Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Microsoft Media Player "Security Patch" Changes EULA Big Time 771

MobyTurbo writes "In an article on BSD Vault a careful reader posts that in the latest Windows Media Player security patch, the EULA (the "license agreement" you click on) says that you give MS the right to install digital rights management software, and the right to disable any other programs which may circumvent DRM on your computer." So if you want your machine secure, you also want microsoft to have free reign on your PC.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Media Player "Security Patch" Changes EULA Big Time

Comments Filter:
  • Not new. (Score:5, Informative)

    by Oily Tuna ( 542581 ) on Saturday June 29, 2002 @01:29PM (#3792280) Homepage Journal
    That clause has been in the Media Player EULA for ages.

    Yeah, it's bad, and it's always been bad.
  • by Xpilot ( 117961 ) on Saturday June 29, 2002 @01:31PM (#3792290) Homepage
    ...earlier on [] I think.
  • by Jucius Maximus ( 229128 ) <m4encxb2sw@snkma[ ]com ['il.' in gap]> on Saturday June 29, 2002 @01:32PM (#3792291) Journal
    I remember some weeks back that someone had posted a script pointing to an auto-EULA remover for microsoft installers. Can that person please post their link again?
  • by xenoweeno ( 246136 ) on Saturday June 29, 2002 @01:34PM (#3792312)
    The EULA remover is here [] thanks to DejaGoogle.
  • alternatives (Score:2, Informative)

    by Cyno01 ( 573917 ) <> on Saturday June 29, 2002 @01:54PM (#3792411) Homepage
    forget windows media player, its features suck, it it has next to no plugins, for music use winamp 2.x it has cooler visualisations anyway and for video nullsoft just released a new version of winamp3, winamp is the superior media player and its FREE, suck on that bill
  • Re:MS/Borg (Score:5, Informative)

    by uncoveror ( 570620 ) on Saturday June 29, 2002 @01:59PM (#3792432) Homepage
    Time to kick media player to the curb, and use winamp, quicktime, realone, or anything else. Just take steps not to install the spyware if you use real. Do a custom install, not the quick install, and uncheck the things you don't need.
  • by applef00 ( 574694 ) on Saturday June 29, 2002 @02:06PM (#3792456) Homepage

    You can't "just say no."

    Even if you decide not to use WMP, it's still installed on your system (if you're using 98, 2000, XP); which means that you're still bound by the EULA (the one that was in place when you last installed your OS or updated WMP).

  • by startled ( 144833 ) on Saturday June 29, 2002 @02:10PM (#3792467)
    Fuck that. As a software developer, I refuse to work at a company that doesn't give me the right to run my machine the way I see fit.

    I've seen those companies that require you to get IT for every little thing. The usual result-- IT cops a major attitude, nothing gets installed, everything breaks, and no one gets a damned thing done.
  • by yerricde ( 125198 ) on Saturday June 29, 2002 @02:13PM (#3792479) Homepage Journal

    I thought it was bad recently when a "Critical" IE6 security path completetly broke the ability to view TIFF images in a browser without hacking the registry by hand.

    Actually, it was Microsoft dropping support for Netscape plug-ins such as QuickTime 5 because of a patent dispute.

    I maintain a web site that basically sells access to TIFF imaged documents.

    Adobe TIFF has three common lossless modes []: Apple PackBits (RLE algorithm used in MacPaint and at least one NES game), CCITT Fax (a strange bilevel image codec used by fax machines), and Unisys LZW []. PNG, on the other hand, uses Phil Katz's Deflate (LZSS on a 32 KB window, followed by Huffman coding), which makes smaller files than any of TIFF's three algorithms.

    What does TIFF [] do that PNG [] doesn't?

  • by Steve Franklin ( 142698 ) on Saturday June 29, 2002 @02:27PM (#3792541) Homepage Journal
    Keep in mind that credit card companies do the same thing. They send you a new agreement when THEY decide to change it, and your only option is to cut the card in half and send it back to them. Of course, if enough people did that....
  • Re:Not new. (Score:2, Informative)

    by eff ( 27908 ) on Saturday June 29, 2002 @02:28PM (#3792546) Homepage
    Try googling for some relevant portion of the text, say, "These security related updates may disable your ability to copy and/or play Secure Content" []...
  • Re:Easy choice (Score:3, Informative)

    by ZaneMcAuley ( 266747 ) on Saturday June 29, 2002 @02:29PM (#3792549) Homepage Journal
    Securing software that you don't run?

    If you dont run it (remove it even) how can it be a security risk? Common sense?

    As for the adding ms to the hosts file, i was joking.
  • Re:Not new. (Score:5, Informative)

    by Oily Tuna ( 542581 ) on Saturday June 29, 2002 @02:35PM (#3792575) Homepage Journal
    It was quoted in the DOJ trial against MS. See the 12th paragraph [] of this document,
  • Re:MS/Borg (Score:3, Informative)

    by ceejayoz ( 567949 ) <> on Saturday June 29, 2002 @04:34PM (#3792998) Homepage Journal
    They don't use the engine separately, they just embed an instance of Media Player in the program. You'll have to have accepted the EULA to use them.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 29, 2002 @04:39PM (#3793012)
    The DRMOS Patent can be found here:

    Reviewing the Microsoft DRMOS (Palladium Patent) it became apparent Richard Stallman's short story, The Right to Read is indeed visionary. Below are quotes from the DRMOS patent
    and Stallman's Right to Read.

    You must read this story: d.html

    Although it has been difficult to clearly articulate to the general computer user, it should now be clear the DMCA represents not
    only risk to fair use and other such issues, but represents a tool by which new technologies such as the DRMOS can be enforced.
    It and other new laws (SSSCA/CBDTPA) are the legal infrustructure required to make the public use these new DRM technologies and
    enforce punishment/fines when they are circumvented.

    Content from MS DRMOS Patent quoted under the practice of fair use for comment and discussion purposes.

    The Content Provider (ISP) must maintain a registry of "subscriber computers". This is the SPA and Central Licensing:

    Therefore, the content provider would have to maintain a registry of each subscriber's DRMOS identity or delegate that function to a
    trusted third party. ... Because the basic DRMOS and additional components always have the same identities when executing on a specific type of processor, the content provider has only to maintain a list of the identities for the combinations of the basic DRMOS and
    additional components that the provider trusts. Each identity uploaded
    is then checked against the list.

    Soon, changing your PC's system clock could become illegal:

    This alternate embodiment requires a secure time source to be
    available on the subscriber computer so the user cannot simply
    turn back the system clock on the subscriber computer.

    Pay-per-use operating system and components:

    As described above, components may be valid only until a specified date
    and time, and content may also be licensed only until a certain date and time.
    The monotonic counter described earlier can also be used to ensure that the
    computer's clock cannot be set backwards to allow the replacement of a
    trusted component by an earlier, now untrusted version.

    Stallman is right again, DEBUGGING IS NOW ILLEGAL, enforced under Section
    1201 of H.R. 2281 (The DMCA):

    DRMOS Patent:
    An example of one kind of procedure that must be prohibited is loading a
    kernel debugger because it would allow the user to make a copy of the
    content loaded in memory. If the user of the subscriber computer attempts
    to load a kernel debugger into memory, the DRMOS can either 1) refuse
    to load the debugger, or 2) renounce its trusted identity and terminate
    the trusted application that was accessing the content before loading
    the debugger. In the latter case, the memory must also be purged of the
    content before the debugger is loaded.

    See The Right to Read, Stallman:
    There were ways, of course, to get around the SPA and Central Licensing.
    They were themselves illegal. Dan had had a classmate in software,
    Frank Martucci, who had obtained an illicit debugging tool, and used
    it to skip over the copyright monitor code when reading books. But he had
    told too many friends about it, and one of them turned him in to the SPA
    for a reward (students deep in debt were easily tempted into betrayal).
    In 2047, Frank was in prison, not for pirate reading, but for possessing
    a debugger.

    Dan would later learn that there was a time when anyone could have debugging
    tools. There were even free debugging tools available on CD or downloadable
    over the net. But ordinary users started using them to bypass copyright
    monitors, and eventually a judge ruled that this had become their principal
    use in actual practice. This meant they were illegal; the debuggers' developers
    were sent to prison.

    You can no longer delete specific data from your hard drive:

    DRMOS Patent:
    For example, the DRMOS can allow the user to delete an entire content file but
    not a portion of it. Another example is that the DRMOS can allow the user to
    terminate all the threads of execution for a trusted application but not just
    a single thread.

    Again, debuggers are not permitted:

    DRMOS Patent:
    Finally, a DRMOS must protect the trusted application itself from tampering.
    The DRMOS must not allow other processes to attach to the process executing
    the trusted application. When the trusted application is loaded into memory,
    the DRMOS must prevent any other process from reading from, or writing to,
    the sections of memory allocated to the trusted application without the explicit
    permission or cooperation of the trusted application.

    Users may not share data:

    DRMOS Patent:
    Such a facility is used when downloaded content can be accessed only by a particular user. Moreover, if downloaded content is to be accessed only by a particular user and by a particular application, the secret to be stored may be divided into parts, with one part protected by an application-specific key and the other part protected by a user-specific key.

    Applied to Stallman's Right to Read. Bear in mind these are e-books and sharing
    would be a form of copyright circumvention:

    He had to help her--but if he lent her his computer, she might read his books.
    Aside from the fact that you could go to prison for many years for letting
    someone else read your books, the very idea shocked him at first. Like
    everyone, he had been taught since elementary school that sharing books was
    nasty and wrong--something that only pirates would do.

    The "Key Vault" and trusted third party (Central Authority):

    DRMOS Patent:
    Once the data is encrypted using the storage keys, there must be a way to
    recover the keys when the DRMOS identity changes (as when the operating system
    is upgraded to an incompatible version or an unrelated operating system is
    installed) or the computer hardware fails. In the exemplary embodiments
    described here, the keys are stored off-site in a "key vault" provided by a
    trusted third party. In one embodiment, the DRMOS contains the IP addresses
    of the key vault providers and the user decides which to use. In another
    embodiment, the content provider designates a specific key vault and the DRMOS
    enforces the designation. In either embodiment, when the user requests the
    restoration of the storage keys, the key vault provider must perform a certain
    amount of validation before performing the download.

    Your computer cannot be used to copy content:

    For example, one property might be that the application cannot be used to copy content. Another example of a property is one that specifies that the application can be used to copy content, but only in analog form at 480P resolution. Yet another example of a property is one that specifies that the application can be used to copy content, but only if explicitly allowed by an accompanying license.

    Looks like the MPAA has been engaged in some Retail Politics:

    In one embodiment, the access predicate takes the form of a required properties
    access control list (ACL) as shown in FIG. 10. The required properties ACL 1000
    contains a basic trust level field 1001, which specifies the minimum rights
    management functions that must be provided by any application wishing to process
    the content. These minimum functions can be established by a trade association,
    such as the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America), or by the DRMOS

    More Pay-per-view OS functions:

    As described briefly above, the license data structure 1100 can limit the number
    of times the content can be accessed (usage counter 1101), determine what use
    can be made of the content (derivation rights 1103), such as extracting still
    shots from a video, or building an endless loop recording from an audio file,
    or a time-based expiration counter 1105.

    Pay-per-listen feature:

    The sublicense rights 1107 can impose more restrictive rights on re-distributed
    content than those specified in a license for content downloaded directly from
    the original content provider. For example, the license 1100 on a song purchased
    directly from the music publisher can permit a song to be freely re-played while
    the sublicense rights 1107 require a limit on the number of times the same song
    can be re-played when redistributed.

  • by DaveWood ( 101146 ) on Saturday June 29, 2002 @05:43PM (#3793220) Homepage
    IANAL, but until very recently, your suspicions were basically correct; company lawyers have their field day with shrink-wrap licenses but they're very very careful not to test the more exotic provisions in court.

    That is, until they're safely set up inside a UCITA-adopting state.

    Why, you ask? What's this UCITA anyway? Not another acronym. I'm too lazy to write another letter. Trying to keep my phone bill down. And I can never keep my boycotts straight once I get to the store.

    From the mouth of the beast... []

    And on a slightly more ethical tip...

    The FSF's writeup []

    And the CPSR's writeup []...

    Google will give you more.

    Think your EULA's not binding? UCITA gives it all that 100%-All-American Bought and Paid For Congressional Stamp of Approval. Some democracy we have, huh?

  • Re:Legality of EULA (Score:5, Informative)

    by Arandir ( 19206 ) on Saturday June 29, 2002 @06:21PM (#3793342) Homepage Journal
    How legally binding *IS* the EULA?

    The unfortunate state of civilization today is that it is governed by men and not by laws. Thus it doesn't matter whether a EULA (any EULA) is legally binding or not. All that matters is that enough people think they are.

    In terms of the law, most EULAs are completely invalid. Exercise of pre-existing rights is considered assent. There is a total lack of consideration. And there is no way to verify that a particular "licensee" has even seen the contract.

    In terms of Rule by Fallible Human Beings, EULAs are completely valid if you can get enough people to believe that they are valid. But even if you can't, you can still take them to court and draw out the process to bleed them dry until the give in and settle.

    I don't understand how the judicial/legislative system has allowed them to get away with this, whereas credit card companies are screwed on fraudulent online transactions.

    The difference is easy. The average person cares about losing money. But the average person is very ignorant about their legal rights with regards to copyrightable materials, especially when it concerns software.

    Wait until some large company starts putting the screws to enough people. Then the situation will change. Bankrupt enough grandmas in court for EULA violations, and the public opinion will change.
  • by hkmwbz ( 531650 ) on Saturday June 29, 2002 @06:37PM (#3793374) Journal
    Sounds like you are trying to use a "non-web" format on the web. Stick to image formats browsers can actually read... TIFF has no place on the web. Bandwidth and all, you know.
  • Re:extortion (Score:3, Informative)

    by ImaLamer ( 260199 ) <> on Saturday June 29, 2002 @08:05PM (#3793629) Homepage Journal
    I agree.

    In the only _real_ law book I've read on the subject, which reads as easy as applied cryptography's first few chapters(seriously, it's very basic the hard shit follows), explains that a contract contains a portion where they must provide something while you must also. Either party fails to provide it's side of the deal the contract is null or goes into despute (court)

    No one party can change lines of a contract or edit the final conditions without the users consent (read:signature). Of course clicking YES to the new one _could_ be the same ... i hope not...
  • by laing ( 303349 ) on Saturday June 29, 2002 @08:53PM (#3793747)
    A Lawyer Looks At Software Licensing
    by L.J. Kutten

    For the past four years; many software companies have been
    publicly bemoaning their losses to unauthorized duplication. They
    claim for every "legal" copy sold, three or four illegal copies are
    eventually distributed. When asked for proof, they do not give it.
    Their only evidence is their "private" research (which they will not
    submit to third party verification).

    While no industry expert denies the existence of unauthorized
    duplication, experts differ on whether this duplication actually
    deprives a company of profits or sales. Take the following two
    * A 13-year old child possesses unauthorized CP/M versions of dBase
    II and Wordstar configured for the Apple II computer. He neither owns
    a CP/M card nor a printer. To him, the software is like baseball
    cards, the more he "owns" the better; and
    * The business person who wants to try out a $800 program to make
    sure it will (1) fulfill his needs, or (2) work adequately with his
    hardware (perhaps there is a printer conflict). If the software does
    not work, the floppy diskette containing it goes back into a pile. If
    does work, a legitimate copy is purchased so the user can get support.

    Whatever the real extent of the problem, companies are searching
    for a solution. Many have adopted a "tear open" license agreement as
    their way of handling the problem.

    A typical tear open license agreement (also called "shrink wrap"
    or "box top") is a one page form attached to the outside of mass
    marketed software. On the form is a statement that says "OPENING THIS
    statement are a set of rules and prohibition which "control" use of
    the software. Typical provisions include the following:
    1. Warranty disclaimer: The software is sold "AS IS." The
    manufacturer totally disclaims any express or implied warranties. If
    the software does not work as expected (or at all) that is the buyer's
    problem and not the manufacturers;
    2 Prohibition against disassembley: The program cannot be
    disassembled or patched for any reason; and
    3. Prohibition against resale: Under no circumstance can the
    original purchaser transfer his ownership interest in the program,
    whether it be by sale, lease, rental, or even by gift. If the
    purchaser has no further need for the program, it must be destroyed or
    returned to the manufacturer.

    The software manufacturers claim that by opening the package the
    user has agreed to abide by any term found on it. Not surprisingly,
    users claim the forms are not worth the paper they are printed on.
    Whether or not these agreements are binding is open to question.
    There are no cases, at either state or federal level, to interpret

    The Problem With Tear Open Agreements

    The enforceability of tear open agreements begins with the
    proposition that (1) they are binding contracts and (2) the developer
    has retained title to each individual copy of the program. The fact
    that a developer has claimed they are binding contracts or he has
    retained title is unimportant. A court would look at what really
    occurred as opposed to what one party calls the transaction.

    Are They Binding Contracts? If the license agreement is to be
    binding, the manufacturer must be able to prove that both parties
    considered it to be part of the contract before the sales transaction
    was completed. If the agreement was not known until after the sale
    was completed (e.g. the seller got paid and the buyer got the
    software), then it is void. Under general principal of contract law,
    no party can unilaterally add additional terms to a contract after it
    has been accepted.

    In a normal retail sales situation, the manufacturer can argue
    that the buyer knew or should have known of the license agreement
    prior to sale and thus should be bound by it. The trouble with
    assumption is that a buyer would claim (1) he had no knowledge of it
    and that the vendor did not mention it or (2) that the vendor did
    mention it but the buyer told the vendor that he did not consider it
    binding. (How many retail sellers would refuse to take the buyer's
    money in such a circumstance?)

    In mail order sale, the license agreement is almost never
    mentioned. The first time the buyer finds out about it is after the
    goods have been received. In such cases, the agreement is not worth
    the paper it is printed on.

    A court would also be bothered by the fact that a tear open
    agreement is a contract of adhesion. That is, it is offered to the
    buyer on a "take it or leave it" basis. The buyer cannot bargain
    about the terms contained in it. The law does not favor adhesion
    contracts and they are automatically suspect.

    Finally manufacturers must realize that no court will ever
    enforce a contract where the buyer pays for software and the
    manufacturer, through a tear open contract, does not promise to
    deliver anything.

    Are They Licenses? There are a number of factors to determine
    whether a license (with retained ownership) or a sale of a copy is

    1. Is the license for a limited period?
    2. Does the license have to be signed before the software is made
    3. Is more than one payment made to the "licensor?"
    4. Does the "licensee" have any obligation to return its copy of the
    software to the "licensor" if he has no further use of it (i.e. can he
    throw it in the trash without liability)?
    5. Does the "licensor" have any duties to the "licensee" to make sure
    the software even works?

    An answer of no to each question would indicate that the parties
    really intended the transaction to be an outright sale. This is
    clearly seen if you examine the license agreements for minicomputer
    and mainframe computer software. These agreements are typically (1)
    for a definite period of time, (2) the license agreement must be
    signed by all parties prior to delivery of the software, (3) in many
    instances the licensee has to pay a yearly royalty/service fee, (4)
    the licensor agrees to upkeep and modify the program as necessary, and
    (5) the licensee has a duty to return the software after a specified

    Other Problems With Tear Open Agreement: Even assuming a court
    would find a tear open agreement to be a binding contract or a true
    license agreement, there are many other problems that must be

    Tear open agreements may violate four provisions of Article Two
    of the Uniform Commercial Code (the U.C.C.) Article Two codifies the
    law of sales and it is the law in every American jurisdiction except

    U.C.C. |2-312 gives a dealer the power to transfer all rights,
    including title, to the buyer unless the dealer gives the buyer actual
    notice of the limitation. There is nothing to prevent software
    manufacturers from contractually requiring its dealers to give this
    written notice on their sales forms.

    U.C.C. |2-513 gives the buyer the unqualified right, except in
    C.O.D. sales, to inspect the goods at any reasonable time and place
    before accepting them. The buyer can take the sealed package home,
    remove the shrink wrap and test the software to make sure it fulfills
    its advertised claims, etc. Given the fact that many software
    packages require a minimum of 30-40 hours training to utilize, the
    fact that a demonstration package was available or that the buyer
    could try the software out a a local store (how many stores would
    allow any user to tie up a machine for 35 hours to test one package)
    is irrelevant. The buyer has a reasonable time to inspect the goods
    and either accept or reject them.

    Under U.C.C. |2-201 if the price exceeds $500, the party being
    bound by a contract has to sign a writing relating to the contract.
    Thus, the buyer pays $501 for a software package and did not sign the
    restrictive agreement, then the terms of the agreement do not bind

    Many license agreements disclaim all warranties (i.e. the
    software is sold "as is" and the manufacturer guarantees nothing).
    Under U.C.C. |2-316 this is permissible, except whenever an express
    warranty disagrees with a disclaimer, the warranty will prevail. The
    law says express warranties are created by instruction manuals,
    training guides, use of demonstration models, advertising and the
    like. Thus any disclaimer of an express warranty is voidable.

    Tear open agreement may also violate various federal and state
    consumer protection statutes. It is arguable that the manufacturers
    have committed fraud against the buying public in that they encourage
    the public to buy their products yet do not advertise their license
    restrictions. It is a deceptive trade practice under the Federal
    Trade Commission Act (a federal law) to let a transaction look like a
    sale when it is not. Many states have similar legislation.

    Courts would also be bothered by the fact that the consumer bears
    the entire risk of loss. In a U.S. Supreme Court case dealing with
    price fixing, the Court said that risk of loss after transfer of
    possession weigh heavily in determining whether or not a sale has
    taken place. If the buyer bears the entire risk of loss, it strongly
    indicates a sale, and not a license took place.

    Can a sale later become a license? The license says that
    "opening the package" or "using the software" indicates acceptance of
    the license terms. Does that mean the buyer did not accept them at
    the point of purchase? If so what did he buy? If he did buy it, does
    he lose or forfeit some property right upon opening the package. If
    so, the manufacturers should realize that the law does not like
    forfeitures of any type.

    There may be an admission against interest in requiring the buyer
    to sign a card acknowledging the validity of the license agreement.
    Under the law, a party cannot have contradictory claims. If the
    agreement is really self executing, why require the buyer to sign a
    card acknowledging its validity unless the manufacturer has its own
    doubts about its self execution?

    There may be another admission against interest in that many
    manufacturers, for income tax purpose, treat the transaction between
    themselves and their dealers as sales and not licenses. Similarly, a
    court would inquire into whether or not the manufacturer took returns
    from its dealers. If it did not, then it indicates a sale took place.

    In the same genre, manufacturers fail to control their dealers.
    If they really wanted to create binding licenses they could
    contractually require their dealers to have the license agreement
    signed before delivery of the software. They do not do this. (Too
    much trouble they claim.) Instead they exercise almost no control
    over dealer's selling practices. Most dealers treat software the same
    way they treat hardware. The dealer uses sales forms, invoices and
    receipts that imply a sale took place.
  • #include <disclaimers/ianal.h>

    Current-day practice is not to have a "tear-open" agreement, but, instead, the agreement is presented when the user attempts to install the software. The user had no knowledge of the agreement's existence, let alone its terms, when the user paid for the software. By this lawyer's logic, that makes the agreement null and void.

    Click-wrap licenses usually tell the reader to return the software to its place of purchase for a full refund, if the user refuses to be bound by it. Unfortunately, the place of purchase will generally not take it back or refund the user, as an understandable matter of policy (they have no way of knowing if you copied the distribution media prior to returning the software). However, this effectively means that the user is forced to either accept the terms of the agreement, or not use the software and let it rot, since they can't get it refunded.

    Often, click-wrap licenses state that opening the package constitutes acceptance. However, you didn't even see the license until you attempted to install the software (which obviously happens after opening the package).

  • by Hyperhaplo ( 575219 ) on Sunday June 30, 2002 @02:11AM (#3794595)
    GDIVX [] runs on XP etc and is better (in my opinion) than the Media Player. There are heaps of players out there.

    There is a nice program out there for Windows users called Tiny Personal Firewall []. This wonderful little program is not just a firewall ... it has this WONDERFUL new addition: It tracks and protects your Windows (TM) from nasty software running.

    It has default restrictions available and it sets itself up for standard windows programs like Office, IE, etc.

    The cool part: When you install a new program TPF3 not only asks you if you want the program to execute, it also asks you what level of execution to grant. For example: Internet explorer (by default) can ONLY download into the c:\download directory.

    So... if I'm on a box with XP I install TPF3 and nothing gets by it. Is your Media player trying to contact the Internet? block it! Is your media player trying to install something? Block it! Easy as that. Give it a go.

  • Re:extortion (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 30, 2002 @04:51AM (#3794886)
    Horseshit! You can't change a EULA without notification. This is Contract Law 101. You can't change a contract unilaterally.

    No, but juridicially, there is no unilateral changing involved, as the 'I agree'-clicker already agreed that the licence can be changed at any time... this is a bilateral agreement.

Never tell people how to do things. Tell them WHAT to do and they will surprise you with their ingenuity. -- Gen. George S. Patton, Jr.