Slashdot Mirror
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."
What they want you to know, they flood you with thought, TV ads, radio ads, banner ads, and big popup windows... what the DONT want you to know they hide inside the shell of legal Jargon that makes up the License Agreement.
- Tempestdata
Does clicking "OK" to an EULA actually mean anything legally? I can't see how it can be binding, because there's no record of a signature (not even a digital one). There's no recorded date, or identity of who clicked the mouse.
... and if it's not legally binding, then why should I bother to read it?
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
Or send them your own agreement.
.. and it's getting worse. I recently logged onto the American Airlines site. They asked me to agree to a usage agreement which, in printed form, is 5 pages long...of pretty small type.
A lot of it has to do with what use I'm permitted to make of the site.. like not using "mileage aggregation services" and the like. But life is too short, and I've just abandoned my use of the site. But I hope this isn't a sign of worse to come.
When is someone going to take these things before a Judge? There is no way that pressing a button, or tearing shrink wrap can hold the same legal standing as a signature before witnesses.
There is absolutely no way to prove who pressed the button is there? So how could this possibly be a legal "agreement?"
True, but you miss the issue. The IRS makes more money if most folks understand their forms. Then, those poor saps who didn't have no one to support them when they get reamed. [See the not too far past 'tax law reforms' that led to the 'kinder, gentler' IRS for what occurs when just about -everyone- says they can't fathom the forms]
Software houses, however, -want- people to glaze over and just click yes, because then they can screw them badly [as long as their lawyers are decent, they can defend the 'comprehensibility' aspect far more easily than a user can defend not bothering to even try]
-={(Astynax)}=-
"Darkness beyond Twilight"
"A EULA that says "Do you promise not to give this game to all your friends?" just won't do."
Of course it won't. Then if you gave the game to N-1 of your friends you would have followed the EULA. "But your honor, the EULA said not to give the game to all my friends; I didn't give it to my friend Alice, just Bob and Carol"
of course Alice intercepted it but thats a different subject.
Doesn't prevent from having two versions. One that resumes the EULA, that explains in plain english what 3000 words mean.
Buy a Nintendo DS Lite
Fun for all the family!
Meow meow meow meow, meow meow meow meow...
If companies had to pay me to read their EULA, I guarantee they would shorten it up and make it readable.
Punch the monkey! Punch the monkey!
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
The older post links to a different article.
9 20 7&mode=nested
Same general idea, though.
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/04/18/124
So they really only want one session at a time? I'm not saying I support this, but it makes more sense than 'MS hates VNC'.
I think what they're trying to do is get people to either buy the 25-license version of Windows XP, or have everybody run XP so they can talk to each other.
"Derp de derp."
Heck, just make it $50. That'd be small enough not to get it thrown out of court immediately as unreasonable. Then EULAs can really be tested.
It's not the lawyers fault as much as it's the fault of, as the interviewer put it, the "litigious culture".
No, I think it's the lawyers. There is a litgious culture, but that's the result of the lawyers. I read a book once called "What They Don't Teach You At Harvard Law School", or something like that. It's basic premise was that lawyers are trained from day one to look for problems, but they are never taught how to look for solutions. So we have ended up with a legal culture that is geared to search for problems, but with no idea how to solve them except to sue.
Yesterday Sybase submitted a license for approval to the OSI. It was essentially the Apple APSL, with an additional clause requiring distributions to use click-wrap or use-wrap to indicate a manifestation of assent. (use-wrap: "by using this software, which you already have the legal right to use, you agree to...") Such a clause is completely unnecessary for Open Source Software, and I hope it doesn't get approved. I can envision only two rationales for this clause: 1) Sybase is petty, and doesn't want people using their free-beer software unless they bow before the all holy legal department; or 2) they think the clause is necessary simply because every other proprietary company has it.
Their stated rationale for the clause was that the Sprecht versus Netscape decision disallowed binding contractual obligations unless the recipient of the aforementioned unilateral imposition of terms was assented to by the user. Duh! Sybase just doesn't get it.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
I can see how Hochhauser makes his money as a consultant. Someone presents him with a document and he charges $300/hr for calculating this index and that index. He'll put together a nice folder and a printed statement laying out the different scores - all looking very impressive. His report will end with a recommendation that the authors use shorter words and shorter sentences. And he probably has a PR department ensuring that he gets mentioned in articles on CNET, TV and radio.
And that statement about there being no "free software" is a blatant lie too!
-- SIGFPE
To an extent, EULAs will probably always be long and complicated. A EULA has to make sure it closes every loophole since lawyers are trained to exploit contracts. Realizing this, it would be great if EULAs gave a preamble or summary. For example, the preamble of the GPL provides a great summary and explanation in layman's terms.
Speaking of repeating ...
The real problem is that if you install, for instance, Windows and Office, and patch them to current "safe" levels you will be asked to agree to about 20 different EULAs -- all slightly different. You have the original install, the patches (which can not be installed at the same time as any other patch), the upgrade of IE, etc. etc.
Now add in installing all the basic tools; zip, adobe reader, netscape (:-), java ide, etc.
By the time your machine is installed and usable you've "read and agreed" to about 100 different licenses, sometimes dozens from a single company.
Reading and understanding 100 contracts of this nature is a full days job for a trained lawyer! It's an impossible task for the average consumer/programmer.
It's time for clear laws that specify software liabilities (or lack thereof!) and prevent this kind of EULA overload that essentially forces you to either agree to everything or don't use the technology. I think we can all agree that not using the technology is not really a viable option for the bulk of people in today's society.
EULAs are just the start: every Microsoft patch and fix, on both my workstation AND my server, requires acceptance of yet another "license agreement" (and sometimes a single patch requires two acceptances of two different things). Ditto for my anti-virus software. Add a couple dozen different software applications (Quicken, Photoshop, PC Anywhere, Roxio Easy CD Creator, Eudora, Netscape, etc. etc.), each updated once or twice a year. Then add all the terms and conditions and privacy policies on each of the web sites I visit (hundreds? thousands?). What about the policies and terms for each email newsletter subscription? Don't forget online banking, online payment for my electric bill, separate online payment for my cable modem bill, and separate online payment systems for several other things. Then there's eBay, and its separate online billing (BillPoint) system, each with its own complex terms & policies. And PayPal.
Offline: And that's just the online crap. Every other credit-card bill contains a multi-panel brochure with tiny 6-point type, likewise my bank statements.
Don't forget the fine print warranties for every product we buy, plus the terms of any service contracts we buy for the equipment we buy, and the return policies at every store where we shop, and the agreement for our supermarket-club-cards.
And don't even get me started on insurance policies: my health insurance company has sent me 3 complete policy revisions this year, 50+ pages each, plus every month new qualifiers, restrictions, and special terms, and then they reject valid claims and approve fraudulent claims anyway! Then there's car insurance, homeowners, life insurance, each of which are revised at least once a year. And who ever reads the fine-print waivers when you visit a doctor or hospital?
God forbid you are a member of anything, even a homeowner's association, because then you have even more agreements and bylaws and policies. Or you are foolish enough to have kids, the paperwork multiplies again.
And that doesn't cover everything, by far.
Has anyone ever tried adding up the word counts for all these documents?
I doubt that it is physically possible to actually read all this stuff.
-- http://www.MarkWelch.com/ Pleasanton California
I mean, presenting 20-40 lengthy paragraphs in tiny little windows, writing half of it in all-caps which is well known to be harder to read. That's not really an effort to inform the prospective user. Touchy stuff is buried deep in that texts, like with the recent spyware that disables adaware. It's in there to cover their asses, but obviously it is expected that these click-through-agreements are ignored. It would be interesting to see some of these "agreements" tested in court.
"By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
no , I think it would be more like there being an EULA inside the lid of a bottle of Jack Daniels saying that it can ONLY be mixed with coke and it is against their agreement , and will not be drinkable if mixed with Pepsi or any any cheaper or home made ( e.g. a publicly available and developed recipe ) form of cola
one day I'll have a
The 1040 is a personal income tax form, dumbass. Corporations don't have personal income, they just create personal income for others, like for instance, you.
This being another exception to the concept of corporations as legal "people"... Since otherwise they certainly would have "personal income", even if it were zero or negative.