Slashdot Log In
End User License Gems
Posted by
Zonk
on Sun Oct 23, 2005 09:31 PM
from the i-agree dept.
from the i-agree dept.
satosphere writes "TG Daily has an article on EULA Gems, priceless statements that companies want you to agree to in their End User License Agreement." From the article: "You agree, if purchasing by credit card or charge card, that you permanently and irrevocably waive any and all right to cause a 'chargeback' ... You agree that, if you institute such a "chargeback", it constitutes a material violation of this license, and damages Company in ways impossible to calculate, and with long-term adverse effects to the Company."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
End User License Gems
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 546 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
From MS (Score:5, Informative)
You may install and use one copy of the software on one device. You may install multiple copies of the software on one device provided that you have a license for each copy.
You may install and use a second copy of the software on a portable device for use by only the primary user of the first copy
It pays to read the ms ones if you have a laptop. This is in Dungeon Siege (I & II), in XP Pro and Home, and Office.
Re:From MS (Score:5, Informative)
Can I make a second copy for my portable computer?
The End-User License Agreement (EULA) for many Microsoft application software products contains the following sentence: "The primary user of the computer on which the SOFTWARE PRODUCT is installed may make a second copy for his or her exclusive use on a portable computer." If your EULA contains this sentence, then, subject to the conditions mentioned, you may make a second copy of the software. Note that you must be the primary user of the computer on which the software is installed. The primary user is the individual who uses the computer most of the time it is in use. Only that individual is entitled to use the second copy. Furthermore, the software must be installed on the local hard disk of your computer; you are not entitled to make and use a second copy on your portable computer if you run the primary copy of the software from a network server. Finally, only one secondary copy may be made; you may install this copy on more than one portable computer.
There is a Second copy clause in the MS Office and MS Project Eulas, however in the default MS Windows XP Eula, there is No such provision.
(I checked C:\WINDOWS\system32\eula.txt for the term primary/second)
Re:From MS (Score:5, Informative)
XP Home license [microsoft.com]
XP Pro Edition [microsoft.com]
I would assume since product activation kicked in this would be reduced, I still use Office 2000 over here which may explain why mine still says it, I can see issues of needing to call to activate the newer editions "Honest guvner, I'm at home now, its just my office machine got reinstalled 17 times last week, this is totally seperate"
Anyone care to check if newer versions of Office continue this "Use at home" tradition?
Re:From MS (Score:5, Funny)
"Look, I'm sorry, but this copy of Windows is only licensed to the primary user of this machine.
Hey, don't look at me like that. You're the one who's against piracy! You can't just go around deciding which terms of the EULA you want to adhere to! That would be illegal."
Re:From MS (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.isights.org/)
If you don't want your friends (secondary users) on your computer snooping through your porn collection, just say so in the first place.
Per machine vs per user licensing (Score:5, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Tuesday September 06 2005, @12:39PM)
Hence, it's permissable for an individual to install a single copy of Office on both their desktop and laptop without requiring more than one license, as long as both aren't used simultaneously. However, installing Windows XP on both those machines would always require two licenses, regardless of how the machines are used.
One side effect of this is that people who use Office at work can normally buy a copy of Office to use at home for a nominal fee. For example, under the terms of Microsoft's licensing as it applies to her mid-sized employer, my girlfriend is entitled to purchase a copy of Office for around £10, which covers the cost of media, postage and packaging and processing her request.
That's strange... (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.noisymime.org/blog)
Dear user, you are valued and important to the Microsoft Corporation. We understand that you've paid a lot of money for out product and we really appreciate it. We encourage you to share this program with your friends if you find it to be of a high quality and might be of use to them. We also really appreciate any comments and feedback you may have about the software, particularly if you experience difficulty with it. We hope your enjoy using our product.
Ohhh you mean I'm not meant to edit that file before I install it?
Re:From MS (Score:5, Insightful)
I have a carrying strap for my desktop, it's portable. Actually, most systems are portable, as in not bolted to the floor.
My EULA says... (Score:5, Insightful)
(1) The possessor of this software, regardless of how the possessor came to be in possession of the software, is entitled to do whatever the fuck they want to with the software. Included but not restricted to: giving the software to whoever the fuck I want, for any or no compensation that I so chose; examining and altering the software in any fashion that I chose; commenting negatively or positively on the quality of the software, in totality or part, in any forum that I chose to, public or private.
(2) I, the primary user of the software, accept that the maker of the software offers no assurance, either explicit or implicit, that the software in any way, works for the purpose or any purpose that I, the primary user, acquired it for. Nor, do I, the primary user, make any assumptions that the data produced by the software be accurate, correct, realistic, are in any applicable to the purpose that the software was acquired. Regardless of the consequences of the use of this software, the makers or providers of the software to the primary user will hold no liability for any fucking thing that can happen as a result of interaction with the software on any level.
This is what I am agreeing to when I click on I agree. The lawyers for large software corporations have this incomprehensibly weird idea that anyone would agree to clause #2 without the corporation's acceptance of clause #1.
BEFORE YOU POST (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:BEFORE YOU POST (Score:5, Funny)
Clause 2. You will discard any intelligble comments and post based on standard stereotypes
Clause 3. ??
Clause 4. Profit!
Clause 5. Beowulf Cluster
Re:BEFORE YOU POST (Score:5, Funny)
(http://justthings.info/ | Last Journal: Saturday December 09 2006, @05:17AM)
Clause 7. Hot grits
Clause 8. In Soviet Russia, posters mod YOU down!
Clasue 9. Great Google-y moogley
Clause 10. iPod! Video iPod! Trans-dimensional, cancer-curing, Google-a-matic iPod!
Clause 11. Steve Ballmer and obligatory chair/monkey/DEVELOPERS reference
Clause 12 is dying... Netcraft confirms it...
Re:BEFORE YOU POST (Score:5, Funny)
(Last Journal: Tuesday April 11 2006, @11:03PM)
Read the Termination clause CAREFULLY (Score:5, Funny)
MS Front Page License? (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://shockandblog.com/blog)
Something Awful (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Something Awful (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.jwnyc.com/)
Well, in the case of the chargeback example, they can accept the terms knowing what they've agreed to is completely unenforceable.
Say you agree to that in a EULA, then the software won't install and you ask for a refund, which the company will not provide. You call the credit card company and say "they sold me a defective product and won't give me my money back" and the card company calls the software maker to see what's up. The software maker says "but the customer agreed not to do a chargeback!" You know what the CC company's gonna do?
They're gonna laugh in the software company's face. Then they're gonna do a chargeback.
Your relationship is with the CC company. You can't un-agree with a third party to something you've already agreed to with your CC company. Because the CC company is under no obligation whatsoever to abide by that; they haven't agreed to alter their policies to fit this EULA. Their only obligation is to their customers with which they have prior agreements.
Now, IANAL, but I've got plenty of experience dealing with CC companies (including handling chargebacks) through previous jobs I've had, and this is pretty basic contract law anyway. Contracts are between two parties; if you've got a contract that you're trying to apply to a third party but that they haven't signed, it's meaningless. I can't write up a contract that says "you agree that your sister will never ask me to borrow money" and expect that that actually obligates your sister not to do anything, even if you do sign it.
It's just worth pointing out that some people subscribe to this fallacy that anything you put in a contract is binding as long as it's signed. That's just not the case. You can't agree to something that's illegal, you can't sign away most rights given to you under the law, and you can't agree to something on behalf of a third party (unless that third party also signs, as in a guarantor type situation). The purpose of a contract is to get two people to agree in writing to something under the law. A lot of these companies are apparently using EULA's these days to get people to agree to things that are outside the law, but those EULA's just cannot be enforced.
(This is not to say no EULA can be enforced; obviously, we've seen that they can be. But a EULA has to be written properly just like any other contract; you can't just stick random stuff in there.)
Re:Depends on who initiated the chargeback (Score:5, Interesting)
In this case, it's more like "you agree to not ask your sister to borrow money from me, even though I am under a binding contract with your sister not to ask you not to ask her."
In other words, report these clowns to Visa and they're likely to get their merchant account revoked. I strongly suspect that attempting to circumvent the terms of your merchant account agreement would constitute a violation of the terms of said agreement....
Breach Of Contract Is Not A Crime (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Breach Of Contract Is Not A Crime (Score:5, Insightful)
it's a strongly suggested lengthy piece of psuedo-legalese, designed to make people think it's binding.
Re:Breach Of Contract Is Not A Crime (Score:4, Informative)
1) It has to be an exchange of things. Contracts don't say "I agree to give up all this and get shit in return" it's always an exchange. When I first bought a house, my parents helped me purchase it since my credit wouldn't allow it on my own. Later, I refinanced it to my own name, which meant they had to quit their claim to the house. However the quitclaim contract didn't say they just gave it over, it said in exchange for teh sum of $10 and other consideration they gave it over. Reason being had there been no exchange, it wouldn't have been a contract.
2) It has to be before the fact. You can't try and spring a contract on someone after the deal is done, you have to has it out prior to the deal going down. Hence the point of prenuptial agreements. They are contracts that place conditions on a marriage. However to be valid, they have to be signed prior to the marriage. You can't get married later and then tell your wife "Oh, and here's the contract you agreed to, sign it" because she DIDN'T agree before the fact.
3) It has to be mutually agreed upon. This means that BOTH parties have to find it acceptable, and veryify this, generally with a signature. In the case of important contracts, it's a witnessed, notarized signature. One side cannot simply tell the other side how it's going to be and give them no ability to back out. Both sides have to agree it's a fair contract.
4) Along those lines, it has to be open to negoation. One side can't present the contract to the other side and force them to sign it. You can modify a contract and send it back. They don't have to accept your changes, but the process has to be allowed.
Thus EULAs basically fail ALL of these. The exchange (money for goods) has already taken place before you are asked to agree, and they aren't offering you anything, simply making demands of you. There's also no proof you agree (clicking a button isn't proof, what if someone else clicked it?).
My bet is the "after the fact" nature would be enough to invalidate any outlandish provision of a EULA. Since you didn't sign the contracts as a condition of the sale, it's not a valid contract and you aren't bound by it.
That doesn't mean none of the provisions are enforcable, some EULAs just enumarate the laws that govern software anyhow, you can't make illegal copies and so on. However when they are demanding you give up rights you normally have, it probably wouldn't hold up.
Now this is different than, say a credit card. Some people note that there's an agreement on those and they make you accept it to have the card. True enough, but that's a service, not a good. You have to take it on their terms if you want to use it. If they modify the terms so that they are unacceptable, feel free to cancel, but it's there service, their terms. Also, the disclosure is up front (the terms are spelled out on the little sheet that comes with the app).
In general, EULAs are just a waste of bytes.
Re:Breach Of Contract Is Not A Crime (Score:4, Informative)
(Last Journal: Sunday May 20, @06:41AM)
I'll play devil's advocate:
(1) It does need to be an exchange, but does not need to be an exchange of 'things,' unless you use that term very loosely. In exchange for your agreeing to the EULA (and maybe your money), they let you use the software. Another example: in exchange for $500, I agree to let you drive a backhoe across my yard so you can dig your swimming pool.
(2) Typically, the software box says that there use of the software is subject to an EULA, contained inside. Courts have said that as long as you know that it's there before you buy and have the right to refuse the agreement after you buy (by, say, returning the product), you have that. In extreme cases, courts have said "everybody knows that software is governed by EULAs, so you don't even need notice on the outside of the box, as long as you have some way to reject once you read the contract."
(3) I don't know where you get this from -- contracts do not have to be signed or otherwise verified. THey do need to be accepted, though. When I go into a store and buy a gallon of milk with cash, I don't sign anything. There's such a thing as "acceptance by performance," where you don't have to do say anything, just do it. For example, you drop your car off at the garage, slip the key in the mail slot with a note "Please fix the brakes unless it will cost over $500" -- the garage sees it and fixes your car. You have to pay -- they accepted your offer by doing what you asked.
(4) Contracts do NOT have to be open to negotiation. I don't know where you get this from. Buying a coke from a machine is a contract -- when was the last time you were able to negotiate with a coke machine? In any case, you actually do have this ability with EULAs -- call up the company and say "I'd like to use your software, but I don't like the EULA. How about this contract...."
In the US, while parts of EULAs may not be enforced as being against public policy, unconscionable, illegal, &c, they are otherwise generally enforced.
(IANAL. Don't take this as legal advice.)
Re:Breach Of Contract Is Not A Crime (Score:4, Funny)
It just might say that if you're a farmer making arrangements to obtain fertilizers.
EULAs can be contracts (Score:4, Informative)
(http://www.psychochild.org/)
It has to be an exchange of things.
Not under any definition I know of. A quick Google search turned up this page on FindLaw.com [findlaw.com]. It states:
It says nothing of an exchange of things. Further, that's silly because a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) is a contract, but there's no "exchange of things" there. Just the promise that one party won't go blabbing (not a legal term) about the information another party agrees to share.
It has to be before the fact.
Which is why you can see the various agreements before you sign up for my game, Meridian 59 [meridian59.com]:
End User License Agreement [neardeathstudios.com]
The Rules of Play [neardeathstudios.com] (in-game rules)
Terms of Service [neardeathstudios.com]
All these are freely available for you to read before you buy our game or join our service.
If you take a moment to read our EULA, you'll see that at the top it says, "WARNING: YOU ARE ABOUT TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT." That was written by the lawyer that drafted our EULA.
It has to be mutually agreed upon.
That's what "I agree" means, and it's written button you click on. At the very least I figure this is equivalent to a verbal contract; verbal contracts are usually valid, but usually not used because it can be hard to prove consent of both parties without a written records (which is why signatures are usually preferred). If you don't agree, then you shouldn't use the software. Clicking "I agree" then claiming it wasn't a valid agreement is the worst option, really.
Along those lines, it has to be open to negoation.
What are you doing to that goat for the contract? *shiver* Oh, wait, negotiation. Right....
Have you ever tried to negotiate? For my company, we have contact info posted on our website. You could revise any of our agreements and send it to us before you sign up and play the game. Of course, many companies will probably reject any revisions, but that's their prerogative as with any contract negotiations. And, nobody is forcing you to agree to the EULA. In most cases you can send the software back and get a refund. At the end of our EULA, we state:
Given my counters to your objections, it looks like our EULA is a valid contract, hmm?
It comes down to this: companies use the EULA to cover their liabilities and to assert their rights. If you don't like the EULA, you have the ultimate recourse: don't use the software. There's not much software out there that is essential, so whining about how the unfairness of the EULA solves nothing. Unless you're willing to not use the software nothing will change. Think Microsoft's OS EULAs are crap? There's a few alternatives out there, I've heard. Don't like the EULA on my game? Don't play. I promise not to be too hurt by your rejection, personally. Of course, I think our EULAs
ProCD v. Zeidenberg (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/)
To respond to your post: actually depending on your jurisdiction, it may be a binding contract. One of the keys is that acceptance of an offer to contract may be manifested by conduct. Some courts have recognized that conduct as running the software and/or failing to return it. However, the EULA is still vulnerable to the doctrine of unconscionability [lifeofalawstudent.com], among other reasons for a court refusing to enforce a contract.
Perhaps the seminal case on the subject of EULAs is the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals decision ProCD v. Zeidenberg [bitlaw.com], from 1996. I dissect that case (and my strong opposition to it), in this episode of my podcast [lifeofalawstudent.com].
Courts have not been consistent with their treatment of EULAs, so what the law is will vary based upon where a case is brought. At the tail end of the ProCD episode I outline some of the ways we can legally fix the damage caused by EULAs.
- Neil Wehneman
Re:ProCD v. Zeidenberg (Score:4, Informative)
(http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/)
I agree that enforcement of EULAs are a bad idea legally. However, I'm going to play devil's advocate here.
If you had a valid "default" license to the copyrighted work, then Section 117 of the Copyright Act would apply. That valid "default" license would come with the implied contract that accompanied the sale of the software. For example, I buy a CD without additional terms, and I can do whatever the Copyright Act says I can do with that CD.
However, when a copyright holder attaches terms to the sale (through the EULA that is referenced and made known before the sale) then they are not selling a regular "default" license with the rights of Section 117 (and the rest of the Copyright Act for that matter). Instead they are selling a stripped down license that includes whatever rights they choose to offer you in the EULA. By not returning the software, you are accepting that offer through specific action (ie not returning it).
Again, this is not the perspective I believe the law should take (for a number of policy reasons articulated in my ProCD analysis [lifeofalawstudent.com]). It is, however, the perspective some courts have taken.
- Neil Wehneman
Re:ProCD v. Zeidenberg (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://www.metatrontech.com/ | Last Journal: Wednesday November 14, @12:37PM)
To respond to your post: actually depending on your jurisdiction, it may be a binding contract. One of the keys is that acceptance of an offer to contract may be manifested by conduct. Some courts have recognized that conduct as running the software and/or failing to return it. However, the EULA is still vulnerable to the doctrine of unconscionability, among other reasons for a court refusing to enforce a contract.
I agree (more recently, anyone following Blizzard v. BnetD should be aware of this, but IANAL or a law student either, just an interested layperson), but the case seems very weak to me in many cases. (i.e. they may be binding contracts, but they seem to me to present some very specific issues that nobody is addressing).
Let me give you an example.
Many people don't install their own software. They take their computer to the store and say, "I want eTrust, Office Professional, Photoshop, etc" and then the friendly people at the store install the software. In these cases:
1) There is almost never any discussion of the EULA's either before or after.
2) While arguably the technicians at the stores are acting as agents of the customer, it is very difficult to argue that the end user was ever fully informed about the contract, nor are ordinary means ever used to inform users of their obligations under the agreement.
3) Does this mean that the customer ever really agreed to the contract?
As an analogy...
Lets say I send my son to go and buy something. Lets say for the moment that he is 14 years old. In order to buy this, he is required to agree to certain terms. He punches the relevant buttons and completes the transaction and never thinks anything more of it. Later on, the vendor comes after me because I failed to live up to the terms of the agreement. But I was never aware of the terms of the agreement, and never agreed to them. They say, "yes, but we have this card that says this sale was accompanied by the agreement of the terms" and I say "What? I sent my 14-year old son to buy that. He must have punched the buttons."
Now what? It seems to me that the contract is invalid because it was agreed to by a minor. But what is the preferred remedy? Would it be any different if a third party to the transaction was the one that agreed?
It gets more interesting in that it seems that 14-year olds by this standard might be the only ones immune from the reverse engineering clauses. And they play games, so maybe we need more 14-17 year olds working on BnetD...
The main problem is that the "I Agree" button does not record any identifiable record of the identity of the person agreeing to the contract. I.e. with a signature one can try to establish that one did not really sign it which is why many contracts require witnesses and/or notary publics to verify the identity of the person signing the contract.
Of course I avoid this problem by only using Free/Open Source software, but I am very concerned for many of my customers.
Re:And if I edit the contract? (Score:4, Informative)
(http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/)
As to your million dollar example the EULA would almost certainly state that modification is not allowed, and by modifying the EULA you are actually making a new offer. Since the copyright holder has never agreed to that offer (by conduct or otherwise) you would be in violation of copyright as you never accepted the holder's only offer of license.
As to you switching the buttons, you would not be acting in good faith, would not have accepted the license, and would be breaking copyright.
As to your niece, it could be argued that she has some form of agency [lifeofalawstudent.com] and as such would bind you to the contract.
Just some quick thoughts, and I'd like to reiterate that I believe that EULAs should not be enforced by courts for several reasons I have articulated by reference elsewhere in this thread.
- Neil Wehneman
Re:Breach Of Contract Is Not A Crime (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.jwz.org/images/omgwtf.jpg)
1) Invitation to treat - ie - Our software costs this much if you want it.
2) An offer - Buyer offers vendor/retailer consideration (cash/credit card) for the product.
3) An acceptance - The vendor/retailer accepts the offer, and supplies the goods.
At this point, the contract has been executed.
The vendor cannot now impose restrictions on the use of the product unless they were made clear to the buyer as a condition of the contract. Naturally, this excludes their rights under the law (ignorance of the law is no defense, however failure to adequately disclose an express term of a contract is.)
So anything that is shrinkwrapped is not valid as it did not form part of the contract of sale.
EULAs that display on websites prior to hitting "buy" however ("Click Through" agreements) are a different story, and you'd have to turn to consumer legislation and equity provisions in contract law to see whether these are enforceable or not. In general, if it interferes with a buyers right to enjoy their property, it will be illegal. Thus we get into the whole "What is property?" debate. This is far from being settled.
There. Now I feel like I've done some study for this bloody legal studies exam in 9 days time.
Go Blizzard (Score:5, Informative)
A. WHEN RUNNING, THE WORLD OF WARCRAFT CLIENT MAY MONITOR YOUR COMPUTER'S RANDOM ACCESS MEMORY (RAM) AND/OR CPU PROCESSES FOR UNAUTHORIZED THIRD PARTY PROGRAMS RUNNING CONCURRENTLY WITH WORLD OF WARCRAFT. AN "UNAUTHORIZED THIRD PARTY PROGRAM" AS USED HEREIN SHALL BE DEFINED AS ANY THIRD PARTY SOFTWARE, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION ANY "ADDON" OR "MOD," THAT IN BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT'S SOLE DETERMINATION: (i) ENABLES OR FACILITATES CHEATING OF ANY TYPE; (ii) ALLOWS USERS TO MODIFY OR HACK THE WORLD OF WARCRAFT INTERFACE, ENVIRONMENT, AND/OR EXPERIENCE IN ANY WAY NOT EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZED BY BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT; OR (iii) INTERCEPTS, "MINES," OR OTHERWISE COLLECTS INFORMATION FROM OR THROUGH WORLD OF WARCRAFT. IN THE EVENT THAT WORLD OF WARCRAFT DETECTS AN UNAUTHORIZED THIRD PARTY PROGRAM, BLIZZARD MAY (a) COMMUNICATE INFORMATION BACK TO BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION YOUR ACCOUNT NAME, DETAILS ABOUT THE UNAUTHORIZED THIRD PARTY PROGRAM DETECTED, AND THE TIME AND DATE THE UNAUTHORIZED THIRD PARTY PROGRAM WAS DETECTED; AND/OR (b) EXERCISE ANY OR ALL OF ITS RIGHTS UNDER SECTION 6 OF THIS AGREEMENT, WITH OR WITHOUT PRIOR NOTICE TO THE USER.
Nice, no? Of course "WE NOW OWN YOUR COMPUTER GG NOOB" would have been shorter and more to the point, but it doesn't sound nearly as eloquent.
Deuling EULAs (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, I'm thinking that might breach the third party program's EULA, contravene the DMCA, etcetera.
Picture this in real life... (Score:4, Insightful)
Well ToS is a bit different than EULA (Score:4, Informative)
Now of course there are legal limits, as with everything. If Bilzzard decided to take over your ocmputer and use it as a spam bot, they'd get criminally charged regardless of ToS. But, in general, they can get terms for using it.
The reason that's legal and EULAs usually aren't is because with a ToS, they are giving you permission to use their stuff, and giving you the rules for using it. If you don't like it, you don't use their stuff and don't pay them money. However an EULA is additonal terms on a good you've already bought, and they do it after the sale has happened.
So while Bilzzard probably can't legally stop you from using the WoW client however you please (not that they might not try) they can terminate your ability to use their servers if they want.
ALL CAPS (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Saturday February 05 2005, @03:50AM)
Re:Go Blizzard (Score:5, Funny)
(http://blog.jrock.us/ | Last Journal: Sunday October 10 2004, @04:11AM)
They're probably not doing this, but without the source code, how can you be sure? (Yeah, I know I sound like a zealot... but it's true.)
And FWIW, I always cheat in games by modifing the packet stream... on another machine that the Blizzard software has no way of knowing exists. These kinds of "protections" only protect against the n00b script kiddies, not people that actually make money data mining and cheating. (If you feel safe, then you are safe, they say.)
Re:Go Blizzard (Score:5, Insightful)
And with that, your guidelines fall flat.
Re:Go Blizzard (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://antiwar.com/)
You need to brush up on your legalese man. It says they can look for whatever the hell they want and do whatever the hell they want, period. Here's the key bit:
ANY THIRD PARTY SOFTWARE, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION ANY "ADDON" OR "MOD," THAT IN BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT'S SOLE DETERMINATION:
Well formatted 1 page version (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Bad EULA's (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Bad EULA's (Score:5, Informative)
The GPL is a license to distribute, and not a license for end users. Whether or not there's a legal distinction is beyond the scope of me.
Re:Bad EULA's (Score:4, Informative)
loose (Score:4, Funny)
(http://www.smick.net/)
Re:take him (Score:4, Funny)
That's not nearly as much fun as the usual way. And when they're doing something to piss you off and you wonder to yourself 'what made me have this kid anyway?' you won't be able to answer 'oh yeah, all the sex'.
Fun but less-than-serious (Score:5, Funny)
(http://brianm.org/)
Re:Over Board? (Score:4, Insightful)
It wouldn't because 'law language' is a kind of 'API' between opposing interests ; write out of specs, and both editor and customer lose because nobody will be able to predict the meaning a judge will give to the words. At least, if properly written, an EULA can be submitted to a lawyer, and he'll be able to give a fair appreciation of the chances it has to be enforceable (or not). It doesn't mean that everything in an EULA is as if casted in stone, because an editor may be tempted to use legalese to scare the customer before going to a trial, but it means that legalese is a linga franca among professionals of law that help going straight to the point.
Heh. (Score:5, Funny)
By running the Program, you agree that:
(1) You will not, under any circumstances, write a bad review about the Program, and;
(2) Any declaration in which language found to be slanderous of the Program or the Company will result in impossible to calculate damages to the Company. You further agree that you will pay the Company a preset repayment of no less than $50,000 and no more than $50,000,000, within 24 hours of publication of such declaration. Failure to comply will result in death by catapult.
Skype (Score:4, Informative)
(http://brianm.org/)
Great damage to the company (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://blog.jrock.us/ | Last Journal: Sunday October 10 2004, @04:11AM)
Funny how the contract can actually screw the company over sometimes
Java (Score:3, Interesting)
(http://brianm.org/)
The real question here, is... (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Thursday February 01 2007, @01:47AM)
Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted! Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
Re:The real question here, is... (Score:5, Informative)
Sony (Score:5, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Friday April 27 2007, @02:20PM)
That scared me slightly... I still signed though. And I made sure not to have any first-born (hah! As if I had the chance back then
Simon
A humorous look at EULAs (Score:4, Funny)
Bypass/change EULAs in Windows (Score:5, Informative)
- Enables disabled buttons (like "Next" even if you don't select "I agree")
- Makes EULA edit boxes editable again
- Saves and prints EULAs
Chargebacks. (Score:3, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Sunday November 05 2006, @05:31AM)
-jcr
Re:Can common/civil law override these licenses? (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Sunday November 05 2006, @05:31AM)
Of course. You can't be held to a contract that violates the law.
-jcr
That "no charge back" clause is wacko... (Score:5, Informative)
But more to the point... how could that wash with with a Visa merchant account agreement? Seems to me that a quick call to Visa where you quote the ELUA and surrounding circumstances, and somebody's merchant account just got yanked.
no habla ingles (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://slashdot.org/~davidwr/journal/ | Last Journal: Friday November 09, @09:19PM)
I asked my non-English-speaking friend to buy me a new computer and install OpenOffice.
Of course he got the English-language MS-Windows and of course he had to walk through all the EULA and activation stuff. He'd watched someone else do it before so he knew what buttons to press but didn't understand a word of what was on the screen.
He didn't know enough to tell me he'd just signed away a bunch of rights on my behalf.
Who if anyone is liable if I violate the EULA - the very EULA that neither me nor my friend is aware of.
Scenario #2, except instead of me asking him, he did it on his own and gave me the PC w/ OO installed for Christmas.
Re:no habla ingles (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.jwz.org/images/omgwtf.jpg)
So, under Australian law at least:
In this case your friend is acting as your agent. At some point in time you made a (verbal) agreement that your friend would install all the software. Unless you explicitly stated that he was not authorised to accept EULAs, as your agent, he as the apparent authority to do so because accepting these licenses is a necessary part of installing the software.
Thus anything he does in your name is legally binding in as much as it would be legally binding on you.. an unenforceable contract remains unenforcable not matter whether its "signed" by you or your agent.
small font EULAs (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's a funny EULA... (Score:5, Funny)
(http://aqfl.net/ | Last Journal: Wednesday July 09 2003, @01:16AM)
PLEASE READ this end-user license agreement ("eula") carefully. By being born, you agree to be bound by the terms of this eula. If you do not agree, do not exit womb and, if applicable, return to the place of conception for a full refund.
1. GENERAL. This eula is a legal agreement between you (either an individual or an entity) and the scientific or religious establishment of your choice ("God"). This eula governs your Life, which includes all seconds from the time you are born until you are legally pronounced dead (. This eula also governs the container supplied with your Life ("Body") and any support services ("miracles") relating to Life except as may be included in another agreement between you and God. An amendment or addendum to this eula may be presented to you by your retail suppliers ("Parents").
2. THE PARENT PROGRAM. All complaints and technical support requests should be addressed to your Parents, who may or may not, depending on the subscription level you have elected, offer you additional warranties. Parents are third-party components, and not subject to warranties under this eula. God is not liable for the quality, competence, character, number, gender, species, ethnicity, religious affiliation, or presence/absence of your Parents, or for the quality of the relationship between them, if any, and does not supply technical support for Parental units. Any Parent may be terminated or exchanged at any time without notice and without recourse.
3 CONSCIOUSNESS. To reduce piracy, God requires certain components to be activated. The license rights granted under this eula are limited to the first five times you gain Consciousness ("Wake up") after you are Born unless you supply the information necessary to activate your Life. You may also need to reactivate your Life if you modify your Body or alter your Consciousness. God will not collect any personally identifiable information from your DNA during the activation process without your consent.
4. DIGITAL RIGHTS MANAGEMENT. Content providers are using digital rights management technology to protect the integrity of their content so that their intellectual property, including copyright, in such content is not misappropriated. If your Brain's security has been compromised, content providers may request that God revoke your right to copy, display, and/or play protected content. Revocation does not alter your Brain's ability to access unprotected content, if any exists.
5. OUT-OF-BODY EXPERIENCES. Your Life may not be shared or used concurrently among different Bodies.
6. YOU ALSO AGREE:
a. Not to remove or obscure any copyright, trademark or patent notices ("Birthmarks") that appear on the Body as delivered to you;
b. To indemnify, hold harmless, and defend God from and against any claims or lawsuits, including attorneys' fees, that arise or result from the use or distribution of the Life;
c. That God reserves all rights not expressly granted.
3. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS AND OWNERSHIP. God reserves all rights not expressly granted to you in this eula. The Life is protected by copyright and other intellectual property laws and treaties. God or Its suppliers own the title, copyright, and other intellectual property rights in the Life and in any derivative works produced by you during the course of your Life. The Life is licensed, not sold.
4. MEMORIES. You may make a single back-up copy of the Life. You may use one (1) back-up copy solely for your archival purposes and to reinstall the Life in the Body. Except as expressly provided in this eula or by local law, you may not otherwise make copies of the Life, including the imprinted materials accompanying the Life. You may not loan, rent, lease, lend, or otherwis
MBFS has an EULA for their website too (Score:5, Informative)
The marvelous company that came up with the no charge-back EULA also has a EULA for their website. The grant you a revocable license to browse their site, but no bots without permission (I found the site through Google, so I hope the got permission). Their terms for use of the website includes such gems as:
MBFS does not permit unsolicited reviews of its products.
MBFS grants you a limited license to access and make personal use of the Site and not to download (other than page caching)
You are granted a limited, revocable, and nonexclusive right to create a hyperlink to the home page of the Site so long as the link does not portray MBFS, its affiliates, or their products or services in a false, misleading, derogatory, or otherwise offensive matter.
I'd include a link to the terms of service, but I don't think I'm allowed to.
Re:MBFS has an EULA for their website too (Score:5, Funny)
(http://honeypot.net/ | Last Journal: Friday April 07 2006, @09:33AM)
Asshats [mbfs.com].
email EUL's (Score:3, Interesting)
firstly, i do not agree to any of these terms prior to recieving said email, so they aren't binding in anyway. it's like trusting a contract in my face and claiming now that i have seen it, i most obey it.
if someone sends me something, that email is my property, i'll do what i bloody like with it.
EUL inside (Score:3, Interesting)
just ponder that shit for a moment. the contract is inside, they aren't letting you view it before claiming you agree to it. i'd be willing to bet if you voilated some part of it and they took you to court they would quickly find ALL their EUL stipulations would be thrown out for basic breaches of contract law.
One EULA turned me into an employee! (Score:3, Interesting)
(http://www.cavebear.com/)
Some employers are unwittingly doing this to their employees when they hire certain outside HR services companies.
Sale of Goods Act (Score:5, Insightful)
For example, the wonderful example where The Breeder Standard (is this real, and not a joke?) says that you agree to pay them $8k if you try to chargeback. I'm pretty sure this is incompatible with the UK Sale of Goods Act, which gives you various rights, and with other UK sale of goods regulations which limit what contracts may be imposed in the mass market. For example, from a UK Government site:
"The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (SI 1999 No 2083) provide that a term which has not been individually negotiated in a consumer contract is unfair (and hence non-binding on the consumer) if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the rights and obligations of the parties to the detriment of the consumer." There are similar regulations in effect in the whole of the EC.
There was a discussion some time ago here on whether Apple could, by Eula alone, prevent buyers of OS X from installing it on non-Apple hardware. The issue is the same as the question of whether MS can, by Eula alone, prevent buyers of Office from installing it under Wine.
The answer in both cases is no: not because of any difficulty with Eulas. But because such linked sales conditions are unlawful under EC competition law.
In the same way, a Eula condition which placed the buyer in involuntary servitude would not be lawful in the US, not because Eulas are problematic, but because involuntary servitude is unlawful under the constitution. Whatever boxes you check on a Eula, no court is going to place you in involuntary servitude.
So really, the most helpful way to look a this is not by focussing on Eulas. The thing to focus on is whether the company behaviour and conditions which they are trying to enforce in this way are lawful, regardless how they are enforced. The involuntary servitude example: suppose they had a guy standing at the exit to the store who had you sign a contract in the presence of three witnesses, and under oath. That would not be a Eula, and it would not be enforceable either...
But you KNOW what to do! (Score:3, Interesting)
I made the decision awhile ago to use only software that guarantees me my Four Freedoms. The chances are that such software will come under either the GPL or a BSD-like licence. Both these licences are easy to understand and do not seek to abridge your statutory rights.
The only way EULA madness will be brought to an end, is when people stop accepting it. Otherwise it's going to come to something like this:
Sale of Goods Act (Score:3, Informative)