EULAs More Difficult to Read than Tax Forms

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."

Comments

Re:Question for any (pseudo)lawyers out there...

[bnenning]

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.

Re:Question for any (pseudo)lawyers out there...

[bnenning]

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.