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 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.
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}
It's not a law doofus. That's the point.
-- Proud descendant of semi-nomadic cattle-herders.
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.
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
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!
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)
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
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!
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?
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.
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
Anybody have any tips for me?
Go here.
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.
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.
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.
Or would luke-warm, or even cold steam do the trick?
-- SIGFPE
I betcha there's an EULA on any free software you use as well. Maybe not as nefarious as KaZaA's "all your network resource are belong to us", but something along the lines of having to redistribute code changes, or whatever clauses for it's flavour of gpl/bsd/lgpl/whatever.
do not read this line twice.
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.
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
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"
Microsoft reccomends their software to millions of people. And based on the many BSODs I (and my customers get) it sure as Hell(tm) wasn't tested very much.
Kierthos
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
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.
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.
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........
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
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
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?
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