Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

EULAs More Difficult to Read than Tax Forms

Posted by timothy on from the this-is-not-by-accident dept.

krugdm writes: "Mark Hochhauser has an article over at CNet where he talks about the readability of the legalese used in EULAs and what motivates people to just 'Click to Accept' without reading a word of the agreement. He actually did a readability study where he determined that most EULAs are more difficult to read than a 1040."

5 of 260 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Deja vu all over again. . . by bl1st3r · · Score: 2, Informative

    Only if I get extra points for being the first one to point out that your's links to the wrong article... ;)

    --
    hrrm.
  2. Re:Question for any (pseudo)lawyers out there... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
    No, EULA's are pointless to be honest - they are a scare tactic for bullying by corporations. They mean nothing if you can't understand them. Unfair Terms in Contracts Act 1998 in the UK specifies this, and obscure legalese in contracts for consumers is basically treated as white space in the court.

    Honestly, if the EULA that popped up when registering software (and on the case) said:

    "You many not give a copy of this game to anyone else
    You may make 1 backup copy for safetly reasons
    You may only run this software on one machine."

    then it would be fine. People can understand that.

  3. No such thing as free software by sdowney · · Score: 2, Informative
    blockqoute:
    It seems ad-supported software preys on people's urge to try to get something for nothing. Do these adware companies appeal to our lowest urges?
    Yes. Anything that says "free," people want. But eventually people will realize there's not really such thing as "free" software. It comes with a price--in this case the annoyance of advertising, or possibly privacy violations

    Sorry, there really is such a thing as free software. I run most of my business on it. Most of it is even free as in beer. But the important thing is that it's also free as in freedom.

    The reason I can trust it, is because I can examine the source myself. I do for some of the software I use. I contribute bug fixes back for the software I know how to fix, and is important for me to have fix. The web of trust in the open source community gives me assurance that others are doing the same for software I don't personally check.

    I don't suffer 'the annoyance of advertising, or possibly privacy violations.' All thanks to truly FREE software.

  4. Re:Question for any (pseudo)lawyers out there... by bnenning · · Score: 4, Informative
    No, perhaps not, but consider this: if you don't consider it binding, you have a cdrom and packaging, but no right to copy the data thereon.


    I don't know how this meme got started, but it's entirely false. See 17 USC 117; it is not a violation of copyright to make a copy of software if doing so is an "essential step" in using it.

    --
    How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
  5. Re:Question for any (pseudo)lawyers out there... by bnenning · · Score: 3, Informative

    Yeah, that's a really screwy ruling. Peak was sued because they "copied" (to RAM) MAI's software in the process of servicing computers owned by third parties, and since they were not the "owners" of the copy of MAI software they got no protection from 17 USC 117. While this is clearly insane, it doesn't look like it affects the rights of a normal user who buys and installs commercial software, since he is an "owner of a copy". Even so, I can't believe this ruling was allowed to stand; it would appear to make a criminal out of any consultant who turns on a client's computer.

    --
    How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.