Slashdot Mirror
Fighting Back Against EULAs
An anonymous reader writes: "Fed up with increasingly obnoxious click-through "agreements" embedded in the retail software I buy, I've posted a very simple script to remove them before clicking "I agree". Without the EULA, I am free to use my software within the bounds of copyright law. Courts have been very inconsistent on the enforceability of EULAs, and I hope this will strengthen consumers' side of the battle. The script is a symbolic gesture as much as anything else, and I want to get people thinking about how ridiculous it is that software companies try to force these one-sided contracts on you after you have paid for something. Also worth a look is cexx.org's Software Vendor License Agreement, which reverses the typical EULA and puts the burden back on the software manufacturer where it belongs."
This won't help you, and may actually hurt you, since the software company can then sue using the DCMA.
TODO: Something witty here...
Yeah, I'm going to download and execute some VB code someone pasted on the net. Did the editors test this before recommending it to thousands of viewers (rhetorical question, they didn't)? Boy.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Remember those little stickers on the CD-ROM pouches? You have already agreed to read the agreement.
Your script needs to be able to display the EULA, and get past it w/o cliking "agree" or whatever.
You should not fight back. Resistance is futile.
The speed of time is one second per second.
I've always seen on EULA's something to the effect of: "If you cannot accept this agreement, please return this product to the retailer you purchaced it from". Has anyone ever actually done this?...Returned opened software saying 'I couldn't accept the license agreement'? Could you use this as a way to get around the Windows tax on new PCs?
it seems like this is at least 'unethical,' it seems a great way to point out the ridiculousness of these gawd-aweful 'legal' contracts. C-net/downloads and other pushers of EULA-ridden software downloads should feature this on their frontpage. Get everyone to start seeing these contracts for what they are.
put the what in the where?
I think that a EULA should contain a layerese version and a laymans term version which would have to be under 2 pages and contain only terms people would actually know. All the indecipherable jargon makes most people just click the 'I agree' button.
Just my $.005 Canadian (even though I am not Canadian!)
http://www.freepokerchipset.info
Great idea. Maybe I can take down the speed limit signs in my neighbourhood so I can go as fast as I like. Doh.
Never email donotemail@WeAreSpammers.com
If I am correct that may constitute REVERSE ENGINEERING the software though, which may not be allowed under the DMCA, it's a neat idea, but might not hold up in court, and might actually cause aditional headaches...
[Something witty and intelligent should have appeared here.]
{Traicovn}
Read the EULA before you click "accept". If you don't agree with the terms and conditions then don't install the software. You have no right to dictate what software companies can and can not do with their property. Software that companies write belongs to them so they should be free to do whatever they choose with it, even if they require handing over your first born or something. Consumers already have the power to fight overly restrictive IPOs without new laws, it's called letting your money talk.
Let's ignore something, and that will mean it doesn't apply to us!
This guy's smoking crack if he thinks this excludes him from the terms of a EULA. If anything, it gets you in more trouble should you violate it and get caught. You willfully took steps to remove the EULA click-through agreement, meaning you knew there was something there, but chose to ignore it. Ignorance of a law is not a defense.
It hurts when I pee.
I was thinking about this a few days ago...
Send the EULA back to the company with a letter saying that you do not agree to the terms.
See what they can do to stop you from using their software.
IANAL, but...
Isn't this almost as legal as getting a crack? Instead of breaking a protection scheme, disabling the trial timeout, or circumventing a key, you're changing the program in a way that the author did not intend.
Cool that you did it, and you know how to do it.
Not cool that it'll probably get you and/or the user in hot water. I'd believe the argument "I didn't read the EULA, because I assumed it was a standard disclaimer" would be more worthwhile in court, than "I intentionally deleted it before reading it, so there would be no agreement to agree to."
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
I'm going to write some fantastic whizz-bang piece of software just for the pleasure of writting a EULA with a clause that goes "The lisencee of this product must wear a gorilla suit while using said product. Upon violation of this clause, the lisencee agrees to send the author Five (5) kiliograms of Reeses-Pieces(TM) Brand Peanutbutter candies."
Hilary Rosen's speech was about her love of money and her desire to roll around naked in a pile of money.
This definitely will not hold up in court. This is the legal equivalent of breaking warranty seals on personal computers. It violates the warranty, plain and simple.
In the case of software EULA's, though, it is a violation of the DMCA. Perhaps a more legal gesture would be to use a free equivalent of that software? For instance, drop Microsoft Office for StarOffice (or your favorite Linux office-type product). Oh, and tell everyone you know about how cool it is, and how much better it is than the M$ version.
The speed of time is one second per second.
Unlike many of the strawman arguments against the DMCA, this instance actually is a violation. You're distributing software which circumvents a technological measure that effectively controls access to a copyrighted work. Hopefully you'll go to jail, and we can get our first legitimate constitutional test of the DMCA.
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
Aside from the "real" issue that EULAs are morally wrong, surely an appeal can be made to non-enforcement. I don't know the legal wording, but it seems there's probably a way to say in legal terms "Look, this law/contract gets broken hundreds of times per day, and nobody really cares or enforces it, therefore when you single me out and enforce a EULA on me, you're really being discriminatory and using the law/contract to acheive some other goal".
There must be some legal precedent for the concept of "If you never actively enforce a law, and allow it to be broken (in obvious publicly-visible ways) over and over, you can't then go at a later date enforcing it at will on specific people you decide to target, it's not right".
For that matter, if such a legal principle exists, I'd really like to see someone apply it to the traffic ticket system as well.
11*43+456^2
Do somthing like a findwindowa looking for windows with the title Agree , or I Agree and send a wm_click. You could then honestly say you didn't click anything.
A rozor blade is good for removing security (if you break this then a EULA applies/ your warenty is void) stickers.
All of this may violate the DMCA, in that copy protection (the EULA) is removed/by passed.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Old old accomplishment.
That hack to remove EULA by circumventing the display of the legal dialog in an installer was done at a special annual event called MacHack 10 years ago where 300 top gun systems programmers write hilarious hacks (or finish them) in a 3 day 24 hour marathon conference in michigan.
It was called "No More Lawyers 1.0" and was simple but effective on the standard installers for the mac at the time and got a lot of cheers.
The key note STARTS at midnight some years. The first one was by Mitch Kapor in ancient times, recent years had Steve Wozniak. Tubs of Jolt Cola were usually plentiful.
thousands of revolutionary systems hacks were debuted at MacHack.
thats what cowboy neal is
Remember this is like a rental agreement. The agreement will claim all kinds of stuff that it can enforce. This is to encourage people who actually read them to forego certain rights.
I remember I worked for an Apartment building that would put in it's contract that cats are not allowed. Yet legally in that community, they can't enforce that. No Dogs yes but you can't prevent them from getting a cat even if they signed the rental agreement because that clause in the agreement isn't legally enforceable.
Microsoft does the same thing with their software. The put in stuff they can't enforce just to scare people into compliance.
Would it still be a potential DMCA violation if you had your own personal computing policy that automatically deletes files that pass the "isEULA" test? Could one say that they didn't try to delete the file and that some background process did it for them?
Seems that with computers being privately owned property the user should be able to define (and enforce) policies about what types of files are on their machine.
Certainly someone who runs software that scours their hard drive for temporary files is in the right to delete those. Could the same be said about this?
you bring up an interesting "idea", but I hate to inform you that the DCMA does not cover EULAs or their application thereof. Please refer to sections 57 and 59 if you have questions about this.
Far from "hurting" us, this is a tactic that can only garner power for the computer user.
Ta.
I comment occasionally so that I can mod others -1 overrated or -1 offtopic.
about this, is that the SW companies want to treat the EULA like a contract. But there's no negotiation. The power of the parties is vastly different. Take it or leave it contracts often don't stand.
I'm obviously not a lawyer, but these are points that have come out in court, when contracts are challanged.
What's so interesting about this, is that it gives the user a chance at negotiation. Sure, it's a farce, but so is the "contract" the EULA tries to put in place. (There's no consideration - you bought the software - money for package - there's the consideration. Now, you must click the EULA too? There's no consideration (transfer of something valuable) happening then, so no contract can ensue.
So changing the contract to something else isn't any more crack-pipe'ish then the usual EULA.
Lastly, have you ever read any of those EULA's? I'd bet that 10 lawyers would come up with 10 significantly different interpretations of the "contract." That doesn't even take into account what the courts might do. So, reading your own EULA is almost futile, and who can afford to get an expert legal opinion on 10+ pages of legaleese for every software product they buy.
EULA's need to get challenged in court, and struck. UCITA needs to die an ugly and nasty death. With UCITA, EULA's will have the real power of law, not just a sham that the SW companies want you to believe.
Make sure you discuss UCITA with your STATE representatives. UCITA has to pass in your state for it to make it into UCC. You might even consider working to pass laws that provide protections against vendors who are (or will be) in UCITA states.
Cheers!
This tactic seems to me to be about as likely to stand up in court as if you poured white-out all over your lease/mortgage/deed restriction before signing it and returning it, then decide to paint your apartment/house lavender, with little yellow polka-dots.
WWJD? JWRTFA!
See, for example, the comments about the MAI Systems decsion in this paper:
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
You're also violating contract law... Chances are somewhere on the package or CD it informs you that you agree to accept the EULA...
It's akin to paying someone for a car and driving it off the lot without all the paperwork signed.
Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
If a piece of software has a EULA you find too restrictive, don't use it. There is plenty of GNU and BSD licensed software out there.
Stop supporting software with licensing you don't like. The software makers have no way of knowing you didn't agree with their terms, and so they will continue to use such EULAs. Send a message.
The problem with most packaged software is you don't see the EULA until after you've opened the box, and many stores will refuse to refund money on opened software. Effectively, this means if you don't accept the EULA theres nothing you can do, aside from finding someone else to buy it off you, most likely at a loss.
As for this software, I can't see it holding up in any court. You can't say "I shut my eyes everytime I drove past a speed limit sign" and expect a judge to let you off the hook for going 120.
This also removes any incentive for companies to change their EULAs. After all, they're still getting $50 or whatever from you, whether you avoid the EULA or not. Vote with your wallet people...
"People that quote themselves in their signatures bother me" - athakur999
I doubt that many people read or feel bound by click through agreements and even if they did, the chances are that they would not realize what they are agreeing to. Has anybody ever gone to court over one of these? My guess is no, and i seriously doubt that they would hold up if they did.
Attempts to circumvent the broken way commercial software is treated in the US are, while sometimes amusing, ultimately counterproductive.
The best way to deal with restrictive EULAs is to use alternative software that is without such restrictions. Where there are no alternatives, and where the software is essential to some necessary task, the EULA will have to be accepted (or the task avoided) - at least until a freer alternative is created. But where there are alternatives, use the software with the better, more customer-centric license.
Stunts such as these don't really change anything. The manufacturer still gets the money from the sale, encouraging him or her to continue down the path of greater and greater restrictions of user freedoms. Better never to buy the software at all.
a) He posted the source.
:)
b) I don't have a Windows machine around to test it. They crash too much, and the software which makes them useful tends to come with crappy EULAs.
c) See b)
timothy
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
See subject...
The "I agree" button does not in any way bind you to that "contract", you would need to sign it or something. Think of it, if you buy a car, and the contract has a big red button on it. Would pressing it bind you to the contract? Who can prove that you are the one that actualy pressed it? You need to be two (or more) to sign a contract. If the company and/or you didnt actualy sign it, it wont hold in court.
Also, you could lie and pretend you agreed... then breach the "contract". Companies keep lying to us, so it would just be fair to lie back to them.
Well, thats just my I'm-no-lawyer 2 cents.
eat some grits you homo
Everyone is saying that this violates the DCMA. IANAL but is this really the case? You are not altering, reverse engineering, cracking encryption or anything else mentioned with this. All you are doing is screwing with the install routine that usually has nothing to do with the software that you are installing. Assuming that it is using a third party installshield. I will agree that this could cause you plenty of trouble. Is the DCMA evil. Of course. Does it apply here? Not until a large corporation chooses to spend the money to make it apply.
Karma: Positive. Mostly affected by the lack of a karma joke in your sig.
My favroit EULA have alwase been the ones used in online forms. Where they put the EULA in a .
I remove all the text and replace it with "I AGREE TO NOTHING".
Is this still legaly binding?
I know I'm going to hell, I'm just trying to get good seats.
Good god... someone start a clock that runs until lawsuits force google to shut this down and the feds arrest everyone who posts a mirror. Save this one to a text file!
But who says I read the sticker on the CD-ROM pouch?
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
EULAs are not like a stub of a coatcheck or a parking lot ticket that says "THIS LIMITS OUR LIABILITY: READ IT" which have no merit. Do you really want to go through a lengthy contract negotiation procedure, or even have to sign your name, for every piece of software you buy? There is no more use in trying to make a stand against EULAs than there is against instruction manuals or warning labels. Just because you don't like it does not mean that it is not the best proposed solution. I don't want to have to mail in an executed, negotiated, written agreement, just to obtain and play the latest Diablo or other game. Lighten up and devote your efforts elsewhere.
... is that you cannot, that I'm aware of, go build your own. I went and did some laptop shopping the other day, and I think it was Gateway that was trying to force Office XP on me. I can't buy an OSless laptop, at least not from a reputable dealer. I can't go buy the components to build a laptop. MS has a monopoly here that the retailers helped create.
Anybody have any tips for me? I have a feeling I'm going to have to pay the MS tax, at least for now. But one of my biggest hopes is that Linux laptops will start to become popular, then the legitimate copy of Win2k that I've bought can just be transferred over, instead of having a brand new license that cost me money.
"Derp de derp."
pursuant to EULA non-agreements, only those demonstrated to be not null will void said agreement
is that if the agreement (EULA) is not accepted, will it be considered valid (which is realy strange). So, I'm not sure if bypassing a EULA voids it or not -- it can't be "null" if it "isn't".
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
DMCA = US only
Not if the EUCD passes.
Will I retire or break 10K?
What someone really needs to do is blatantly violate a stupid eula clause and tell the whole world.
For example, someone needs to buy a copy of SQL Server or Oracle and publish benchmarks about the product, thus violating the EULA. Or guy that M$ devel kit and write some GPL's software. Then, when they get taken to court, take it as far as it will go.
Yeah, I know... us mere mortals without bottomless pockets simply can't afford to do this. I can still dream that some tech-savy, eccentric millionaire will take on such a cause.
Method of processing duck feet
Maybe the thing to do when installing the software would be to click the "I do not agree" button.
Then call their tech support line (if it exists!) and complain that the installation program is broken because it fails to install the software.
(This is precipitated by one post I read above, lest you think I'm coming out of the blue with this)
(And before you complain about trollbait and anonymous coward posting, understand that anyone that dares speak the truth about the Open Source world in general is flamebait for the rest of the year, and I don't want to bother with that crap)
Now to the point...
I am so very f'ing sick of hearing you Linux biggots bitch about the Windows tax on PC's. I won't argue that you are correct FOR YOU if you won't argue that only Linux nutcases are correct.
Let me explain...
My mother bought her PC obviously with Windows installed. It's not a tax to her, it's a part of the purchase price and a piece she couldn't do without (yes, I could go install Linux for her, but since I get enough calls about how to copy files in Windows Explorer, I certainly don't want to explain archane command line commands to her).
She is quite happy to have Windows, has no problem paying for it, and would not purchase a computer without it. I don't think I'm way off base to suggest this is a majority of PC users today.
I have no problem with the open-source community except this one: YOU ALL HAVE BIG DAMNED MOUTHS! You all (ok not all, I'm obviously exaggerating, but way too many for certain) have these supposed high ideals about the way the world should be, and with that I don't actually have an issue. What you seem to get wrong more times than not though is that not everyone wants to live like you. Some people actually LIKE Windows. Some people actually LIKE Office. Some people actually LIKE IE. Some people actually LIKE developing for a platform where we don't have to worry about half of the user base not working because they didn't compile some module into their kernel.
If Microsoft hadn't done all the things they have done, the technological world would almost assuredly be 20 years in the past, and I for one would not want that. I was there 20 years ago, I had my Timex Sinclair 1000 and I don't want to go back to that (emulators notwithstanding). You can complain about their tactics (I agree). You can say they are dirty and underhanded (I agree). You can even try and change the status quo if you think you have something better (maybe you do, but I don't think so).
But STOP, for the love of all that is good and holy, telling me that even though I have 20+ years of experience in computers that I know nothing and should live my life through Linux and Open Source, give away all rights to earn a buck in this world by donating my time to midnight-to 3AM development projects. And STOP telling me that Microsoft is evil for giving the world a far better computing experience than they would have if ANY of the current alternatives we on top.
BULLSHIT. I don't love Microsoft, I actually HATE BillG, but I also realize all the good they have done for the world, methods accepted, and so does my mother.
Maybe Linux will win the day eventually. There are certainly enough bright people working on it for it to happen someday. But it will be IN SPITE of the community that claims to love it so much, because far too many of you are windbags who have read too many books extolling the virtues of fighting the good fight, even when the fight is pointless. As long as you HAVE a fight, your happy.
Oh yeah.. the "Windows Tax", which was my point in the beginning... it's only a tax if your a Linux biggot, bottom line. The rest of the world is quite happy about it. If your going to tell me the rest of the world is wrong for not wanting the choice, you missed the point completely, which is: not everyone wants (or could even handle) the choice, yet these people can still be productive computer users, and it is THANKS to the "tax" you proclaim so evil.
I don't care if you want to be a podantic (looks who's talking!) idealistic biggot who sticks to your beliefs no matter what assails them. I even respect that. But stop trying to tell the world that they are nuts because they don't agree with you.
I could easily call you Nazi's come to think of it... not far off. How many of you would set up Windows death camps if you had your way?
More than would care to admit no doubt.
Enough.
lots of people are writing and talking about
following laws, this law, that law etc. The
discussion really is a specific instance of
more fundamental questions:
When a law doesn't make sense, should people
follow it? At what point do you realize
that the motivations of the people creating
laws are not aligned with their interests?
Now just get this to run on either a bbs or http, ftp site as an event each day at a certain time, then if the Event finds Eula's it can
copy the file to temp space
unpack it
remove Eula
add file_id.diz
add entry in files.bbs
add 00index.txt
search for crack or serial
copy results back to original package
zip / tar the package and new materials up
remove temp dir.
Now THAT would be a script!
An added benefit that downloaders will not know what happened.
By long-standing common law precedent, if you cross your fingers while you click, you don't have to abide by the terms. If you feel like going the extra mile, you can tell the dialogue box in person that you don't accept some or all of the provisions.
What I'd like to know is who wrote the first software EULA?
Only 'flamers' flame!
The DMCA forbids the creation and distribution of access control circumvention devices. The EULA agreement, during installation, could be interpreted to be a form of access control. The software will not, ordinarily, install on your system unless you click the "I Accept" button. Therefore it is controlling your access to the software and anybody who bypasses the EULA may not be authorized to use the software.
Welcome to the wonders of poorly written legal language...
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
When you buy the said software, since no license was presented AT TIME OF PURCHASE, then the Sales Doctrine applies, which basically says that since no license was presented, no license shall be bound....
So can I remove any stickers on a VHS tape that say I cannot copy it? And can I scribble out any text on a CD or on its cover that says that I can't copy it? This seems like a ludicrous idea.
a bit easier on Unix:
cat setup.exe | sed -e 's/I agree/I do not agree/ig' > setup2.exe
mv setup2.exe setup.exe
Since minors cannot enter into legally binding contracts, why not have your son/daughter or local neighborhood kid come over and open/install all your new software for you. Sure, they can click on "I agree", but they can't be legally bound to that agreement. After that, you are free to use it as you please.
Begin to install software
When you get to the point where it wants you to agree to EULA, put your mouse over the "I Agree" button and close your eyes
With eyes closed, click mouse Since you never actually read the agreement, your not bound by it! :)
Seriously though, I like the guys effort and the statement he is making, but it takes more than a slick VBScript to exempt you from EULA's. There is a more fundamental problem that needs legislation to fix. You'd be better off writing a script that mailed a letter to your congressman everytime it asked you to agree...
No problem: use hot steam to melt the glue and gently detach them, rather then "breaking" (i.e. tearing) them. Or just cut through the pouch at the other end, and take the CD out from the rear without "breaking the seal".
Then keep the intact "seal" on file along with all the other license documentation, as proof that you did not agree ;-)
Say no to software patents.
Once you buy it, IT IS YOURS (since they didn't present you with a license AT TIME OF PURCHASE).
A judge already said this in the adobe case.
Its like if you go to buy a house with cash. Owners hand over the keys and the deed, no questions asked. Then when you go to your new house, and open the front door, you find a note taped to all the furniture that says that buy opening the front door, you hereby agree to enter into a lease of this property for xxx dollars a month, and that you must give the deed back to the "real owners" of the property.
Bzzzt, can't do that....
Does it run under wine?
Alternatively, can I run it during Win98 Setup?
For those of you in Rio Linda, I am kidding.
Have you read my journal today?
If I am correct that may constitute REVERSE ENGINEERING the software though, which may not be allowed under the DMCA,
I agree with "may not." May I clarify?
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 USC 1201, bans most circumvention of access control. However, 1201(f) exempts from this ban several categories of reverse engineering aimed at interoperability. (The "right to use a copy of a computer program" is defined by sections 109 and 117 together with the "quacks like a sale" doctrine.) Whether overwriting a EULA counts as "interoperability" is anybody's guess; therefore "may not" is right.
Will I retire or break 10K?
DMCA talks about circumventing copy protection. Since when is a EULA a copy protecting device?
This has been tried before, and IIRC it failed miserably.
e fund+day%22
http://www.linuxmall.com/refund/
Also:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22windows+r
rooooar
isn't that a direct fracture of the rules as set forth by the DMCA? That would, in effect, be a circumvention of copyright procections. If you don't agree to the terms of use, yet use the software, you have stolen intellectual properties that previously had (even if not tested) legal protection. I haven't noticed many people here stating that just because the GNU GPL hasn't been truly tested in court means it is invalid. I'm not saying I support any such laws, but it is the law, all the same.
Some stores keep track of your record for a particular purchase. So if you try to do that they will see in the record of your purchases that you got a replacement for an opened but defective copy.
Now, on the other hand, if you just keep harassing them and asking for your money back they'll probably give it to you just to shut you up.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
To expect someone to be bound to the terms of a contract after a sale is ridiculous. Either it is a sale or it isn't. If it's a sale, then I own it and can do with it as I see fit. If it's not a sale then calling it that is a misrepresentation. Call it a rental or a lease, because that's what it amounts to.
If you or I sold someone a car, house or any other property then stuck a contract in the buyer's face and told them "sign it or give me back the property" we'd be a laughing stock, and no court in the world would consider the case. Why should software be any different. If Microsoft and other vendors expect end users to be bound by the terms of a contract they should be required to present the contract in advance of the purchase, period.
slashdot broke my sig
Probably to reduce all the idiot calls they get from people who thing Windows is a 'Word Processor' (I'm not making this up, I've heard that one a few times).
Windows does contain a bundled word processor: Start > Programs > Accessories > WordPad. It's just like Word without the bloat; in fact, it appears to be a Win32 port of an old version of Word, enough to write a high school term paper on.
Will I retire or break 10K?
you're changing the program in a way that the author did not intend.
Since the author/reseller didn't present you with a license agreement at TIME OF PURCHASE, sales doctrine says the thing is yours. That means since author didn't tell me what I CANNOT DO, I can DO WHATEVER I WANT to it. Whether that be using the CD as a frisbee or installing the software. After all, since I was not presented with any contracts/licenses at time of purchase, HOW THE HECK AM I SUPPOSED to know what the author's indended useage scenarios are? Am I supposed to divine them? Even if you don't delete the license file, its validity is still up in the air. Just ask the judge in the adobe case.
IANAL (yet), but --
This software is no solution. Imagine the following 'solution':
I make brown, sugary, cola-flavored carbonated beverages. I hit upon a great name for my product -- "Coca-Cola". Now, "Coca-Cola" is a trademark. It says so right on the can I'm holding.
The obvious solution? I take out a marker and scratch out the "(R)" symbol next to the mark "Coca-Cola". I make a template that goes over the can so that other people can scratch out the "(R)" never having seen it, knowing only that it might be in their best interests to scratch it out.
Now, is "Coca-Cola" no longer a defensible trademark? Am I allowed to call my brown sugary beverage "Coca-Cola", since I never saw the little "(R)"? Are the users of my template allowed to do so? No.
Now, there are huge problems with EULAs anyway (no meeting of minds = no enforcable contract), but this is not the solution.
The copies of the software that were sold to you are your property, not the vendor's. What the vendor does own is a government-sanctioned "lien" on your copy that prevents you from making addtional copies. Nothing more.
They do not have the right to force you into an additional restrictive contract after the sale. They are free to attempt to get you to agree to such a contract, but you don't have to agree to it.
Since cats cannot enter into legally binding contracts, why not have your cat walk on your keyboard. Sure, they can click on "I agree", but they can't be legally bound to that agreement. After that, you are free to use it as you please.
When you buy a book, does it come with a seal holding the pages together so you can't read it unless you agree not to set up your printing press to mass produce and sell copies of it?
No, but somewhere inside is a copyright notice.
That's the problem. The things EULAs *should* protect are already protected by already-existing copyright law. The fact that these *companies* try to limit you in no way makes you a criminal if you say to hell with them.
That is, unless they keep buying legislation to get their way.
Dont they say that people under a certain age cant be held to contracts and such. Just have your younger brother, or child install all of your software for you.
Or, find a kid thats young enough who doesnt know how to read, and tell them click on this twice, then this once, and walk away...
Umm... has it ever really been court-tested and determined that warranty seals/stickers on PCs were legal and binding?
I used to work for a couple "mom and pop" type computer builders that always placed those "void if broken" seals on PCs. I don't think any of us really expected them to be legally binding if we got in a big fight with a customer. It was just an attempt to deter people from tinkering around inside their PC if they didn't know what they were doing.
In fact, we had sort of an unwritten policy that for our better (and more knowledgeable) customers, we'd skip putting on the sticker.
The fact is, PCs are designed around and purchased because of their expandability and upgradeability. It runs counter to the entire design and architecture of the system to claim that opening the case makes it void of all warranties. (In fact, most items in the system would still be covered under manufacturer's original warranty anyway. Maxtor isn't going to say "Sorry, but we heard you opened the case. You can't send us back that defective drive now.")
that was brilliant. i can just imagine 'exhibit a' during the court procedure... picture of the mangled CD case with the seal holding two pieces of broken plastic together... "but i didn't break the seal, and i never saw and agreed to this EULA during the installation process...", "so how was i too know that distrubuting it to all my internet friends was actually illegal?"
dmarien
No, the entering into the contractual agreement is the measure that effectively controls access to a copyrighted work.
It's a measure, but it's a contractual measure, not a technological measure, so it may not count.
Will I retire or break 10K?
This is not true for many reasons...
1.) They told you about the warranty before you bought the thing.
2.) This is not equivalent to breaking the warranty seal. Using the same analogy this is like having a seal on the CD sleave that says by breaking this sticker, you are bound to blah blah blah, so you say screw it, and cut the thing open with scissors. Refering back to the warranty seal, this is like if you have a warranty seal on your device, but the clowns who manufactured the device didn't realize you can unscrew the bottom plate and pull the guts out without removing the cover, hence NOT BREAKING the seal, HENCE NOT VIOLATING the warranty, because YOU DIDN'T BREAK THE SEAL, and furthmore since nobody and nothing told you that anything else would violate the warranty except for breaking the seal...
This is like buying a car, and the thing breaks down, and you take it to the dealer for repairs, to which they say, nope, sorry warranty doesn't cover cars sold on the date you purchased your car... To which you say, "says who/what"...
Then the dealer says, "says the warranty exceptions document"...
"And where is that?" you ask...
To which the dealer says, "If you remove your rear seat from your car, and touch the two exposed wires together, while looking into the rearview mirror, while standing on one leg, the document will then pop out of the slot above the glove box.
Or would luke-warm, or even cold steam do the trick?
-- SIGFPE
EULA's typically say "if you do not agree blah blah return the software to the place of purchase for a refund." But the retailer typically has a policy of refunds only on UNOPENED software. So you have a catch-22: you can't return the software once it's opened, but you can't refuse the EULA without opening the software.
Here's the solution:
Go down to OrificeMax, Staples, Fry's, Wal*Mart, whatever your local software store is, and demand to see the EULA for some piece of software before you buy it. If they refuse to let you begin the install on a showroom computer so you can see the EULA, tell them "Fine, I'm never buying software here again." If they DO let you see the EULA, tell them "The terms of the EULA are unacceptable. I'm not purchasing the software." Then walk out. Let them cancel the installation and figure out how to repackage the software for sale (remember, the seal on the CD slipcover or jewel case has been broken by this time).
Once software companies realize that consumers won't buy software unless they can first see an acceptable EULA, things will change.
--
Give me my freedom, and I'll take care of my own security, thank you.
well, i remember old cd-rom drives had a bay that accepted a disc enclosed in plastic case slid into.... just design a cd-rom drive with similar functionality.
yes. i know.
dmarien
Here's an idea. Get a bunch of friendly lawyers (or pay some unfriendly ones). Get a good Perl programmer. Put them in a room together and ask them to come up with a EULA translation script - something that can have an EULA pasted in to it, parse it (as best it can) and churn out a nice, short, readable summary that ditches all the standard rubbish and tells you in plain English what your rights are when you install the software.
:)
Obviously this thing would not be infallable so it would need a friendly disclaimer somewhere saying "if in doubt read the damn thing yourself" but I would love a tool which can spot the nasty bits of a EULA and display them in a readable form. Stuff like spyware installation, "all your personal data are belong to us" and that kind of thing.
OK it's probably not a practical idea, but I can dream
When was the last time you saw an EULA that was reasonable? At this point, I assume all EULAs are wacky. I don't need to see the side of the box, CD label, or anything else. I rely on basic premise of EULA unenforcability.
Nothing will change EULAs other than lost sales. Use GNU or Open Source software or write your own. You get double bonus points when you use Open Source products to replace BSA products. Triple points when you completely expunge BSA and tell them why you did it!
He has two regex sections. The first starts with "Set term1 = New RegExp" and then defines three attributes for term1.
The second section starts with "Set term2 = New RegExp" (note term2), but then defines three attributes for term1.
This must not have been found in testing, as the keywords in the regexes are found in just about any EULA. Still, it's worth noting. I'm not a VB programmer and I saw that immediately -- are there any other potential errors in the code?
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
Then how would we know we're installing Spyware???
This is a good point. Apparently, we're only licensing the software, not purchasing it. And, apparently, if we choose not to agree to the EULA we should be able to return the software.
So, how about some kind of Return Your EULA Day. Everyone buys some software, opens it, and attempts to install it. Then, you don't agree to the EULA. Now we all take our software back to the stores -- all of it opened.
It's been a while since I've been to a store to purchase software (I use Linux and OS X and purchase any software online), but I seem to recall most places have a no return policy on opened software. They probably wouldn't be too happy with hordes of people trying to return expensive software that's no longer shrink-wrapped. Also, to make it hit a bit harder, it should be expensive software -- like Windows XP or something -- not a $50 game.
I'm not saying this will have an effect, but it's something to consider.
"Whatever can go wrong, will." --Finagle's Law
This agreement covers all software that is distributed with the Dell computer, for which there is no separate license agreement between you and the manufacturer or owner of the software (collectively the "Software"). By opening or breaking the seal on the Software packet(s), installing or downloading the Software, or using the Software that has been preloaded or is embedded in your computer, you agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. If you do not agree to these terms, promptly return all software items (disks, written materials, and packaging), and delete any preloaded or embedded Software.
So if you boot up a new Dell PC, even once, you have used the software, and have agreed to the EULA. So does this mean that I have agreed that if I don't agree, I have to return all the Software? Do I get a refund for that? Or did it come "free" with my machine?
It just amazes me how much I can agree to by simply booting up a computer, or opening a software package.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
by neglecting to present the license to you AT TIME OF PURCHASE, they didn't tell you what their indended purpose is. So that means sales doctrine applies, which says you can use it FOR WHATEVER THE HELL YOU WANT. Use it as a coaster if you want to... How was I supposed to know that the authors don't want me using the software on the third tuesday of each month of the year, when saturn is visible on the first tuesday, punishable by $10,000.00 in fines?
Or even toy computers that have that virus propagation vector removed?
Imagind if you purchased a car, and the first time you went to fill it up at the gas station, you found a sticker that said:
I don't think that any court in the country would accept that as a binding contract -- yet people expect that to work for software.Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
While potentially sending an interesting political message, all this means is software makers are going to find new and obfuscated means of displaying their EULAs.
Who feeds these trolls again?
Never learn by your mistakes, if you do you may never dare to try again
What is the content of this agreement? Would you be permitted to do things that you wouldn't be under the separate licenses?
Many replies are along the lines of "Even if you don't agree to the EULA, you're still bound by it if you use the software" or "It's illegal to use the software if you haven't agreed to the EULA". This is flat-out wrong.
If I buy a book, then I have bought a copy of some information, embedded in a physical medium.
If I buy a CD, then I have bought a copy of some information, embedded in a physical medium.
If I buy a piece of software then I have bought a copy of some information, embedded in a physical medium. In the first two cases, I was clearly an owner of a copy of the information; it's pretty hard to argue that in this case, I'm not an owner of a copy of the information.
As the owner of a copy of some information, I have certain rights granted by law that are explicitly NOT infringing of the copyright of the one that created that information. For software, these rights EXPLICITLY include the right to copy it to a hard drive, to copy it into memory for the purposes of running the software, and to make backups.
So: after I walk out of the store carrying my box, I am at that moment entitled to copy the contents of that CD to a hard drive, and to execute the software. If I get home and do so, using my own home-grown installer that copies the bits off the CD, then I have a copy of the software, installed, which I have the right to run. At that point, I am fully entitled to run the software, and I have not agreed to any EULA, nor have I violated any law - I have used only the rights explicitly granted to me by the copyright law. It would be absure to think that I am now bound by the EULA.
This article describes a method for installing software that's slightly more convenient than manually unpacking it, creating registry keys, and so on, but has the same effect: the software is installed on your hard drive and you have not agreed to the EULA.
This of course only applies to cases where you bought a copy of the software (as in, you exchanged money for a physical copy of the software, with no other terms imposed). Something like Oracle isn't sold like this: you get a copy of Oracle after signing a contract with Oracle, and that contract includes many of the normal EULA terms. That's a completely different situation: you didn't get the copy of the software until AFTER you agreed to some limitations on your use of that software; you are bound by those limitations. Software downloads are similar: you're often required to agree to the EULA before the download begins. It's the case where you got your copy of the software BEFORE agreeing to the limitations that's the more interesting (and much more common) one - and in that one, you're entitled to install and use the software without agreeing to the EULA.
It boils down to this: The law that the software developers are attempting to use to make EULAs binding is copyright law: the unspoken claim is that it is illegal to make a copy of the software without agreeing to the EULA. This is just not true.
He's already paid for that piece of plastic and the fancy spiral dot patterns on it. He has legal access to everything on it. The access control was legally satisfied when he walked out the front door of the store. He doesn't have to perform any sort of dance afterward. He doesn't even have to peel off the cover! He can sit on it, throw it in the air, put it in the microwave, put it in his PC, take it out, put it in the CDROM drive, spin it around, shine lights on it, observe the fancy reflections, even record the fancy reflections and then modify the recording of the reflections. He can even take it to the range and use it for a target if he wants.
What he cannot do is sell or distribute copies of it.
What he is doing with readily available tools is no different than scribbling notes with pen or pencil in the margins of a book that you have purchased. Yes, he is modifying it, but that is not against the law, even the DMCA.
Indeed, what he is doing is more akin to turning on a light so that it is easier to read the book you just bought.
Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgement.
- W. Wriston, former Citibank CEO
But isn't the script modifying the software therefore breaking the rules anyway? As to stickers on CDs - what if the person's blind and can't see the EULA or the sticker?
Video Game cheats, hints a
It's a chicken and egg problem, really.
No, that wasn't funny. Hmmm.
Funny story I heard the other day...
This cop was following a drug dealer, but didn't have a warrant to search the guy's car. But he found some almost-century-year-old local ordinance that said if you were driving a horseless carriage, you had to have someone go 100 yards ahead of you swinging a lantern to warn people to get out of the way. So he pulled the guy over, he resisted, the cop arrested him and searched the car. The law got taken off the books after that, but the dealer's conviction was upheld in court. So I don't think your point has any legal validity.
Of course, IANAL, and the above story was probably a tenth-hand version of an urban legend...
I hereby place the above post in the public domain.
If you look at the DeCSS case, similar arguments can be made but yet it went to court and so far the defendant is losing the case. Until we get some clear rulings by the court I would go betting on the assumption that if you bought it, you can do whatever you want.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Even if you don't like the software's license, mange to remove it; hate the sticker preventing you from opening the CD w/o reading the license, manage to circumvent that -- you're still bound by your EULA (everyone's unescapable life agreement), which you accepted by being born and which menas you agree to contribute to microsoft's world domination by doing anything and everything this guy deems appropriate.
dmarien
The Product is licensed, not sold.
The Product != a copy of the Product. The Product is a program; the law defines a copy of the Product as a medium containing such a program: "'Copies' are material objects, other than phonorecords, in which a work is fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device." (17 USC 101).
IF YOU DO NOT AGREE, DO NOT INSTALL OR USE THE PRODUCT; YOU MAY RETURN IT TO YOUR PLACE OF PURCHASE FOR A FULL REFUND.
This is a "linchpin clause"; the enforceability of the entire EULA hangs on the enforceability of this sentence. This means I should be able to format c: and return the XP discs to the OEM. If the OEM refuses to give me the "full refund" on the OEM license fee for this copy of Windows, then the OEM becomes a party to my violation of the EULA. Would "I cannot comply with the EULA if the OEM refuses to issue a refund" hold up in a small-claims lawsuit against the OEM?
Will I retire or break 10K?
In contract negotiations, it's possible to strike through sections, rewrite sections, and add your own sections...
I wonder, if you changed a EULA on the disk, to something more appropriate, then clicked "I agree" to the changed EULA that is displayed, what the courts would do with that.
This is, assuming, that there's no "encryption method" employed to hide the EULA, or they'd nail you with the DCMA.
As to trying to get a refund, what if you stopped payment on your credit card, for the purchase of the software? Having threatened to do that before to a manager when he refused to give me a full refund or exchange for a defective product (TV, didn't work, they claimed I improperly installed it, thus making it my negligence), I know it's an effective negotiation tool with a store.
Jesterr.
You know, a plastic disk with spiral dot patterns on them. In addition to that I usually get a bunch of paper, dried ink, and cardboard. That's all trash. What I want is the CD. I like to look at them. I like to shine lights on them and look at and sometimes record the fancy reflections. I've even got a gizmo that takes the reflections and converts them to electricity which is used to move magnets. Sometimes it makes some really nice sounds. Other times I use those reflection patterns to make all kinds images on my screen.
I've also used them as coasters.
When I was in college, we used them as pee targets for freshmen. If you made it through the hole, you came out clean. If you missed, it spattered back.
After I'm tired of all that, I take them to the gun range and use them as targets.
What I have not done is copy either the dot patterns or the fancy ink patterns on the trash that comes with it and distribute the copies.
Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgement.
- W. Wriston, former Citibank CEO
You give me proof of insurance and proof of a current drivers license, I have you sign the title and registration...
You need a driver's license to get insurance, you need insurance to get a car, but you need a car to pass the driver's license test. Do I smell a chicken-and-egg infinite descent here?
Will I retire or break 10K?
I am not sure about everyone else .. but does it really matter what the companies put in their EULA .. I for one have never EVER read one .. but to say that I care about these I dont for I have never ever purchased a peace of software in my life.... I rely on open sourced software as much as I can for other things I just download them .. everyone does this ..
.. I wont pay for it I will use it acording to my needs ...
so I say let them put what ever they want in theit eula
In my mind EULAs are like taking a cab or hitching a ride. Typical EULAs ask that you agree to their terms before using their software. If you don't agree with it, you can choose not to use the software. Likewise, if you don't like the rates, you don't have to take a cab. There are alternatives, in software there's the GPL (or other OSS license) which still has requirements to it. In transportation, there's always hitching a ride with someone, a bus, or the GPL/OSS transportation of hoofing it. Just like walking, using GPL/OSS may take a bit more work, but it is much healthier (at least for the wallet) and you don't end up with the nasty smell of shrinkwraped licenses.
-ok, so the analogy sucks, but when it comes down to it, either play fairly with the proprietary software game, or join the GPL/OSS game. Either way, play by the rules, or you may piss off the other players.
Hey I just tried using this on OpenOffice.org 1.0 and it didn't work!!! :)
There's no place I can be, since I found Serenity.
Without the EULA, I am free to use my software within the bounds of copyright law.
Which may, in fact, be not at all. Absent the EULA, you have no license. Absent a license, the bounds of the copyright act preclude any reproduction, derivation or distribution of the copy you have. Since USE of software has been treated by the courts as a reproduction (since it entails loading a copy from a fixed disk to RAM), your unlicensed execution of the program may well be violating their copyright. The virtue of the EULA is it gives you a use license. Since you bypassed the EULA, it is unlikely you would prevail on any implied license theory.
In short, if you are serious about this as a legal strategy, please first consult with competent counsel you have engaged who has carefully studied the particular facts of your case. If you are reading this proposal, please consider the source and the possibility that the legal advice in the original posting (and this response -- which is not legal advice by the way) may be worth what you paid for it.
I do not condone copying commercial software without paying for it, if for no other reason than such behavior is precisely what gives us crazy, unconstitutional laws like the DMCA in the first place.
No, greedy, ignorant, useless executives and politicians is what gives us unconstitutional laws.
If you don't own the copy, but only the disk, then it seems that section 117 has been legal-hacked.
The letter of United States law states that the disc is the copy, making it a logical impossibility to own one but not the other. (Law outside the United States may differ.) According to 17 USC 101: "'Copies' are material objects, other than phonorecords, in which a work is fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device."
I'm not a lawyer, but here's my armchair analysis of some sample contract language:
"The software is licensed not sold." You bought a copy, which gives you (the owner of a copy) rights under section 117, and you are licensing the work itself, which gives you additional rights.
"The copy of the software is licensed not sold." This language would be completely equivalent to a rental agreement. (Under section 109, only the copyright owner can authorize software rental agreements.)
Will I retire or break 10K?
Being shiny and official-looking, it still deterred 95% of the bozos who didn't know what they were doing.
In fact, after fixing a customer's PC once, she complained that I (an HP Authorized Technician) had broken the seal. I had to explain to her that the seal really didn't mean anything and that her warranty was still valid, but I don't think she really believed me.
"Anything is better than IE, and you can quote me on that." -- Wil Wheaton.
and when I read that EULA if I don't agree, I can return it
If the OEM doesn't issue a refund, does this make the OEM a party to the violation of the EULA?
Will I retire or break 10K?
Simply say that the EULA was never displayed to you. Be it key-bounce, and artifact of that game of wuake in the background during the install, or whatever, there are hundreds of hiccups that could cause the EULA to be mechanically agreed to without human intervention of any sort.
While a vendor could claim you entered into the agreement, without witnesses or other supporting evidence I don't see as how the claim could be even remotely enforceable.
In the event no EULA was presented, you would simply have to assume that you were bound solely by conventional copyright restrictions, first-sale rules, etc.
Eliminating the EULA is simply a clever ploy that does little more than prove that you knew it was not something you wanted to agree to and thus intentionally ignored and clicked through anyway. It's even worse than clicking "I Agree" and not meaning it. At least there you could claim that any infringement was unintentional or as a result of a misunderstanding of the agreement terms (it's not like they are easy to read or subsequently available for review post-install).
Hey,
this is a BIG mistake. So, since you didn't agree to the EULA, you must abide by the copyright on the material. In other words you weren't allowed to install the software to your harddrive since that made a copy of the material on the CD. It sounds like any piece of software you install is in violation of the copyright law.
My favroit EULA have alwase been the ones used in online forms. Where they put the EULA in a TEXTAREA. I remove all the text and replace it with "I AGREE TO NOTHING". Is this still legaly binding?
If you don't get an error message after that, it means the web developer hasn't done her homework. You're supposed to SHA-1 the contract submitted in the POST form so that you can prove that the contract presented and the contract submitted are one and the same.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Use GNU or Open Source software or write your own.
This is often impossible in the United States because of patents.
"So leave the USA." Do you know how much that costs? Upwards of six figures. Most of us don't have that kind of money.
Will I retire or break 10K?
It seems like the standard (BS) agreement. But I found it interesting that THIS agreement covers ALL the software that is distributed with the computer. So I wonder what would happen to Dell's EULA if they sold a system with Linux on it? Does that mean that their EULA would supercede the GPL? That doesn't sound right.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
There's a significant bug right at the bottom: stuff that should be assigned to Term2 is being assigned to Term1, so the first regular expression will match the wrong stuff and the second regular expression will either fail to match or match everything, depending on what "new Regexp" gives you. (This is the first VBScript I've ever read, so I don't know what non-obvious stuff does.) Furrfu. If you aren't catching blatant stuff like that, how are you going to notice if it, say, kills your dog, burns your house down, and emails all your files to identity thieves in Bolivia?
I have a feeling I'm going to have to pay the MS tax
If the OEM refuses to issue a refund when you return your Microsoft software, then a good lawyer may be able to argue that the OEM becomes a party to violation of the EULA.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Just treat it like the software.
"No, your honor. The EULA said that the vendor couldn't be held liable for a faulty piece of work. Since they clearly worked on the EULA, I don't see how they can possibly be held liable for it -- and, in turn, how they can claim any damages from me not treating it as gospel truth. It's not my fault I used it to tunnel into their Passport servers and run the 'update users set profession = 'transvestite hooker'' query... their EULA said that there's no liability for damages like that."
As if you've read and agreed to any EULAs anyway. You just pushed the "I agree"-button and thought "Damn they're anoying."
Have EULAs ever been tested in court btw.?
Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
Yeah, and I'll bet you remove those tags from *ALL* of your matresses!
Wait till I tell the MATTRESS POLICE
Someone needs to roll this script in a VIRUS scanner. So whenever the app gets on the machine it gets scanned and flagged as a virus, with the FIX option then removing the EULA.
:)
MS calls the GPL liscence Viral , Hell they started calling names first, if you wrap this in a Virus scanner and get hauled into court , the judge ask "why you felt your prodect could remove the EULA" look you honor at all these press clippings calling the GPL if the GPL can be viral so can the MS EULA, and Hence I can remove it
Sig went tro...aahemmm.....fishing........
By conciously adding a utility to disable viewing the EULA, aren't you in effect agreeing to it? I mean, you KNOW the EULA is going to be there and you are choosing to install the software anyway. How is that different than seeing it and installing the software?
The whole business of the EULA is obviously ridiculous, but for the Average Joe, why not an application that allows him to modify the EULA on the fly? Or remove it altogether? It seems to me that it would further empower Joe to blow the whole thing off and further bring about the following realization:
Ordinarily, both parties negotiate the terms of a contract, modifying the contract up until the point at which it is signed (somtimes after, if provisions are made for it.) You should be able to modify the EULA prior to actually agreeing to it. The fact that the vendor is not present is irrelevent since they will never receive a copy of it or sign it themselves anyway. If that really mattered to them, they'd make provisions for it.
As for the technical challenge, I would imagine that attaching to the process in the same manner as a debugger would be a good start. The EULA control handle is easily retrievable and a newly added code page with a SendMessage(hEULA,WM_SETTEXT,pszNewEULA) would largely do the trick. If not, how about SendMessage(hEULA,WM_DESTROY) and blow it away altogether. Presumably, this problem is a simple task for some innovative programmer.
Hopefully in the end, if ever brought to court, a judge would throw the entire sordid mess out based on the fact that any user can change the text of any EULA at any time, making whatever draconian provisions the vendor is forcing on the consumers completely unenforceable without a signed contract. At any rate, it might break the technical barrier for a non-tech-savvy judge.
-Hope
I have my 11 year old daughter install software. I have not given her permission to enter into a binding contract.
-- Will program for bandwidth
Since the place where you buy software will not let you return a opened package, even if you didn't agree with they EULA, they should force you to sign the EULA in person, on paper, before you get a copy of the software.
This will probably make people think about reading them, and causes them to be much more legally enforceable. It will probably also show how LONG many licenses really are.
my 5th a dime
--z3r0_d
Good God!
I presume the above are in kph.
50 kph=31 mph
80 kph=50 mph
The latter speed is quite slow for a freeway!
Heck in Las Vegas, the lowest it gets even through the interchange is 55mph (88kph).
For much of the freeway within city limits it is 65 mph (105 kph).
Damn, if I had to deal with speed limits as low as yours, I'd move to America too!
hahaha.. nice try, but i wonder what the fine is for vandalizing city property? and isn't there a default speed limit, like 50 or so, faster than which you had better not go without permission from a sign?
The reasons EULAs and such things are done, from what I know (IANAL), is for a reason called "Best Effort".
Best Effort means that if and when your company ever gets hauled into court for some stupid lawsuit, you need to be able to show that you made a "best effort" against whatever event that caused the lawsuit. If you can show that, the liklihood that you won't be held liable is higher.
EXAMPLE: I own a house. I have a sidewalk. During the winter it gets ice on it. I go out twice a day and salt the sidewalk to prevent ice, as well as scoop the ice and snow from it. An old lady comes and slips. She sues me for poor maintenance of the sidewalk. I can present my case as a "best effort" case. I did my best to prevent the sidewalk from being slippery and therefore it is not my fault that she still slipped and fell.
With EULAs, it's a matter of CYA (Cover Your Ass). If you didn't put one and got hauled into court because your software farked up a whole bunch of financial records, for instance, the court would say, "Look, you didn't even try to warn the user that your software might screw up, therefore you're liable." With an EULA you at least have shown that you tried to protect yourself. The EULA itself doesn't necessarily have to be enforceable; the fact that it makes an effort in a 'safe' direction is enough.
Blog,Twitter
...if EULAs are eventually ruled invalid?
Yes, you may own the copy. However, under copyright laws, you cannot produce a copy of that copy without permission of the copyright holder. Thus, in order to copy the code into RAM or a hard disk, you must agree to a license which allows you to do so. Otherwise, you are creating a copy without permission of the copyright holder
This ignores the notion of "fair use" because I'm not familiar enough with the restrictions (IANAL, just in case that was not obvious). Creating a copy of the program on your hard disk is hardly a "backup" of the original if it is the only copy you use (and this ignores the second (partial) copy of the program in memory). This is somewhat akin to the GPL argument on copying, where you do not have to accept the license, but if you do not, then nothing else gives you permission to distribute copies (or derivative works).
I recall a similar argument has been used before in court for disallowing copies. Unfortunately, I do not recall the specific case or the result.
Since USE of software has been treated by the courts as a reproduction (since it entails loading a copy from a fixed disk to RAM), your unlicensed execution of the program may well be violating their copyright.
Yes, once upon a time the courts made that ruling. Then congress passed this:
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
Thankfully it was a pre-owned house, and was built at a time when people cared about quality construction, and I don't have an HOA...
But anyhow, by signing such agreements, without reading them over carefully, you are simply allowing others to, in effect, "lord" over the land you own (or will own, in time). Before I would sign an HOA agreement, I would read it super carefully, and if I didn't understand it, I would take it to a lawyer who has experience in such areas. Any part of it I didn't like I would cross through, make amendments, etc - it is a business contract, plain and simple - within reason, you should be able to do what you want on your property. I know of people who have been fined by their HOA for simply changing their oil in their garage! That is ABSURD.
However, most EULAs you don't get the chance to read before "opening the box", and after opening the package you can't get a refund if you don't like the terms, nor can you change and agree to the terms at will like any other contract (which in B2B large software contract jobs, is part of the business - if you are a business and want a copy of Oracle for your business, you sit down and sign a contract with Oracle, and you "discuss"/"haggle" over the terms over a period of several weeks, before making the final signature)...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
However, under copyright laws, you cannot produce a copy of that copy without permission of the copyright holder. Thus, in order to copy the code into RAM or a hard disk, you must agree to a license which allows you to do so.
Wrong.
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
Some MS products go through the entire installation process before requiring authentication and EULA acceptance now. They still contain phrases such as "By installing this software..."
Reminds me of the Simpson's episode with the disclaimer after an Itchy & Scratchy cartoon, "The preceeding cartoon may have contained violence inappropriate for some viewers."
Any spoon would be too big.
Escapes me yet again.
Actually, when you spend money for software, in most cases you are not purchasing the software (code) itself, but a license allowing you to use the software (code) in the manner intended by the creator/distributor. That's why it's called an End User LICENSE Agreement. License doesn't equal ownership, merely permission to use something owned by someone else. The physical media the software was transmitted on/in (CD, jewelcase, box) becomes your property at the time of purchase, but the software (code) itself remains the property of the creator/distributor.
You can overcome your instincts but you cannot escape your nature.
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
- that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is
used in no other manner, or
- that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the
computer program should cease to be rightful.
"essential step" is a little vague, but it certainly covers copying into RAM and probabily installing on to hard drive if it cannot be run from the original CD (or whatever it came on).The title of that page is apparantly "Included Page Header"
Doh!
My Heart Is A Flower
This may be a great idea, actually!
Set up a EULA with LEGAL terms, verify it with a lawyer so that it does not constitute an illegal contract - Yet make it Absurd. THEN, get your friend to sue you over the absurdity of the EULA and let your friend win.
Would this then constitue a legal precedent against EULA's?
--Jeff
ipv6 is my vpn
I always blindfold myself before installing any software. So, since I can't read the EULA, it doesn't count.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
is that there are not enough people who care about it to make a difference. Even if everyone who read slashdot + everyone who uses Linux + everyone who hates Microsoft all did the exact thing that is being proposed here... refusing to accept EULA's and such, there would still be the vast majority of lemmings in this country that would continue clicking "I agree" and would not do anything to put a stop to it. This country is run by large companies and populated by lemmings and the few of us individuals that have minds of our own are not going to make any kind of a difference by normal means. The only way to invalidate EULA's would be for someone to get sued over it and set a legal precedence, but that's not going to happen because the people that have the money to pull that off are either lemmings, big companies, or owned by one of the two and don't want to displease either. The best way to slip through the fingers of the EULA is to go Open Source... that's not practical, though. Open Source is getting there, but at the moment, Linux IS NOT a desktop OS. There are windowing environments for it, there are applications for it, but until MAJOR software vendors (Adobe, Symantec, Microsoft) start developing their software to work on Linux as well as Windows, Linux will NEVER be a desktop OS. Additionally, until someone starts making Linux about 10,000,000 times easier to set up than it is, the majority of the lemmings in the US won't want to touch it, because that might mean they have to actually learn something! My solution? Piracy. It's illegal, it's immoral, and it's the only way to avoid the EULA completely. I don't recommend it, and I will never admit to actually doing it, but it is the one clear way to avoid the EULA.
wackyballs
I bugh a copy of Click'n'Create in the bad old days but not till you open the box do you see a stupid license that stops you distributing yourself the games you create unless you pay a load more money..
My wife took it back to "GAME" and they said "No sorry", so I took it back and they accepted it no questions asked.
I didn't even get a chance to explain about the stupid license, they just took it and gave a refund.
blog.sam.liddicott.com
Ethics II Axiom 2. "Man thinks." B. Spinoza
With a clause at the end saying "You also recognize the purchaser's right to continue use of the product until an agreement can be reached by both parties. Failure to reply within thirty days signifies your acceptance of this altered agreement. "
GPL it, give it to all your friends and encourage distribution. Watch all Hell break loose.
Mt brother bought a student windows pack while he was living at home but the license said only HE could use it. So my dad took a pen out and changed the license on the form he sent back.
MS didn't "notice" and still sent the CD's back, so my dad and brother were running a student copy under a different license.
But how daft to say the rest of thehousehold can't use it!
silence is not legal acceptance so if you don't agree to the eula you aren't agreeing to it.
In fact, I think EULAs are a good argument for free (and freer) software, and that using software to ignore EULAs by proxy is more of a political point rather than one intended to provide a legal defense.
... but that would wipe out my current Linux install. (Restore disk is what came with it, not real install disks.)So I do *own* a copy, I just don't have any machines using it right now.
:))
EULAs (IMO) are generally silly as contracts (no meeting of minds, obfuscated language printed too small in tiny windows, no advance agreement in the case of most boxed software, etc) and this is an amusing reaction to them, but I don't recommend this sort of workaround. I like that it's drawing attention to EULA realities, though.
I'm not exactly a Microsoft basher in general -- in fact, I think Microsoft is being unfairly persecuted by the current antitrust bullying, and that people should be allowed to buy or sell (or otherwise release) whatever sort of software they'd like. I think the USPS deserves the treatment MSFT is getting, and that MS's largest customer (the Federal government) is being awfully two-faced.
On the other hand, I don't much like the crashes I've experienced on Windows machines, and I resent the obnoxious terms under which most Windows software is available. That doesn't mean that Microsoft, the company, hasn't done a huge amount to popularize GUIs for personal computers, added useful software over the years to their operating systems, and generally provided a popular, low-cost OS, sold software with enough utility that people seem happy to pay for it, etc. I'm amazed by the vitriol that many people express toward Microsoft, while still using their products.
Like the old joke Woody Allen tells in Annie Hall, "... and such small portions!"
There are alternatives I like much better than Microsoft software aesthetically / philisophically / practically, and for me Free software is more satisfying and useful than payware. YMMV, and TMMV, too. ("Their" for whichever They you like.)
If I needed to (have no pressing reason, though), I could re-install Windows from the disks that came with my laptop
(I didn't format that list by hand by the way; I used the Plan Old Text option like I'm about to use for this post, too
timothy
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
Lawyers might shout that voluntarily applying the vb script mentioned is not lawful (perhaps using the DMCA). But what about the following scheme:
Hacker R. Hood makes a benevolent virus, whose only function is to present a user, while he is installing, with a neutered and generic EULA for him to agree to. If the user agrees to this plausible text, the _virus_ presses the OK-button of the hidden original EULA. This way the user has plausible deniablity: he can really believe that he has done everything by the book. But when legal problems raise their ugly heads, it sould be possible to determine that the user himself did not agree with any EULA belonging to the product, and hence is not bound to it! Futhermore, the original software has not been changed in any way, so no right will be voided. (IANAL, of course.)
The likely result will be that EULA's will be changed so that contracting a virus will be considered a violation of EULA, adding to the already considerable pains of corporate software users...
If Dell sold their computer with Linux they wouldn't be allowed under the GPL to restrict Linux's use (the GPL forbids distributing GPLed software with other licenses). This wouldn't stop them from giving you a license that applies to everything else though.
There's a fairly large difference between "you can't run this software unless you dance like a chicken" and "you can't distribute modified versions of this software unless you dance like a chicken".
99% of users (if not more) don't give a Remote Controlled Rat's ass about distributing modified versions, thus the latter EULA would save the world a whole lot of chicken-dancing.
"The Crystal Wind is the Storm, and the Storm is Data, and the Data is Life"
So does his software have a ELUA or other restrictions?
Don't mod me up if this has been discussed as I was too lazy to read all 500 comments?
That's just Dell's opinion. Contract law actually requires (for most contracts) the presence of an intentional mark, made for the express purpose of agreement to the contract. None of those acts described fit the bill; they are all things that occur in the normal course of usage of the software.
This is like you coming up to me on the street, selling me a newspaper, and then saying to me, "By opening that newspaper, you agree to never use it to line your birdcage." This is patently ridiculous - it's my newspaper now, not yours, and if Polly needs some cage lining, there's nothing you can do about it. Your statement that I agree has no force, because I do not in fact agree. Agreements require actual two-way consent, and for commercial software, that means signing real contracts.
This would be simple from a software company's perspective - require businesses that obtain your software to mandate that customers sign EULA cards or somesuch. But as it is, these "agreements" are not agreed upon, and so are not binding contracts.
I have my pet rock hit the keys. I just hope they never throw it in jail.
Copyrights, Patents, Trademarks: temporary loans from the Public Domain, not real property ("intellectual" or otherwise)
This agreement covers all software that is distributed with the Dell computer, for which there is no separate license agreement between you and the manufacturer or owner of the software (collectively the "Software").
the GPL is considered a separate license agreement between you and the manufacturer or owner of the software so that agreement does not apply to the GPL'd stuff installed.
may constitute REVERSE ENGINEERING th
If this script is no circumvention device i do not know what is. To write the script you first have to reverse engeneer (i dont know how to do that).
On the other part: removing a gnu licence from a source file does not make it less gnufull.
What if someone under 18 breaks the seal or clicks through? A minor can't make a binding contract.
These days the trolls just aren't giving it their all any more. I miss the good old days.
I do security
Tnere is no section "57" in the DCMA -- this is all just a bunch of made up nonsense and you are all on crack. Especially sambuco and the poet.
Would it be possible to get away with the following: Pay for the software by check, and on the back of it write something like "By paying in this check, you agree to give me unlimited rights to copy, disassemble and modify the software, placing no restrictions on what I can do" The only real difference between that and an EULA is that the company can afford lawyers.
Not only that but the COVER to the gas cap is locked and you can't see the sticker until after you buy the car and they allow you to open it.
click-wrap / shrink-wrap needs a good solid court case to make them unenforcable. I have never heard of a case going to court all the way through. Anyone have any references to court cases one way or the other?
Actually, you're wrong...
If I take a contract, and photocopy it, with tape over the words, so that the copy comes out blank, and then sign it, I'm bound by what the blank piece of paper says, NOT THE ORIGINAL contract, because YOU DIDN'T SIGN the original contract.
The computer is used as a delivery mechanism. Just because the company is too stupid to realise how poor that mechanism is for delivering this is their own fault.
If the same company gave me the license written on paper, and I walk over to joe blow and give him a blank piece of paper to sign, that doesn't bind him to the original contract. PRESENTATION of a contract is critical. That's why when you get a court summons, they don't send joe somebody to your house to deliver it to you, they need to send an authority figure.
You say you've hear it a few times...I sold computers for a while. Most people think windows is office. Alot of people who really shouldn't buy a computer do, some for their kids some to keep up with the Jonses next door. Thing is, if they had the cash a salesman will take it, no problem taking money. I once had someone come in wanting a computer to host a web site, and was going to hook the new computer up over a phone line. I told him to get a biz grade DSL, he said no, but I still took the cash. Flip side is if you know whats what you get real good quick service. Of course there are the people that think they know more than they do...two guys came in insisting that a monitor freq of 70 vs. 75 hz(or some little difference) made some actual difference for normal users. Made me laugh
LinuxWorx
Spelling errors are intentional as are gramatical error
You are BUYING the software, because nowhere did anybody present you with a LICENSE agreement AT TIME OF PURCHASE, so the SALES DOCTRINE will apply... You CANNOT turn a purchase into a lease AFTER THE FACT....
This like you go to buy your car... Two years later some goons come to your house, saying you need to return the car or pay up. The goons inform you that you leased the car not purchased it, because if you would taken a close look at the ignition switch, you would see the engraved words that say, "By inserting key into this slot, you hereby agree to the terms listed under the mat in the trunk.", to which you'll find the lease agreement.
They would take the law verbatim. If they used the "spirit of the law", it would not be acceptable to take advantage of the oh so many damn loop holes in the tax code :)
Assuming open-source software offers a reasonable alternative, might it be possible to get a vast majority of consumers to refuse to use M$ products while the EULA exists, and instead force M$ into a position where they provide the consumer with a release form nullifying any M$ EULA. M$ has the resources to produce good software, but consumers need to make M$ service them, not the other way around.
Perhaps a anti-EULA software union needs to be created.
' First regex for matching common EULA terms. We insist on at least one matchn s|limited\s*license|limited\s*warranty)"l obal = True
a s-?\s*is)"
:
n s|limited\s*license|limited\s*warranty)"l obal = True
a s-?\s*is)"
' in each group to increase accuracy.
Set term1 = New RegExp
term1.Pattern = "(license\s*agreement|eula|terms\s*and\s*conditio
term1.G
term1.IgnoreCase = True
' Second regex for matching common EULA terms. We insist on at least one match
' in each group to increase accuracy.
Set term2 = New RegExp
term1.Pattern = "(reverse-?\s*engineer|dis-?assemble|de-?compile|
term1.Global = True
term1.IgnoreCase = True
should be
' First regex for matching common EULA terms. We insist on at least one match
' in each group to increase accuracy.
Set term1 = New RegExp
term1.Pattern = "(license\s*agreement|eula|terms\s*and\s*conditio
term1.G
term1.IgnoreCase = True
' Second regex for matching common EULA terms. We insist on at least one match
' in each group to increase accuracy.
Set term2 = New RegExp
term2.Pattern = "(reverse-?\s*engineer|dis-?assemble|de-?compile|
term2.Global = True
term2.IgnoreCase = True
What are you really supposed to do with it?
Give it to the teeny-bopper checking you out at Best buy?
Give it to the manager?
Or the software manufacturer?
either way, how do you get your money back?
--john
Slashdot: you'll not find a more wretched collection of villainy and disreputable types...
I got a funny idea. Let's all mail letters to people with a label on the outside saying "By opening this envelope, you agree to contract inside" and "URGENT! OPEN IMMEDIATELY!"
By the way, that's not a serious remark.
Yes, once upon a time the courts made that ruling. Then congress passed [Section 117]
Wrong, so wrong. Both the Southeastern and MAI cases postdated adoption of Section 117 of the Copyright Act. Both courts held that the defendant was not an "owner" of the copy (the legal significance of the "you are a bailee, not owner" arguments). Like it or not, the Congress reversed the "owner" issue in the MAI case as part of the DMCA, but only when the software is used to maintain a machine. Thus, while the Congress repaired the situation somewhat, at the same time they ratified the earlier Court's decision about its inapplicability to non-title-holders.
There are other cases (also post-Section 117) that tend to cast doubt on the broad construction you would like to assert.
As I said earlier -- don't rely on your own legal advices here, or free advice of others -- this is tricky stuff and you are sure to get your money's worth for the free advice.
I mean, where is the difference? The click-thrugh and shrinkwrap-licenses are totaly onesided, and normally contain some clause stating that you already agreed by opening whatever package to be able to read them. Wy not send letters around with a wording like "By opening this letter you agreed to ..." whatever. Also note, that there is already a contract. you entered it when paying for the product. Usually content, software and the like are automatically protected by copyrights, and that is sufficient. How can that funny clickaway agreement do away with an existing contract anyway, and why should anyone agree to give away his rights to enter into such an unfavorable and onesided agreement?
Even funnier is the idea to make that agreement subject to changes at the whim of the vendor (by refering to some website in the agreement). What is a privacy-policy worth that can be changed any day by one party?
"By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
WordPad is missing the all important spell check feature
Spell check is useless without grammar check.
There are two problems in the above blockquote, and a spell checker won't catch them. It also won't catch homophones, and it won't catch typos that happen to land on a word (from/form).
Grammar check has its own set of problems too, especially given that natural language parsing is still not an exact field.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Looks like the best solution might be...
*GASP*
...learning some fucking spelling and grammar.
...learning some fucking, spelling and grammar.
There's your starting point - figure out the difference between those two sentence completions.
You're on your way!
(not directed at the parent)
Whiners. If the EULA is THAT bad, take the damn thing back to the store. Can't live without the program? Then shut up and accept it.
It really is that black and white: Agree and use it ; Don't agree, don't use it.
The end.
I'm so sick of hearing about this.
-- Note: If you don't agree with me, don't bother replying. I won't read it.
Wouldn't it be easier to hack the resource in the installer so that instead of
I agree to be bound by the above terms
it instead says
I do not agree to your stupid EULA - so there!
click Next, and watch it install.
Read more of this story at Slashdot.Read more of this story at Slashdot.Read more of this story at Slashdot.
We live in a DEMOCRACY! THOSE BASTARDS WORK *FOR US*. All we have to do is get all of America to agree.
Cool! Amazing Toys.
Set the amount that you agree to some very low number, say 1 out of 100. Unless the EULA'd program uninstalls itself as soon as it detects a "No, I do not agree" button click, the program will undoubtedly run correctly after one or two hundred iterations.
The neat thing is that every time the script is run with a positive "I agree" button click, another universe where this did not happen must be created. So on the balance nobody is agreeing to anything.
Of course since you don't know if your automoton script made the "I agree" button click, or if the EULA window just gave up or crashed after 100 or 100,000 iterations, so you are not guilty of having consciously agreed to the contract in this universe either. I think the odds of a windows program breaking from memory leak or memory error after 100,000 iterations is more likely than that I would read a EULA before clicking on it.
It would be the same thing as if an antivirus program stopped the EULA from appearing in the first place, or clicked through it before you saw it. Or maybe some spyware broke the EULA window. (hmm.. ) Windows in general is so chaotic and untrustworthy it is ridiculous to imagine a contract being upheld on it. In this universe or any other..
>Consumers already have the power to fight overly restrictive IPOs without new laws, it's called letting your money talk.
In most peoples case they have no choice but M$, it's everywhere, its' less intimidating cos their friends use it, a lot shops dont sell anything else and it's a brand name they know.
What are 'ma and pa' (tm) supposed to do then, not buy any software, go without and suffer the rest of their computer deprived lives ? that's not really gunna impact M$ but it will impact 'ma and pa' heavily.
that's called a monopoly.
Wrong, so wrong. Both the Southeastern and MAI cases postdated adoption of Section 117 of the Copyright Act. Both courts held that the defendant was not an "owner" of the copy (the legal significance of the "you are a bailee, not owner" arguments).
Right... Because the defendant was maintaining a computer owned by someone else. I was referring to cases before Section 117 was passed, which are the reason that Section 117 was passed in the first place.
There are other cases (also post-Section 117) that tend to cast doubt on the broad construction you would like to assert.
What cases would that be? How about one where the owner of the CD is being sued for copying software into ram. Post Section 117, you won't find one.
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
It seems like the standard (BS) agreement. But I found it interesting that THIS agreement covers ALL the software that is distributed with the computer. So I wonder what would happen to Dell's EULA if they sold a system with Linux on it? Does that mean that their EULA would supercede the GPL? That doesn't sound right.
Of course not. Software EULA's prohibit you from doing things with the software that are not already covered by copyright law. You cannot distribute commercial software because of copyright, not because of the EULA. You can only distribute GPL'd software because of the GPL. Without the GPL, the software would fall under standard copyright laws. The GPL gives you more rights, it doesn't take any away.The issue isn't whether the computer is owned, but whether the copy is owned by the person asserting the Section 109 or 117 right. There is more than ample case law, including the dicta in the cases already cited, the Apple and CMG cases and various other cases on point.
Once again, fair colleagues, rely not upon my ravings or those of my antagonists for your best advices, but rather on the advices of counsel you have hired -- this is hardly a slam-dunk question as some have characterized it, and it would be a shame to lose big because you relied upon the advices read here.
The issue isn't whether the computer is owned, but whether the copy is owned by the person asserting the Section 109 or 117 right.
Yes, but how can you own a copy of software if you don't own the computer on which it resides?
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
Same way you can own a bank account without owning the ledger. Title to intangible personal property is an interesting thing.
Fair enough, but that doesn't apply to either of those two cases.
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
and there are two sides to the story of the Censorware Project. Sig: What REALLY Happened to the Censorware Project
Sig: What REALLY Happened to the Censorware Project