I log in the next day and my karma is at 0 agian. Yeeaaaa. This is how to encourage people to use the moderation system to help better the quality of posts on /.?

Yeah, I know... It makes one not want to moderate.

I've given some thought to the moderation system, I don't know if you ever read the Motley Fool over at www.fool.com, but they have a positive-only moderation system. Anyone that reads can "recommend" a post. The top rated posts go into a "Best of" feature. The problem I see with doing that on Slashdot is that people would inevitably use proxies and fake accounts to abuse the system. I think it has a lot to do with the expected maturity level of the audience.

The Fool also does have "censorship" style moderation of spam posts, the admins go through and decide whether to remove a post that has been reported as a problem.

This involves trust of the admins, and I think that the assumption of untrustworthiness is what leads to some of this immature behavior we see on Slashdot and on the Internet in general. We lock our doors in real life, sure, but we don't put up huge walls around our house, and claim it to be totally secure, to do so entices people to try to break in to see just what is so important in there anyway. I think that this escalation of non-trust leads to people trying to break the system just to prove they can.

Over on the Fool, the total recommendations you have received are listed on your profile, but I don't think anyone sees it as a competition. You get a little trinket by your name, Ebay style, after certain numbers of posts, no matter how good or bad they are.

Thanks to the moderators that modded up the other post, I'm glad I'm not the only person that is willing to lose Karma to question the system.
-

Re:Why no front page?

[GigsVT]

In case you hadn't noticed, slashdot has gotten a lot crappier in the last year or so. It's not the editors, it's the readers, and the posters. Everytime I try to correct someone's incorrect info, I get three posts in reply with personal attacks.

I submit stories of vital importance to online freedom, and instead some anime shit makes the front page.

I've come to the conclusion, I'm going to start to read at +4 on main page stories, and not post unless it is really really important.

It's dissapointing that Slashdot has become this. My karma slides down every time I moderate, because any idiot can metamoderate, and they usually do so badly.

This whole thing is broken. By allowing negative moderation, creating karma, and arbitrary selection of stories, the creators of Slashdot messed up bad. Karma creates a competition, negative moderation allows for revenge in moderation, and arbitrary story selection means that important news will fall through the cracks.

Whew...

OK, that was worth the 2 karma I will lose when I am modded down. :)
-

Why no front page?

[agentZ]

This is a good article with some actual good news. Why isn't it on the front page? Or has /. resorted to only reporting sensational news that stirs up the anger of nerds everywhere...

Re:Why no front page?

[Sarcasmooo!]

Yeah, I'm sorry, but how the hell does this not get on the front page? A story that effects almost all the games and other software which every person that reads this site uses....

Oh great...

[wizzy403]

So does that mean that now we're going to see messages like this?

Please agree that you will read and accept all of our licenses before downloading our software. OK

Please agree that you have agreed to accept our license. OK

Software downloading, please wait...
Download complete. Please agree that you have completed a properly licensed download. OK

Please agree to view our license at this time OK.....

This is pretty blatant...

[mbessey]

Read the article, but this is about whether AOL can enforce certain parts of its click and accept license in a specific case. In particular, their ability to require that cases be tried in Massachusetts.

Here's what AOL did wrong with their agreement:

1. The plaintiffs claim that AOL's software damaged their browsing environment before they even had a chance to read the agreement, much less agree to it.

2. In order to actually read the agreement, you have to select "read the agreement" TWICE in two different screens where the default was "I Agree".

3. Even if you did all that, and then clicked "I don't agree", the software didn't undo the changes it had made to your system.

So, AOL wants to be able to enforce their agreement on people who haven't read it, and on people that chose not to accept it...

Re:build a terrorist license circumvention device!

[gd23ka]

Even if they didn't leave that field editable there are ways to get around this.. What if I were to set you up with a proxy that has a form with exactly the same information they ask for? The proxy could then walk over all the links required to get to the download page (need to do that in case they check the referer header, cookies, "persistent data", or otherwise make sure you got there the way they wanted you to), submit the required information and then give you the download. I wonder if a terrorist weapon like that is covered by the DMCA? BTW.. Some e-Commerce software checks the content of what you submit back to them when you checkout so you can't add anything new to your shopping cart or help yourself to a brand-new thinkpad for $10. Some doesn't but I'll leave that as an exercise for the tech-savvy criminal. (Haha, I wonder if I could change the license agreement and charge them $100 bucks for customer referral!)