Fight Woodworking Piracy: Add EULA Restrictions 662
An anonymous reader writes "Ed Foster's Gripelog discusses EULA restriction on a new woodworking tool.
A small woodworking tool manufacturer, Stots Corporation, includes a license agreement on its TemplateMaster jig tool. The tool is licensed, not sold, and customers cannot sell it or lend it to others. Nor can they sell or lend the jigs they make with it. "Shrinkwrap licenses are showing up everywhere," a reader recently wrote. "I just bought a jig for making dovetailing jigs -- this is woodworker talk if it's unfamiliar to you. The master jig contained a license that says I've licensed the master jig, not bought it. The license says I can't lend or sell the master, and furthermore I can't lend or sell the jigs I make with the master."
The reader was referring to Stots Corporation of Harrods Creek, KY, and the user agreement for its TemplateMaster product. Sure enough, the Stots license says TemplateMaster may be used "in only one shop by the original purchaser only" and that "you may not allow individuals that did not purchase the original Product (to) use the Product or any templates produced using the Product..."
A FAQ document on the Stots website explains that the license is necessary because "the purpose of the TemplateMaster is to clone itself. Therefore we are verifying your honesty that only you will use the tool and you will not be passing it around to others to use for free. It is exactly the same as the 'shrink wrap' agreement that comes with almost all computer software. Please help us fight 'tool piracy'."
Bah! (Score:3, Funny)
The only tool piracy crime being perpetraed is that the lawyers in that company are able to procreate without supervision.
--
Re:Bah! (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Bah! (Score:3, Funny)
Of course, this is all MHO
Look at the silly monkey (Score:5, Funny)
They aren't very smart either (or, alternatively, they are very smart).
From the article:
The master jig contained a license that says I've licensed the master jig, not bought it.
(...)
the Stots license says TemplateMaster may be used "in only one shop by the original purchaser only" and that "you may not allow individuals that did not purchase the original Product (to) use the Product (...)
(emphasis mine)
So you're not buying the product, and are not allowed to let anyone who didn't buy the product use it.
Ladies and gentlemen of the supposed jury, that does not make sense.!
Re:Look at the silly monkey (Score:5, Insightful)
The 'First Sale Doctrine' means you can do whatever you want with something after you buy it. Strangely enough, software seems to be excluded(kind of. But I don't understand why). This is a right, no one can take it away from you(except yourself, by contract). I don't think, if challenged, their EULA would prevent anyone from exercising their right to sell something they've purchased.
Hell, without the First Sale Doctrine, the RIAA would have shut down used CD stores years ago.
Re:Look at the silly monkey (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Look at the silly monkey (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Look at the silly monkey (Score:3, Interesting)
Its redundant to say "IANAL" but I'm pretty sure that you cant just sign away basic rights, like "I can do what the fuck I like with this 'stuff', including sell it to someone else if its not suitable for my uses or I'm finished with it".
They need to ask a lawyer about this stuff, cos I suspect they just humiliated themselves.
And
Re:Look at the silly monkey (Score:3, Insightful)
This is due to the fact that as the consumer you hold the right to waive any implied warranties, including those contained in the First Sale Doctrine. So when you click on "I Agree" in that EULA, you are agreeing to that expressed warranty which then can negate any implied warranty that previously existed for that contract (except for Fitness for Human Consumption). So as long as it's spelled out in the contract, and you used the item there
Re:Look at the silly monkey (Score:5, Interesting)
This is beside the point. It has nothing to do specifically with software, which is NOT exempt from first sale doctrine, at all.
So when you click on "I Agree" in that EULA, you are agreeing to that expressed warranty
Actually, no. The only thing that says "clicking 'I agree' means you agree" is the EULA itself. So, if you don't agree, you can happily click "I agree" without, in fact, agreeing.
as long as it's spelled out in the contract, and you used the item therefore agreeing to the terms, it can be upheld in court.
And if you don't agree, you're free to use the software anyway.
What's interesting is that regardless of whether the end user agrees or not, such a contract (presented after the sale) is invariably illegal, and wouldn't hold up in court, because it's an attempt to change the terms of another contract that has already been executed (purchasing the software is a contract, and the EULA is attempting to modify the contract after it's been executed, which is illegal.)
In order to be upheld in court, an EULA would have to be presented to the purchaser before they buy it, not afterwards (at which point, it doesn't matter whether the user clicks "I agree" or not.)
Re:Look at the silly monkey (Score:3, Informative)
Let me guess.... you forgot to mention the whole "IANAL" thing...
Explain your legal theories in a context where it's clear that they are just theories. Posts like this one make it real clear why you actually need a license to practice law - because of people like you. (BTW, IANAL)
According to my understanding,
Re:Look at the silly monkey (Score:3, Informative)
Software is covered by first sale, even though you have to copy it in order to use it. This is because the United States Code [cornell.edu] contains a specific exception [cornell.edu] for software users. The exception is:
Re:Purchaser _of the license_ (Score:5, Informative)
Simple (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Simple (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Simple (Score:3, Insightful)
the only part of the license that is wrong is the fact that you can't make jigs with the tool and sell those jigs. those jigs aren't made using the same ways
Re:Simple (Score:2, Insightful)
Works until they all gang up and back everybody into a corner.
Re:Simple (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Simple: Value of Limited Use vs. Unlimited Use (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: Simple: Value of Limited Use vs. Unlimited Use (Score:3, Insightful)
Why shouldn't companies be able to charge different amounts for different licensing terms?
They are, but this product is not licensed, it is sold.
I would like to create a price structure that matches the price to the product's value for each customer.
Yes you would - this would optimize your revenue. However, you have no right to expect the governemnt to exert special effort to help you do this.
I may not like that some products come with restrictions, but I understand why companies do this and how
Re:Nice ... hmmm, not really. (Value vs. Cost) (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, the license makes this untrue to the extent that the license is a binding contract. It is said that nobody "wants to buy a drill, they want to buy a set of holes" In the case of this product, the seller is selling the right for one person to make certain wood products for their own use. Perhaps the company should offer two versions of the product, a cheap "single user" model and a more expensive "neighborhood" model. Then people could choose which license made sen
Re:Simple (Score:3, Informative)
--Windows XP Professional license agreement
Re:Simple (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Simple (Score:4, Insightful)
Contract law is a very finicky field, if you've ever bought or sold products, services or other goods based upon a license/contract/deed, you've seen that the contract must lay out, in minute detail, all items to be transferred, all services to be rendered, and limitations on the same prior to the sale; this also must be done after clearly identifying ALL parties to the contract, and all parties must agree to be bound by the specific terms set forth. With Contracts there is always the requirement of knowledge of the content of the contract, and a specific agreement to the terms of the contract.
Unless you sign an agreement prior to purchase, there can be no lease/rental. A contract must be written and agreed to BY BOTH PARTIES prior to the exchange of goods (or services). If this "eula" is inside the tool's packaging, then it is not enforceable -- further, the company may be liable for civil penalties if they try to enforce the contract, because it would be a "bad faith" action. Use of the tool cannot imply agreement with the license, that agreement can only be made prior to purchase, because the first party to the agreement (seller) has already benefited from the transfer of goods, and sold the goods without any contract attached. To try to enforce THIS license after the purchase could be akin to bait and switch (advertising or selling a product as something that it is not), in this case, the baiting would be a "general sale of the tool," with the switch happening if the company were to try to change the sale to an unlimited term of lease with specific limitations, via ex post facto attachment of license to the product.
Most EULAs are a moot license, and therefore, unenforceable from the start, because the contract is not given, and agreed to, prior to a party to the sale receiving benefits, and without a waiver prior to sale of the right to purchase an unecumbered product.
Whoa, slow down there, lefty... (Score:5, Interesting)
It's a device meant to produce jigs, apparently. So it's a tool designed for creating items. Now, the way I look at it, these absolutely stupid licensing restrictions have a solution, much like the stupid licensing of compilers way back when. Some of you older folks out there might remember a time when you'd buy a C compiler (for example). You'd have to give the company that wrote the compiler royalties on every product sold that was created with that compiler. It's true. Screw open source, man.
Then along came GCC. Sure, you needed the commercial compiler to compile GCC, so that version of GCC you created was restricted (legally). Then we point out the stupidity of the licensing scheme - recompile GCC with the GCC you just created, and the new GCC is not restricted. Most software companies then saw the stupidity of this kind of licensing and licensed their products with a new kind of less restrictive license. Now I can't think of any, offhand, that don't simply allow you to compile and sell your program.
Having dabbled in wood working myself (although not having made any dovedail joints), it seems to me if you have a jig to make dovedail joints you can use it to make another restriction free jig. Use the original jig to make a jig, then use the new jig to make a jig, and viola, no stupid restrictions.
It may not be as simple as recompiling GCC (because the jig creates a dovetail creating jig, not another jig that creates a dovetail creating jig), but if I was annoyed, that's what I'd do.
Really, though, it just points out the stupidity of this kind of licensing. I find it hard to believe there aren't any other jigs with less stupid restrictions.
Re:Whoa, slow down there, lefty... (Score:3, Insightful)
RTFA
The tool is specifically described as a "jig for making jigs", and their FAQ specifically states that the reason for the EULA is that the purpose of the to
Re:Simple (Score:3, Interesting)
But then, isn't that part of the agreement? What if that's one of the parts I don't agree to?
Forget Jigs... try Soy Sauce (Score:2)
--
Evan "Tried it, went back to Kikoman"
Re:Forget Jigs... try Soy Sauce (Score:2)
Re:Forget Jigs... try Soy Sauce (Score:5, Funny)
KFG
Is this really a problem? (Score:2)
Re:Is this really a problem? (Score:2)
but it may be in the future, and if companies keep adding them licenses to everything the general public will start to think them as legit and reasonable(after which it's just a short route to get them legalized).
so while it is absolutely stupid now the gov(customer protection officials) should move in and hit them with a very large clue bat *smack* right between their eyes, before they start making enough penetration to move from a bad joke into (perceived)reality.
Re:Is this really a problem? (Score:4, Interesting)
This is a very unusual situation -- a jig making jig. I've worked with dovetail jigs before, and they are complicated enough. I would think the reproduction and resale of the jigjig would be protected by patent.
Protection of the items made with the jig (jigs) is strange. It is similar to charging a royalty for the use of a simple dovetail jig. That is, if one licenses use of the ACME dovetail jig, they must pay royalties of x$ for each corner of each drawer made with the jig and sold commercially. Of course any cabinet maker would then simply make their own jig. One only buys a jig because it is convenient. Even if an item is patented, one may make a copy of that thing for ones own use.
The real issue is commercial viability. Microsoft licenses me to use Excel. GNU licenses me to use gnumeric. I also have some spreadsheet like widgets that I wrote. In general, because of licensing, I will use my own jig, I will not use either Excel or gnumeric -- the terms of both are bad for me. It is similar for the shopowner. A single shop needs a bunch of dovetail jigs. They can buy a bunch of jigs, make a bunch of jigs, or license the jig-jig and make a bunch of jigs. Or they can look at the jig-jig and make their own. There is only one question - "which solution is most cost effective?"
I think this company will find that there is a big difference between coding Autocad or Microsoft Excel from scratch and making a jigjig. A huge difference in basic old fashioned man-hours.
Don't you get protections with a licensed product? (Score:5, Interesting)
I once snapped a software CD and I got a new one. Can't be much different.
Re:Don't you get protections with a licensed produ (Score:5, Interesting)
Except it isn't your jig, now is it? It's their jig that you just broke and you'll probably have to buy them a new one.
But how does this affect insurance? If it's their stuff and you only license it, they should cover the costs for keeping the jig insured against theft, right?
Re:Don't you get protections with a licensed produ (Score:5, Insightful)
Right. And the bank I financed my car through should be responsible for my auto insurance.
License-mania is a phase. It's happened before, and it will happen again. Western Union used to lease their telegraph machines, AT&T leased it's phone equipment, IBM leased it's computers, and so on. It will change, because in the end, it's a business model that antagonizes customers.
Re:Don't you get protections with a licensed produ (Score:3, Funny)
Why not just make a backup copy of it? If the whole point of it is to replicate itself then you can use it to make a backup of itself. Then if it breaks, just use the backup... or use the backup exclusively and store the original in a safe location. Or store your backup on Karpentryzaa (har har) for secure off-site backup.
Re:Don't you get protections with a licensed produ (Score:5, Interesting)
TemplateMaster isn't a jig in the usual sense. It's a jig to make jigs. The problem with most jigs of this type (dovetailing, etc.) is that you tend to make a lot of passes with a powerful tool (a router) and sooner or later you'll screw up and route the shit out of your jig. When your jig costs $600, you're gonna be pretty pissed.
TemplateMaster lets you build jigs out of cheap materials and then use *those* until they wear out or you screw up. Then build a new one. The likelihood you'll ruin your TemplateMaster is much less since you really don't use it that often.
The problem is that you can use the TemplateMaster to make jigs out of substantial materials like aluminum that are viable for resale. Now, that's generally not a big issue - there are lots of products like that in the world - but if you make a product for production, you charge a hell of a lot of money for it since you know it'll have a limited market. This is designed for consumers and is actually very inexpensive even compared to other consumer jigs.
The mfgr is in a catch-22. He's made a product for consumers, but if it's picked up for production usage, it can seriously undermine his business.
Personally, I think he's going the wrong way with this. He *should* be making his own jigs from the TemplateMaster and selling those (in addition to the TemplateMaster), and use existing laws to block other manufacturers from making and selling identical products. Even if they don't sell, their existance should protect him, and who knows, maybe they will sell...
Re:Don't you get protections with a licensed produ (Score:2)
As stated in their FAQ [stots.com] they do indeed send you a new template if you break "yours":
Re:Don't you get protections with a licensed produ (Score:2)
Re:Don't you get protections with a licensed produ (Score:5, Funny)
These seeds may not be planted (Score:5, Funny)
Re:These seeds may not be planted (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Monsanto (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Monsanto (Score:3, Informative)
The difference between this and the "EULA"s in the article is that these are legally binding - they're presented before the sale, and they're signed by the purchaser.
I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just that the Monsanto contracts are legally binding.
Re:Monsanto (Score:3, Interesting)
What about [slashdot.org] people [percyschmeiser.com] who claim it blew onto their property?
Re:Monsanto (Score:3, Insightful)
Soybeans exist as the seed itself. To grow soybeans, you plany soybeans, correct?
So, what stops me from buying "food" and simply planting it? Yeah, you mentioned that they make the seeds infertile, but that will have some fallout rate, such that the second gen might only get a few plants, but most of the third gen seeds will remain viable.
In that situation, I have not signed a contract with you, with Monsanto, not even with the farmer (I'll starve to death before I sign a co
A bit screwy ? (Score:5, Informative)
Percy Schmeiser's web site. [percyschmeiser.com] Percy Schmeiser is a farmer from Bruno, Saskatchewan Canada whose Canola fields were contaminated with Monsanto's Round-Up Ready Canola. Since he uses his own crops for seeds, and Monsanto's GM seeds are patented, Monsanto's position is that it doesn't matter whether Schmeiser knew or not that his canola field was contaminated with the Roundup Ready gene and that he must pay their Technology Fee.
You are surrounded by lawyers. Resistance is futile.
Re:A bit screwy ? (Score:3, Informative)
While I disagree with your conclusion, you must understand that Percy Schmeiser did intentionaly plant seeds near his neighbors, and then spray the offspring with roundup in a deliberate attempt to get the roundup ready genes into his otherwise tarditional seed crop. (By spraying with roundup he assured that only the roundup ready plants would survive)
Now if he had just planted his seeds near the neighrbor, and without spraying roundup continued to do so I would agree that nothing should happen, but he tr
Re:A bit screwy ? (Score:5, Interesting)
Is it illegal to spray your plants with Roundup? No.
Do plants fuck? Yes.
If Monsanto wanted to protect their IP, they should not have permitted their genes to pollute Mr. Schmeisser's field. If they could not prevent that pollution, they can hardly blame Mr. Schmeisser for attempting to make the best of their negligence.
Re:A bit screwy ? (Score:5, Informative)
I'm certainly no Monsanto fan (it's one of the few companies I actually actively boycott), and I'm sure that any evidence they present on the case is only going to be the evidence that proves their case (and according to what I've seen, they've even distorted evidence and exaggerated the facts). However, I also realize that Schmeiser is looking at serious repercussions for what he did, and his website is probably only going to present evidence that makes him look good (and makes him look like the little guy being picked on buy the big bully).
I wish I could remember where those articles I read came from, as they appeared to me to be the most unbiased reports I had read. If anybody has links to them, I'd appreciate if you could post them.
Re:A bit screwy ? (Score:3, Interesting)
In fact, what he probably should have done, the moment he realized what had polluted itself onto his land, was promptly sue Monsanto for the cost of all of his crops over the next 5 years.
They shi
patented seeds (Score:3, Interesting)
OBTW, heirloom seeds are big business, seed prodicers will pay big busks for them; the undomesticated corn is probably worth millions.
Re:These seeds may not be planted (Score:5, Informative)
But on the subject of sesame seeds... they're a very big crop - the sixth largest [tamu.edu] in the world production of edible oil seeds.
And yes, there is valuable intellectual property [purdue.edu] in sesame seed genetics.
Rent a life! (Score:5, Funny)
Not only that, if I get caught breaking the drug laws, the feds can't take anything that I own since I won't own anything. Best of all, when I get tired of my wife and daughter I just have to stop paying the license fees.
I'm free! Free! Free! This is better than living in New Hampshire!
Wife and daughter... Oh cr4p. I don't own anything anyway. This is bogus...
Re:Rent a life! (Score:5, Funny)
Hey don't knock it - Buddhists have been doing this for centuries.
I can see it now (Score:4, Informative)
EULA
License Rights
We grant you a nonexclusive, nontransferable limited license to use the woodworking tool for purposes of developing your new tools and cutting trees only. You may
also give, lend, or sell this tool to the third party. If you want to use the tool for any purpose other than as expressly permitted under this agreement you must contact
us to obtain the appropriate license. We
may audit your use of the tool. Tool documentation is either shipped with the programs, or documentation may accessed online
at our website.
Ownership and Restrictions
We retain all ownership and intellectual property rights in the tool.
You may not:
Live Satire (Score:2)
I can't quite decide whether this is for real or a very elaborate prank. In case it is the later: Kudos. Very convincing.
Hey, I can do that, too! (Score:2)
Glad no one thought of that before me...
Is this really a new thing? (Score:2)
Re:Is this really a new thing? (Score:2)
EULA killing AI (Score:2, Funny)
Poetry in motion
Patents, not shrinkwrap licenses (Score:2)
First sale doctrine folks.
Copyright violation in article (Score:2)
GNU (Score:2)
What's next? (Score:2)
What's next, I wonder? 'Shrink wrap' (pun intented) agreements for condoms?
zY2K Compliant Guaranteed (Score:2)
I should license my own tool (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I should license my own tool (Score:5, Funny)
Let's see what's right here and what's not (Score:3, Informative)
Would it be reasonable to make copies of the pattern and give them to one's friends to use in their own workshops? I would suggest not.
If I lent the pattern to my friend for him to make end products, that would seem reasonable.
If I lent the pattern to my friend, he made a copy, and then he used that copy to make end product while I used the original pattern to make end product, that would seem unreasonable.
But clearly these guys are taking the view that, while the jig itself can be considered goods which have been purchased, its use constitutes making copies - in the same way that when you buy a software CD, actually using it in your computer is considered copying (from the CD into memory). By using this logic, the maker has chosen to treat the use of the jig as copying, and *in* *law* he may well have a case.
This takes me back to the 1980s when the old Sun 3 machines came with an operating system "right to use" licence, and if used hardware was sold, then the puchaser had to purchase another "right to use" OS licence because he wasn't covered by the original licence. They stopped that years ago. More recently we've seem Microsoft suggesting to schools and charities that PC hardware donated to them by businesses probably has an OS licence which is non-transferable.
Anyways, rather than complaining about this EULA on a jig/pattern, if they really can be used to make replicas then there is clearly a need for a Free Jigs Foundation so that these silly people go out of business.
Dunstan
Oh shit (Score:4, Funny)
If anyone asks for me, I'm in Mexico.
Any woodworking people out there? (Score:3, Interesting)
Am I missing something? That seems a pretty simple thing - not the kind of thing you'd expect to make millions selling, or be able to force people to agree to such a licence to use. Does it have some magical properties not apparent to a guy who failed woodwork?
Re:Any woodworking people out there? (Score:5, Informative)
A router is a very high speed cutting tool primarily used for making decorative edges though you can also use it for trimming edges, cutting grooves, rounding edges, creating tongues, etc. It's more like a drill than a jigsaw though the cutting edges are different to drills. If you've ever seen a dremel with a milling bit then imagine something 10x bigger and 100x more dangerous.
A dovetail jig lets you create two types of edges. These edges interlock to create an incredibly strong right-angle join with no nails and no screws. The dovetail shape determines the properties of the join and every jig vendor vigorously defends their unique shape. It's an identity thing. It's not magical, but I can understand why they're trying to prevent people copying their jigs.
Take note that dovetail jigs are fairly modern (as are routers). The dovetail joint is ancient (1000s of years?) but was traditionally done with a handsaw and a chisel. It takes an extremely skilled person to create a good dovetail joint by hand. The dovetail jig allows any semi-skilled amateur to make incredibly good dovetail joints in just a few minutes. Any hobbyist worth his (or her) salt has a dovetail jig.
Happy birthday to you... (Score:4, Funny)
Good Example: Ever had a birthday at a restaurant? (Score:3)
Have you ever had a birthday at a restaurant where they gather around and sing to you during your meal (i.e., premeditated by a friend calling the restaurant ahead of time and telling them it is your birthday)?
A while back, I couldn't figure out why they often sing a proprietary, stoooooopid-sounding song that usually features clapping hands and minimum wage workers sounding less-than-enthusiastic. Plus,
1 April comes late this year! (Score:3, Insightful)
The reason you need a licence to operate a television or radio set, for example, is that the "airwaves" do not belong to you - you need permission to receive or transmit a signal. Transmitting equipment usually requires you also to submit to inspection to ensure that it is not causing interference to other people. {If you can prove the equipment is not being used - strictly, if they can't prove that it is being used, but They Are Bigger Than You - you don't need the licence; the authorities might insist that you do something a bit more than unplug it, but any modification that can't be undone without the use of a tool should be fine.}
Whether or not the purpose of the jig is to clone itself is irrelevant. I'm guessing it's a slab of some MDF-like material that you clamp hard against another piece of MDF, and follow the groove using a router*, with a special cutter that has a ball-bearing on the end, the same diameter as the cutting width. This way it produces an exact copy. Chippies have been making things like this ever since routers were invented, so I seriously doubt that a router jig would even be patentable with all that prior art. If you want to cut out kitchen worktops for hobs, sinks &c., you just make a template for each fixture {they are mostly standardised nowadays anyway}. Likewise for stair sides, radiator covers and so forth {if you have to make several identical pieces for one job but you know you'll never need that exact pattern again, you just leave the original on site}.
* router: in this context, not a device for sending ethernet packets to the correct recipient {which would be pronounced "router" rather than "router" anyway}, but a power tool consisting of a powerful series-wound electric motor spinning a sharp-bladed cutter at up to 30000 rpm, and mainly used for creating large quantities of sawdust.
copyright is wrong licence type, patent maybe (Score:3, Insightful)
If there had been a patent for this type of tool, it would have been enough (and ok) to say, in a notice that the customer could see before purchase, that 'purchase of this tool does not carry with it any licence to make tools according to the patent'.
But if there is no patent, then there is no right to restrict public use of the unpatented but pubicly-known technology.
Copyright law doesn't restrict use of technology, e.g. reproducing a 3-d object which is a physical tool. The original tool (presumably no artistic work involved in the tool itself) was not one of the statutory 'works of authorship' in US copyright law.
I warned you not to get me started! (Score:5, Insightful)
The law and the individual's rights and privileges under it are among the most ancient artifacts of civilization. It is also something which evolves as a society evolves with tending towards egalitarianism in properous western democracies (the heavenly light shines from above on America...), that is, laws that take away freedom of action or that provide one person or group with advantages over others tend to be struck down or superceded by laws that create balance and that protect rights.
In a sense, you could say that some of the most far-reaching and most beautiful laws are the solutions to arguments that arise from logical problems. For example, once we had slavery, the preamble to the constitution cannot have meaning in a country that practices slavery. The argument arose and it was solved by an amendment to the constitution which clarified the argument completely: if all men are created equal, no man can be another's property. Human rights trump property rights. Slavery is illegal and slave-owners are S.O.L with regard to their property rights pertaining to their slaves. That makes sense.
At least that is how it worked in the old days.
Now, in the post-industrial age of television and the megacorporation, lobbying money and a just a smidgen of public stupidity create an opportunity for organizations to create agreements which function as devices to generate a planned result in much the same way that the parts of a transistor radio work together to produce access to the airwaves.
Laws like the ones that make the EULA possible are a technology--not one for establishing socially useful principles, but for circumventing and mutating contract law so that instead of providing a level playing field between buyer and producer, the law provides for the end-user signing away all his rights to legal rememdies by buying a thing and using it.
EULAs do nothing to protect the consumer. Nothing whatsoever. They are the legal equivalent of a booby-trap: you open the box, you open the envelope, you install the software, click on the box and BANG! according to the law, you've agreed to conditions that would have to be insane to agree to under any other circumstances.
If you don't believe this, consider the enormous tire recall of the last year or two and imagine what things would be like if the tire companies involved had had a EULA at their disposal:
'by breaking or cutting the ribbon on these tires, you agree that their purpose is purely decorative and that they have no function and no warranty, explicit or implied for any use but decoration of your vehicle...'
You can't sign away your personal freedom. You can't read a document, sign it, and become an indentured servant with no rights, but you can sign a EULA and let a company do whatever it likes to you with its neglicence.
The EULA is a device to give software makers the ability to treat software buyers like cattle. It is a prime example of how people make laws when they don't give a damn about the society that rises from them.
Nit pick: No, slavery still isn't unconstitutional (Score:3)
This misrepresents both the logical argument and the amendment.
The logical argument from "all men are created equal [before the law]" does not lead to "No man can be another's property." Instead it leads to
Niche market strategy (Score:3, Interesting)
What they are doing differently, is to try to protect or enlarge their niche market by using EULA to prevent you from becoming one of their competitors, i.e. somebody who'd give away a free copy, or sell it even.
IANAL but I have my doubts about the enforcebility of such licenses, especially if there's no "click" on install to prove you alledgedly even knew there *was* a license. Also, they'd have a hell of an enforcement issue proving a copy of a public domain template came from their product.
Re:And don't tear about that antique dresser now! (Score:2)
Re:And don't tear about that antique dresser now! (Score:2)
Re:And don't tear about that antique dresser now! (Score:3, Insightful)
Government != commercial entity.
Yet.
Re:And don't tear about that antique dresser now! (Score:2)
Now for licenses with dogs... You get a license to own a dog (like to own a firearm for lack of me being able to come up with a decent comparison), not that you license the dog from your local pet store. Although I can see it now:
this dog may be used "in only one household by the original purchaser only" and that "you may not allow individuals that did not
Re:And don't tear about that antique dresser now! (Score:2)
You couldn't go into a TV store and license a TV. You could rent one, buy one, lease one, buy one on credit or find some other interesting way of managing ownership, but licensing the TV set would not be one of them. Afterwards you would need to buy a license to h
Re:And don't tear about that antique dresser now! (Score:2)
Don't think they're going to get much joy from that kinda license...
Re:And don't tear about that antique dresser now! (Score:2, Funny)
Can't do it. (Score:3, Interesting)
The difference with this and a software license is that one rivalous, and one non-rivalous. I cannot loan someone my dovetailing bit without giving up posession myself. Thus, the bit is a rivalous asset.
On the other
Re:Can't do it. (Score:3, Informative)
or so the theory goes.
Re:Can't do it. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Can't do it. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Can't do it. (Score:5, Informative)
Having seen a few dovetail forms, I'd have to say it would want to be a pretty amazing form.
I think another way of looking at it would be to consider keys. your landlord can't stop you from lending your key to someone else, but I'd think that making copies of it and distributing it to all of your friends would create a bit of a stir, as would selling your key: and the key is also one of your "rivalrous assets".
Re:Can't do it. (Score:5, Informative)
You can do, but in the USA, the company responsible for the EULA can take you to court for doing so. If you cannot afford a good enough lawyer to make a convincing argument that the EULA should not be valid, you will lose an enormous amount of money. In the event that you do hire a good enough lawyer, you will only lose a large amount of money.
This is an enormous, and rapidly growing, problem in the USA. Many other countries have employed a policy of "plaintiff pays" the legal fees, should they lose the suit - but in the USA one must initiate yet more costly action (I believe you call it a SLAPP suit?) in order to obtain these fees, and such suits are rarely succesful.
In the UK for example, our government offers "Legal Aid" - a scheme by which people can get free or reduced cost legal help for fighting cases. This greatly reduces the disincentive to fight that an ordinary (non supported) court battle would have, which in turn reduces the incentive for companies to sue individuals with cases that are not strong.
The end result is that in the UK there are very very few frivolous or weak lawsuits brought about against individuals, lower costs for everyone, and a fairer system for society.
Does anyone know why the US does not have a system for aiding people in legal battles, and why when a motion in court is found to not be enforcable in law, does the person who brought the suit (and therefore a large monetary cost) to someone erroneously, does not have to pay?
Re:Can't do it. (Score:5, Interesting)
> not be valid, you will lose an enormous amount of money. In the event that you do hire a good
> enough lawyer, you will only lose a large amount of money.
This is an unfortunately common misconception.
I have been sued twice in my life by people with far more money than I have. In one case, I defended myself - against their real "went to law school" attorneys - and won. In the second case, I hired an attorney, won, and they were forced to pay all my legal expenses.
Both times, the other parties tried to pull the "we're going to play the 500lb gorilla, and sue you into oblivion" routine. I think that they were expecting me to run screaming or something. I didn't. They lost.
Bring it on, lawyer-boy.
The common trait of both of these lawsuits? I was right. And, despite the cynicism that a lot of people seem to have about the American legal system, the person who's right will prevail in a vast majority of cases.
If someone threatens to sue you, and you're right, let them. Go in, make your case, and you'll probably prevail. A judge will know that you aren't an attorney, and generally cut you a fair amount of slack.
Re:Can't do it. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Rent and lease (Score:3, Insightful)
If they want to rent or lease out the item fine.. let them do so and call it a rental or a lease. And let them try to "rent" stuff to their customers. But if they are selling a tangible physical item for a one-time fee they are SOL as far as enforcing that EULA goes.
Hell, courts have even overturned some software EULA restrictions on reselling or giving away software which was originally bundled with a PC. So don't think a judge will be all too keen on enforci
Re:Can't do it. (Score:3, Insightful)
There's no contract here. (Score:4, Insightful)
Obviously you don't know what a contract is.
In order to form a contract, there are several necessary elements that are lacking here. There must be an agreement. From reading the link, and the links beyond that, there seems to be no agreement, only a unilateral statement from the company posing as one. Also consideration - this means that there has to be an exchange of goods or services, both parties must receive something or it is not a contract. In this case, there is no consideration. The person supposedly accepting the contract has already bought the jig, and the contract gives him nothing new - it only takes away things he already had.
To make a contract of this, at minimum the customer would have to indicate assent in some way, after having read the terms of the 'agreement' (and no, keeping and using the item he already paid for does not suffice to show assent) and also to receive some consideration for such assent. They could, for instance, offer a rebate to those who signed the contract and returned it, and then they would have a contract (and also be open to a deceptive advertising charge if they were not clear on the terms upfront.) But this? This is nothing but a piece of paper which makes a lot of unsupported claims. Use it as toiletpaper.
Re:Problematic if you're a treehugger. (Score:2)
Re:EULA is not a contract (Score:3, Funny)
I was thinking about dabbling in the slave trade, but you've persuaded me otherwise...