Slashdot Mirror
EULA In Games
kakibesar writes "AVault has kicked up an article that takes a look on that lovely little screen that you see when you typically install a game, the End-User License Agreement. Basically it details why companies use EULA in games, as well as what you're giving up when you click on the 'I Agree' button."
What if software companies would offer a copy of their EULA on their website for a given software title? Then you could read and review it before making a purchase. Would this alleviate some (or all) of the concerns about having to agree to a shrink-wrap license? Maybe even put a text link on the box saying where you can review the license.
Errmmm, the employee you sent it to is not legally able to enter into agreements on behalf of MS?
--matt Cowger
Wow, I should read those EULAs more carefully...the game is cool and all, but they're not getting my firstborn child! I guess it's back to playing tic-tac-toe with a stick in the dirt. Or playing hearts with real cards! Imagine that!
What this ignores is that reverse engineering falls within the bounds of fair use. The publishers of a game can retain ownership all they want, but reverse engineering is supported under U.S. law (and others too, I'm sure). Thus many EULAs are misrepresenting the law (at worst) or attempting to get you to agree to give up rights which you would normally have (at best).
It's too bad for software publishers that users have such rights, but it's unethical for them to attempt to strip away a user's rights or trick users in this manner.
Don't get me started on screenshots, either - if you own the copyright to a document you created with Microsoft Word, why don't you own the copyright to a screenshot of a game you created with Quake or Rainbow Six? In both cases you're starting from the default document/game provided with the software, but you add and subtract things creatively from the document/game until you have something that's truly unique. This will only become more of an issue as games become less linear and start to dynamically generate entire worlds for you to explore.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
I know for a fact its on the DOS part of the WinNT - I386 setup on Workstation and Server, you have to scroll to the bottom and hit F8 to agree- --------------------
------------------------------------------
------
"And may your days be long upon the earth."
>This is how *all* contracts work > >Absolutely not. > >In all contracts, the terms are disclosed before >any part of the deal goes through. This is not >the case with EULAs. As my contracts prof used to say, a contract involves an exchange of legal rights (e.g. , the right to a piece of real estate, to a large box of money, to use a software platform, etc.), so in that sense all contracts involve the relinquishment of legal rights in exchange for other legal rights (or promises of future legal rights). Also, there are some circumstances where the full terms of a contract are not disclosed at the time of agreement. For example, if you look at the Uniform Commercial Code (which only applies to the sale of "goods" as defined by the code), there are a number of "gap-filler" provisions that courts can read into a disputed sales contract when the original contract contained entirely different terms. Further, there are circumstances where the parties to a contract can "agree to agree later" to indefinite provisions. Now, I don't know if either of these comments apply to EULAs, but it is incorrect to say that all terms of a contract must be absolutely disclosed prior to the creation of a legally-binding agreement.
A lot of people have been posting comments to the effect that if you never read the EULA, you don't agree to it. One way to do this is to avoid using the installer. This implies, of course, that you have to install the app by hand. I'm wondering if there's any info out there on doing this. I'd be interested in installing apps by hand if there were some HOWTOs. At the very least it'd be interesting. Heck, I'd even write a HOWTO or two myself.
You've gotta wonder how the lawyers would deal with this. Does figuring out how to install a program count as reverse engineering, or could you use an existing install to figure it out?
Brant
View -> Page Source
Oops.
This is not a Fugazi
If a company wishes to provide a level of permission to the user equal to or greater than what copyright provides, then a click-through or shrink wrap license is fine. But if they desire to remove any rights that you already possess, then they need to get your explicit consent.
I think that here in Sweden, at least, they can't remove any of your rights, even if you do agree on a contract. A company can't negotiate away your lawful rights as a consumer.
If I remember correctly, the consumer laws in Sweden (EU?) are more to the customers advantage than their counterparts in the US.
--
"I'm surfin the dead zone
--
"I'm surfin the dead zone
In the twilight, unknown"
> NEVER WRITE WHOLE
That's the whole intention...to get people *not* to read it.
Just take a look at financial reports of companies whose stock took a turn for the worst. You'll see a dark background on dark foreground so that you won't be likely to read it.
with respect to threatened or actual breaches
That sounds like something straight out of the UCITA. "We the software developers are not required to provide actual proof of any wrongdoing and can sue your sorry ass into oblivion if we feel so inclined."
The up side is that even with the UCITA, any lawyer worth his salt could probably make hash of the lack of evidence on a 'threatened breach of contract'.
--
Dyolf Knip
That did not stop them from introducing anti-cheating code into the game after the original release. Someone wrote a "trainer" program that allowed the user to "cheat" at certain aspects of gameplay. The first add-on expansion pack detected the use of a trainer and disabled any saved game that appeared to have been tampered with. The error message said "Corrupt or Inaccessible Data File" which was a load of crap, outside of the fact that the original EULA sought to prohibit reverse engineering of the code. These evil game manufaturers should be boiled in oil. I say "To Hell with their EULA".
I would wager that those old deed stipulations were perfectly legal until racial bias became an illegal purpose, thus voiding those deeds. :)
Contracts are simple: Someone makes an offer, someone else accepts that offer, both sides get something (called "consideration"), and it has to be for a legal purpose. If all four of these conditions are met, the court will recognize it as a legal contract and can step in to make everyone agree to it.
An EULA is not a contract with the store. It's a contract with the original software developer; Compaq may sell you a copy of the software, but all that copy is, nominally, is a formalized and automatic offer from Microsoft for a software license.
Of course, that offer also contains a "refund clause", which sounds like grounds to sue someone to get back your purchase price. Then again, I would dearly love to see EULAs go the way of the 5 1/4 inch floppy drive... Let copyrights, trademarks, and patents provide all the protection software needs. (or at the very least, define a new type of IP, rather than these assinine EULAs!)
Or print the EULA on the box.
"Rub her feet." -- L.L.
And what if I just extract setup files and do a manual setup, never once seeing a EULA...what then? In fact, can I even be charged with illegally reverse engineering the setup program if I never agree to the EULA *in* the setup program?
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
The difficulty here is, in most cases I've seen, by the time the EULA is readable, the company already sold you the product...
Inheritance is the sincerest form of nepotism.
I like how they use the word "teach" where they mean "bluff". Copyright law prevents unauthorized redistribution. Copying something onto many computers that you own, is not redistribution. You're still the only one who has it.
So, if I owned Joe's Software House and bought one copy of CompilerMagic 2.0 for 50 seats, am I within my rights since I own all of the computers? This becomes questionable, and I would really like to see someone with the legal backing purposely cross a EULA in order that we might get some legal rulings behind us.
My firm conviction is that they are bull... as has been stated here often enough, but I don't have the pocket book (or 50 computer) to test it out in court.
(though, I would be willing to contribute to anyone who would give it a shot.)
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
I love this! And the product is utterly indistinguishable from a real EULA.
--
Dyolf Knip
If tin whistles are made of tin, what are fog horns made of?
Or for that matter, what about french horns?
It may look like I'm doing nothing, but I'm actively waiting for my problems to go away.
--Scott Adams
I've only recently begun to read the EULA's. Most recently, Star Trek Voyager Elite Force - I noted that in the privacy section it informs the reader that the engine is capable of gathering information on the environment on which it is run, and will send such information back to the parent company. I'm sure I'm not the only one here who doesn't want -any- information about me, my habits, my possessions sent to -anyone- without my permission. Especially when I don't know -exactly- what is being sent. How can this be legal? The arguement of 'you clicked the i agree button' is shallow - they don't give another option, and as others have noted, once the box is open, if you choose not to accept the EULA, no one's going to accept it as a return. You are stuck with it. What would it take for the gaming community (or any program community, for that matter) to organize enough to work towards preventing personal data mining?
Since I run strickly openSource stuff I never agree to a license agreement.
When I install something on a friends comptuer I always get his kid over to do the install. Children cannot agree to a contract, so they can click I agree and it means nothing. I'm not sure if this would accually hold up in court, but I can at least point out that I a) had no idea what the agreement said, b) typiucally disagree with obviously unreasonable portions, and c) didn't agree to them. It can't hurt and might help.
True, but by the same token, whenever I, working for a technology company, am installing software on a company computer, am I legally able to enter into agreements on behalf of my company? I can tell you right now that I'm not. Yet, I as a low-level employee have been faced with the task of installing everything from Windows through to Visual Studio. This is not in my job description, but I do so anyways, as I have been authorized to do so by my boss.
;-)
By the same token, the people at Microsoft tech are given the job of talking with customers, and are authorized to recieve feedback from customers for bug-finding purposes, etc. If my program had a bug in it, and I was sending it to their tech people for bug-checking, are they not authorized to enter into a contract to view my code? Remember, in the event that there is no EULA, my code falls under the rules of contract outlined by copyright, where fair use, etc., comes into play.
Come on; just try and tell me that you don't think Microsoft has ever gotten a piece of code before with a huge "COPYRIGHT ID SOFTWARE; reproduction strictly prohibited without prior authorization from ID SOFTWARE" label on the top. (Or substitute your favorite software company. Lucasarts..? Borland-Inprise..? Corel, even.) This is also a contract; are they not entering into it on behalf of Microsoft when they look at the code?
(My argument is not limited to Microsoft, remember; I realize that Microsoft probably doesn't allow any external source code to make it's way into their walls. The argument's more of a theoretical one--if I thought Microsoft were this vulnerable, I'd be off sending emails right now instead of posting on Slashdot..
"Moreover, EULAs play an important role in curbing software piracy"... "EULAs inform end users that making extra copies is not permitted (except for backup purposes) and that the software publisher is serious enough about enforcing this point to provide a written notice."
Ooh, a pages-long written notice written in such meaningless legal-ese that most people couldn't understand it if they even bothered to read it! Ph33r!!!
That'll be almost as good a deterrent as writing 'Do not make illigal copies of this disk' on Microsoft Windows CDs!
If companies want to clarify thier point, they should do it in a way people can actually understand and will see and read. Example:
This program can only legally be installed on one computer.
Ten words. Make it, say, 18-point and show it in the background as files copy. This will 'inform' people.
Michael
...another comment from Michael Tandy.
"Goodness me, how unlike the FBI to abuse the trust of the American public." -- The Onion
This is more of a UCITA comment than a EULA
comment, but here's my suggestion for a starting
point for a sensible sale contract (one that
both informed buyers and software vendors would
agree to):
1. Although the user owns the package and its
media, including any copies, user also agrees
that the package includes vendor's intellectual
property (copyrights, trademarks, and patented
algorithms) and shall treat it in accordance with
applicable law.
[Most of this is redundant, but the lawyers will
insist.]
2. User agrees not to allow more people to use
the software at once than was agreed during the
sale.
[IOW: if it's a one-person package, then you can
use it on any machine that you have access to,
but only one at a time. If you've purchased a
15-user license, then only 15 people can use the
package at once.]
3. Vendor warrants that, when used properly
(such-and-such OSes, such-and-such drivers, etc.),
the package performs substantially in accordance
with its associated documentation (including
manuals and advertising materials), except for
certain defects known at the time of purchase,
which are listed at <URL>.
4. Vendor agrees to make patches for serious
bugs available to user for the price of media
and shipping, and agrees to notify registered
users in a timely manner when serious bugs get
patched. User agrees to notify vendor in a timely
manner of any new bugs discovered by the user.
5. User and vendor are expected to exercise
proper judgment.
[IOW: you are not allowed to be a freakin' moron.
If a financial package destroys your server, you
can sue for the cost of the server and downtime.
But if it suggests that you shouldn't pay your
employees this month, and you believe it, and
your company goes under, then you deserve what
you get. OTOH, the vendor should recognize that
people aren't going to double-check everything
the package says, especially if it looks
sensible.]
6. There is no clause #6.
Period. No matter what kind it is. With all of the crypto-speak (whence-to ,where-in, where-as, hither-none-for-to-be-able-to, you get the idea) who wants to read it? They write them in such a way that feeds the need to hire some one to interpret the damn things. It feeds a whole different industry.
Has any one ever read the MP3 agreements? Talk about pegging the suck-o-meter.
a/s/l here. Sorry, adding domain tags to your s
The problem being, there is no easy legal way to distinguish between a benevolent mod and an evil one. (Sadly, the phrase, "Total dickhead move" is too ambiguous of a term to stand up in court.) This leaves id software's legal department with little choice but to say, "No mods", but only enforce it in the case of truly evil mods.
The same holds true for most of the other cases --I'm sure the makers of Rainbow Six won't mind if I post a screenshot on my little game-review web site. But if I'm the maker of "Counter Terrorist Team Seven!" and I want to start ragging on Rainbow Six's graphics on my site, they would mind.
The major problem with all of this is that it's pretty much up to the companies themselves to determine what's a total dickhead move worth enforcing and what's not, and if you read their minds incorrectly, you can get burned.
"Do you expect me to talk?" "No, Mr. Bond. I expect you to die!"
ah ok. I only ever installed NT4 once =)
and that was a while ago.
I stand corrected.
EULAs, like old deed stiplations from the 50s that restrict the race that owners can supposedly can sell to, are in all non-UICTA states, nothing but legal fiction.
One of the most fundimental tenets of contract law is that you must be aware of the terms of a contract before you commit to it. EULAs do not appear until after sale, and thus are entirely invalid, whether you click "I agree" or not.
Some more creative laywers have tried to get around the law by saying "If you don't agree, you can return the product for a full refund". However, even if you *could* return the product this way (which you typically can't), this would not be enforcable. You paid your money, the store gave you the product. That was the contract.
The only part of EULAs that are enforcable are terms that are generally against the law anyway - like copyright violations. But those are enforcable with or without EULAs.
90% of civil contract enforcement is based on intimidation and taking advantage of legal ignorance.
This leads me to one of three conclusions:
(1)Lawyers are not human.
(2)Lawyers have no sense of style.
(3)Lawyers intentionally make it hard to read.
Well duh! Ever heard of 'the small print'? Using ALL CAPS is part of the same strategy as using really small print. So that Joe Lunchpail says "too hard" and doesn't bother to read it.
For every billion dollars that Coke spends on advertising, the spend another billion on advertising research. These corporate badboys have more than a passing understanding of human perceptual traits that makes it easier for them to influence us. You better believe it baby.
-- Your ad here $20 --
The companies only make provisions like this (in the case of the EULA) because it is necessary.
No they do so because EULAs are the norm with computer software. Effectivly they are a tradition, clung to blindly.
Somewhere there is the original EULA, most likely written to protect "mom and pop software writer" from "megacorp client".
If they didn't put stringent demands on the consumer, he'd just abuse the product.
So what? Other industries, including those which involve abstract IP such as publishing, get along fine without them.
Anyway if someone finds a novel use for a product they have bought then they are morally entitled to copyright and patent protection on their innovation.
Best section of the article...
Personally, "java nuclear" sounds to me like a damn fine cup of coffee. ;-)
On the subject of "weapons systems", wouldn't a failure be more likely to prevent death than cause it?!
[TMB]
The company that really needed a EULA was Firestone.
Or how about something like. "Ford Pinto EULA. The fuel system is the proprietrty property of the Ford Motor Company. all alterations, modifications, inspections, examiniations and reverse engineering is prohibited. No liability will be accepted for any death, injury, property damage related to the fuel system, even if Ford Motor Company is aware of any such possibility".
Reverse engeneering is legal in Germany for many purposes, too. And shrink-wrap or click licenses are generally void there, because once you've payed for the product you have a legal contract and later changes to that contract are only allowed if both contractors agree.
>Now that the box is in your hands, with no licensing agreement you own it.
So what? You owned it as soon as you bought it, unless you were in Virginia. Now you're stuck with a product you don't want, with no way to get your money back. You could sue them for breach of contract. They will point out that if you didn't agree to the EULA there is no contract, and if you did then, by the terms of the contract, there is no refund.
Ask me if I've been required to disclose any crypto keys.
For example in Russia it LEGAL to perform a reversed engineering if you can prove you cannot use the product without it. For example if you want to use the version in Russian language but have only the English one you may do all you need to enable it with russian-specific features.
Why would a french horn be made out of cigarettes? Is that a joke about how out of breath you get when you play the horn, and how your lung capacity decreases when you smoke? Perhaps you can explain this to me a little bit better. I'm sorry if I'm a little bit in the dark here :)
It may look like I'm doing nothing, but I'm actively waiting for my problems to go away.
--Scott Adams
Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
May I ask, just out of curiosity, and as a foreigner who does not understand the U.S. legal system, why do you not read them EULA's? Is it because
1) you do not believe they have any legal way to enforce what ever conditions they put there, or
2) you do not believe they can ever prove you actually clicked that button, or
3) you do not think they will ever bother to look in your direction
In Murphy We Turst
That's pretty funny, I'd like to see you install Microsoft Office by hand and have it actually work.
With most Windows software, you can get rid of the EULA without reverse engineering.
InstallShield and Wise Installer programs uncompress their contents into the directory your TEMP environment variable points to before beginning the setup process.
The license is usually easy to find. It may be in a file named something like "license.txt". Sometimes all the files are named something like "0e31827a.tmp", but I can usually pick the license out quickly by checking the 1K and 2K files first. In any case, it's just a plain text file editable in Notepad.
So I Alt-Tab from Setup to Notepad and edit the file before I get to the Agree/Disagree dialog, and change the text to say something like "You have purchased this program, and have all the rights and privileges associated with ownership." If the original license attempts something especially repressive like saying I can't resell, reverse engineer, or criticize the product, I explictly change it to say the reverse. Then I initial the changes as one would when striking out and inserting text in a paper contract.
Then I Alt-Tab back to Setup and when the next dialog box presents my amended license agreement and asks if I agree that I own the software and can do whatever I like with it, I select "I Agree". Piece of cake, no reverse engineering required.
Personally, I don't think clickwrap licenses are binding in the first place, but if the law decides that "I Agree" gives them force, I'm covered.
Nice link, but damn they are bad with colors! I won't read anything (unless it's nice pr0n), that has a website layout like that. :)
http://dtum.livejournal.com
As they teach in freshman law class:
It's my understanding (from the aforementioned class) that minors can get into any contract, and then (no matter what happens) they can simply get out and have the whole situation reversed.
You could buy a $40,000 car, wreck it, and then tell the dealer that you want to neige the contract. You get your 40 gs back, and they get stuck with the bill.
EULAs are probably similar; you can renigne at any time. Of course, until you do you *are* bound by those terms.
(Note that I'm not a lawyer, and I usually don't go around harping that, but since you asked a question and I answered I *really* don't want to appear to be giving legal adivce; I was just saying what I was taught in school. If you want a real answer to that question, go talk to a real lawyer.)
"By playing this game, you hereby give up your right to have a life outside of video-game playing, and shall spend hours on this game until completed. You shall also spend every waking hour that is not spent playing this game, talking about how cool this game is to all your friends, even if they do not have the system required to play the game."
Or you'd think that was in there, by how some people act.
EULAs are annoying at best. This is how you get by the EULA and you only need non-digital tools. You only need:
Razor blade
Clear tape
Directions:
2. With the razor bladeMake a small cut in the software that you are planning to open.
3. Cut into the plastic wrap, don't nick or cut the box.
4. Make the cut so you can slide the box out from the plastic.
5. Save the plastic. You will be sliding it back on the box later.
6. Pull the inards out of the box.
7. Insert the Software into CD drive
8. Burn a perfect copy onto a burned disk.
9. Make a note of the serial number
10. Put all the contents together the way that you got them.
11. Close the box, slide the plastic back on the box.
12. With a small piece of tape, close the plastic up, if you did it right, it will be hard to notice.
13. Return it to the store that you got it at.
Addtional Notes on getting by the EULA:
Tell them that it was a gift and that you already have it.
Don't use a credit card or check to buy the software.
Make sure that you don't get your greasy finger-prints on the box or the plastic or even the CD. It makes it that much more obvious.
If the product looks unopened you have that much easier a time returning the product.
This is, of cource, just for informational purposes only.
You wouln't want to do this in real life, that would be breaking laws and such.
Exactly. Most EULAs are written to discourage people from reading them. If Joe and Jane Average happened to actually read the EULAs on these games they bought, and saw some of the terms put in there, they might demand their money back! Or, even worse, raise a fuss about it and some government official might take notice! This is completely aside from the fact that much of the language used in EULAs cannot be reasonably expected to be fully decyphered by anything less than a team of trained lawyers. And that you cannot see them until after you've bought the product - many companies will refuse to give pre-purchase copies of their EULA to people.
Read The Software Conspiracy by Mark Minasi for some more details on EULAs. (Blatant plug, I know, but its a good book!)
-RickHunter
Think about it. For any program that uses an internet connection, the "i agree" button can be linked to just about anything. Knowing that most users dont read 90% of the EULA, they could be tricking you into buying from their ISP or long distance service when you buy a copy of ultima online. Someone is probably already doing it.
I am !amused.
Unfortunately many consumer protection statutes specifically require all-caps, large font size print, in order to effectively disclaim warranties. This is supposed to be so that people will notice the disclaimers, and not unknowingly waive their rights. I believe these requirements are in the UCC and maybe even in UCITA but don't quote me on that. The concept of "SHOUTING" as rude behavior, while dating back to at least Usenet days, is still quite a bit newer than most of these laws.
<DISCLAIMER>
IAAL (I am a lawyer). But not practicing anymore. Texas Bar License "Inactive Status" (so I don't pay dues anymore). This is not legal advice. Don't rely on what I say. Get your own damn attorney. Not Board Certified Texas State Board of Legal Specialization. So there.
</DISCLAIMER>
#include "disclaim.h"
"All the best people in life seem to like LINUX." - Steve Wozniak
#include "disclaim.h"
"All the best people in life seem to like LINUX." - Steve Wozniak
but I always wanted a game to really give it to me in the ass, and now with an EULA, every game does it to me!
Mine is generally (when doing NT installs) "Hit F8 to give your firstborn to Uncle Bill." :)
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
You know... most everything (including Microsoft products) you don't even have to read the EUA... you can just click accept.... I noticed that Napster requires you however to read it before you can click I accept (or at least make it seem as though you read it, by scrolling through the whole thing).
Something I've wondered about... can a company legally put something in the EUA.. like many paragraphics down, like that you would need to give them so much money or do something, and then when you click agree, have it send something back to them, say over the internet.. so they would have a record of it... would this be legally binding? And would you as the user have to legally pay them since it was in the EUA which you clicked I Accept on?
What about web service agreements? Click on one of those terms of use links at the bottom of major websites. How enforceable are they? CNN's has everything from being held harmless if you buy a crappy stock based on one of their articles to that hated ALL CAPS TEXT.
------
James Hromadka
"The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved." -- John Ashcroft
By reading this you agree to not implant any memory of this on your brain and forget about it instantly. If you repeat this comment or post it in your cerebral cortex, you are guilty of violating the back-end user agreement which gives the owner of said agreement the right to violate your backend.
=-=-=-=-=
"Do you hear the Slashdotters sing,
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Oh bother.
Both Software Etc. and EB will refund your money for any reason as long as it's still in sellable condition. My wife has returned many games that she didn't like for a full refund.
I don't think so...
The people who are going to abuse the EULA are going to abuse it and probably won't read it. Those who aren't going to abuse it won't abuse it and probably don't even read it.
Pretty much the same thing with banning (INSERT SOMETHING HERE -- EULA, guns, DVD copy protection, SDMI) here in the States... it will always find the way into the hands of the criminals and people hell bent on getting the result they sought.
The honest people just will be in the fucked-over group.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Uh yes you do, either that or you are violating copyright law. unless you use all PD software.
Likely you are just using BSD & GPL and similar licenses which grant usage without much more then disclaiming liability.
This issue is discussed in detail on this UPitt Law school web site.
~ fact is not dependant upon your belief therein. ~ ~ Have I therefore become your enemy because I tell you the truth?
After reading the EULA for Quake 3 I was so incensed that I drafted and mailed a statement denying my aquiescence to the contract to both Loki and to a friend who could witness that I did my best to show that I do not accept the terms stated in the EULA if it ever came to a legal proceeding.
I consider that having paid for the product, that I own it; and if someone tries to modify that ownership after it has already been alienated by including the text of a contract in the box that states among other things that I won't ever sell the product to someone else, there isn't any reason at all that I should accept that contract.
I made it completely clear in my letter that I do not accept the contract, and I urge anyone else who feels the same to send a similar message.
Interestingly, I did eventually get a mail back from Loki with some free legal advice, so I wrote back a reply reiterating my argument, stating that I did not accept their argument, and that I was willing to test our difference of opinion in court if necessary.
But I mostly did that because Q3A is the most onerous of EULAs I have ever seen. Other EULAs leave a lot to be desired, but they don't usually take away basic rights that you have in owning the copyrighted material and grant you nothing in return.
(Loki tried to argue that by using the product I had to agree to the license. But use of a product is not a protected copy right, so I disagree with their argument; I am fully within my rights to use a copyrighted work, whether I've agreed to a contract or not. IMHO, of course. IANAL.)
LibBT: BitTorrent for C - small - fast - clean (Now Versio
You may not make illegal copies of this comment. Illegality of copies is determined by the laws of Estonia-on-Avon, a small principality covering approximately one half acre somewhere in West Tenessee. A copy of these laws may be obtained by visiting Estonia-on-Avon, and asking Prince Bob to write down a copy for you. Punishment for illegal copies will also be left up to Prince Bob.
You may not reverse engineer this comment to attempt to discover the source code of this comment for use in your own products. If you wish to make modifications of this product, please contact us for further info. Infractions of this clause will lead to visit by a large man named Guido at late hours of the night.
The store went on to send him snail spam (delicious!). He demanded money, they refused, he sued and won. If only there were more annoying pigheaded litigious troublemakers like him (and fewer of the other kinds of annoying pigheaded litigious troublemakers), the world would be a better place.
To return to your case, I think (IANAL) a licence like yours would be enforceable if the user explicitly agreed to it before receiving your addresses. So you need to remove your addresses from the licence, and find a way to deliver it without revealing those addresses (perhaps an extra account created for the purpose which does not receive mail).
Ask me if I've been required to disclose any crypto keys.
>It is assumed that it would be an undue burden to require someone to be 18 to buy food in some extended manner other than a simple purchase...
Really? I would have assumed that it would be an undue burden to require anyone to buy food in some extended manner other than a simple purchase, not to require them not to. I've never had to sign a contract to buy food (except when paying by cheque, debit card, etc.), but then I don't live in America. So what kinds of licences do you buy food under? If they're anything like EULAs, we can expect:
I agree not to reverse-engineer the Colonel's secret herbs and spices...
I agree not to share this loaf with any third party...
In the event of poisoning or other consequential damages arising from the use of this pie, I agree that the manufacturer's liability shall be limited to the price paid for the product...
I agree not to display this vegetable in the context of advertising any other product or service...
I agree not to publish the result of any nutritional analysis without the manufacturer's written approval...
I agree not to test this sausage for the presence of microorganisms or toxins of any kind...
I agree to use this fruit only for culinary purposes and not unlicensed uses, which include but are not limited to sexual gratification...
This beer is leased, not sold...
Ask me if I've been required to disclose any crypto keys.
I never read those stupid EULAs and consider them non binding for all the reasons people have pointed out. Then again, I don't run Windows any more.
Sooner than later, I won't have to worry about such things at all. I clicked through Correl's Word Perfect 8 the other day, but before that, it had been about a year. This weekend, I'm going to look into LaTex.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
3. Is it "as described"?
Of course not. It's described as a game, not a licence to play a game.
Ask me if I've been required to disclose any crypto keys.
To be precise - the INSTALL ROUTINE will stop.
All the install routine does is put files into place and make configuration changes. These can be done manually.
You can provide your copyrighted software under any terms you like. But if you give it to me under the GPL I can redistribute it without the readme restriction. Of course, that doesn't compel you or me to answer luser questions. READMEware sounds like great fun for trolls: they can stick hundreds of k of gross porn in the docs.
Ask me if I've been required to disclose any crypto keys.
Actually, it says that they can take EQ down for patching, (along with taking your firstborn child, your soul, etc.). ;)
So, What if I hack the software BEFORE I install it, and remove the part that asks to agree to the EULA? Now when I install it, I don't have to click on any agree button, so am I now not free to do anything I want?
Sig?
>Only drawback to this solution is that it will be too costly to implement..
It would not be costly to print out 3 slips stuck onto the back of the box, you sign and 1 copy each goes to the purchaser, the vendor and the manufacturer. The drawback for the manufacturer is that some customers will not agree to odious conditions, and other will break all kinds of conditions. The drawback for customers is that you can't buy a game as a present for someone else, or at all if you're too young.
Basically you can't have it both ways. Either you sell a product and enjoy your generous existing protections under copyright law, or you sell a service under complex terms of your choice. You can't sell a service as a product.
Ask me if I've been required to disclose any crypto keys.
The article mentions some licenses that don't let you post or distribute screen shots in ANY public medium, which I would assume means game magazines and web sites. They're just shooting themselves in the foot with this sort of thing -- most people will not buy a game if they don't see it in their favorite magazine, or if they can't easily find out what it looks like.
And what about clans, tribes, etc. in the various multiplayer games? They like to post screen shots of their exploits on their web sites. Are they expected to pay screenshot license fees or something like that, or risk having their sites shut down? I mean, come on!
What kind of justification do they have for this sort of clause? Screenshots from games can't harm a company's interests in any way that I can think of...
I'm sorry, but this article lost all validity when they started quoting Derek Smart.
Exceptions are made for things that are considered "essential" such as food. It is assumed that it would be an undue burden to require someone to be 18 to buy food in some extended manner other than a simple purchase, and therefore minors are held responsible for such contracts. Still, those things are rare, and video games, despite my addiction, do not qualify as "essential" in the eyes of the law.
WARNING: there is a trojan on your
But I suspect (don't really know!) that the legal position would be that a game purchase is implicitly that of a license. The reason being that there are several "products" that you could be buying:
- The physical media in the box
- The game license
- The full rights to the game
And purchasing the "game" gives you the first two but not the third. The same is true of buying a book, whereby you are not allowed to make copies of the book or plagurise (sp.) it - you own the physical media and a license to view it.Rev. Bob "Bob" Crispen
1) Do click-through licences have any legal standing in your country?
2) What possibilities does a user have - in your country - if the product requires him to accept an EULA that he can not accept? Can he return the produce, and get his money back?
3) What if someone uses a program without accepting the EULA, for example by unpacking the installation files manually? Where does he stand?
4) Generally, what are the default rights of a consumer who has purchased a piece of software. Especially if there is no license agreement? Any sort of "fair use" allowed for anyone? Can these be limited by an EULA, or even by a signed agreement?
5) Does it make difference to any of these points if the producer of the software happens to be located in another country, or if the agreement happens to be worded in a language the user may or may not understand?
In Murphy We Turst
MSN is featuring the trailer of the Tomb Raider movie on their Windows Media site (300k, 100k, 56k). There's alot of Matrix style action, but the special effects don't look like anything to write home about. Also, it appears no special effects were used make Angelina Jolie look more like Lara Croft. RealVideo version is available here, and the QuickTime version is available on Apple's website.
Work for Change & GET PAID!
*minor flash of insight* Just suppose people started distributing installers for this purpose. New OpenSource project anyone? =) Wonder if the DMCA has anything to cover people writing/ running/ distributing installs for other people's software, you can't violate a contract that you don't agree to. I believe (not I know, haven't read enough) the DMCA doesn't cover installation. If anyone can clarify this I'd really appreciate it. P.S. Speaking of EULA's, where's the "I accept" / "Cancel" button for the DMCA? ;)
Inheritance is the sincerest form of nepotism.
You could buy a $40,000 car, wreck it, and then tell the dealer that you want to neige the contract. You get your 40 gs back, and they get stuck with the bill.
True, but this is the exact reason why any sane car dealer would require customers to be 18, or at the very least have a parent's cosignature. They know about this aspect of contract law, and they know enough not to trap themselves in a situation like this.
---
"Fdisk format reinstall, doo dah doo dah,
I pledge allegiance to the flag...
of the Corporate States of America...
If you are under the influence of some drug whil agreeing to the contract is it leagally enforcable? What if you install the software for someone else? Does you agreeing to the EULA bind any person using the comuter to it?
Electronic End-User Software License Agreement
THIS PROGRAM IS PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT LAW AND INTERNATIONAL TREATIES. BREAKING THE FOLLOWING AGREEMENT WILL RESULT IN SEVERE CIVIL AND CRIMINAL PENALTIES AND WILL BE PROSECUTED TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT POSSIBLE UNDER LAW.
THIS AGREEMENT IS A LEGAL DOCUMENT. READ IT CAREFULLY BEFORE USING THE SOFTWARE. IT PROVIDES A LICENSE TO USE THE SOFTWARE. BY CLICKING ON THE "YES" BUTTON AND USING THE SOFTWARE, YOU ARE CONFIRMING ACCEPTANCE OF THE SOFTWARE AND AGREEING TO BECOME BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT. IF YOU DO NOT WISH TO DO SO, DO NOT RUN THE SOFTWARE AND PRESS "NO" BUTTON.
1. Definitions
"Software" means the programs supplied by Microsoft herewith.
2. License Restrictions
You MAY NOT use this Software AT ALL. Using the Software will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under law. You also may not make or distribute copies of the Software, or electronically transfer the Software from one computer to another or over a network.
You may not decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble, or otherwise reduce the Software to a human-perceivable form. You may not rent, lease or sublicense the Software. You may not modify the Software or create derivative works based upon the Software.
3. Ownership
This license gives you NO rights to use the Software. Although you own the media on which the Software is recorded, you do not become the owner of, and Microsoft retains title to the Software. All rights including Federal and International Copyrights, are reserved by Microsoft.
4. Limitations of Damages
MICROSOFT SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR ANY INDIRECT, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF MICROSOFT HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES AND EVEN IF A REMEDY SET FORTH HEREIN IS FOUND TO HAVE FAILED OF ITS ESSENTIAL PURPOSE.
:)
"Have you ever paid to play Half-Life in a cyber-cafe? Can't do that."
This is slightly inaccurate. I run a LAN game room (dumb name) in Madison, WI (www.ping-time.com), and in order to get Half-Life, we had to license it from Havas Interactive. Many games have such options to license them, and I know that Blizzard does. However, I doubt many "cyber-cafes" do license the games, because in some cases it is prohibitavly expensive. David Turner
I don't read them, but then I've no intention of sticking to them anyway.
My underage child who cannot be held in a binding contract (eg. EULA) is the person who installs anything that contains a EULA (a type of binding contract). Thus I am not bound by any such agreement. This includes the "don't open" licences on various packages.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Copying the software onto your computer without permission could be considered a copyright violation, unless you have permission, which you need the license for.
The GPL, BSD & others all grant usage, without agreeing you have no usage license.
Unfortunately, I'm fairly sure that most EULAs have some kind of statement to the effect that, should one part prove to be unenforceable or illegal, the rest of the EULA remains binding. So you can't get around the EULA that way. Shame, really.
Sure, I read through all binding contracts before I sign them. But I don't read EULAs before I click through, they're meaningless corporate drivel that isn't enforcable.
EULAs violate many of the basic contract principles (they aren't voluntary because the company is withholding something you paid for until you sign an unrelated contract, they don't offer you anything because you already paid to use the software, etc.) The only way an EULA could be binding is with some UCITA-type law, and 'they' passed that precisely because 'they' knew that EULAs aren't at all enforceable.
Technically, an EULA just can't be forced upon you for the purchase of software you already bought. If you like the EULA you can take the company up on its offer (like you did) and it will be binding, because you're waiving some of your rights.
But you can click-through without fear, if the only way to get around the contract to use the product you legally purchased is by clicking 'I Agree' then that button has no more legal significance than 'Next'.
A company could make an EULA binding, IF they didn't make it mandatory, and offered something you didn't already own (an extended service contract perhaps). Or, in the case of shareware where you didn't buy the product before seeing the EULA.
But a hidden contract (in the box, can't be read till it's purchased and taken home) isn't binding.
If the EULA says to return for a full refund of you don't agree, and the vendor refuses a refund because you didn't agree, aren't they violating the agreement? Wouldn't that void it, since you disagree and they disagree, there is no agreement. Now that the box is in your hands, with no licensing agreement you own it.
OG.
Ouch! That one hurt ... hmm ... why not reverse engineer the installer (you never ran it and thus never agreed to the EULA either) and invert the button's functions (ie make the 'I disagree' Button jump to where the I agree button usually goes and vice-versa) Then run it and click on 'I disagree' (You explicitly told them that you didn't like their EULA and the installer will nevertheless set up the software)
;)
Just a thought one of the voices in my head just muttered
Greetings,
Lev_Arris
It doesn't really matter, the EULA is already unenforcable before that. The fact that the store knows there's an EULA and the software company does (obviously) simply goes to prove their intent - that the contract never be binding.
:)
But once you buy a product (or a license to use, if you choose to see if their way) you *own* that product/license. There may be rights attached to it that you don't own (copyright, etc) but you have all rights necessary to use it in the manner for which is was advertised when you bought it.
If I sell you a software product you have the right to make the copies inherent in using it (on ram, the installed copy, etc) because you couldn't use it otherwise and I sold it to you as a working product...
Anyways, if you buy a product you have the right to use it. The EULA usually offers you the right to use the product for agreeing to the 'contract'. This isn't binding because you already own that right, they're offering you something of no value. Then, they're attempting to withhold your right to use the software because the 'I DISagree' button cancels the install. This is coercion, they're forcing you to do something in order to exercise your rights. It'd be like me threatening to take your car unless you bought my tires.
There are other problems with the EULA, but those are the main ones.
Just ignore them, unless they're in your best interest (like Windows Refund Day). They aren't binding on you, but they are binding on the company that issued them. (They can't have offered a contract they knew was invalid, can they?
This puts me in mind of a simple remedy for this problem. Most credit cards these days offer consumer protection. Simply call your credit card company and tell them the vendor is not acting in good faith to refund your money and you are not responsible for the charges. I have used this in the past and it works quite well.
For me, it is that at one time or another I have probably read most of a "generalized" EULA, and looking at any one brfore me, they all look alike and I say to myself "I've probably seen this before and it's just the same old disclaimers."
Also, it's not that I think they'll never look my way, but rather that I almost never need support and truly don't intend to do anything remotely illegal anyway.
Sometimes I may take a peek, but only with new and different software, stuff that has the possibility of doing something so new that I feel there may be something differtent in the EULA that is worth searching out, and even then I just skim the thing.
Evan - needs to hit preview before submitting
Guess most germans simply do not need to read an EULA. Most EULAs are pure BS by german law and invalidate themselves and thus replacing them automatically with the standard-buyers-agrement. Most funny this fits nearly all EULAs from Microsoft to IBM and most of those funny-looking shareware-/crippleware-EULAs ("Hi, I wrote a nice Hello-World-Programm, please register") too. I like the part about "preinform the customer" most: E.G. lets say you got a cool MPEG-Cutter-Software (lets call it VCDCutter for the time being :-) and that beast doesnt clearly identify itself as an demo or lists its intentions in a complete list before installation, or if they dont deliver a solution to uninstall the programm in a comparable way to the installation, then you are not responsible to remove the program after evaluationtime and if the programm intereferes with the rest of you system you may even patch it to avoid this behaviour (like, ask astalavista for a keygenerator). Ah, sometimes I love bad programmdescriptions and failing de/installationroutines.
"Life is short and in most cases it ends with death." Sir Sinclair
So, click whatever they insist you click to make it install.
They can't take away your right to use the software you purchased, so by putting in a contract you must 'agree' to in order to use that product renders the contract void.
To get around that they'd have to have 'I Agree', 'Cancel', and 'I Disagree, Install Anyway' buttons. Because they don't, you're free to install that software even if it means clicking 'I Agree'.
Hmm, this makes me wonder how other companies would respond if one company made their EULA easy to understand and read. I wonder if the others would even do anything or if people would wake up and demand that the EULAs are readable.
Withdrawal before climax is very ineffective and those who try this are usually called "parents."
IMNSHO IANAL:
A word processor is a tool that allows you to create content, it typically comes with no content of its own. When you create a document with a word processor, 99% of what you see on the screen was created by you (the words, the diagrams, etc). You own it and the word processor is the means of displaying it.
A game is a (large) amount of content combined with an already-provided method for displaying it. 99% of what you see on the screen was created by the company's artists and modelers. When you take a screenshot, you are merely rearranging their content into a different form; the only thing you have added to the game is your location, inventory, etc.
It's like photographs... If you take a photo of something natural or in the public domain, you own the copyright on it. If you take a photo which consists mostly of copyrighted content (say, xerox a library book), or more relevantly, if you create a collage consisting entirely of the copyrighted work of others, you don't own it.
[this is not an endorsement of current copyright law]
It always blows me away that you can authenticate what is essentially a contract by clicking a button. AFAIK under contract law you have to sign the contract to 1) resonably authenticate yourself and 2) agree to the terms of the contract. Clicking "I agree" does not satisfy point 1 properly does it?
We're free and clear with the Cue Cat scanners because they gave them away. They could give them away free with any labelling they wanted, people would still be completely within their legal rights to do whatever theyt wanted to the device.
If they want it to be binding they need to ask people to agree to the contract *before* they get the device, and they can't give them away unsolicited.
The EULA doesn't appear in most cases untill you start to install the program. So, what happens if you copy the entire contents of the media on to your hard drive? You never agreeed to any EULA. Are you free to hack into the program any way you choose? What if you modify the program slightly so it skips the EULA, and then install your modified version?
Also, some EULA are extreamly vague. It may state "you may only install this software on one computer. you must remove it before you install on another etc etc" If you later install AGAIN you will have to agree AGAIN and couldn't you argue that for each EULA you agree to you may install one copy? Hey, I bought the MEDIA for $50, but every time I installed the program I recieved another EULA without doing anything. If I agree to the EULA 5 seperate times does that give me 5 licenses?
I love going down to the elementary school, watching all the kids jump and shout, but they dont know I'm using blanks.
This is how *all* contracts work
Absolutely not.
In all contracts, the terms are disclosed before any part of the deal goes through. This is not the case with EULAs.
If you want to contractually license your software to me, you can do so by giving me the contract terms (say, via a webpage), and me actively agreeing to those terms. *Then* the money changes hands. That's perfectly acceptable.
If I buy from a store, and *then* you add terms, I can't refuse the terms without significant inconvenience to me and the vendor. Vendors may refuse to take back stuff, may mischarge my card, lose the credit slip, etc.
You want to sell in a store? Live by the understood rules. Want to change the rules -- i.e., add an EULA? Don't sell in a store. It's *that* simple.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
from the article:
"Moreover, EULAs play an important role in curbing software piracy...EULAs inform end users that making extra copies is not permitted (except for backup purposes)..."
The article seems to be saying that any sort of copying, other than for backup, is illegal. This is not true. I can copy the software onto another PC so long as they are not in simultaneous use. I can also copy to a more convenient media (moving to a DVD or ZIP or HD instead of a CD-ROM). The article also doesn't mention those cases of companies adding copy protection schemes and not allowing copying at all, even if their EULA does not dissallow it.
Funny thing is that we had to reject the use of Java in our configuration applications once I read the EULA for IBM VisualAge Java. Since our entire division is air traffic control systems, we cannot use it since the software puts human lives at risk(not actually but better CYA just in case the config app crashes and burns the monitor and control system, which runs the entire operation). A flight sim in Java could be cool, just don't ever think about putting it on a operational ATC processor.
"Everybody get out of the way this idiot is going to go press his luck!" -Engineer "Martian Successor Nadesico"
Can someone check on this? I think you can do that as long as you make it clear that the publisher owns the copyright to the image. How many publishers are actually going to care that you posted a screenshot of a great score? None, they just want to make sure that if your screenshot shows something really cool, that they can use it in an advertisement and you can't interfere.
Have you ever paid to play Half-Life in a cyber-cafe? Can't do that.
Cybercafes buy special licenses from the publishers to use the games for commercial purposes. If you read the licenses, some of them even mention these type of licenses and how to get them.
Have you ever relied on Age of Kings to land jet planes at a major airport? Don't do that. Please don't do that.
No comment.
"Moreover, EULAs play an important role in curbing software piracy. [...]"
Yeah, tell that to the warez sites with 50 gigs of software free for pirate download.
And just my own 2 cents, has anyone ever noticed that the licenses say to take the software back if you don't agree with the license? Well, you've opened the software, so the store isn't suppose to accept it back. Sort of a Catch 22: "Agree to these terms or you wasted you money."
"// this is the most hacked, evil, bastardized thing I've ever seen. kjb"
Jakob Nielsen wrote an article in September 2000 discussing 'regulatory usability', about the need for increased comprehendability (my word) in the plethora of legal nonsense we have to wade through.
He particularly mentions EULA and disclaimers at the end of the article, stating:
I will be very interested how an EULA holds up in court when (not if) the day comes. Full article here...
(Microsoft) won't take its software back.
Can you blame them? If you were Microsoft, would you want your software?
Are we paying for the product, or the ride? When u buy tickets to Disneyland, you pay for the enjoyment of using the product, though the seat is (for a time) yours. All these software products are 'sold' as 'tickets', where the ownership belongs to someone else.... You really only get a warranty for something you own - how much would u pay to OWN the souce code? Most gamemakers do not put it up for sale. And... Because these EULA's contain clauses to protect the company from 'incedental' damage to one's computer (data coruption/loss) they are protected un a unique way - from my above example if you weere to get hurt on the ride you bought a ticket for, or if the toaster burned down your house, the company would certainly be somewhat liable - wouldn't it require a HAND SIGNATURE for installing something that can threaten someone's livelyhood (like a drivers side air-bag)? Or like Firestone, a massive recall of product, and paying for the injury done, the companyies using EULA's to protect themselves are almost "above the law"... ...leave the cheese and the rats will surely come!
For example, the goods must be of `Fit for their purpose'. This means that if you're lead to believe that a product can do something, and it can't, then the retailer is obliged to refund your money. I would imagine that, for example, the packaging for System Shock 2 implies that you will find out what's going on on the ship. Not without downloading the patch you won't! Are the goods fit for their purpose? (This isn't to slag of SS2 - it was just the first example I thought of.)
Another example, the goods must be of `merchantable quality'. What this means is left vague and for the (usually small claims) court to decide. A yogurt containing rotting fruit is clearly not of merchantable quality, but I guess the question `Is Win9x of merchantable quality' would occupy the finest Slashdot minds for days...)
Notice that the Sale of Goods Act applies only between the consumer and the retailer. *NOT* the manufacturer. As I understand it, any contract exists between the retailer and the consumer, not the manufacturer and consumer. Moreover, retailers can't get around the Sale of Goods act by introducing their own terms (although there are some minor cop-outs, for example, you can't complain about a fault if it was made aware to you at the time of purchase. (Although, I can't see Dixons or Comet reading out BugTrak to everyone who wants to buy the upgrade to WinME...))
I should add that IANAL. Also, for examples of fun things to do with the S of G act, see uk.legal.
-- C.
Particular about the fact of upholding EULA. While the EULA itself is held up...aspects of that license can be struck down.
Or he is using BSD & GPL software without taking advantage of the additional rights (e.g. redistribution) that he would have if he agreed to the license.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
I'm not sure, but I'd file a civil suit (small claims, of course) naming both companies as defendants. This latter part is important: if you just name one, they can finger point.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Oops. Didn't notice that future shop was a Canadian company. Not sure how that buggers things up.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
How about picking a day and get eveyone to buy a piece of software and then open it up read the EULA, then refuse it and return the thing.
Presumably if the EULA starts becomming an inconvenience they might start getting a bit more reasonable.
Either that or perhaps just get all the programmers out there to put an EULA on their own Software.
How about inserting into the EULA somewhere.
Either that or just going for peoples' firstborn
-- That which does not kill us has made its last mistake.
GPL is just as bad as any EULA. Come together and imagine, Mr. Kite, and tell me how many holes it takes to fill Onkel Albert Hall?
What happens when a user under the age of 18 clicks the 'I Agree' button? Since nothing is legaly binding to them, what happens?
--
EFF Member #11254
Please consider making an automatic monthly recurring donation to the EFF
Even more interesting...most games will run perfectly fine on a Win9x system without actually installing them (just copying over the directory from an already installed version on somebody elses computer)..so while technically the person who originally installed the game is bound by the EULA, what about the six generations down the road of RAR files popping up on warez sites?
Interesting...In theory, one could write a piece of code that does all the necessary file copies. Then all that is really left is to add keys to the registry, no? Take a virgin Windows install, make a copy of the reg, install Office. Write some code to do a diff. between the before/after, write a little installer that adds the extra bits. Not all that hard, in fact I wrote something like this when I worked for the Federal Gov't a few years ago. They didn't want to install an entire app onto a machine (this is in the day of 100 *MEG* HD's) so they'd run the files off the server and add the reg. keys to the client tricking it into running...
The case in point here is that if you are aware of the EULA and read it appropriately, finding that you can't agree to those terms, what recourse do you have? Can you return it? Can you continue to use it?
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that publishing a screen shot of a game in the context of comparative advertising by a party other than the copyright holder was fair use. (Sony vs Bleem)
is here. link = http://www.gamespy.com/comics/november00/dork4/
- -
Peace,
Lord Omlette
ICQ# 77863057
[o]_O
I just want to clarify what Have Blue hit on in a previous response.
A game screenshot is a derivative work. There is no way you can create that screenshot without using the copyrighted game.
With a Word doc, you can create that exact same document in a host of other applications or on paper by hand. Word is not necessary for the creation that document and that is the difference.
n8_f
Software: Pagekeeper
:-)
EULA return policy: The place where you bought it, or us for full refund.
So, I wrote an e-mail...and got no response. Called, and was told there was no way to return the software. Asked for names, then asked to speak to a supervisor.
Said supervisor said they would call back. VP called back in 2 hours, said "no". Asked him to place that in writing, and mail that "no" to me.
3 days later, VP called back and gave me the address to send the software back to.
Sending back software is a good idea, but it takes alot of time and effort to obtain the end goal. And some (Microsoft) won't take its software back.
If it was said on slashdot, it MUST be true!
and the article makes a pretty good point, that all thats needed is the "no reverse engineering" clause.
The thing that got me was the quote from Microsoft about why EULA are neccessary. It basically stated that EULA exist because publishers would have to charge more, because of those that would exploit reverse engineering. According to that then, I can readily buy (for an added price) versions of software that allow me to reverse engineer them. Seems quite obvious lawyers don't live in our reality.
Cheers,
leroy.
I feel that for an EULA to be enforceable, it needs to require that the consumer purchasing the software be presented a form which he/she must sign at the point of sale. This way, the EULA will have the same legal status as a contract between two people. Only drawback to this solution is that it will be too costly to implement, therefore the best way to go is free software and open source.
every time you start EverCrack you're actually giving your soul to Verant
:)
they've already taken it, but I place all the blame for than on my "friend" who hooked me on it
"Save the whales, feed the hungry, free the mallocs" -- author unknown
The paper defending EULAs that he links to and quotes is more interesting than the article itself. The part where they explain (*cough*) why copyright laws are insufficient is particularly riddled with bias and newspeak.
Oh, that is just so lovely and thoughtful. Those rights granted under copyright law are so obscure and full of legalese; people need a nice simple and easy-to-understand EULA. Take people's rights away from them, so that they will have a better understanding of what rights they have left! I like how they use the word "teach" where they mean "bluff". Copyright law prevents unauthorized redistribution. Copying something onto many computers that you own, is not redistribution. You're still the only one who has it. EULAs do not "inform" the user that they have fewer rights than would otherwise be granted under law; they stipulate it. EULAs cause those rights to be lost (if the user agrees).I could go on and on picking at this piece of crap, but I think I'll save my bile for another time and enjoy the rest of the day.
Oh, and in addition to bullshit, there's one interesting passage that brings a sincere grin to my face:
Take heed, MPAA! I happen to agree that sufficiently unconscionable terms, when exposed to enough light, have the potential to influence the perceived value of a product. It is interesting that DVD movies come with so many restrictions and downright secret terms (such as the conditions for authorization to circumvent, as required by DMCA) that are not mentioned on any EULA that comes with them. One could speculate that the purpose of DMCA was to make it so that MPAA didn't have to include nasty-looking EULAs with their product, which would scare away consumers. Cockroaches love the dark.---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
I mean, if no one bothers to read the damn EULA in the first place, and we all do what we want with the code (hack it, reverse engineer it, pirate, use the CD as a Frisbee), then why in the world do we get upset about it?
Sure some company could get heavy handed with some poor user, but I bet the out pouring of bad publisity would cool any action fast. Case in point: Censorware.
Frankly the whole software industry needs to have an attack of common sense, which regrettably is lacking.
III.IIVIVIXIIVIVIIIVVIIIIXVIIIXIIIIIIIIVIIIIVVIII
This article does not reflect the thoughts or opinions of either myself, my company, my friends, or my dog; don't quote me on that; don't quote me on anything; all rights reserved; you may distribute this article freely but you may not make a profit from it; terms are subject to change without notice; illustrations are slightly enlarged to show detail; any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, is unintentional and purely coincidental; do not remove this disclaimer under penalty of law; hand wash only, tumble dry on low heat; do not bend, fold, mutilate, or spindle; your mileage may vary; no substitutions allowed; for a limited time only; this article is void where prohibited, taxed, or otherwise restricted; caveat emptor; article is provided "as is" without any warranties; reader assumes full responsibility; an equal opportunity article; no shoes, no shirt, no service; quantities are limited while supplies last; if any defects are discovered, do not attempt to read them yourself, but return to an authorized service center; read at your own risk; parental discression advised, text may contain explicit materials some readers may find objectionable; keep away from sunlight; keep away from OJ; keep away from pets and small children; limit one-per-family please; no money down; no purchase necessary; you need not be present to win; some assembly required; batteries not included; instructions are included; action figures sold separately; no preservatives added; slippery when wet; safety goggles may be required during use; sealed for your protection, do not read if safety seal is broken; call before you dig; not liable for damages arising from use or misuse; for external use only; if rash, irritation, redness, or swelling develops, discontinue reading; read only with proper ventilation; avoid extreme temperatures and store in a cool dry place; keep away from open flames; avoid contact with eyes and skin and avoid inhaling fumes; do not puncture, incinerate, or store above 120 degrees Fahrenheit; do not place near a flammable or magnetic source; smoking this article could be hazardous to your health; the best safeguard, second only to abstinence, is the use of a condom; no salt, MSG, artificial color or flavoring added; if ingested, do not induce vomiting, if symptoms persist, consult a physician; articles are ribbed for your pleasure; possible penalties for early withdrawal; offer valid only at participating sites; allow four to six weeks for delivery; must be 18 to read; disclaimer does not cover misuse, accident, lightning, flood, tornado, tsunami, volcanic eruption, earthquake, hurricanes, and other Acts of God, neglect, damage from improper reading, incorrect line voltage, improper or unauthorized reading, broken antenna or marred cabinet, missing or altered serial numbers, electromagnetic radiation from nuclear blasts, sonic boom vibrations, customer adjustments that are not covered in this list, and incidents owing to an airplane crash, ship sinking or taking on water, motor vehicle crashing, dropping the item, falling rocks, leaky roof, broken glass, mud slides, forest fire, or projectile (which can include, but not be limited to, arrows, bullets, shot, BB's, shrapnel, lasers, napalm, torpedoes, or emissions of X-rays, Alpha, Beta and Gamma rays, knives, stones, etc.); other restrictions may apply. This product is meant for educational purposes only. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead is purely coincidental. Void where prohibited. Some assembly required. List each check separately by bank number. Batteries not included. Contents may settle during shipment. Use only as directed. No other warranty expressed or implied. Do not use while operating a motor vehicle or heavy equipment. Postage will be paid by addressee. Subject to approval. This is not an offer to sell securities. Apply only to affected area. May be too intense for some viewers. Do not stamp. Use other side for additional listings. For recreational use only. Do not disturb. All models over 18 years of age. If condition persists, consult your physician. No user-serviceable parts inside. Freshest if eaten before date on carton. Subject to change without notice. Times approximate. Simulated picture. No postage necessary if mailed in the United States. Breaking seal constitutes acceptance of agreement. For off-road use only. As seen on TV. One size fits all. Many suitcases look alike. Contains a substantial amount of non-tobacco ingredients. Colors may, in time, fade. We have sent the forms which seem to be right for you. Slippery when wet. For office use only. Not affiliated with the American Red Cross. Drop in any mailbox. Edited for television. Keep cool; process promptly. Post office will not deliver without postage. List was current at time of printing. Return to sender, no forwarding order on file, unable to forward. Not responsible for direct, indirect, incidental or consequential damages resulting from any defect, error or failure to perform. At participating locations only. Not the Beatles. Penalty for private use. See label for sequence. Substantial penalty for early withdrawal. Do not write below this line. Falling rock. Lost ticket pays maximum rate. Your cancelled check is your receipt. Add toner. Place stamp here. Avoid contact with skin. Sanitized for your protection. Be sure each item is properly endorsed. Sign here without admitting guilt. Slightly higher west of the Mississippi. Employees and their families are not eligible. Beware of dog. Contestants have been briefed on some questions before the show. Limited time offer, call now to insure prompt delivery. You must be present to win. No passes accepted for this engagement. No purchase necessary. Processed at location stamped in code at top of carton. Shading within a garment may occur. Use only in well-ventilated area. Keep away from fire or flame. Replace with same type. Approved for veterans. Booths for two or more. Check here if tax deductible. Some equipment shown is optional. Price does not include taxes. No Canadian coins. Not recommended for children. Prerecorded for this time zone. Reproduction strictly prohibited. No solicitors. No alcohol, dogs, or horses. No anchovies unless otherwise specified. Restaurant package, not for resale. List at least two alternate dates. First pull up, then pull down. Call toll free before digging. Driver does not carry cash. Some of the trademarks mentioned in this product appear for identification purposes only. Record additional transactions on back of previous stub. Decision of judges is final.
Is it really? Let's look at the three statements that the article identifies as being most common in an EULA.
1) "First, there is always an assertion of the company's copyright and ultimate ownership of the intellectual property represented by, and associated with the game"
Is this really necessary? Either the company owns the code or it doesn't. What the end user happens to think about the matter is of no effect. If someone steals my car, will I not be able to press charges unless I had previously made the thief agree that the car was mine? Proof of ownership is not a matter for EULAs, but for property law, unless you think I should put a sign on the car door saying "By touching this car, you agree that...."
2) "Second, there is always a promise that the game (or its associated documentation) will not be copied or shared" Again, this is not a matter for EULAs, but rather for copyright law. I am not prevented from photocopying a book or the work of a professional photographer by an EULA or even a copyright symbol, but rather by copyright law.
3) "The third promise every game obtains from the user is that they will not try to reverse engineer or modify the product in any way using the program they've received." This is a more debatable matter, and one I'm not going to get into in this post, except to bring up the "car with the hood welded shut" example and to note that while such provisions are of course beneficial to the software company, they have questionable value to society as a whole.
Why is it that the software market enjoys this unique priviledge of a prohibition on reverse engineering? (Yes, I know that computer make it a little easier, but that is beside the point.) I understand that software developers don't want people ripping off their ideas, but is this really good for society? What if, for example, Gillette had sued Shick for ripping off the idea of the disposable razor and thereby locked up the disposable razor market? "Your honor, we submit that it would have been impossible for Schick to develop a disposable razor without reverse-engineering ours. We even have evidence that a janitor at Schick corporation once saw a Gillette razor!"
Instead, Gillette has to rely on making better and better razors, which I would argue is good for the consumer and society as a whole. (Just think of all the extra trees we'd have to cut down to make toilet paper to dab up the blood from the nicks and cuts from straight razors.)
Anyway, this is all a tangent (it looks like I "got into it" anyway), and I suddenly feel the need to shave.
You want $$ back??? Haha! Kind of reminds me of an old joke about a consumer product:
"If, for any reason you are unsatisfied, just return the unused portion of the product and we will return the unused portion of your money."
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
I have to admit, when showing junior techs how to do installs for some software. I often make the dry joke:
"Here is where you sign your life away, just scroll down and click "I accept""
Maybe there should be a poll on this - How many Slashdotters actually make it through the first paragraph of a software EULA? For games, I don't think I've ever read a EULA. For some of the more expensive software, sure - I may have read a page's worth. Who, really, WHO? -reads these things?
Evan - needs to hit preview before submitting
"A state could conceivably rule that if the company, and not the customer, still owns the game, then they should have to pay taxes on this "intangible property.""
is this right? do corporations have to pay taxes on this type of property?
imagine M$ having to declare every copy of windows ever sold as part of their assets.
The following is an email I sent to Bruce Rolston, the author of the article.
______________________________________________
Shrinkwrap license "agreements" are a hot-button issue for me, so I was disappointed when I read your article, "Look Before You Click" (linked to by Slashdot).
I wrote an editorial putting the case against such "agreements" over four years ago, which was published in MicroTimes. The text is on my Web site:
http://www.best.com/~ewhac/belarfnq/shrinkwrap.htm l
I have two primary objections to license "agreements" as currently practiced.
First are the terms of the "agreements" themselves. Those which are not a redundant statement of existing law I find to be completely without any ethical foundation whatsoever. In particular, I most strenuously object to anti-reverse-engineering clauses. Indeed, you make reference to these clauses in your article:
That's correct. I argue that it should be impossible to prevent people taking apart their software, at least within the scope of mass-market software that is sold over-the-counter.
The software industry spends billions every year on research and development. But as large as this sum is, billions more are invested by auto manufacturers in the development of new cars. When finally released for sale, auto manufacturers routinely purchase the products of their competitors, take them apart bolt by bolt, and figure out how they were designed and built. And they use the knowledge gained from this to improve their own products.
The auto industry doesn't have a problem with this practice. I therefore fail to see why the software industry has any business objecting to the very same practice.
You also cite the writings of Microsoft's legal department:
Frankly, I'm surprised that you re-printed this; it is devoid of logic, or even common sense.
There is no logical path between taking apart your software and software prices rising, any more than there is a path between opening the hood of your car and car prices rising. Indeed, the argument can be made that allowing people to take apart their software will drive prices lower, since people will more readily be able to analyze and identify jewels from junk, thereby lowering the price of junk (#include <gratuitous_microsoft_bash.h>).
Furthermore, the fact that most people have no interest in opening the hood of their software -- or their car -- in no way justifies obstructing people who do. Humans are naturally curious; they are going to take stuff apart and figure out how it works. It is an unalterable fact of the marketplace. Tune your business model accordingly.
My second primary objection to EULAs is the mechanism by which these so-called "contracts" are put in force. In short, any vendor anywhere can place any restriction on you they wish, without reasonable prior notice, and bind you to it using the most tenuous forms of assent.
Frankly, I should not have to take a contract attorney with me every time I go shopping at Fry's. The mechanism used by these "agreements" is fundamentally unethical, and wide open to egregious abuse:
If shrinkwrap "agreements" are enforceable, then what is to prevent retail sales of any item being replaced by "licenses?" Consider what would happen if Sears started selling their hammers only under "license:"
You see two hammers on the wall. One is the Craftsman Personal Hammer; the other is the Enterprise Edition Hammer. The Personal Hammer comes with a "license" forbidding you from using the hammer to build objects intended for sale, or Sears will sue you. The Enterprise Hammer "license" allows you to build object for sale, provided you kick back to Sears 1% of the gross sale price. The Personal Hammer costs $30.00; the Enterprise Edition Hammer costs $500.00. As far as the hammers themselves are concerned, in all material respects, they are identical.
Would you tolerate this? Would you take Sears' "contracts" seriously, especially if there were no record of you actually signing it? What if your minor child bought you the hammer as a gift? Whom does the "contract" bind?
"Well," I hear you say, "I'll just buy one from Home Depot." Surprise, surprise, they just changed all their hammers over to the same scheme last week. Further investigation reveals that you can no longer buy a hammer any more; you can only "license" them.
Relying on the doctrine of unconscionability is also a non-starter. Litigating a contract dispute is ruinously expensive, even if you're in the right.
The idea is worse than ridiculous, it is dangerous. The opportunity for abusing consumers is monumental. It is in fact already happening. DVD CCA is suing Jon Johansen (a foreign national) for his work on DeCSS, the DVD descrambling code; the suit is predicated on Johansen's alleged violation of Xing Software's "license" forbidding reverse-engineering. Mattel managed to arm-twist an out-of-court settlement out of Eddy L. O. Jansson and Matthew Skala for developing and publishing a program that decrypts the blocklist of CyberPatrol, a censorware package; the attendant "license" forbids reverse-engineering.
This method of forming contracts is grossly unethical, and should not be allowed to stand. It is for this reason that I do not, and have never, taken license "agreements" seriously.
There are many other points in the article I could raise, but this is already too long. At the very least, I hope, in part two of your article, you will give time to the opposing viewpoint. My sincerent thanks for your time.
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
When I was younger and more foolish, there were plenty of places of business where you could come in to play network games. The same was also true at a good deal of gaming conventions I had been to.
Fact of the matter is, not everyone has their own network at home. Such businesses are where younger (read: poorer) people can congregate. It's more about the comraderie than anything else.
I'm currently reading through the EULA of Diablo II right now, and I'm not finding any provisions for obtaining a site license for the program. Hell, I'm not even finding any site licensing info anywhere on the Web!
I would consider the EULA unenforcable. Sorry.
Solomon Kevin Chang
"Twice half-assed makes an ass whole." --Solomon K. Chang
I don't think EULAs are binding, for many reasons, but your defense wouldn't work.
If you ask someone to do something for you, you're liable for their actions in doing so. If you ask me to steal you a car, you're guilty, though not of theft, instead it's conspiracy to commit, or some other 'supporting' crime.
Yea, good luck returning a game to the store because you didn't agree with the EULA inside. Most stores have a policy of only exchanging software for the same title once it's been opened.
-S
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
-Legion
you hid a clause in a EULA saying that "you agree to pay the manufacturer $100 per year in perpetuity." Technically should you be able to enforce this? Is there any limit to what people can agree to in this manner? What about agreeing to give up rights to your soul?
-- It only takes 20 minutes for a liberal to become a conservative thanks to our new outpatient surgical procedure!
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
~ The Irony is, The only reason I'm not at Berkeley right now is because I was on acid during my SAT's..
So I was setting up a handheld AvantGo channel for our school online paper (http://silverchips.mbhs.edu ). I had everything set up server-side: the template file that contains headlines, a CGI script to convert them to handheld-friendly formatting, and a nice, 160x160 readable page. I went to avantgo's website(http://www.avantgo.com ) and started going through the process to register as a "content provider" (ooooh!). There was, at one point, a big, EULA-style contract that i had to read and agree to. I almost blew it off, like the things you have to agree to for free web space or web-based email. But for some reason, I skimmed though it... and some very large numbers caught my eye. Specifically, the fact that I would have to pay them $5,000 (give or take a power of 10) of we got more than 5,000 (give or take a power of 10... I don't remember exactly) subscribers to the channel.
Ouch. I stopped right there, and I'm now setting up the channel differently. I don't know how legally binding such contracts are (nor do I expect 5,000+ subscribers), but it's not a risk I want to take.
I still usually don't read software EULAs (EULAe?), though.
-J
Karma: T-rexcellent.
I tried to do something along these lines by creating a license that would forbid people from sending me spam. I was informed by an experienced attorney that what I drafted wouldn't stand up, since there was no "consideration" involved. Frankly, I couldn't see how offering the right to send me mail was qualitatively different from offering the right to use a piece of software I'd just purchased. Since IANAL, I dropped the subject.
If nothing else, writing it was cathartic...
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
Here's the link: http://www.gamespy.com/dailyvictim/index.asp?id=63
OK, I'm getting perplexed. How does one pluralize EULA? The plural of aggreement is agreements, so EULAs would make sense. Also, if you treat EULA as a stand-alone word, which most do, then EULAs seems to work. But my Latin instincts are taking over... wouldn't EULAe be more suitable?
-J
Karma: T-rexcellent.
Lawyer quote from the article:
"Most of these customers have probably never heard of the doctrine of first sale, the doctrine of fair use, or section 117 of the Copyright Act."
I'm wondering if any COMPANIES are aware of what those things are??
These are the same lawyers who take down eBay auctions of sealed software, even though first sale allows that? The same lawyers who forbid screenshots, even though fair use would allow it them in editorial articles such as product reviews? (I don't know what section 117 is so I can't make an example. But I sure as hell didn't learn what it is from any EULA.)
> Don't agree to the EULA, but keep and use the
> software anyway. Use it in accordance with
> rights and restrictions stipulated by copyright
> law.
Um, *how?* The software will refuse to install
if you don't click that little "I Agree" button...
Chris Mattern
Obvious response...
I would like to see someone install M$ Office with the installer and have it work.
Hopefully I didn't put any [] around my words.
<i>A state could conceivably rule that if the company, and not the customer, still owns the game, then they should have to pay taxes on this "intangible property.")</i>
This regarding the fact that you don't actually <b>own</b> the software that you purchase, you merely rent a license of it.
I know jack squat about tax laws (just hand all my pertinent information to my accountant and let them sort it out), but if they're not claiming the software that I bought as a taxable asset on their end, is there some creative way to claim a tax exemption as a rental/loss on mine?
Easy does it!
This comment has been submitted already, 276865 hours , 59 minutes ago. No need to try again.
Don't agree to the EULA, but keep and use the software anyway. Use it in accordance with rights and restrictions stipulated by copyright law.
Note that you may have fewer rights than if you had agreed to the license (e.g. if you reject GPL, then you may not redistribute the GPLed program) but somehow I don't think that situation is going to be likely in cases where you don't like the EULA.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
"Sierra... and/or Sierra's licensors shall be entitled, without bond, other security, or proof of damages, to appropriate equitable remedies (including injunctive relief to prohibit a breach of this License Agreement) with respect to threatened or actual breaches of this License Agreement."
So, let's say I call up Sierra's legal department to clarify what constitutes infringement. The hypothetical call:
And then I get a letter saying that my stating "I have a burner and know how to use it" constitutes a threat to breach the EULA? Remember: "without [...] proof of damages"But, wait: if there's a "rat out your friends" clause as well... If a buddy (who also has the game) tells you about someone they know (who also has the game) who has a friend (who also has the game) who has been considering putting up a screenshot of a game on his website, you are violating your own EULA if you don't immediately write to the developers and warn them.
my head hurts
:eof
UK contract law (I believe, speaking as an IT professional and not a lawyer, etc) has concepts such as 'unfair contract terms' which basically mean, no matter what the contract term is, if a party to the contract attempts to enforce it in an unfair or unjust manner, you can just turn around and say 'sod off'. Legally. With court approval if they want to take it that far.
~Cederic
not read the eula? never hit I agree? because anything the install does you can do by hand. Sure it's a heckuva lot harder, but you know what is installed where, you aren't viloating the agreement, you never clicked or even saw it..... Never have I seen any kind of packaging that states you must run the install.exe as the only means of installation.....
Electronic Boutique and WaldenSoftware will fully return your money for opened software, up to 10 days after purchase. How does this affect any of the EULA on software?? Is it legal?
--
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
Would go a bit like this:
"...With my purchase of (insert vendor name here)'s software, the vendor agrees and acknowledges that
-I will be installing said software on all CPUs that I own.
-I will be making as many backup copies as I deem necessary.
-I have the right to create,own,and patent new works with vendor's software (e.g. screen shots, peotry, documents, art, methods of computing, etc.).
-I will allow friends and family to use vendor's software as long as the computer it is installed on is owned by me.
-The vendor must protect my privacy (protect my registration information, may not sell my registration information to anyone)
-the vendor must provide me with reasonable software support and maintenance,
-the software soure code is held in third-party escrow and will be provided to me should the vendor go belly-up.
-etc, etc,etc...
It never rains in Seattle... -Mike
How many game players are under 18?
this is close to waht you have to agree to download commercial software. Although on many web sites you can modify the agreement. Who ever designed the page used and editable test field. I usually just modify it to say "Yes, I agree that this pages designer is an overpaid cut-and-paste monkey" Then click I agree.
Does this have any legal ramifications?
Bluelip
Yep, I never spell check.
More incorrect spellings can be found he
It was great. They froze and sputtered for just a few seconds until they realized I was kidding... :-) I could just imagine the fear they felt in their little hearts... *cruel smile*
Jenova_Six
To the law, clicking "I agree" is different than buying a toaster, even if you wait to flip through the warranty papers back in your easy chair at home: you've still bought that toaster. (The difference has been that most appliance stores would take your toaster back if it turned out you disliked the warranty for some reason: computer retailers have often been less understanding.)
The other (real) difference is that the warranty on the toaster amounts to saying "If you do certain things, we don't have to replace this toaster", whereas a toaster with an EULA might say "You may not allow your friends to make toast with this toaster. You may not toast anything but white bread in this toaster. Once you plug this toaster into one outlet, you may not move it to another outlet. By opening the box to this toaster, you agree that if this toaster explodes and burns down your house, we are not liable, even if we knew about the exploding-toaster bug. This toaster and any toast you make with it remain the property of Hyper-mega-toaser-co, Inc."
The typical EULA is nothing like the typical Warranty. The former attempts to retrict the ways in which you may use a product, while the latter just says that if you do stupid things with the product, the company is not liable for any damage you might cause.
Copyright law is what you are bound by then.
P.S. This is not legal advice - see a real lawyer for that.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
These EULA's stuff are quite interesting. Specially from the Russian point of view. The "Click and accept" is juridically nil here. And some software companies deliver their products without even a written EULA. One of them - Microsoft!
Besides, software companies are obliged to pass a written warrantee to users. However it is hard to understand where an EULA can be considered as such or not. In fact some EULAs are so EULAs that people forget some necessary juridical terms such as "warrants you...". Meanwhile they are quite strightforward on what you shouldn't do. And it is curious that such pretty guys like MS violate in all terms the Russian Law. Specially on something like reverse enginnering. I have the right to do it as far as I don't make holes on M$'s pockets. And specially on cases when I try to add something to software and the only way is to reverse engineer their stuff. However the EULA FORBIDS reverse engineer and looks quite scary on such stuff...
EULA's? End-User Low Acceptance. End Using Lamer's Applications.
Seriously, I have seen some places where you can actually change the EULA before clicking "Agree" and it will accept it. Once I even changed it to something like "Company will pay the user $1000", and then pressed agree. Obviously they aren't storing those changes anywhere, since I never received my $1000, but if anyone asks I could honestly say "nope, I never agreed to their terms." [Note: These mistakes are much more likely to be found for websites which have a EULA than installed software.]
The goal of the EULA is two fold:
If you are a consumer (businesses have a harder time getting out of an adhesion contract clause), act in a reasonable manner (ie, respect the copyright), I believe that they would have a very hard time getting a court to enforce much of the nonsense clauses in a EULA.
To get some perspective on the subject search for " "adhesion contract" .
is when they put the big NO WARRANTY NOT EVEN THE IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE notice in the EULA, and then have the balls to right at the start of the game have a character tell you that his products "are guaranteed for life and come with a two-day warranty!"
I speak to my own understanding... There is no special copyright provision in US law for software -- it is the same for books, music, etc. A person does not need to agree separately to read his books or view his movies. The right to use these items is obtained at the time of purchase. If the software companies wish to hold us to the terms of a EULA, they must contract with us before providing copies of their goods. Unlike written signatures, there is no reasonable way of knowing who clicked the "I agree" button. It cannot be legally enforcable. If you purchase a new computer, it will come with software installed. Of this software, you have not have agreed to any EULA. Does this mean it is unlawful to use it? Hardly. Personally, I ignore EULAs entirely.
Every time I hear about EULAs, I keep having the same thought. That thought is to profit off of these companies' stupidity. I would ensnare them in an EULA of my own, using the same methods that they typically use to ensnare me.
.NET products for the fee of one cent per package)
:)
The project would proceed as follows; I would send off two emails to Microsoft, to the actual email address of a known Microsoft employee. The emails would be HTML, which would facilitate the following.
The second email would contain the source code for a short application I had written. The program would be my own work, copyright and all, written for a non-specific target platform. (But it would be written under Linux.) The application source would include several markers indicating who I am, what the program does at every point in it's execution, and a thank you message.
At the bottom of the HTML code, there would be a small image that would load from my website, which would increment a counter and provide exact information on what the IP address of the access was, and the time it was accessed.
The subject of the second email would be "Code which causes a new bug in the compiler."
The first email I would send would then be the EULA for the program. In it, I would specify the usual disclaimers about the program, the general limitations on use (showing it to other persons, etc.) and the usual "fill up space" legalese that's required for such contracts. Then, at the very end of the contract, just before whatever, I'd insert a paragraph stating some rather painful concessions that Microsoft would have to make to me. (..in the form of a yearly licencing fee for said software, regardless of use, and the freedom to copy and resell Microsoft
Lastly, I'd title the first email something like "Questions about EULA? PLEASE READ!"
Typically, the way this would work would be that as soon as the cookie-image did it's business, I would then have my lawyer send off a registered letter to Microsoft, containing the emails and the resulting logs, and asking for the initial cheque of my yearly royalty.
Anyone have any comments on the legality of such a scheme?
Ever wonder why all EULAs look the same? Try the EULA Generator and find out!
This regarding the fact that you don't actually own the software that you purchase, you merely rent a license of it.
But if I'm renting the licence, why did I have to pay sales tax on it? Wouldn't that imply a purchase of some sort?
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
One possible way to start back might be with a counter-EULA. Something like "By clicking you agree never to be a party to any attempt at enforcement of EULAs that restrict the user's rights beyond the normal restrictions of copyright law when no EULA is present."
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
EULAs in games are in english, and since english cannot be used for an EULA in Denmark, and because EULAs that are only visible after you left the store aren't valid here anyway, I simply don't care.
what if you reverse engineer the software before clicking through the eula ?
If a friend of mine install a program on my computer and he/she click the [I Accept] button, in what way am I then bound to follow the EULA?
Wouldn't I be in my full right to reverse engineer, modify it or whatever suits me? I haven't signed any EULA or agreed to anything.
But I guess the copyright still holds though.
--
"I'm surfin the dead zone
--
"I'm surfin the dead zone
In the twilight, unknown"
A EULA is a contract.
The company is basically saying "we won't sell this to you unles you agree to give up your legal rights as detailed below."
This is how *all* contracts work; someone gives up their legal right to something (like the money in their wallet) in exchange for something else they don't have a right to (the software in that box.)
I knew this article was important, but it was so wordy that I got bored and just went on to the next article.
Translation: What excuse can I use to "burn and return?"
---- Just another spud server.
The article in one page
p ?n ame=eulapt1
http://www.avault.com/articles/print_article.as
There goes my flight sim idea...
...in the operation of nuclear facilities, aircraft navigation or communication systems, air traffic control..."
"Java technology is not fault tolerant and is not designed, manufactured or intended for use or resale as
~ fact is not dependant upon your belief therein. ~ ~ Have I therefore become your enemy because I tell you the truth?
The EULA/installer executable is typically separate from the software I chose to buy. I click on whatever's necessary to examine the software without prejudice, similar to the process of selecting the software's box from the retailer's shelf. This *crap* is non-binding as far as I'm concerned. I respect federal law (especially the interoperability clause of the DMCA), but have nothing but contempt for after-the-fact attempts at enforcing contracts which violate FTC advertising rules. (It's advertised and presented as a game, not a "only-if-you-do-X" game.) Incidentally, if UCITA comes up in your state, or you have the misfortune of living in a state run by morons, please take the time to contact your reps and gut the sucker.
I know that Future Shop will refuse to take back the product. And we know that Microsoft normally won't either. So what can I do?
Can an EULA possibly be enforcable if it is impossible for me to reject it? Is it up to the retailer to ensure that I am able to reject it? Or is it up to the manufacturer to refund my money if I will not accept the license? Anyone know?
Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.