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."
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.
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?
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}
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
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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
No, just because you put it in writing doesn't mean it's legally binding. This happens all the time. Companies try to get out of responsibility for damages their product could cause by printing up statements absolving them of liability. Nonetheless, if taken to court, they often are found liable anyway.
In the case of EULAs, software companies often overstep their bounds, placing demands on the consumer that are unreasonable because they infringe on the user's own rights.
EG. I once saw an EULA for DeLorme's Street Atlas software that said you agreed not to use the product with any GPS device that wasn't authorized by them for use with their software. Sorry, but they can't tell me I'm violating their license agreement if I plug in a Garmin hand-held GPS to a COM port on my PC, place the Garmin in compatibilty (NMEA) mode, and get it working with Street Atlas. I have the right to use the Garmin with my PC any way I like.
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.
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.
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.
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.
In the current instance, clearly, one party is under duress because they cannot return the software to the store for a refund - the vendor won't take it back - a stipulation often made by software companies. Thus, the end user's only option is to not install the software (thereby losing the purchase price), or click the "I agree" button. Since the contract is made under the threat of losing the purchase price, the user is not legally able to enter into the contract relationship - the option to back out of the contract is not really an option at all. Thus, most EULA's are unenforceable without this software.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
Well, saying you've found a lawyer that will argue a case is like saying you've found a prostitute that's agreed to sleep with you.
The issue is: what would a judge do? In some cases in the US they have ruled that EULA's are binding but the higher up the court system you go the less truck this gets and late last year a judge (in Florida?) ruled that no renewal term or requirements means this is not even a licence never mind a binding one.
In the UK several on-line pricing boobs have revolved around the question of whether the vendor (ie the website) was totally automated or not. The courts finding that an automated system is not able to form a contract and therefor a miss-priced item does not have to be honoured, while any human intervention in the acceptance system (in one case simply having someone manually checking that buyer's emails go out to legal email addresses) makes a contract which does have to be honoured.
EULA depend on fear of court action, but there are almost no cases of a successful prosecution that did not in fact resolve back to an ordinary copyright violation.
Generally the courts take the position that if I pay for goods and you give me them with no requirement that I ever give them back then it is a sale and I am free to do as I wish other than breach laws such as copyright. Anything else I agree with you has to fit inside contract law and have such items as consideration and evidence of agreement on both sides (eg signitures from seller and buyer), lack of coercion, limits on what can be in a contract etc. Everything else is just wank.
EULA are no more imporant or useful than the typical lawyer, but they can be just as scary too.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
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.
Read the EULA before you click "accept". If you don't agree with the terms and conditions then don't install the software.
...even if they require handing over your first born or something.
But I already have the legal right to install the software! Do I have to quote chapter and verse of Copyright Law?
Here's how it works. The author creates a work and publishes or distributes it. At this point in time there are two sets of right bound to the work. The first set of rights are exclusive to the author. These include the right to distribute, modify and generally copy the work. The second set is not exclusive to the author, but belong to the public or to the possessors/owners of the copies. These rights include using the work in its customary manner. If it's software, the author does not have the right to prevent you from using it.
If I don't accept the terms of the EULA, and I can somehow install the software without assenting to the EULA, then I have the right to use the software.
Software that companies write belongs to them so they should be free to do whatever
Absolutely not. The only thing that belongs to the software companies are the rights to copy, distribute and modify the software. They do not have the exclusive right to use the software.
"Intellectual Property" is not property. This has been asserted by the courts before. Don't let the name fool you, it is just a linguistic shorthand.
If I don't agree to the my landlord's rental agreement, I still can't live in his/her apartment, because that apartment is his/her property. But if I don't agree to your EULA, you can't prevent me from using the software, because the copy in my possession is not your property.
If you want more restrictive terms over the use of the software, then you may attempt to get me to agree to them. But you will have to do so before I aquire the software. That may mean you have to forego selling your software through traditional retail channels. Too bad. You are not king of the world so you don't have the right to make up the rules as you go along.
Such a clause would be illegal.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
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...
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.
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...