Fighting Back Against EULAs 620
An anonymous reader writes: "Fed up with increasingly obnoxious click-through "agreements" embedded in the retail software I buy, I've posted a very simple script to remove them before clicking "I agree". Without the EULA, I am free to use my software within the bounds of copyright law. Courts have been very inconsistent on the enforceability of EULAs, and I hope this will strengthen consumers' side of the battle. The script is a symbolic gesture as much as anything else, and I want to get people thinking about how ridiculous it is that software companies try to force these one-sided contracts on you after you have paid for something. Also worth a look is cexx.org's Software Vendor License Agreement, which reverses the typical EULA and puts the burden back on the software manufacturer where it belongs."
You broke it already... (Score:5, Interesting)
Your script needs to be able to display the EULA, and get past it w/o cliking "agree" or whatever.
Re:You broke it already...not (Score:2)
But who says I read the sticker on the CD-ROM pouch?
Re:You broke it already...not (Score:5, Interesting)
Imagind if you purchased a car, and the first time you went to fill it up at the gas station, you found a sticker that said:
I don't think that any court in the country would accept that as a binding contract -- yet people expect that to work for software.Re:You broke it already...not (Score:3, Insightful)
Hot steam (Score:4, Funny)
No problem: use hot steam to melt the glue and gently detach them, rather then "breaking" (i.e. tearing) them. Or just cut through the pouch at the other end, and take the CD out from the rear without "breaking the seal".
Then keep the intact "seal" on file along with all the other license documentation, as proof that you did not agree ;-)
Re:Hot steam (Score:2)
I think the usually say "by opening this blah blah" not "by breaking this sticker", on the cd pouch thingys.
Besides if that EULAs are accepted in court, they would go by the spirit of the law, not by some stu^H^H^Hcreative workaround.
Does it have to be hot steam? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:You broke it already... (Score:4, Funny)
You have already agreed to read the agreement
Can we just agree to disagree with the agreement?
Re:You broke it already... (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately, I have committed a felony under the juristiction of The United States of Microsoft by running a free operating system on my new laptop.
Re:You broke it already...(Dell) (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:You broke it already... (Score:3, Interesting)
For some bogus eula to be valid, you'd have to read and sign it before buying the software.. thats how some IA business get screwed over, they bundle some agreement with their iopener wannabe device, but don't tell circuit city about it, so consumers go and buy it for the hardware and never bother to activate the pay service.
Just a thought. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Just a thought. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Just a thought. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Just a thought. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Just a thought. (Score:5, Interesting)
Basically it went like this:
Me: How much would you take off for not installing Windows 98?
Sales Droid: We always install Windows 98.
Me: I don't want Windows 98
(five minutes of this, you know the story)
I gave up eventually. The machine was underpriced anyway, even including the 'tax'. They'd already installed the OS, so there was no way I'd be able to get that off -- they'd clicked 'I Agree' for me, I suppose.
What I did get a discount for was all the nonsense that came with the computer. Basically, Office, some virus scanner and so on. I had to take it to the store manager, who told me he'd never heard of anyone not accepting the license agreement before, but eventually he refunded me for everything except the OS.
Why they wouldn't sell me the computer without the software to begin with, I don't know... Probably to reduce all the idiot calls they get from people who thing Windows is a 'Word Processor' (I'm not making this up, I've heard that one a few times).
So, anyway, it's worth a try, so long as you don't value your sanity too much.
Re:Just a thought. (Score:4, Interesting)
If they are transferable, then in my view there are two logical outcomes: Either the customer has the right to see the EULA on demand, or the sales company who is agreeing to the EULA for the customer ought to be liable for any misuse of the software by the customer.
Re:Just a thought. (Score:5, Interesting)
The way you do it is to exchange your "defective" copy first, then return the unopened one they give you.
Re:Just a thought. (Score:4, Informative)
They did give me a free WinXP Pro instead, so I'll live.
/RS
Re:Just a thought. (Score:3, Insightful)
So what makes them think they have any way to force you to accept all the little policies in the EULA?
Re:Just a thought. (Score:2)
Re:Just a thought. (Score:4, Funny)
ago. sits out in my garage. I've never
had to worry about returning anything in
a plastic wrapped box!
Re:Just a thought. (Score:2)
Re:Just a thought. (Score:2)
However you are entitled to return opened software (for a refund) if it doesn't meet your requirements - this right is provided by the Uniform Commercial Code - The reasoning is that you can't examine the software in the store so you are granted a reasonable period to examine the software at home.
Re:Just a thought. (Score:3, Interesting)
If you read this... (Score:3, Funny)
That is all.
Although... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Although... (Score:2)
Re:Although... (Score:2, Insightful)
I wouldn't say it's any more 'unethical' than the thing it's protesting...
:wq
So where's the EULA for.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Great idea. Maybe I can take down the speed limit signs in my neighbourhood so I can go as fast as I like. Doh.
Reverse Engineering though... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Reverse Engineering though... (Score:2)
Re:Reverse Engineering though... (Score:2)
Another Strategy (Score:2)
I was thinking about this a few days ago...
Send the EULA back to the company with a letter saying that you do not agree to the terms.
See what they can do to stop you from using their software.
Lets have fun with EULAs... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Lets have fun with EULAs... (Score:2)
The onslaught of psychotic powermongers causes problems because the legal system isn't really geared towards asking, 'wait a minute, does this make any sense or is it just a deranged outburst in legal form?'.
Violation of the DMCA (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Violation of the DMCA (Score:2)
This is saying that the contract is part of the software. For this to be true, it would have to be acknowledged that the license was put to the customer AFTER the customer has already run the software, and BEFORE the EULA. So, since the customer had already begun legal use of the software before entering into the EULA, isn't it a bit to late for Microsoft to enforce usage terms? You can't tell the customer that you have the right to change terms unless you tell them that before they start using the product.
Re:Violation of the DMCA (Score:2)
Selective Enforcement? (Score:4, Interesting)
There must be some legal precedent for the concept of "If you never actively enforce a law, and allow it to be broken (in obvious publicly-visible ways) over and over, you can't then go at a later date enforcing it at will on specific people you decide to target, it's not right".
For that matter, if such a legal principle exists, I'd really like to see someone apply it to the traffic ticket system as well.
Re:Selective Enforcement? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Selective Enforcement? (Score:3, Insightful)
Two things brought up are immoral. The first is unreasonable contracts that realistically are rarely read. Unreasonable contracts can be thrown out in court. Also, using unreasonable contracts to harrass people is also slimy. These techniques are underhandy, slimy, mean and hard to defend.
The other thing is say things like, "X is immoral" or evil or the bane of the free world without supporting it. That's just slinging trash around. The only arguement I can see that all EULAs are immoral is that software should be Free etc etc. That one is still up for debate.
Basically though, a good EULA is like any other good contract. It clarifies the intent behind the sale and lays down what each party should expect from the other. It lets the user know that if the software blows up the computer, the company selling it won't help. Not helping might be bad, but at least there is acknowledgement of what behavior is expected. At the same time, the end user agrees not to try to burn 50 copies and sell them on the open market.
Bad EULAs can be used to underhandedly impose the will of a company on the user. A good one clarifies what is expected of the parties. Good ones are not morally wrong. It's sloppy to say that EULAs are morally wrong in general.
What's interesting (Score:5, Informative)
I'm obviously not a lawyer, but these are points that have come out in court, when contracts are challanged.
What's so interesting about this, is that it gives the user a chance at negotiation. Sure, it's a farce, but so is the "contract" the EULA tries to put in place. (There's no consideration - you bought the software - money for package - there's the consideration. Now, you must click the EULA too? There's no consideration (transfer of something valuable) happening then, so no contract can ensue.
So changing the contract to something else isn't any more crack-pipe'ish then the usual EULA.
Lastly, have you ever read any of those EULA's? I'd bet that 10 lawyers would come up with 10 significantly different interpretations of the "contract." That doesn't even take into account what the courts might do. So, reading your own EULA is almost futile, and who can afford to get an expert legal opinion on 10+ pages of legaleese for every software product they buy.
EULA's need to get challenged in court, and struck. UCITA needs to die an ugly and nasty death. With UCITA, EULA's will have the real power of law, not just a sham that the SW companies want you to believe.
Make sure you discuss UCITA with your STATE representatives. UCITA has to pass in your state for it to make it into UCC. You might even consider working to pass laws that provide protections against vendors who are (or will be) in UCITA states.
Cheers!
Dangerous misunderstanding of "No EULA" and law (Score:5, Interesting)
See, for example, the comments about the MAI Systems decsion in this paper [arl.org]:
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org) [sethf.com]
Re:Dangerous misunderstanding of "No EULA" and law (Score:2)
There's much law which says you are NOT THE OWNER of the copy
Huh? What law is that? You are the owner of the copy. Not the owner of the copyright, but the owner of the copy.
See, for example, the comments about the MAI Systems decsion
Huh? "Title III amends Section 117 of the Copyright Act to ensure that independent service organizations do not inadvertently become liable for copyright infringement merely because they have turned on a computer in order to service its hardware components." The whole point of Title III of the DMCA is to avoid that decision in the future.
Re:Dangerous misunderstanding of "No EULA" and law (Score:2)
The poster has the idea "I own this copy. Therefore, I can run the program, except the EULA takes away my rights in it. So ha-ha-ha, hack-out the EULA, and I keep all my rights". The flaw in this may be that the very understandable chain of reasoning, is wrong. That is, the situation may be that you own the disk, but not the right to run the program, unless you agree to the EULA.
I don't like this. But ignoring it won't make it go away.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org) [sethf.com]
Re:Dangerous misunderstanding of "No EULA" and law (Score:2)
Wrong. You own the license, not the copy.
Ahem, and I quote:
19. The Product is protected by copyright and other intellectual property laws and treaties. Microsoft or its suppliers own the title, copyright, and other intellectual property rights in the Product. The Product is licensed, not sold.
Catch that last sentence?
Also, to the original article poster: whatever your twisted interpretation of EULAs are, it's flat out wrong wrong wrong. Here, this is straight out of the WinXP EULA:
YOU AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS EULA BY INSTALLING, COPYING, OR OTHERWISE USING THE PRODUCT. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE, DO NOT INSTALL OR USE THE PRODUCT; YOU MAY RETURN IT TO YOUR PLACE OF PURCHASE FOR A FULL REFUND.
If you don't agree... you can't just simply remove the EULA and say you don't agree -- you're still in violation!!! It's like I walked down the street, unbolted the "NO PARKING ANYTIME" sign from the post and say "well, I didn't agree to the sign, so I removed it, and now I can park here persuant to normal traffic laws!"
Re:Dangerous misunderstanding of "No EULA" and law (Score:5, Insightful)
The argument you're making is in fact the entire point: just because Microsoft printed words in their EULA, that doesn't mean they are a binding legal contract.
I consider EULA's to be simply a promise by the software vendor: we promise not to sue you if you do this and this, etc. That does not automatically mean they are morally or legally right, or that they would win such a lawsuit.
That's all that makes EULA's "binding": the threat of being sued. The software companies know that their power is tenuous here, and hope for legislation like UCITA that really makes it binding. ANY company would love to be able to dictate exactly what you could do with their product, so they could bill you for the different "privileges" of doing different things with the product.
Imagine if Ford said that by displaying the Ford trademarked logo in public, including on your car, you agree to a "Ford logo license", which says you can only drive 35mph or slower. For $1 per mph over 35, you can earn the privilege of driving over 35mph. Whenever Ford needed more income, they could just adjust the fees and cutoffs (be sure to check ford.com weekly for license updates) until they maximized profit. Whenever that didn't work, they could just send in the "Ford license enforcers" with speed guns, because somebody somewhere is probably violating the license. And if you don't keep accurate records of your speed, they offer you a settlement in compromise, just like the friendly folks at the BSA!
EULAs give software vendors too much power. The best thing to do is use Free/Open Source software, next best thing is to ignore the EULAs.
Re:Dangerous misunderstanding of "No EULA" and law (Score:4, Informative)
What about this [linuxjournal.com], which is a court finding that says that despite the EULA, the exchange of money for software is a sale. From the article in question:
Here's a link [cryptome.org] to the full text of the decision.
EULAs and Return Policies (Score:4, Insightful)
As for this software, I can't see it holding up in any court. You can't say "I shut my eyes everytime I drove past a speed limit sign" and expect a judge to let you off the hook for going 120.
This also removes any incentive for companies to change their EULAs. After all, they're still getting $50 or whatever from you, whether you avoid the EULA or not. Vote with your wallet people...
Re:EULAs and Return Policies (Score:2)
The difference is that the speed limit is a law, and EULAs certainly aren't.
How do you suggest people be bound to the terms of contracts they never agreed to? While a click-through license is something of a legal grey area, unagreed-to contracts don't seem to be; the day after you buy a new car, Ford can send someone to your house demanding you sign a contract that says "Everytime you drive over the speed limit, you pay for $100," but if you don't sign it, there's no way that you're going to be bound by it.
The software manufacturers tried to set things up so that you must "agree" to their contract before you install their software. This script allows yo to install the software without agreeing to the license. So how can you be bound by the terms of the license?
Re:EULAs and Return Policies (Score:3, Interesting)
In the current instance, clearly, one party is under duress because they cannot return the software to the store for a refund - the vendor won't take it back - a stipulation often made by software companies. Thus, the end user's only option is to not install the software (thereby losing the purchase price), or click the "I agree" button. Since the contract is made under the threat of losing the purchase price, the user is not legally able to enter into the contract relationship - the option to back out of the contract is not really an option at all. Thus, most EULA's are unenforceable without this software.
Don't agree? Don't use the software! (Score:2)
The best way to deal with restrictive EULAs is to use alternative software that is without such restrictions. Where there are no alternatives, and where the software is essential to some necessary task, the EULA will have to be accepted (or the task avoided) - at least until a freer alternative is created. But where there are alternatives, use the software with the better, more customer-centric license.
Stunts such as these don't really change anything. The manufacturer still gets the money from the sale, encouraging him or her to continue down the path of greater and greater restrictions of user freedoms. Better never to buy the software at all.
Textarea (Score:3, Funny)
I remove all the text and replace it with "I AGREE TO NOTHING".
Is this still legaly binding?
DMCA Lawsuit waiting to happen... (Score:3, Insightful)
One thing that scares me about notebooks... (Score:2)
Anybody have any tips for me? I have a feeling I'm going to have to pay the MS tax, at least for now. But one of my biggest hopes is that Linux laptops will start to become popular, then the legitimate copy of Win2k that I've bought can just be transferred over, instead of having a brand new license that cost me money.
Re:One thing that scares me about notebooks... (Score:3, Informative)
Go here [qlilinux.com].
Re:One thing that scares me about notebooks... (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.emperorlinux.com/
Laptops, note books with linux already installed.
If you're keen on building your own, your can usually pick up an older type laptop for cheap, and then start from there.
People have been working on this kind of thing for quite a while. Do a google search on "Build your own laptop"
Good luck!
Re:One thing that scares me about notebooks... (Score:2, Informative)
2. Scavenge each for parts and build 1 good laptop.
3. Sell remains of scavenged laptops on ebay to similar persons, possibly for what you bought them for.
My GF recently received a laptop with a busted screen. Cost for OEM LCD? Like 400US. Cost for a stripped laptop with an unbroken screen? 50US. Selling price for same laptop sans screen? 40US to someone who needed the keyboard because OEM keyboards are almost as ridiculous.
Plus my GF got the shipping insurance, which more than covered the 10US net for the screen.
Easy to solve! (Score:5, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
How about... (Score:2, Funny)
Think that will hold up in court?
Seems pretty pointless, even if symbolic (Score:2)
What someone really needs to do is blatantly violate a stupid eula clause and tell the whole world.
For example, someone needs to buy a copy of SQL Server or Oracle and publish benchmarks about the product, thus violating the EULA. Or guy that M$ devel kit and write some GPL's software. Then, when they get taken to court, take it as far as it will go.
Yeah, I know... us mere mortals without bottomless pockets simply can't afford to do this. I can still dream that some tech-savy, eccentric millionaire will take on such a cause.
Another strategy? (Score:2, Interesting)
Then call their tech support line (if it exists!) and complain that the installation program is broken because it fails to install the software.
fundamental question (Score:5, Insightful)
following laws, this law, that law etc. The
discussion really is a specific instance of
more fundamental questions:
When a law doesn't make sense, should people
follow it? At what point do you realize
that the motivations of the people creating
laws are not aligned with their interests?
Crossing your fingers means you don't promise (Score:5, Funny)
my car Eula (Score:2)
What I'd like to know is who wrote the first software EULA?
Um... (Score:2)
Common sense? (Score:4, Interesting)
To expect someone to be bound to the terms of a contract after a sale is ridiculous. Either it is a sale or it isn't. If it's a sale, then I own it and can do with it as I see fit. If it's not a sale then calling it that is a misrepresentation. Call it a rental or a lease, because that's what it amounts to.
If you or I sold someone a car, house or any other property then stuck a contract in the buyer's face and told them "sign it or give me back the property" we'd be a laughing stock, and no court in the world would consider the case. Why should software be any different. If Microsoft and other vendors expect end users to be bound by the terms of a contract they should be required to present the contract in advance of the purchase, period.
EULAs are broken, but... (Score:2, Interesting)
This software is no solution. Imagine the following 'solution':
I make brown, sugary, cola-flavored carbonated beverages. I hit upon a great name for my product -- "Coca-Cola". Now, "Coca-Cola" is a trademark. It says so right on the can I'm holding.
The obvious solution? I take out a marker and scratch out the "(R)" symbol next to the mark "Coca-Cola". I make a template that goes over the can so that other people can scratch out the "(R)" never having seen it, knowing only that it might be in their best interests to scratch it out.
Now, is "Coca-Cola" no longer a defensible trademark? Am I allowed to call my brown sugary beverage "Coca-Cola", since I never saw the little "(R)"? Are the users of my template allowed to do so? No.
Now, there are huge problems with EULAs anyway (no meeting of minds = no enforcable contract), but this is not the solution.
Bypassing the EULA does not bypass the law (Score:2, Insightful)
No, but somewhere inside is a copyright notice.
That's the problem. The things EULAs *should* protect are already protected by already-existing copyright law. The fact that these *companies* try to limit you in no way makes you a criminal if you say to hell with them.
That is, unless they keep buying legislation to get their way.
His VB script contains a typo... (Score:3, Interesting)
He has two regex sections. The first starts with "Set term1 = New RegExp" and then defines three attributes for term1.
The second section starts with "Set term2 = New RegExp" (note term2), but then defines three attributes for term1.
This must not have been found in testing, as the keywords in the regexes are found in just about any EULA. Still, it's worth noting. I'm not a VB programmer and I saw that immediately -- are there any other potential errors in the code?
Fantasize much? Take care about free legal advice (Score:3, Insightful)
Which may, in fact, be not at all. Absent the EULA, you have no license. Absent a license, the bounds of the copyright act preclude any reproduction, derivation or distribution of the copy you have. Since USE of software has been treated by the courts as a reproduction (since it entails loading a copy from a fixed disk to RAM), your unlicensed execution of the program may well be violating their copyright. The virtue of the EULA is it gives you a use license. Since you bypassed the EULA, it is unlikely you would prevail on any implied license theory.
In short, if you are serious about this as a legal strategy, please first consult with competent counsel you have engaged who has carefully studied the particular facts of your case. If you are reading this proposal, please consider the source and the possibility that the legal advice in the original posting (and this response -- which is not legal advice by the way) may be worth what you paid for it.
Re:Fantasize much? Take care about free legal advi (Score:3, Informative)
Since USE of software has been treated by the courts as a reproduction (since it entails loading a copy from a fixed disk to RAM), your unlicensed execution of the program may well be violating their copyright.
Yes, once upon a time the courts made that ruling. Then congress passed this [cornell.edu]:
Virus !, lol,,,,,,take that MS ! (Score:4, Funny)
MS calls the GPL liscence Viral , Hell they started calling names first, if you wrap this in a Virus scanner and get hauled into court , the judge ask "why you felt your prodect could remove the EULA" look you honor at all these press clippings calling the GPL if the GPL can be viral so can the MS EULA, and Hence I can remove it
A much easier way around it (Score:4, Funny)
Re:A much easier way around it (Score:5, Funny)
It's Called Best Effort (Score:3, Insightful)
Best Effort means that if and when your company ever gets hauled into court for some stupid lawsuit, you need to be able to show that you made a "best effort" against whatever event that caused the lawsuit. If you can show that, the liklihood that you won't be held liable is higher.
EXAMPLE: I own a house. I have a sidewalk. During the winter it gets ice on it. I go out twice a day and salt the sidewalk to prevent ice, as well as scoop the ice and snow from it. An old lady comes and slips. She sues me for poor maintenance of the sidewalk. I can present my case as a "best effort" case. I did my best to prevent the sidewalk from being slippery and therefore it is not my fault that she still slipped and fell.
With EULAs, it's a matter of CYA (Cover Your Ass). If you didn't put one and got hauled into court because your software farked up a whole bunch of financial records, for instance, the court would say, "Look, you didn't even try to warn the user that your software might screw up, therefore you're liable." With an EULA you at least have shown that you tried to protect yourself. The EULA itself doesn't necessarily have to be enforceable; the fact that it makes an effort in a 'safe' direction is enough.
Re:Great idea! (Score:3, Informative)
Nope. Did not test. (Score:2, Informative)
b) I don't have a Windows machine around to test it. They crash too much, and the software which makes them useful tends to come with crappy EULAs.
c) See b)
timothy
Re:Great idea! (Score:2, Informative)
It runs through the subfolders of the system temp folder
For each file it finds. it opens it to check to see if it's ascii. If it is then it does define te POSSIBILITY of it being an EULA. If that's the case it then checks to see if the file contains the following terms
license(s)
agreement
eula
term(s) and(s) conditions
limited(s) license
limited(s) warranty
it also does a second check for the following
reverse-[anychar]?(s)[anything]enginee
dis-[anychar]assemble
de-[anychar]compile
as-
If either of those shows a match in the file that was found. It asks if you want to overwrite the EULA with a predefined one and if the user selects YES then and ONLY then does it overwrite the specified file
It doesn't modify any other files, it doesn't overwrite files without a specific click on a message box by the user running the script
This code as of 11:53 AM on May 1st is clean and safe to use barring somebody modifies it later
Re:Great idea! (Score:2)
<sarcasm>
You insensitive PIG! How dare you assume that we're all in your time zone! You're so timezone-centric. People on Slashdot have got to start being more global. I'm sick of everyone posting things only about YOUR timezone! What about the other 23/24ths of the world, huh??? Bastard!</sarcasm>
Seriously.. just a parody of all the annoying whiners talking about the US-centricity of this site.
T
Re:Great idea! (Score:2)
Open every file, see if it meets certain criteria, then check for certain regexes. That's it.
Re:Great idea! (Score:3, Funny)
Kierthos
Re:Yay! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Yay! (Score:2)
Re:don't complain (Score:2)
we got into most of the mess people are in
today. Lets sit back and say nothing while
large corporations, (whose only motivation is
to TAKE money from everyone it can) dictactes
how we live and what we can and can't do.
You are an indoctrinated, unthinking parrot -- my sig applies to you more than most.
Re:don't complain (Score:3, Interesting)
In the case of EULAs, software companies often overstep their bounds, placing demands on the consumer that are unreasonable because they infringe on the user's own rights.
EG. I once saw an EULA for DeLorme's Street Atlas software that said you agreed not to use the product with any GPS device that wasn't authorized by them for use with their software. Sorry, but they can't tell me I'm violating their license agreement if I plug in a Garmin hand-held GPS to a COM port on my PC, place the Garmin in compatibilty (NMEA) mode, and get it working with Street Atlas. I have the right to use the Garmin with my PC any way I like.
WRONG (Score:3, Interesting)
The copies of the software that were sold to you are your property, not the vendor's. What the vendor does own is a government-sanctioned "lien" on your copy that prevents you from making addtional copies. Nothing more.
They do not have the right to force you into an additional restrictive contract after the sale. They are free to attempt to get you to agree to such a contract, but you don't have to agree to it.
Re:don't complain (Score:4, Interesting)
But I already have the legal right to install the software! Do I have to quote chapter and verse of Copyright Law?
Here's how it works. The author creates a work and publishes or distributes it. At this point in time there are two sets of right bound to the work. The first set of rights are exclusive to the author. These include the right to distribute, modify and generally copy the work. The second set is not exclusive to the author, but belong to the public or to the possessors/owners of the copies. These rights include using the work in its customary manner. If it's software, the author does not have the right to prevent you from using it.
If I don't accept the terms of the EULA, and I can somehow install the software without assenting to the EULA, then I have the right to use the software.
Software that companies write belongs to them so they should be free to do whatever
Absolutely not. The only thing that belongs to the software companies are the rights to copy, distribute and modify the software. They do not have the exclusive right to use the software.
"Intellectual Property" is not property. This has been asserted by the courts before. Don't let the name fool you, it is just a linguistic shorthand.
If I don't agree to the my landlord's rental agreement, I still can't live in his/her apartment, because that apartment is his/her property. But if I don't agree to your EULA, you can't prevent me from using the software, because the copy in my possession is not your property.
If you want more restrictive terms over the use of the software, then you may attempt to get me to agree to them. But you will have to do so before I aquire the software. That may mean you have to forego selling your software through traditional retail channels. Too bad. You are not king of the world so you don't have the right to make up the rules as you go along.
Such a clause would be illegal.
Re:Contract law... (Score:2)
Paperwork for what? I give you money, you give me car, thank you, bye..
Re:Contract law... (Score:2)
Don't talk shite. If it's a contract, where's your signiture? Or that of the vendor?
EULA's are just a pile of FUD, for a start it's not legally a licence since there is no term or renewal requirements in most cases.
It simply is not possible to enter into a contract with a machine, which is what these useless bits of crap ask you to do.
It's akin to paying someone for a car and driving it off the lot without all the paperwork signed.
No, its akin to someone fully paying for a car and refusing to sign a form agreeing to give the seller their firstborn child. It's not a legal requirement for purchase and it's not legally binding even if they did sign it.
TWW
Re:Contract law... (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, saying you've found a lawyer that will argue a case is like saying you've found a prostitute that's agreed to sleep with you.
The issue is: what would a judge do? In some cases in the US they have ruled that EULA's are binding but the higher up the court system you go the less truck this gets and late last year a judge (in Florida?) ruled that no renewal term or requirements means this is not even a licence never mind a binding one.
In the UK several on-line pricing boobs have revolved around the question of whether the vendor (ie the website) was totally automated or not. The courts finding that an automated system is not able to form a contract and therefor a miss-priced item does not have to be honoured, while any human intervention in the acceptance system (in one case simply having someone manually checking that buyer's emails go out to legal email addresses) makes a contract which does have to be honoured.
EULA depend on fear of court action, but there are almost no cases of a successful prosecution that did not in fact resolve back to an ordinary copyright violation.
Generally the courts take the position that if I pay for goods and you give me them with no requirement that I ever give them back then it is a sale and I am free to do as I wish other than breach laws such as copyright. Anything else I agree with you has to fit inside contract law and have such items as consideration and evidence of agreement on both sides (eg signitures from seller and buyer), lack of coercion, limits on what can be in a contract etc. Everything else is just wank.
EULA are no more imporant or useful than the typical lawyer, but they can be just as scary too.
TWW
No such thing as "I agree to agree..." (Score:2)
Actually DMCA MAY cover... (Score:4, Insightful)
Welcome to the wonders of poorly written legal language...
Re:Is this really a DCMA violation? (Score:2)
Re:Personal Computing Policies? (Score:2)
Of course, said modifications would likely violate MS's EULA, but maybe you could get around this by running the software through a modified Wine over cygwin.
Re:Have someone ELSE click "I Agree"! (Score:2)
same thing, just using biological means...
although I havent done this in years... Funny how when you leave Microsoft Land you dont see those (Except on REDHAT cd envelopes now.. thanks redhat) click to become Gate's towel boy and personal slave buttons..
Re:EULAs have become an acceptable standard. (Score:2)
No, I don't want to do that. What a hassle for the less than 5 titles I'd buy in a typical year. Where it gets fun is imagining how much a hassle it would be for Micro$oft having to do so for every one of the millions (billions?) of software products they sell. Simply put, it hurts them a lot more than it hurts me. It would push the cost of software to the point where their sales would drop precipitously. It would move the outrageousness of their requirements to the fore in consumer's minds.
So no, I don't want it, but we need something better than outrageously restrictive EULAs. Reasonable EULAs might nudge me to not caring if they're enforceable or not. If they won't give me reasonable EULAs and insist on contract status for EULAs, then what the heck, give me a real contract.
Re:"Symbolic" gesture indeed (Score:3, Funny)