Slashdot Mirror
NY AG Sues Network Associates Over License Terms
An Anonymous Coward writes: "Excite is running an article about how New York is suing McAfee over what it considers a restriction of free speech because McAfee does not allow customers from publishing reviews without prior approval from McAfee. From the article: 'In one instance, Network Associates demanded a retraction of an unfavorable review published in the online and print magazine Network World, citing a clause on its Web site that prohibits product reviews without permission, the lawsuit alleged.'"
This is a statement found in many products, most notably oracle. You can't publish Oracle benchmarks without Oracle's permission. Hopefully these rules will be rendered moot by this case.
In .au, the goverment regulates Lease Agreements for housing, home building contracts, home buying contacts, finance contracts all to protect the consumer and give them a minumum set of rights.
Why don't the goverment do the same thing with software EULAs?
Does the better business bureau do anything in the world of the web, or have they kept to keeping the brick and mortar people in line?
I hereby declare that this comment cannot be moderated down without my express permission :)
...an article about how McAfee is suing a Network Administrator for telling a friend to purchase Symantec's AV software insted of McAfee's because Symantec's works better.
I noticed that particular license limitation when I bought a copy of McAfee antivirus about six months ago. I was disgusted, and it occurred to me that I should contact some consumer rights organization about it. But being lazy I never did.
I'm glad someone is at least drawing publicity to the issue. It will backfire for McAfee and perhaps deter other companies from similar policies.
Theree is no "free Speech" in the USA, never has been. The corporations are now assuming the role the FBI played in the 40's, 50's, 60's and 70's. with the onset of corporate speech, only that speech pre-approved by the company in question will be offered through the media that IT OWNS! It is worthy of note, that I payed $75.00 US for the antivirus software in question, and I had to spend several days unfucking the registry because of it. It took over the C++ compiler, the firewall cheeseware and wouldn't allow me to use my email server untill I had removed ALL reference to "Network Associates" in the Registry. Do not use this crap, its not worth the damn headache.
-- Defenestrate Microsoft!
The point that EULA or click-trhough license on their website is a binding contract does not seem valid. If this contract infringes on one of the basic rights it should not be legal, same as I can not legally sell myself into slavery by signing any contracts. ;-)
(most probably not, because in the absence of explicitly stated agreement the copyright holder by default reserves ALL rigts and you can do nothing at all with that piece of software, not even run it :-( ).
Another interesting question is if just that part of the contract is found invalid in court, does the contract have the provision for invalidating clauses one by one or does the whole contract become invalid?
And if the whole EULA becomes invalid, can one legally violate their license and dissiminate ("pirate") their software as much as he wants?
Um I think that McAfee can do what it pleases for the most part with its EULA. Free speach is not garanteed out side of the government. The first admendment states that congress is the one who can not make laws aginst free speach. An EULA is and agreement. If you do not agree click NO!
I just want to know what lawyer, or whomever, decided this would would not bring about a tremendous amount of bad press, negative publicity, and expensive lawsuits.
In a similar vein, today the Republicans stated that they thought campaign finance reform would cost them elections.
Don't people think about what they say?
Let's sit back for a minute and think about what would happen if NAI wins this one... suddenly most every vendor out there will have these types of terms in their EULAs, right?
;( ). I which NY all the best, and definitely hope that that clause in the EULA is found to be unconstitutional.
Well, think about some of the recent "Ask Slashdot" questions:
"Inexpensive Network Servers" (here)
"Time Tracking Software" (here)
are two of the more recent ones... now think about what people generally post in response to these questions: discounting trolls and flamebait, many people post with a recommendation for a specific product or advice about which products to stay away from, and they usually then state their reasons (aka "review")...
If someone posts a negative personal experience with a company/product, said company could demand that it be removed due to the clause in their EULA... worse, they could demand the identity of the poster and proceed to sue their ass off.
It's good to finally see some positive action on the technological front from the government (I live in Canada, but all governments are generally the same when it comes to technology...
Okay, so I buy my software, I say okay to the EULA, I start using the product, realize that it blows and stop using it. Now, the EULA agreement is an agreement I agree to in order to use the software. If I decided to stop using that software, is that EULA still binding? If it is still binding, for how long?
Free Mac Mini
I somehow don't think it is an accident that it is difficult to access the EULA once the software is installed or that most of those UNRESIZEABLE agreements that cannot be COPIED and PASTED for readability or reference or that they come in those tiny boxes that more often than not lack a print button or that they are written in legalese mumbo jumbo or that they all but DISCOURAGE you from installing the software lest it "damage" you in any way.
Those that suggest you "dance like no one is watching" really want to see you make a complete fool of yourself.
"By buying this pack of cigarettes, you agree not to measure nicotine levels or any other compound. You also agree not no write unfavorable reviews or studies about cigarettes regarding possible diseases or addiction. In the event you become sick, you agree not to tell your doctor you are smoking cigarettes and you shall not accept any treatement for lung cancer or any other disease associated to smoking"
Opus: the Swiss army knife of audio codec
Ok, I might have a solution, yes a very temporary one but enough to screw with most every software Eula for a few months and cause huge headaches for the software companies that might get noticed...
How about a clickthrough killer? a program that looks through the installer binaries and eradicated any EULA. Hey If I didnt click it I didnt agree to it. (same as a buddy of mine has his 10 year old agree to the EULA... a minor can't make a binding contract and therefore the EULA is non-binding.... I know it'll never hold up in court but it makes you feel fuzzy.)
But.. if you make this eula killer a windows service that does it's nasty business silently in the background and spreadable (a virus for example) The software companies would have their collective balls in a noose. that could no longer enforce squat.
By scrolling down on this page or by otherwise reading, optically processing, or byrecognizing the words written in this electronic document, the end user (hereby to be called the 'user') aggrees to sign over his or her soul to my complete and everlasting control. If the user chooses not to agree with these statements, the user must refrain from reading any single word of this post and close his or her browser window immediatly, any breach of this contract will be met with eternal damnation.
Wired has a better article about this situation. It goes into more detail than the short blurb cited in this story.
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
EULA: ...by purchasing this vehicle, you agree to never criticize our product openly...
Implication: no safety reviews. So if I go out to buy a car, I can't find out how dangerous it might be because the EULA has prevented constructive criticism from being presented to the public. Let me see, this would be bad.
The solution is, of course, not to buy from such a company. Unfortunately, most people don't begin to read EULA's; they're like the fine print at the bottom of car commercials - almost no one ever reads them, nor do I think many humans have the physical ability to read small dark print on dark surfaces in small amounts of time.
This also sort of reminds me of the Dilbert commic where by opening his software, he becoms Bill Gates' towel boy... and the house comes for him. He'd get his lawyer to help, but the lawyer opened the EULA first.
My take: if the contract signee doesn't understand the implications of the contract, they shouldn't be held liable. That would have to be determined in court, but boy would that be good news for Native Americans; if it could be retroative, think of all the land they could win back.
Enough mindless babling.
F-bacher
James Tiberius Kirk: "Spock, the women on your planet are logical. No other planet in the galaxy can make that claim."
No, it's not a misspelling. "Millennium" is a thousand years. "Millenium" is a thousand anuses. It took a thousand assholes to write the "Millennium Digital Copyright Act".
2002-02-07 23:16:27 McAfee sued for prohibiting product reviews (yro,news) (rejected)
(sigh)
Now, since I know this'll probably get modded down as 'Sour Grapes', I'll make a note on how it doesn't matter because of a flaw in the Karma Kap.
I think the karma cap probably results in a slight net loss in signal vs. noise on Slashdot.
In the Soviet Union, workers weren't rewarded for going beyond the call of duty. Productivity and quality both suffered, not because they were bad workers, but because there was no incentive. The great thing about Karma is that it has no material value, but many people will strive to gain more and more. It's a free way to enhance the quality of conversation here, and this karma cap is almost a form of Karma Kommunism, in the sense that once you hit 50, there's no incentive for us packrats to care anymore. For some people, further effort is the equivalent of mental masturbation.
The irony of the above statement is obvious, and I can't defend it on the merits of cultural superiority. I just think it's a basic lizard brain truth about the people who post here.
It's just my opinion, not any One True Truth.
What if you are not the OWNER of the machine, just someone that say USES a version of their software ON A PUBLIC computer, say at The Library or CompUSA. GUESS WHAT YOU ARE NOT Bound by the terms of the Eula, you got it.
If I never ACCEPT one of these agreements I am not bound by it.
Screensots posted online could for example be used to formulate an opinion on their interface design.
As well, publically accesable Oracle servers (yes there are some) Could be benchmarked.
WITHOUT ACCEPTANCE of the EULA
The deed to my mothers property says on it Negros, nor Asians may EVER reside on the property and if you purchase this property subsequently you agree never to allow that to happen, I live in the North too, Ohio, not exactly Dixie country. It cannot be easily removed from the Deed because of all the legal issues. This is obviously UNENFORCABLE , Because it quite obviously is an affront to Civil Rights, but its there, as a Title attorney sometimes whats on Deed, you would laugh you ass off, THIS is my opinion of 90% of EULA's all horeshit, they can say anything they want like Borlan, let em TRY to enforce it, Can you say RUBY RIDGE meets MCAFEE ?
Let em say whatever they want , Im just looking for one Juicy enough that someone tries to enforce on ME, Ill be a wealty man. Anyone know of any fis trying to enforce ILLEGAL covents in their EULA's ??
Sig went tro...aahemmm.....fishing........
because in the absence of explicitly stated agreement the copyright holder by default reserves ALL rigts and you can do nothing at all with that piece of software, not even run it :-(
Wrong. 17 USC 117 makes it lawful for U.S. residents to load into RAM and back up software that they own a copy of. However, in some jurisdictions, mere possession of a copy does not necessarily constitute owning a copy; this can happen in a software rental.
In the U.K., loading and backing up software may or may not be protected as "fair dealing".
Will I retire or break 10K?
She had the free will to get a new job, just like you have the free will not to use a product with a crappy EULA.
OK, so what if the software that runs your life support has a crappy EULA? That is, if you don't license the software, you die. Is that free will, or gunpoint?
Will I retire or break 10K?
Imagine if this was a drug, and the company line was, "You can't post critical comments about our drug, even if it almost kills you"?
Or an automobile, and you can't post critical comments about it, even if the airbag doesn't work?
Or a fire-alarm, and you can't post critical comments about it even if it doesn't alarm when there's a fire and causes your hosue to burn down?
This is plainly ludicrous. The public has the right to know if a product works, as well as both its pro's and con's.
Software -- *especially* McAfee's anti-virus software -- should be no different. We have the right to know if it actually protects us from viruses, and how well.
The fact that McAfee doesn't want to allow people to post revies of their product begs the question. What's wrong with this product? If its good, worth its salt, why don't they want people posting reviews of it?
The obvious answer is it doesn't work. I haven't used it, but its a safe bet that it doesn't work. In some critical way, its flawed.
And they don't want the public to find out about that.
No, McAfee does not have the right to prevent the public from finding about the flaws of their product. No, individual's can't sell away their free-speech right by a click-through EULA.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Typically, restrictive covenants apply to employees who leave to start similar businesses. The rules are pretty straightforward as to what you can, must, cannot, and must not do. A few guidelines:
1. Establish the time period covered, both during and after employment;
2. Identify the "protectable interest" which the document is meant to protect such as "trade secrets," technology, methods, customer lists or other proprietary information;
3. Identify an activity to be restricted, or alternatively, the geographic restriction (or alternatively the customer/route restriction);
4. Set forth the "reasonable" and "necessary" reasons for the covenant (e.g. protecting trade secrets developed at considerable expense which provide the employer with a competitive edge over others in the field);
5. Be signed by both the employee and the employer;
6. Be dated; and
7. Be periodically updated as required by changing circumstances.
But absolutely DO NOT trample first-amendment rights. That's ALWAYS a no-no!
--
If the case isn't dismissed right off the bat for 1st amendment reasons, the prosecution will have a hard time finding a jury that would find someone guilty for voicing an opinion.
Andd if someone ever does get found guilty for something like this, well I guess that's just another sign of the times.
The question remains: What are you going to do about it?
If I decided to stop using that software, is that EULA still binding?
Some clauses in the EULA for AOL Instant Messenger 4.0 and later are labeled to "survive termination of this License." Because one of those terms said that I couldn't use third party software to access AOL's servers, I clicked "Disagree." My winbox still runs AIM 3.0, whose EULA doesn't have such restrictions.
If it is still binding, for how long?
In perpetuity, unless you believe in reincarnation.
Fact: EULAs can last longer than the copyright on the software (which is nearly perpetual anyway).
Will I retire or break 10K?
Bullshit.
Users have a right to know what they're getting - what's next? Ford/Firestone sue over studies done to prove their products are unsafe?
Perhaps we should stop recalling faulty devices. After all, hey - you shouldn't be able to review the products to tell they're faulty and possibly life threatening anyway.
Bank One employees are not allowed to give references about anyone working at Bank One. All you Bank One employees, you better forget about looking for another job cause no one will hire you without references.
I have now stopped using Linux, and have replaced it with Windows 2000 Professional. My ass is suddenly as smooth and pink as a baby's, and smells of roses on a fine summer's day. Thank you, anonymous Slashdot poster!
... considering it's from McAfee. The guy, his company, and the people who run it now are notorious for inventive, inflammatory attacks on their competitiors; for creating hysteria and inflating virus cost estimates; and buying up rival companies to bury the competing technology forever.
In their defense, the rest of the industry isn't much better.
Try this link, for a start:
http://www.kumite.com/myths/opinion/pamkane.htm
this story was rejected...
When mind meets machine
Researchers forging connections between brain and bionic devices
http://www.msnbc.com/news/700338.asp
I'm so sick of people giving me the bullshit argument that the first amendment was only intended to cover government censorship, and that corporate censorship was therefore somehow OK.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
just out of curiosity and stuff...
You're right... We use McAffe where I work and as far as products go, it really sucks. Most of the features are half backed and only work half the time. For as much as we pay I'm really disappointed with the product's performance. It just goes to show why they don't allow reviews such as this; they know their product blows chunks, and it is sad that they are too proud to admit it.
(off topic) (troll) (anonymous coward)
First Amendment.
"Mod, mod, mod...and another troll bites the dust."
I wouldn't be surprised to see the bigots starting to put click-through licenses on their websites, committing the reader to not disclose or take any action against the material therein.
Could this kind of shit hold up legally?
-- In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was UNSIGNED, and the main(){} was without form and void...
The government enforces contracts. "Congress shall make no law restricting freedom of speech, or of the press." Ergo, congress can make no law enforcing a contract that restricts freedom of speech, or of the press.
Seems simple.
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
Imagine if this was a drug, and the company line was, "You can't post critical comments about our drug, even if it almost kills you"?
Or an automobile, and you can't post critical comments about it, even if the airbag doesn't work?
Or a fire-alarm, and you can't post critical comments about it even if it doesn't alarm when there's a fire and causes your hosue to burn down?
This is plainly ludicrous. The public has the right to know if a product works, as well as both its pro's and con's.
Software -- *especially* McAfee's anti-virus software -- should be no different. We have the right to know if it actually protects us from viruses, and how well.
As much as I agree with your opinion, your comparisons are utterly ridiculous. This is not a life-threatening case, like your examples. This is much closer to "You can't post critical comments even if you don't like our candy bar." Comparing this to life and death situation only weakens your argument.
"Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
The legally binding part is untested, however, for the most part; I'd think they'd be found legal. There are few clauses which I think would be(or should be) found illegal.
That something is a contract does not make it leagal. All contracts are subject to law, and any that violates the law is null and void. For instance, we could make a contract where I made you my slave for use of my lands and protection. You could sign forms, swear before an alter and jump backwards over a broomstick, but the agreement has no legal force. I could not call the police to catch you if you decided to run away and I'd get spanked for not paying into your social security among other things.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Symantec?
BURN THE WITCH!
;) makes me biased. but I quite hate those free-speech-curtailing-eulas :/
I have a thing against NAI since they turned me down for a job
This is pretty close to how it is anyway. Many of these disputes are settled out of court and the victims who receive compensation often do so on condition they won't blab. I have signed such a contract in my life (not about fatal drugs however) and I presume it goes on all around me - we just don't know about it.
-- SIGFPE
Good luck to 'em though - though I shan't say why I wish 'em good luck because then I might be violating the terms of my contract with McAfee.
-- SIGFPE
There are three things that protect slashdot from this. They have signed no agrement and they are either a common carrier or a news paper.
The first problem is easiest to see, Slashdot does not use and will always be able to avoid $oftware that comes with a license that is not the GPL. No use, no problem no matter how stupid contract law may become.
The other protections are a little less obvious, but a freshman level journalism class and the API stylebook helps to understand the purpose and function of liability laws. Slashdot is mostly a common carrier and can not be blamed for the comunications they facilitate. The phone company is not responsible for crank calls. If you count deleting machine generated posts and blocking other denial of services "editorial control" then Slashdot may be a newspaper. A company that wishes to sue Slashdot for slander must prove that damage intent and malice, and even then the truth is the ultimate shield. One of the goals of free speech is to protect the public by alowing people to reveal damaging truths. Now if Slashdot were to tell a lie, and knew it was a lie, and knew it would cause someone distress, Slashdot would have done something wrong and deserves to be spanked. Proving all of those things is next to impossible.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Assuming a worst-case scenario (EULAs are all upheld, consumers are forced to pay damages for breaking them), I'm wondering if the punishment for breaking an EULA might be greater than the punishment for piracy.
I can't help but chuckle at the following court defence:
'Your honor, the defendant has violated the EULA!'
'Er. No I haven't. I never signed anything. There's no EULA on the software I'm using.'
'WHAT? Then it's a pirated copy! Someone's removed the license!'
'...Yup.'
So long, and thanks for all the fish
Karma should be averaged across posts and the net karma making up your score. Being modded +1 for a post than -1 for the same post drops my overall karma by 1 when capped, because it discards the origanal +1. It should remain neutral, a +1 and a -1 cancel each other, but at cap, a -1 is always presant even in the existance of it's opposite.
It's annoying.
They've publicly said they would support that FBI magic lantern backdoor crap even when it wasn't forced on them.
/. story?... put that dog to sleep and move to a company that doesn't make their users feel like a cash cow, eventhough that's what they are :).
They make software that is supposed to PROTECT your system, now the first thing they do is a PR saying they will support it 100% in all of their product (i.e. not finding it) which by definition voids the product's safeness because anyone could *potentially* exploit this since the "feature" is now public knowledge.
I am sure there's already things like this in Windows, in firewalls or antiviral software, but it's *NOT* issued in a PR, it's *NOT* public knowledge and if someone would have to exploit it, he would have to dissasemble everything and do a hell of a tracing job. I wouldn't say anything bad if it was forced on them, but issuing such a PR really pissed me off as a system administrator. It meant that not only if you want to hack a system, target Mcafee's holes, but it made me paranoid enough to switch products. The guys behind the best antivirus software back in the DOS days really went down with the years, first screwing up windows registries, then that PR thing, now this
/rant
--- Metamoderating abusive downgraders since my 300th post.
they are both electronic.
the similarity stops there. mouse on mars makes fun bouncy interesting music, and aphex twin makes occasionally interesting music with lots fingernails on chalkboard sounds that a rabid horde of IDM drones mistake for music.
did i get it right?
"Tension is the great integrity" -- R. Buckminster Fuller
Although humorous, that example is an obvious one. Did you know in Washington State, you can sign away your right to an unpaid break, as well as to your paid breaks? Just because you have a given right doesn't mean you can't give it away. It is when you are under duress that signing away your rights is against the law. It can easily be proved that you agreed to the EULA because you had to. I don't know, these are things for the courts to decide.
You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
This does happen with things like drugs even at such prestigous institutions as Sick Kids Hospital in Toronto.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I vote to interview a lawyer for the next Q&A. Frankly between these EULA arguments and the BSA stuff in the last article I'm frankly VERY confused :(.
If the clause is found to be illegal, is it simply deemed not to exist, or can McAfee try to find a legal replacement for it?
It is hard to see what would be a legal replacement for this particular clause (if the original one is illegal), so imagine an alternative scenario.
Say my employment contract had a confidentiality clause that was so restrictive it was overturned in court as illegal. Could my employer replace it with a less restrictive clause, or would I become free to distribute their trade secrets because the only thing that had been preventing me was the voided clause?
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
is don't talk about McAffee.
The second rule of McAffee is
don't talk about McAffee.
;)
If a company wants to sue you for lying about their software, they should be able to sue you. But they should not be able to prevent you from talking about it, analysing it, or comparing it.
In the UK, the burden of proof is on the defendant to prove that what they said is right, but in other countries, the burden of proof is on the complainant to prove that what was said was a lie.
http://pcblues.com - Digits and Wood
You can absolutely sign away your free speech rights. What do you think an NDA is?
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
For everyone here to post exactly one awful review of NA software. Put it on some free web site, and report it to google.
Ideally, the author wouldn't actually own any NA software: that way, the author wouldn't even be in violation of the NA EULA.
Sorry if this is a tad off-topic but...
What happens if I open the shrinkwrap to a CD case but when I run the install program I don't agree to the EULA? I can't return it anywhere and it's completely useless to me...
Anyone try doing this and then accusing someone of fraud for selling an unusable product?
********************
I object to Intellect without Discipline.
Er,
Couldn't you get around this by :
1. Getting a friend to purchase and install product.
2. Sit next to friend and watch them use product.
3. Write scathing review.
Anyone?
You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
There is a lot of hype here.
McCafee software protects users against virus'.
For computerize life, virus protection IS life or death.
Furthermore, in corporations, or even privately, information may be worth thousands of dollars, or countless hours of time. If its destroyed by a virus, that is very serious.
As serious as life or death? No. But its a question of magnitude, not type. This issue is simply a scaled down issue of those. If its wrong in those cases, scaling down shows its wrong in this case, because its different in scale (magnitude), not type.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Since I've uninstalled their VirusScan product, the EULA doesn't apply to me any more, so I guess it's safe to say this...
The product sucks. It was full of bugs, it caused my machine to be unstable and crash, and I'll never buy another product from them as long as I live.
If they didn't have that clause in the EULA, they would be out of business by now. (ok, I'm not actually naive enough to believe that). Given all the positive reviews in the big magazines, it's obvious they didn't use the product for more than a few days.
What is it? Did they just say the product was bad, or were there things stated that go deeper?
The willingness to persue this action really makes me wonder what they actually have to hide.
Blogging because I can...
All this bitching about "losing our first amendment rights" is ridiculous.
If somebody bought all of my guns, would they be depriving me of my 2nd Amendment rights?
If somebody bet me $5 dollars that I could go a whole day w/o speaking, is that depriving me of free speech?
If you don't like their terms, don't buy their product. Duh.
I can see a few ways that someone could still legally review the software and publish the results. What if you have a friend or a guest over for dinner that happens to be a publisher.
Tell your friend exactly how bad it sucks.
Yet your friend use your computer with the software that sucks.
Let your friend look over your shoulder while you are using the software that sucks.
When it is all said and done, YOU are the one that agreed to the EULA, not your friend.
EULA is not a law, it is a contract. Laws may be restated in the body but no new laws are created in an EULA.
Even if you did publish your own results, whats the terms for breaking the contract? Maybe they can take the software back? I am not talking about copying the software and giving it to a friend, that would violate the LAW.
To get the law involved for you publishing results against an EULA wishes, they would have to sue you in court for violating a contract. Only a court can decide if a contract was broken. This is not like a case where you are offering copyrighted software from a leach site (which violates an existing law). In a court, what are the terms going to be? Well I would suggest that yes it looks like I did violate the contract by publishing benchmarks, you win, here is your software back, case closed. Not that easy but why should a software contract be any different then a car lease, rental agreement or service contract. Did you ever get screwed buying a new or used car and try to fight the dealer for violating the contract? I can tell you that calling the police is not going to get you anything.
Imagine an EULA for a new Ford Mustang claiming you are not allowed to race the car at a track, state MPG, top speed, hp, and lateral G's on a skidpad.
Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
How could you miss NATALIE Portman!!!
I looked at the eula before it installed to see if it was adware (its not obvious) and saw just that same clause. Will nullsoft now get into trouble because of all the adverse comments the plugin gets in the forums there. Many users don't like it at all it appears.
YOU MAY NOT:
4. Publish online or elsewhere any of your opinions or experiences about this program without prior approval of the materials you want to publish by Software Forge Inc.
My experiences with linuxcad were bad. Real bad. My opinion is that it stinks. I wonder why they added that clause after I wrote-up my experiences.
It's really tiring to see uneducated people call everything that comes from the State as being from the "government". The government is but a tiny part of the State.
The specific clauses in the EULA in question are (according to the lawsuit):
****
2. The customer shall not disclose the results of any benchmark test to any third party without
Network Associates' prior written approval.
3. The customer will not publish reviews of this
product without prior consent from Network
Associates, Inc.
****
This doesn't appear to restrict people's personal opinions at all. There's nothing here that prevents anyone from bad mouthing a product to their friends.
The key areas are:
"Benchmark Tests" - Normal users don't sit at home and do "Benchmark tests" on software, running and testing it's performance on a system versus others. Generally only magazines and certain companies do this. This wouldn't appear to affect your average user at all.
"Publish Reviews" - Normal users don't generally "publish reviews" of software. At a stretch, they may post some comments about a piece of software on the web somewhere, but not a full-fledged software review. This also appears to not be aimed at your typical computer user.
They also appear to have only used this clause once, more than 2 years ago, against "Network World" magazine, again referenced from the lawsuit.
And according to the Wired article, the Network Associates Lawyer says that the reason this clause was in place was because they did not want people publishing reviews of older products, i.e. they wanted reviewers to check in with Network Associates to see that they were testing/benchmarking the latest version.
I see no reason to attribute nefarious motives to the company. Maybe the products suck. maybe not. It just seems that they wanted to make sure they were getting reviewed/benchmarked fairly.
The government is everything, not just the legislative branch. The government delivers the mail to my mail box, they pull me over when I'm speeding, and I send them almost 20% of my paycheck every year.
What?
Hmm, actually I meant using (as in actually executing) a copy of software of which you do not own a copy, but picked it up from a friend who happened to sign an EULA which later was found invalid (in parts, maybe also in whole).
So does this mean an end to all anime,dbz,music,movie fansites that host images of show "X"
The Register is running this article further describing the situation.
This "no publish" clause has been in their contract for over 10 years. I'm suprised that someone has finally stepped to the plate to challange it.. .
I'm ashamed to say I'm a shareholder in NA - and I think this sucks... Just like copy protection, it's doomed to fail because there's no way to enforce this.
NA restricts reviews, so don't call it a review, call it an OPINION. Last I heard, I'm entitled to my opinions, and if NA wants to go head to head, I'm filing a Federal Lawsuit against them for violation of my civil rights.
Meanwhile, as they're going nuts over opinions, I'll write a fictional story. Any similarities to the package known as Network Associates: Whatever is purely coincidental... Now they'll complain that I can't write fiction - time for another federal lawsuit.
So I'll call it a Consumer Alert. They can sue me - and I'll turn right around and sue them right back for again violating my civil rights, and for undertaking unconscionable actions designed to prevent a competent evaluation of a purchase prior to first sale. I'll also file push for the FTC to investigate them for fraudlent and deceptive practices (gee Bob, there's nothing bad about our product in the press - so it's GREAT!), unfair competition, and whatever else I can dig up.
In short - these companies have got to learn that when I BUY the software, I get to USE the software, SELL the whole kit-n-kaboodle to whomever the fuck I want when I'm tired of the software, and get to TELL anyone I want about my experiences. If the company doesn't like my review - then stop acting like 3 year olds and improve the god damn product.
But to allow NA to enforce this inane EULA covenant is analogous to Firestone saying "if you buy our tires, and they explode while driving, you can't tell anyone about it or sue us...". That'd fly like a Lead Zeppelin, so what makes software so different?
The New York State Office of the Attorney General has made public a pdf file with the full text of the petition. Makes for some interesting reading.
(Disclaimer: I've never knowingly bought or used a McAfee product, so I am not bound by the terms of the license. ;-)
McAfee products are shit. I mean, really, really, faecal. Not quite as bad as having your face shoved in a blender while a lawyer reams you in the ass, but doubtless the next release will address this. Installing this software is the IT equivalent of picking up an STD from a prostitute: not only are you unpleasantly infected, but you paid good money for the experience. Like I say, totally crap. Whooohooo! Ya hear me?!
I think I've proven that it is perfectly possible to give a bad review to a product, providing you haven't actually used it. So the IT rags simply have to review everything the same way they review Linux software. Equality at last!
Ade_
/
Big Bubbles (no troubles) - what sucks, who sucks and you suck
I tried installing McAfee AV on a vanilla Windows system (Win98, I believe), right after installing Windows itself. The retail version came with a CD whose first action was to tell me that it was out of date and that I needed a 15Mbyte download. After waiting forever for that to complete, it crashed halfway through. When I tried to take advantage of their return policy, called them multiple times to get a return authorization and eventually sent everything back via registered mail with return receipt, I never heard back from them.
Oh, and as far as I'm concerned, the contract is invalid: McAfee never lived up to their side of the bargain. So, I don't feel bound by any gag clauses in it.
This sounds like the ongoing lawsuit Lockdown Corp filed against independant Keith Little for the negative review of their security software package called Lockdown 2000. There's a group helping Keith fight back.
"I use the latest version of McAfee Anti-virus and let me tells you that product is frickin' awesome!!!! It hardly ever catches the latest viruses, in fact it has a 100% success rate of never catching the most current crop of viruses.
In addition to all the other benefits this incredible product supplies, it also successfully connects to the Internet every morning and sends handy information about my surfing habits and computer configuration back to Network Associates, all without me having to push a single button! Go out and buy McAfee Anti-Virus now, you won't be sorry."
--It's Pimptastic!--
One of the more "interesting" provisions of this proposed follow-on to the DMCA is that companies will no longer have to include in their EULA a ban on publishing criticism. The SSSCA will make negative criticism illegal by default. Then we'll be allowed to publish all the praise we want, but if we publish any facts that show problems with a product, we will be classified as terrorists.
There's strong corporate support for this law. Sounds like we might be in for some fun legal stories over the next few years.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
That something is a contract does not make it leagal. All contracts are subject to law, and any that violates the law is null and void.
Which is why most contracts contain a clause which says "if any of this isn't legal then the rest still stands". (Assuming this kind of clause is legal, a statue to void such a clause would have interesting consequences...)
It's not unknown for commercial entities to put all sorts of clauses in their contracts which are at best questionable.
Wouldn't these limitations just encourage the press to ignore companies that limit what they can say?
It seems like a reviewer could write: 'We won't talk about these three products because we're not allowed, but there are some others that we like, and here's some information about them."
You could always argue you didn't use the software, instead a person could say they where looking over the shoulder of someone who was. Therefore you wouldn't be bound by the EULA.
Because of McAfee's approach and rules... it has prompted me to place a complete ban on all McAfee products in our corporation.
I think that others, with similar control over their company policy, should consider doing the same. It is important to preserve the ability to talk about software that is good, or bad, so that people can make informed decisions.
The email I sent to them reads as follows:
The reason for this is your absurd attempt to squash free speech in attempting to block reviews and comments written about your software, by customers, or, for that matter, anyone who cares.
Restrictive covenants are illegal... and we will not deal with companies who try such tactics.
If you want to insist on good reviews by customers... try writing good software instead of resorting to prohibiting free speech.
Your company has NO ALOHA.
Just like the way people do when reverse-engineering and re-implementing, except now you apply the same concept to writing reviews in compliance with EULAs. For example, Bob buys WhizBang version 1.0 with his own money. He installs it on his own computer and starts using it. Alice sits down next to him and watches him use it. Alice never touches the media, or the computer. She just asks Bob questions like "What happens if you click that thing over there", and takes notes while Bob does all the work. Alice can then write any review she wants, without violating any EULA that she never agreed to, explicitly or implicitly, in the first place.
Oxdung. It's the COURTS that do. They are part of the JUDICIARY branch of the State, not of the legislative (the government - national/legislative assembly - senate) nor executive (the president - governor - chancellor).
It's really tiring to see uneducated people call everything that comes from the State as being from the "government"
Judiciary is a function of government. Which may or may not be separate from other government functions.
With the US federal government even though the judiciary, executive and legislature were intended to be separate the way the two dominant political parties work renders that a nonsense in practice.
What happens if I use a piece of software someone else installed and click "I accept" at the EULA?
AM I bound to that EULA?
I see where there could be a clause for the original software saying "all people who use this are bound to it" but is that even remotly acceptable contract clause?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
No. Government makes laws; those are the dudes you elect. It is the STATE that has a judiciary function.
The Amazing EULAgen
Which is of course, is the EULA truly legally valid and binding? It still has not been truly tested in a court of law. IANAL, but contracts have to meet certain conditions to be valid, and you can not simply sign away many types of rights, at least according to the federal govt's fine class on contracting that I have been taking...
Would you care for a jelly baby?
Big Money
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Here in canadia you can not sign away one of your paid breaks. You get it, or you work without pay.
However, you now have to sign to work over time.
I'm a big retard who forgot to log out of Slashdot on Mike's computer! LOOK AT ME.
I like katy! I fucked her until she died!
Not trying to be a coward here but it seems to me like there are a lot of very apathetic people posting.
There seems to be this consensus of 'if you don't like it, don't buy it'. That sounds a lot like 'oh, well, it's just a corporation, I mean, they can do what they want, if you don't like it don't buy it then they won't get any money, but just because they're doing something unethical and possibly illegal is no reason to crack down on them, I mean, nobody has to buy this stuff right?'
IMHO that's the same as having porn on daytime tv because 'you can always change the channel, right?'
NDAs are real contracts, signed by both parties.
This is not.
Also, the laws in question may distinguish between employee/employer or business/business NDAs and someone attempting to put a restriction on journilists in the general public.
--
Benjamin Coates