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."
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?
If you would take the time to follow th links in the article, you would see that he did not post anything for you to download. He only posted the source.
That was the whole point of the Windows Refund day. Everyone was supposed to ask for refunds from their PC vendors when they didn't agree to the EULA that came with bundled copies of Windows.
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!
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
I've looked at the code and it does do what it says. Here's the deal with it.
r [ anychar] [anything]is
It runs through the subfolders of the system temp folder
For each file it finds. it opens it to check to see if it's ascii. If it is then it does define te POSSIBILITY of it being an EULA. If that's the case it then checks to see if the file contains the following terms
license(s)
agreement
eula
term(s) and(s) conditions
limited(s) license
limited(s) warranty
it also does a second check for the following
reverse-[anychar]?(s)[anything]enginee
dis-[anychar]assemble
de-[anychar]compile
as-
If either of those shows a match in the file that was found. It asks if you want to overwrite the EULA with a predefined one and if the user selects YES then and ONLY then does it overwrite the specified file
It doesn't modify any other files, it doesn't overwrite files without a specific click on a message box by the user running the script
This code as of 11:53 AM on May 1st is clean and safe to use barring somebody modifies it later
Check out Bad Software They have a nice little series of things to quote at the drones telling you that you can't return it.
Anybody have any tips for me?
Go here.
The next best thing to building your own:
http://www.emperorlinux.com/
Laptops, note books with linux already installed.
If you're keen on building your own, your can usually pick up an older type laptop for cheap, and then start from there.
People have been working on this kind of thing for quite a while. Do a google search on "Build your own laptop"
Good luck!
1. Buy broken laptops on ebay/elsewhere.
2. Scavenge each for parts and build 1 good laptop.
3. Sell remains of scavenged laptops on ebay to similar persons, possibly for what you bought them for.
My GF recently received a laptop with a busted screen. Cost for OEM LCD? Like 400US. Cost for a stripped laptop with an unbroken screen? 50US. Selling price for same laptop sans screen? 40US to someone who needed the keyboard because OEM keyboards are almost as ridiculous.
Plus my GF got the shipping insurance, which more than covered the 10US net for the screen.
What about this, which is a court finding that says that despite the EULA, the exchange of money for software is a sale. From the article in question:
Here's a link to the full text of the decision.
Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
Estoppel?
I don't need large brains to have a good time.
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?
I tried to return a Win2K to the shop after having second thoughts. It was an academic license and I wasn't technically a student any more, so I failed to meet the requirements. The shop ofcourse refused to have it back (it was open, how else could I read the requirements), but in the end they gave me 90% of the price back. I complained to the local Microsoft office and they basically admitted that they had no way to force the shops to accept their "return to shop" policy even if it is printed on the box.
They did give me a free WinXP Pro instead, so I'll live.
/RS
Setting up cases like this to set a precedent is illegal. A court can only be viable if both sides work on their arguments 100%. So suing your friend is very risky because the judge might begin to suspect you're cooperating. This cannot be tolerated as it will make the legal system that much weaker.