Slashdot Mirror
FTC Will Study Software License Practices
This seems long-overdue -- if "licenses" are not comprehensible, what's the good in "agreeing" to their content? Though the deadline for comments is past, this page details the symposium, which will be open to the public. If you can get there, post your impressions here! The most important facts are these:
The Federal Trade Commission will hold a public forum on October 26 and 27, 2000 to examine warranty protection for software and other high-tech goods and services marketed to consumers.The public forum will be held at the Federal Trade Commission headquarters, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. on October 26, 2000 from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. and on October 27, 2000 from 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
What I'd like to do is get a few industry "autographs" on the back of a sheet of boilerplate (in the same font size as comes on typical EULA stickers and such) that begins: "By signing the reverse of this document, you agree to have irrevocably and with full knowledge waived the following rights and privileges ..." Sorry bub -- you signed the agreement, what can I tell ya?!
But seriously, theres no way any of these licensces are legal anyways. As oft pointed out, these licensces are a legal agreement, legal agreements require contracts, signatures and notary publics. What about the "lack of communication" standard? What if a spanish speaker buys MS word? He can't read the document... what if I *PURPOSEFULLY* don't read it? (because thats exactly what I do;-) That legally constitutes "lack of communication"? I don't care what a little piece of paper says ... I bought the program, its mine :) ain't no one taking my monkey island :)
We have something similiar at the library at my university, a sign on the wall says "by using these facilities you agree to be searched by security personel" (I'm paraphrasing) ... that can't be legal either.
Free Techno/Jazz/DNB/MI Music by guys obsessed with monkeys!
And since any legal contract is not binding on a minor.... tee hee!
IIRC, one of the main points of UCITA is that liability is the 'default' state of software license, and that a EULA is required to relieve the licensor of liability. Hence, Bill, with his EULA's, will be able to evade liability, while Linus, without a EULA, will be stuck and liable.
Anything NOT worth doing is NOT worth doing well...
What if a spanish speaker buys MS word? He can't read the document... what if I *PURPOSEFULLY* don't read it?
What if my Nephew (who is 12) comes over and installs software on my computer..
He's a minor, so he can't legally enter a contract - I didn't install the software, so am I liable to uphold the EULA?
Another example: what if my wife installs something on my system? Am I liable to uphold the EULA? Again, I didn't install it, I didn't agree to anything, so I can then reverse-engineer (or whatever) the software even though the EULA 'forbids' it
Win ME comes with a 90 day warranty (yes, that it way too short, but it is in big bold letters and I knew about it before agreeing). If it does not do what it claims to do in that 90 day period, I am entitled to repairs, a refund, or an exchange. Updates would seem to count as repairs; if they want to to agree to another contract, I should have the right to get a refund instead. If they refuse that, I will sue them because they broke their word and our contract.
After 90 days, they could wrap the update with an agreement stating that I consent to be anally raped by Bill Gate's Saint Bernard. I would not agree to that contract, but I would not bitch and moan. I screwd myself over by agreeing, but I knew I might be screwed and I agreed anyway.
I know the limitations of the warranty. I know that there is no realy guarrantee that Win ME will even boot after 90 days. I chose to gamble on it. If I chose wrong, I know that MS has no real obligation to protect me from my stupidity.
To apply this little rant to your argument:
It's not like the vendor is holding a gun to your head, but they are saying, in effect, "Somebody else could very well be pointing a gun at you, and you are vulnerable (owing to a hole in the armor we sold you earlier), but we have a repair kit for the armor, so everything is okay. Oh, but in order to get the repair kit, you will need to agree to these additional terms..."
When I purchased the armor, I agreed that there was no guarantee of its effectiveness after 90 days. At that time, I chose to risk my life so that I could have armor that could play cool video games. I could have used Penguin Armor, but I chose not to because all the straps and buckles confused me.
After 91 days, I'm in eminent danger because of a flaw in the armor I chose. MS can fix my armor.
If, as in your argument, this is a life and death situation, MS has an moral obligation to patch my armor with no fuss. If they force me to sign away my left testicle, I will feel no obligation to give it to them because I had no other choice except death. A life-and-death situation would not be free choice.
If, as in most real life situation, I am only exposed to financial loss, then it is free choice. I knew I was gambling by choosing armor which I was not allowed to check for holes. I knew the possible consequences of failure. I agreed anyway. I gambled and loss.
MS has no obligation to save every e-commerce company's ass unless they formed a contract to do so.
My mom is not a Karma whore!
I have yet to see this EULA. That page was always been blank and my VM is still broken.
Can not agree to something that was never presented.
Also remember for a contract to be valid BOTH sides must agree to it WITHOUT CORROSION. A criital update for broken software and they force you to accept new EULA is corrosion, in my option.
And the cool thing about the provisions is that most of them apply to the MPAA's arguments WRT DVDs, too. Things like "you don't really own a copy, you just own the media and you're licensing the movie!" The problem is that people are a lot more used to listening to the MPAA...
-RickHunter
One minor problem with this theory. Every retail store has a sign posted that states that they will not give a refund for opened software. Stores have the right to set their return policy. You therefore waived your right to a refund when you purchased the software.
MUCITA went into effect at the beginning of this month in Maryland. Staple's, Best Buy, WalMart, and OfficeMax still have signs saying that they will not give refunds on opened software.
A question you do not address is why the stores have a no refund policy. According to a lawyer at Staple's headquarters, the reason is that the software companies will not reimburse the store for any returns. If the store gives you the refund, they have to eat the cost.
This allows software companies to have it both ways. They can put the refund clause in the EULA so they can argue it is a contract while they know full well that the store can legally refuse to honor it. If the software comanies want the EULA to be a binding contract, they should include a clause in their reseller's license that says the retailer will honor the refund clause.
stop whining and get a lawyer.
Great idea! If you have been involved in a legal action, you would realize that it is not as simple as that.
Hire a lawyer for $100/hour to get a refund for software that cost $80. No lawyer will touch the case.
My girlfriend was involved in legal dispute over a $1650 claim. No lawyer would touch it or talk to her about it. One lawyer (who agreed that her case had merit) said that even if she won the lottery and was willing to pay his $200/hour fee, he would still decline the case. His reason was that he felt the judges and other lawyers, who he has to work with on a daily basis, would hold it against him for bringing such a trivial (the amount, not the merits) claim to court.
She handled the case pro se. For seven years, the opposing side fought to keep her from having her day in court. Two weeks before it was to actually go to trial, the other side settled for twice the amount of the original claim. (She had an unfair advantage. She had both the law and the facts on her side and it still took seven years.)
If you think it is so easy, why don't you try it and report back the results.
I feel like picking a fight with everyone who thinks they are right. - Rainmakers
Copyright law was modified in 1978 to accomodate computer software. At that time Microsoft was a *VERY* small company and had no influence in the industry.
I suspect IBM and the other computing giants at the time would claim that this wasn't Microsoft's innovation.
Here's a clue for you: Microsoft isn't the embodiment of all evil. In fact most of the software license ideas that they consider weren't originally their own ideas.
For example, the Mainframe and Unix markets have been leasing software for years. I used to have to pay something like a $5k/year license to use a popular Unix GIS package back in the early 90's.
Don't believe me, go look up a product called 'flexlm'.
Seriously, it's getting to the point where I'm starting to wonder if Hanes will start putting an EULA in its underwear. Okay, maybe that's a little too drastic, but you see my point.
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
Now, what if you want to go back and read the terms of the contract you've already agreed to? I just tried this with Norton Personal Firewall. I inserted the CD, expecting to click throught the setup procedure to read the EULA, then cancel setup.
Wrong-o! It detected that the software was already installed, and asked if I wanted to remove it! So the only way for me to review the contract I "signed" is to remove the software and reintall it. Is that going to mess up all the custom settings I've created? Who knows?
Actually, in this case the printed documentation contains a license. Is this the same one as the EULA I agreed to when installing? The seal on the CD says I have to accept the one in the software, but the manual says I have to accept the one printed in the manual. If they disagree, which one takes precedence, the hardcopy or softcopy?
It is a major reason why I dislike EULAs, but not the only reason. The 'no refund' policy just aggrevates the situation.
The software vendors are cherrypicking the parts of contract law and product law that favor them. They want the advantages of both while sidestepping the disadvantages.
They want the benifits of mass markets (lower distribution costs, bigger markets, etc.) without any of the disadvantages that come with retail sales (implied warrenty, refunds, etc.) They want the benifits of contract law (waiver of rights) without the cost of actually getting a signed contract before collecting the money.
Perhaps with a slight tweak so that it was required that either the place of purchase or the software manufacturer were required to give you a refund upon request, that might be enough.
One provision of MUCITA is that the right to refund can not be waived. It went into effect the beginning of this month. However, I noticed that none of the retailers have changed their return policies.
I feel like picking a fight with everyone who thinks they are right. - Rainmakers
hmm.. good idea.. should also work on a CD's jewelcase, although you will ofcourse need some spare cases to keep your new software in. the 'no criticism' clause smells like censorship to me.. that would mean an MCSE isn't allowed to give full advise on software. He cannot point out flaws or improvements. and he cannot compare features, since if another piece could do better in certain areas.. but he can't critisize the M$ product..
//rdj
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
Has anyone noticed that comment submissions were due on 11 Sept, 2000??? A load of good that does us!
Here in Quebec a distinction is made between person-to-person contract and user-agreement.
A large number of clauses are forbiden from the later. For example, if someone breaks into my box and cream my dsl-connexion, I don't have to pay for the over-limit megabytes of transfert. The law forbid to discard extra-contractual reponsability unless the contract is person-to-person.
The principle is fairly ovious. Pretty much the same deal as for spam mail: during the discussion leading to the sale, the company has so little work to do in comparison with the user (they amortize the legal composition fee over all sales), it just doesn't serve the invible-hand properly.
It seems so natural, I'm very puzzled it has not spread.
-
This post was compiled with `% gec -O`. email me if you need the sources
Replace "contract" with "your word". Is it still strictly a legal issue, or a moral one also? Just because you can break your word without being punished by the law doesn't mean you should.
However, I do agree that some contracts should be unenforceable, with no moral obligations.
IIRC, Interest rates on credit cards are capped to protect consumers. If I sign an agreement stating that I will pay 75% interest on my card, it just doesn't count. I won't feel any moral obligation to pay that rate. Our society has a standing rule, indicated by law, that that clause just doesn't count.
EULAs are currently ambiguous. There is not currently a standing rule that they don't count. Should we break our words based on the notion that maybe someday that rule will exist?
My mom is not a Karma whore!
Also on the subject of EULAs, there's a good article here.
Damn subject line length limit.
READ the EULA *before* you purchased the software.
In my experience most shops won't allow software returns once the package has been opened. Fair enough, but you have to open the package, and often attempt to intall the software, to read the EULA, at which point - if you don't agree - you are still stuck with the software.
My (crappy) understanding of contract law is that the store would be required to refund your money if you choose not to agree to the EULA after "purchasing" it. Judging by the mockery I've received, some people disagree with my interpretation. Anyway, I would support a law which would force stores or manufactures to (quickly and easily) refund money in that situation.
Another problem with this is that there is no requirement for EULAs to be in plain english. Most are in legelese.
If you don't understand it, don't agree to it.
My mom is not a Karma whore!
They sold you something (Windows, not the physical PC) which was of no value unless you entered into another contract. They refused to nullify the initial purchase contract (implied by you giving them money). That is a bait and switch. Contact an attorney, contact the Better Business Bureau, and sue the store.
If you encounter a license and you think it is unfair that you you have to agree to it, just don't agree to it. If you think it is illegal that you have to agree to it, stop whining and get a lawyer.
My mom is not a Karma whore!
This 'Porsche' analogy is only correct if ALL the cars out there have the same price tag.
All the software out there (with the notable exception of the relatively new OSS software) has similar ELUAs on it. Add to this the problem of compatibility. Say you try to buy an open source car to compete with this porsche... but you can only drive it on 15% of the roads out there. You can't visit your customers or suppliers by driving it.. Do you really have a choice to 'skip' software that doesn't have an ELUA?
Maybe at home, but howabout the business network you run... can you skip it there?
Not agreeing to any ELUA's is (with the current state of affairs) tantamount to agreeing not to use computers to run your business. 95% of our customers run Windows. I don't know how we can provide softare for them without agreeing to any ELUA's.. if you can help me out, I'd love it!
It seems to me that there are a lot of people out there who abuse their freedoms. If something in their life goes wrong, they immediately look to place the blame on someone. They don't seem to understand the term "accident", "act of god", or even "honest mistake". Sometimes the blame lands on a corporation. Now, I know that sometimes that's completely justified - there will always be a percentage of companies that really don't care what happens to their customer - "morality" and "fairness" are words they don't understand.
But all these licensing developed to their ridiculous levels for a reason. Yes, I'm sure some of it has been due to advancement in their wars to protect their "intellectual property". But in the case you point out (about housing contracts), I can't help but wonder if at least some of this mess wasn't brought out by an evolution: customer A attacks company for reason N (which, if customer A had any kind of tolerance or backbone, could have been brushed off with a comment of "shit happens"), company enacts legal restrictions to make sure next time they're not liable for reason N, then customer B attacks company for reason M, and so on.
I presume that legal agreements like the ones we see today are more restrictive than when the very first ones appeared 20, 30 years ago. So I figure it's had to have been an evolution of sorts. Maybe?
If so, have we not brought some of this on ourselves? Are there not an increasing number of people out there who don't want to take responsibility for anything in their lives? Would this not explain why we seem to be heading towards, as you say, "corporations and government[s]
try IBM. they sell laptops with Corel Linux on em, or so their laptop page says (I was specifically looking at the T-series... may be different for other ones, and the IBM site gets pissy at Mozilla, so I can't give you a link). IBM should really be the first stop for anyone looking to install a non-MS OS on a laptop. I'm typing this on a Linux-running TP 570... it's beautiful. I don't even own any copies of windows anymore, besides the unused ones they won't give me a refund for!
Lea
Mine sleeps with the fishes. Don't tell me somebody actually installed that software?
True, but there were several differences between the mainframe licenses and the current EULAs.
I feel like picking a fight with everyone who thinks they are right. - Rainmakers
This is the biggest problem with EULAs. It mixes several different areas of law together. You are correct in your understanding of contract law. And, it would be valid if you bought the software directly from the software company. However, most purchaes are made from retail stores which are covered under a different set of laws. The retail stores have the right to whatever conditions they want on refunds.
The store's are covered under contract law because contracts can not bind third parties. The EULA states that it is a contract between the software manufacturer and you. The store is not a party to the contract.
Personally, I think that this is a way to get an EULA declared null & void in non-UCITA states. Buy the software, disagree with the license, unsuccessfully attempt to obtain a refund, do whatever you want with the software (as long as it is legal under copyright laws.)
IANAL and this has never been tested in court.
I feel like picking a fight with everyone who thinks they are right. - Rainmakers
Someone should release a piece of software with "By clicking I Agree, you agree to send me $500,000" in the EULA. Then try and enforce the EULA in court. Maybe this would show the stupidity of EULA's to the judges (and general population if the case got any publicity).
On a side note, because I'm under 18 and can't legally be held to a contract, can I break all the EULA's I want?
- *Normality Is The Root of All Evil*
I know this guy that did a mcse course, at the end they gave him an envelope with his diploma, the envelope was sealed. There was an accompanying letter that said "by breaking the seal you agree to..." and then a whole bunch of things including something like: "not critize microsoft or it's products". the guy didn't feel comfortable about agreeing to that and breaking the seal so he cut open the bottom end of the envelope and took out his diploma ! never broke the seal, never agreed to any of their garbage and got his diploma anyway. i thought that was a pretty practical solution.
Again, your question is missing the point. I don't care whether you keep your word or not. This is between you and your God/conscience. The policy question is whether the State should force you to keep your word or not.
The argument for state enforcement of contracts/promises ( as opposed to the argument about what you ought to do) is not a moral argument but an economic one. The state enforces contracts because it reduces transaction costs for doing business in that state, spurring business activity and growth, not because it is right. But the state (we) descriminates between welcome and unwelcome business practices. e.g. Pyramide schemes contracts are not enforced because the State doesn't want to spur this kind of business activity. So the question remains, what kind of business practice enforcing 'click through' contracts would spur, and whether we want more or less of this kind of activity.
The argument for is that reducing legal costs for software producers will increase the availability low-cost software. The argument against is that it would increase the volume of low-quality controlled software (no liability clauses) and stifle competition ( anti reverse engineering clauses) and reduce the effective flow of information beyond what is necessary to protect producers( limitations on fair use).
A wise and publicly minded legislature could find ways to authorise these contracts under limitations that would address the concerns expressed above. Will such a miracle happen here these days?
-- look, cheese ahoy!
UCITA is not a federal law. Blaming Clinton and Gore for that seems a bit much. As for the more people in prison, the vast majority of *those* are in state prisons; the number of federal prisoners is tiny compared to the number of state prisoners.
(And note that Texas has one of the highest incarceration rates in the country.)
I want to hear about you trying to return software for a full refund. Go ahead, try it. After you've opened it and started install.
One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on
These are well-thought-out and well-written comments on why UCITA is not so good....
I get around this by buying spare parts, not complete machines. I know a guy who bought a complete machine without a disk drive - and a spare drive. No ms os!
LOL! Why did this seem inevitable?
-- Nick "Hallo this is Beel Gates, und I pronounce weendows as
The law is suppose to create a framework for living together. As for contract law, see my previous answear in this thread.
>Quotes like yours ...
are the surest way to the dismanteling of the constitution, and civil war. What should the law posititon should be on homesexuality, abortion, etc.?
As for the spirit and the letter. Corporate America is bound by law to do just that, it is called fiduciary duty. A 'moral' CEO that forgoes revenues in the persuit of the spirit of the law is liable and can be sued by the shareholders.
I don't always like it, but the difference between morality and law is real and is a deep aspect of societies like ours, you can't just shout it away.
I can agree that our society has lost a great deal of respect for an idea of public commitment ( which is an aspect.ct of morality.) And that is a serious problem, but it is not something that tough laws can mend.
-- look, cheese ahoy!
"[...] Here's your chance to tell the FTC what you think of UCITA (be nice :-)."
Hang the bastards!
What? What? I am being nice! I really want to have them dropped into a real-life Quake Arena III and taken out with plasma guns!
... geez, don't look at me like that ....
A truly excellent pizza parlor is a delight unto the heavens. Treasure the sauce and the toppings!
We don't claim Easyflow is good for anything. If you think it is: great, but it's up to you to decide.
If Easyflow doesn't work: tough. If you lose millions because Easyflow messes up: it's you who's out the millions, not us. If you don't like this disclaimer: tough. We reserve the right to do the absolute minimum provided by law, up to and including nothing.
[snip]
The punishment for making copies other than as described above can be horrible. Sffice it to say that you should keep your doors locked and look out for the HavenTree attack shark.
I still laugh when I read this.
Honestly, how could they not see that the UCITA is not in the best interests of the people? If they need our thoughts on it all to understand that, then this country is in far worse trouble than I thought. That being said, it is important that people share their thoughts with them, if not to help them see the truth, but instead to tell them that we see the truth, and that we aren't about to take it quietly.
One time I threw a brick at a duck.
Can I hold Linus responsible if my kernel crashes, etc
Don't worry, uncle Bill will never let this happen. Otherwise, he'll end up as the poorest man on earth within days!
Opus: the Swiss army knife of audio codec
I myself am not too fond of paying however much money for the privilege of reading the EULA only to determine that it was, in fact, written by cretinous baby-eaters, and that the now-opened product is completely unreturnable. UCITA - straight from the wrenching bowels of the law-talker industry to you.
Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
I see a lot of people complaining that many (Microsoft's in particular) EULAs are unfair, too restrictive, etc. "Taking away the rights of the consumer." But no EULA that I'm aware of takes away the right of the consumer not to buy the product. In my world, if I don't like an EULA, I don't use the software. MS doesn't force their software down the throats of consumers any more than any other company does. The write it, they put it on the market, and people buy it - EULA and all.
To me this seems like going out and buying a new Porsche and then complaining about how expensive they are.
-- "Complacency is a far more dangerous attitude than outrage." -Naomi Littlebear
You can read the comments here. Most of the comments are in PDF format, many of the comments reflect the Free/Open Source community view of UCITA, among them are, American Association of Law Libraries, Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, PHD professors, and of course Richard M Stallman. Perhaps things aren't so bleak after all! Perhaps the FTC will support consumer interest! There would be some embarassed politicians in two states if the FTC ruled against the major provisions of UCITA including the legality of shrink-wrap and click-through licenses, remote recall/disabling of software, liability for individual programeers, NO liability for commercial software developers, etc :-)
"Open code, in other words, can be a check on state power." -Lawrence Lessig
seem further and further apart each day. What - does anyone REALLY expect that the people who put this crap together don't know how it rips off and abuses users? C'mon nobody intelligent enough to think up a law and draft it could possibly miss the negative aspects - they simply don't care because it's a money maker..and the rest is just postering. The only way this stuff will change for the better is when business is held accountable in the same manner as individuals..
Agreement tends to mean that two or more parties are 'of like mind' in a certain issue. (i.e. Term of Use) How many humans do you know that can be of 'like mind' with a person who writes the typical click-through agreement or EULA?
Microsoft real advancement to the industry has nothing to do with software innovation... but rather License innovation. In a recent article, some microsoft programmers were drawing strong analogies between conditional branchesw of program code and conditional terms of Microsoft's software licenses, with the sense that licenses should be programmed in the future. Remember, when Microsoft got started in the 70's, people actually owned the software they bought... Microsoft helped 'pioneer' the idea that its use is merely licensed through obfuscated conditions of agreement.
Should we be thankful for this? I sure am not. Most lawyers have far more job security than I find comfortable. Why else would RMS be so nostalgic for the free software of old?
Most people don't actually read the EULA when installing software. There are 2 reasons for this.
#1 - people just got some new software, and are excited to play with it. They don't want anything in the way of thier use of the new software. This leads people to just click on "I Agree" without reading the agreement.
#2 - EULA's are usually pretty long. Do they really need to be this long? Some people will see a long document, and just skim it, or read the first paragraph then bypass the rest. Some programs (Napster comes to mind) make you read all the way to the bottom, but all you have to do to bypass this is just drag the scrollbar to the bottom, then you're free to go on.
-
Secondly, what qualifies as software at all? Drivers? Libraries? Scripts? All of the above? These are questions that must be answered.
icqqm [ICQ:11952102]
With a few exceptions, no software is critical for anybody's survival. I didn't purchase Windows ME in order to prolong my life, I did it so I could play cool video games. And Bill Gates did not send large, burly goons to beat me up to get me to agree to the license.
I agreed to the license of my own free will, knowing the terms of it (I read EULAs), so I am ethically bound to abide by the terms.
My mom is not a Karma whore!
As far as making licenses comprehensible, why bother? Almost no one reads them anyway. I always blow by software license agreements (though I sometimes wonder whether someone has embedded some verbiage like "we reserve the right to send all of your system information back to our computers and sell it to the highest bidder.")
The CC&Rs among other things, prohibits you from doing things like, puting up TV antennas, restricting what colors you can paint your house, bars you from displaying signs on your property (forget campaigning), bans you from repairing your own car on your own land, says what kind and how many pets you may have, and so on.
And these CC&Rs take precedence over what any local zoning or municipal laws allow you to do. And they typically last from 20-50 years. And they transfer to the new "owner" should you sell your home. And they automatically renew for another 20-50 year period unless all or at least a majority of the residents all cooperate to file a statement that they don't want them renewed. And of course, you yield things like water and mineral rights.
Like software, you don't own your home. You are licensed a home, since the true owners (construction company or tract financing bank) control what you can do in your own home.
This is yet another way corporations and government are doing away with private ownership of anything.
The cold war is over. Socialism won.
if you are posting on slashdot i dont expect perfect grammar and spelling. if you are sending a letter to the ftc to point out the down side of utica:
Please use a spell checker (ispell) and proof read it for grammar errors.
examples:
That is why a particular cannot license cannot be exempted without encouraging one over another.
from RMS
But they users were free to redistribute copies to others, and those others had no direct commercial relationship with Intel or with me.
john
-- john
That way more and more people can become convinced that there is something rotten at the heart of the entire structure that we have been taught to believe in.
This will leave the FTC in the uncomfortable position of having to come up with some truly innovative plausible lies to cover up what they are doing - or they will have to do the right thing. I'm betting on the innovative plausible lies approach - but they might be afraid of being too obvious if they take that course. Thus there is some possibility that they might wind up doing what is right - counting on the court system to 'require' them to do the wrong things as an over rule. Of course evil people are clever enough to realize that they can't win every fight, and that this might be one they allow us to win.
I'm really OK with UCITA myself. I seem to recall that the standard GPL has a disclaimer that no warranty is provided. If it doesn't, it's easy enough to add one.
Since all the software I use these days is GPLed, I really don't run into any UCITA related problems. I think that once companies realize the implications of the UCITA, a mass exodus to GPLed products will occur. Though the law probably wouldn't stand for too long anyway; once software companies start losing customers, they'll lobby to have it removed.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
people keep saying that no lawyer would touch a refund because of bad license case due to the small amounts involved... there is an alternative, specifically designed for this... why has nobody considered going to small claims court and obtaining a judgement. once you have received a judgement, you are entitled to use the resources of the state to collect.
The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
Ill stick to warez ROFLMAO
Are you sure you've got a good set of backups? You may find that you need to do a system recovery. And that might be a bit difficult.
Unfortunately, you basic point seems to be valid. But we need a better solution than has been offered. Unfortunately, the "powers that be" recognize that people aren't yet desperate enough to do anything extreme, so they keep pushing.
P.S.: People don't "find" the loopholes in the laws. Not usually. Usually either the loophole was intentionally written in, or a lawyer somewhere manages to change what a word means. Sufficient power can work miracles, of a sort.
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Read the EULA again. There are two particularly relevant bits. The first is at the very top, where is says "This End User License Agreement is a legally binding document between you, the Manufacturer, and Microsoft Corporation." Keep this in mind.
The second part is normally partway through the first paragraph. It may be slightly different with different EULAs, but mine said: "If you do not agree to the terms and conditions of this EULA, then Manufacturer and Microsoft Corporation do not wish to license the Software Product to you. In this event, you may not use or copy the Software Product, and should promptly contact Manufacturer for instructions on return on the unused Software Product for a refund."
So it's up to the OEM to issue your refund. Call them. Go through customer service and tech support. It will take a while, but you _will_ get your refund.
I didn't get my Windows refund until after I sent an email to a VP at the OEM, politely stating that if they did not behave as the EULA required them to, I would take them to the local Small Claims Court for Breach of Contract.
If you need help or moral support with your refund efforts, feel free to email me - I know a couple other things that might work as well.
reverend lola
the titanium sheep
provider of steel wool
I want the refund for the Win98 and Win95 that I NEVERuse.
Fight Spammers!
New technology can bring to light poorly written laws that were "good enough" when they had limited applicibility.
All governments are like Windows. They start out running OK but grow increasingly unstable the longer they run. Eventually the end up as a big hairy mess that is impossible to fix while it's still running. The only solution is to reboot it every so often.
The United States gov't has reached this point. Time to reboot the nation, wipe all laws save for a basic, rights granting constitution.
I guess you could choose not to accept the EULA, but that would mean running an OS with well-publicized and wide-open security holes. Again, that doesn't seem like much of a choice.
Easy, automatic testing for Perl.
Please explain to me where to get the refund if I do not agree to the EULA?
Fight Spammers!
If you owned the binary code. When you buy a car, you're not entitled to the blueprints, but you can do as you like with the car. You should be able to modify program code as much as you like. You're already banned from redistribution, so they can't legitimately say they're worried about the quality of the product.
But as per the (arguably meaningless) licensing agreements, you're banned from even doing that...
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
6: Only be able to use Micro$oft certified petrol
7: Force you to wind down all the windows and wind them up again to make the car go again after the radio randomly stops working on the motorway
8: Convince all the petrol stations to change the design of the fuel pumps every year to be incompatible with your car forcing you to buy a new model
9: Discontinue the supply of spare parts two years after the car was created
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. (Einstein)
What about the cuecat???
I can't believe that there are no laws against that, governments are so slow to realize the implications of seemingly benign developments in the technology world.
Microsoft just 'innovates' new ways of use of their software and try to forbid them or 'tax' them.
It's so stupid, I mean if I buy a Ferrari (or a Lada in Microsoft's case) I can do with it what I like, I can take it apart, paint it purple, kick a dent in the door, use it to tow a trailer and many other things that it's makers probably didn't have in mind. No-one thinks anything about it because after all it would be *my* car right ? If Microsoft were to make cars, people would (because of the eula):
1. not be allowed to take them apart
2. not be allowed to upgrade them in ways other than microsoft allowed
3. not be allowed to fix them
4. not be allowed to buy them second-hand
5. not be allowed to drive them outside the city it was bought in
nobody would accept this, the government would make laws against it and there would be no problems after that, why doesn't the government realize what the software industry is doing ?
just think about how many legal problems jimi hendrix would have had if fender stratocasters would have come with eula's:
"sorry sir, setting fire to your guitar is not permitted by the eula to which you agreed by plugging in your guitar" "I also see that you are playing a right handed stratocaster left handed, this constitutes another violation of the eula"
The problem with click-wrap license agreements is that they are written as contracts yet ignore the entire purpose of contracts. The purpose of a contract is so that two groups can prove an agreement was made, in the event a dispute arises and/or one side broke their side of the agreement. However, with click-wrap licenses, it's impossible to prove that the person didn't extract the files and install manually without clicking "agree", and even if they did click "agree" they are usually unaware of what they are agreeing to, and therefore not really agreeing to anything. Clauses which enable the developers/distributors to modify the agreements without notice make consumers even less aware of what they are agreeing to, since they can't even see the contract they are supposedly signing. Also, while the consumers may not hold up their side of the agreement (license agreements often include rediculous restrictions that could never be envorced), the developers/distributors rarely hold up their side either (such as the statement that software can be returned if you don't agree to the license).
------------------
A picture is worth 500 DWORDS.