Slashdot Mirror
Lofgren's Anti-DRM Bill
blastedtokyo writes "House representative Zoe Lofgren introduced the Digital Choice and Freedom Act. Perhaps the most interesting section is the part that invalidates 'non-negotiable shrink wrap licenses' (EULAs) that limit rights. On top of this, it states that both digital and analog media need to be subject to fair use rules for backing up. The full text of the bill is also available." News.com.com.com.com and Infoworld have stories as well, which both note that there is no chance of these bills being passed this year.
All together now...Repeat. However this is such great news, I don't mind hearing about it twice. Let's hope that at the very least this bill stirs up more media attention to the DMCA, DRM, and other things that are designed to take away our rights, not protect them.
"I may be quite wrong." - Socrates
I'm not a US citizen (I'm from the forgotten US state, Australia :0), so I'm not sure how the whole lawmaking process works - but doesn't this law say the exact opposite of quite a few laws either previously passed or currently being debated? What happens in this case - do the laws nullify each other? Do they both apply and it gets left up to the courts to decide which has priority?
Perhaps we need some kind of legislation lottery, where the first law that gets drawn out of a barrel is passed, and the rest aren't...I can just imagine a group of senators, fingers crossed, chanting "come in DMCA!"
===
You know that guy who stole your girlfriend away from you in the summer of '95? He's going to die.
This is what the world needs. To adapt to the new media, not to try and force the world to their standards. The RIAA is alarmed that we are not buying their music and so wants to stop the spread of other music. I agree that it can be bad for certain artists, but I believe that the spread of digital media is overall good for all.
Secondly, I really don't want DRM cancelling my ability to keep copies of my CDs and other digital media. If I had a printing press I'd make copies of some of my favorite books. I've lost one of them, and I'm really wishing I had a copy.
Bills like this are ones I expect to see almost all Slashdotters supporting!
Go digital media!
find ~your -name '*base* | xargs chown
Even though this is a repeat story (that never happens!) It is good to know that not everyone in D.C. is a corrupt pawn of a corporation out to make money and nothing more. So voting isn't meaningless. Find out which people aren't corrupt and get them in office.
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
What now? EVERYONE WRITE/CALL/PETITION your congressmen and your senators. Let them know that geeks vote too and we have the ability to get/cost them a large number of votes thanks to our prowess with all the latest communications technologies.
The legislative process only works if you involve yourself. Oh, and don't forget to vote!.
Just wondering, with all of this bashing of copyrights and EULAS, isnt the GPL itself a copyright? and that little header that is on GPled files a EULA? After all, it does say how we can use the software and how we cant.
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
I really dont think tech people are the 'least voting segment of the population'. I think that in general young people are, some of them may be tech people, but its more non tech.
That's fine if you can read the agreement before buying the product. The problem with shrinkwraps is that you often can't. You buy the nice looking box at the store, get it home, open it up and there's some sticker saying you have to take it back to the store for a refund if you don't agree. That's too much of a pain. If you want the agreement to be really binding (and I tend to agree that manufacturers should be able to put whatever terms in they want) you have to be open and make sure those terms are publicised alongside the marketing material.
---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"
M$ is an easy case of a EULA and a products the world does not need, but what if I design a product that can save the life of say aids patients, but I put a EULA in it which says, and you shall always vote for the green party.
When you let one company or industry take away rights you open the door for them all to do it.
Liberty for more than corporations?
Let's not get too crazy here and think that the Rep is doing this out of the goodness of her heart.
"Silicon Valley Congresswoman introduces bill to respect consumer rights and expectations."
What we have here is a battle brewing between interest groups in California. Fritz Hollings is a patsy for Disney and the rest of Hollywood. I'm sure that Lofgren has some ties to Apple and other companies in the Valley that don't want DRM.
"The Semiconductor Industry Association has named her a "Congressional Leader" and the Business Software Alliance has called her one its "Cyber Champions."'
And lets not forget that the Supreme Court decided long ago that Corporations have rights as well as all citizens do.
I think this is the right idea, but don't kid yourself about heroic Representatives fighting the evil corporations for the good of the people.
What kind of legal strength does a EULA have any more?
:-)
1. They are on every software product.
2. Nobody reads them.
3. Those who say they read them are lying.
Therefore, one could assume that nobody understands their rights and none of the software companies seem to enforce their stated restrictions. At least that I have seen.
So what good is a EULA these days? Should we be reading them? Are they even valid, considering they 'go into effect' upon opening of an envelope.
Can such an agreement be made without a signature?
Can I just have my minor child open software to relieve me of these obligations to the software company?
These are things I would like to know. I admit that I am ignorant
-S
We Apprentice Developers and Designers
We do have the right not to buy a product we don't like.
.DOC(!).
If MSFT were not a monopoly, I'd agree. But since they are, it makes it much harder to avoid purchasing their products and being forced to use them.
When interviewing, many companies asked for Word documents. Today, it's a bit easier to do with OpenOffice, but two years ago, it would have been almost impossible to do. Word is also used for most business communications. Now that I'm employed, I'm getting quotes from vendors in Excel spreadsheets. Even my dad is sending me digital photos from his camera in
Now, does this mean that MSFT is popular because people use it, or that people use it because it's popular?
The issue is not that the RIAA is trying to DRM all of their products, the issue is that the RIAA is trying to legislatively force EVERYONE to DRM-cripple their products.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
Neither this bill nor Boucher's will pass, because there is no huge lobby (or $$) for this cause like Hollywood has. Still, it's good to go forward anyways, since raising public awareness is the only shot we have to change the industry's mind.
Actually, introducing this now (when it might possibly be made into an election issue) is a great idea, as the public is paying a bit more attention to politics than usual and is less likely to be completely ignored by mainstream press (a la DMCA).
BTW, *two* bills that seek to accomplish roughly the same thing? Why?
Look at the tomato! Isn't it sad? He can't dance! Poor tomato!
Why shouldn't companies slap whatever restrictions they want on their products? Microsoft's EULA could state that by opening the wrapper I agree to eat the contents. If I don't agree to that, I don't buy the product.
Two problems with this. First, what if Microsoft stated in their EULA that, if I want to run Windows, I have to go find a Linux-using hippy, break into his house, reformat his hard drive, and install Windows on his computer? This is fairly clearly illegal. So such a EULA would also be illegal.
Also, just try and get a copy of the EULA to software (especially from Microsoft) before buying it. It's not on the box. It's not on the website. While I've never tried myself, I've heard tell that people calling up or emailling Microsoft to ask for a copy were denied. It's not until after you've paid your money that you get asked if you want to accept the EULA. And find a software store that will accept a return of an opened box.
What gets passed, if anything, will be somewhere in between Lofgren's bill and Hollings's bill.
Granted, I no longer live in the states. But - to see such a bill introduced by a Californian Democrat is quite encouraging. Way to go, Zoe. If this passes, the rest of the world will thank you.
Stop the brainwash
I agree with that view.
This is basically the point I made in this post.
Opponents of this view base their arguments around being forced into something by an industry, but I think that's a weak cop out.
You're quite correct, you have no right to expect something from any company or industry.
If you are a regestered voter, tell your representatives what you want. If you are a citizen but not registered to vote, then move away to some backwater, third-world country where you belong. Or, of course, you could just get off of your lazy, excuse-finding a$$ and register.
And to be most effective use SNAIL-MAIL. Five letters with a return address from their home district get more attention from congressmen than 500 digital signatures from unknown locations on the internet, even if they SAY they are constituants. Slashdotting a website with 150,000 hits may be cool and all, but 150,000 leters to congress can actually make a difference.
___ I don't respond to Anonymous Cowards, and I Never Mod them UP.
sPh
IANAJ (I am not a journalist) but it would seem more important to have all the facts than to get that proverbial "first post". It doesn't matter if someone else breaks the story first, as long as you have the better/more complete information. That makes you (and Slashdot) look more professional and less knee-jerk.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
On the off chance that there'll be people reading the comments who didn't read the full text of the bill, it contains the following definition: "A 'digital work' is any literary (except a computer program), sound recording or musical work, or dramatic, motion picture or other audiovisual work, in whole or in part in a digital or other non-analog format."
See that "except a computer program" part?
Not that it matters -- Lofgren introduced the bill far enough before the election to claim she's a backer of your right to watch movies but too close to the end of the legislative session for anything to come of it.
Learn to spell: nickel, missile, lose, solely, amendment, speech, kernel, probably, ridiculous, deity, hierarchy, versus
From the text of the bill: a work in a digital or other non-analog format ...as opposed to non-digital, non-analog formats?
-JDF [We need a few geek congresscritters]
Why shouldn't companies slap whatever restrictions they want on their products?
There are really two reasons against this.
The first, and more important one, is that these agreements are not agreements. There is no contractual process going on here. There is only a sale. To make matters worse, the contents of the "agreement" is hidden from the purchaser until AFTER the sale has been completed. The fact is, the "contract" is attempting to force a consumer to abrogate rights that the consumer doesn't have the right to give away. Only a court of law can decide these things.
Second is that there are laws that companies have to follow. When Microsoft signed the papers that made them a Corporation they traded a certain amount of "freedom" for a certain amount of protection. Specifically the process of incorporating a company allows the owners and investors to be shielded from the actions of the company to a great extent. So, they have to take the bad (consumer protection laws) with the good (corporate shield laws).
Finally (thirdly, something about the Spanish Inquisition...), the companies make no effort to ensure that they are actually entering into a legally binding contract with these EULA's. Think about it. In most homes it is the kids that know the most about the computers and thus do the software purchasing and installation. So, if the 16 year old son is opening and installing all of the software on the box then how can the EULA be binding? (After all, the kid can't legally enter into a contract at that age.) Also, there's no effort on the company's behalf to obtain proof of the person who actually entered into the contract. Finally, there is patently illegal language in those contracts that violate both the first amendment (the no benchmarking clauses) and the doctrine of first sale (the no resale clauses).
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
Here's a cynical view. Every year, minority parties and candidates dredge up lost causes on nearly every controversial issue that they hope will improve the odds in upcoming elections. By being on the losing side they say "I'm sticking up for you" to those particular interests without really risking anything.
When a long-shot bill actually does get a chance due to exceptional circumstances, such as campaign reform after Enron, the process is slowly and noisily debated for the benefit of cameras. Often nothing comes of it, but each politician will swear they wanted to make something happen. If a bill actually passes, it is watered down enough to provide a symbolic victory without actually affecting the way business is done.
I think we're much more likely to have our rights protected by the courts than by Congress. Once those rights under current laws are reaffirmed, it will be politically difficult for Congress to pass new laws taking them away.
And also because the EULA breaks the bargain between copyright holders and the public. The public grants a temporary (heh) monopoly in exchange for certain statutory and common-law rights. Many EULAs, if enforced, would violate those rights that we as the public have already paid for by granting the monopoly.
EULAnians are singing the same song as those commercial broadcasters who whine about having to run public service announcements and provide a minimum amount of educational programming. They act as though something is being taken away from them when in fact they are only being required to share a little of the great gifts the public has already provided.
As a software developer, I'd like to see EULA's remain legal. I don't want to be sued because some idiot misused or ran a virus infected version of my executable and bad things happened to that PC. I don't want to be sued when the same idiot installs an older software application that overwrites a bunch of MFC and ATL DLL's and then complains that "it dunnit work no more - yee haw"
However, I'm completely opposed to the way EULA's are presented to people now... Most EULA's are presented as a step in the InstallShield installer, if you don't accept the terms you can't install the application. Problem is, if you don't accept the terms, you won't be able to take it back to the store. Best Buy, Fry's, Comp USA, etc., don't take returns on opened software, only exchanges.
What should happen is that companies are required to either print the EULA on the box (there is room, even on the new boxes, just print it on the large flap where there's just screenshots and marketing crap there anyways). Then, users can read the EULA before they've brought it home and started to install it, and if they don't like the terms of the EULA they can leave the box on the shelf and look at a competitor's product.
Making EULA's completely illegal as some people advocate is too extreme. Businesses and independent developers need some protection from the unwashed masses (like AOL users, har har).
I read the text of the bill, and I mostly agree with it. However, I'd like a change in this bill that says essentially the above - you want to use a EULA, fine, but the user had better be able to read it before they've purchased the software.
(And while we're suggesting changes, how about an across the board repeal of the DMCA?)
for software, anyway.
OK, so what's a digital work?
So Microsoft need not worry about this clause.
The digital first sale part seems especially cool, but it also opens the way to unlimited distribution on the web. Here's the text:
So if I want to sell CDs online, instantly, and then ship the buyer the physically copy later (or just destroy it), I can do that. This is really great, as it's what mp3.com tried to do before they got sued for it and lost.
The problem is you know there's going to be a whole new twist to the napster phenomenon, where people distribute copies to thousands of people and then claim they owned those copies and were destroying them.
There's another interesting effect on the GPL. Since it's legal to make copies of GPLed software, as long as you don't distribute those copies, you have a loophole where you can make an unlimited number of copies, and then distribute those copies under this clause without distributing the source. Right now you can already do that as long as you print actual CDs, but this clause would let you do it digitally. Basically, RIP GPL, unless they can claim that the non-negotiable license is allowed to take away this right, which, maybe they will since it's software.
Overall it looks like a great law, but it's probably way overbroad to pass. I'd love to see just about any part of it pass individually though, especially the digital first sale part.
<sarcasm style="situation: hypothetical;">
Just off the plane, late for a meeting, with dozens of other impatient customers waiting in line behind you, why shouldn't you scrutinize every word in the fine print on that rental car agreement?
Microsoft's EULA could state that by opening the wrapper I agree to eat the contents. If I don't agree to that, I don't buy the product.
After all, if you don't like those terms and conditions, you could go wait in another long line for a different car rental place (though in the software biz, there's a monopoly, in case anyone hasn't been paying attention). Sure, you don't have a confirmation and that other company will likely have similar term and conditions...
As consumers, we have no right to demand certain products. We do have the right not to buy a product we don't like.
Yep, you should expect all that fine print to be totally unreasonable. You'll either have to agree to it (in a hurry to make it to your meeting), you your alternative is to walk there and completely miss your appointment. You have absolutely no right to expect that the terms and conditions, which you couldn't even see until you already got off the plane, would be reasonable. You have no rights.
</sarcasm>
Fortunately, the laws and case law doesn't work this way. Consumers do have rights. Software EULA's have probably gone "too far", but it takes time until they're challenged. Eventually, the software biz will settle on "norms" as it matures over the next few decades, just like other industries have.
And if history repeats itself, comsumers will have rights and unreasonable and unconscionable terms won't hold up.
PJRC: Electronic Projects, 8051 Microcontroller Tools
Whilst this sounds nice and all, I wonder if it's been thought out fully.
On the top of it, it sounds good. Get rid of those pesky EULA's that disclaim everything. But there is a snag, what about the software that you don't go out and purchase?
I'm all for removing the legallity of a EULA after you've bought something but that puts freely downloadable programs (that you find on the web) in a rather sticky situation. If I release an application that doesn't come in a box and doesn't have to be purchased first then how on earth can I protect myself from the compensation culture that is springing up around me?
If the EULA was made illegal today, just like that, then (unless my take is wrong) free to download applications that rely on the EULA to burnproof someones backside will all end up having to be pulled. There is no way on earth companies (let alone individuals) who provide products this way are going to accept legal liability for software. They want people to agree to certain restrictions otherwise they could be in a horrible situation.
To be honest, I don't think that EULA's are really inheriantly bad. It's just that companies have been abusing them to an extent that they've become rotten.
If they're talking about banning EULA's that you have to agree to after PURCHASING a product then I'm all for it. But if they're talking about ALL licence agreements then I'm a little wary.
I hope I've got the wrong take on this whole EULA situation. If so, please correct me!
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
The worst part is there is no button to PRINT the damn thing, so you can't even have a record of what you supposedly agreed to - and who's to say that some other program won't surreptiously change the text while you're not looking, and take away more of your rights>
Again, this last is to further restrict your rights, as you now don't have any text to search for loop-holes - or wave in my defence in court.
Glad to see some sanity for a change!
...there's some sticker saying you have to take it back to the store for a refund if you don't agree. That's too much of a pain.
You want to bring in new regulations because going back to the store is "too much of a pain"?
We have rights, which means we also have responsibilities.
I am a Karma Library.
Writing your Congressman/woman/Senator helps on issues, but if you notice, bills that get passed usually have big lobbys behind them (special interests).
Topics like these are OUR special interest and we have a lobby for it, the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
I'm a paying member myself and I would strongly encourage you to join also. Unfortunately, it's a fact in today's politics, money talks. Let your dollars start squawking.
"We're sorry, but the website you're trying to reach has been disconnected."
psxndc
The emacs religion: to be saved, control excess.
The bill doesn't ban licenses on software, it bans the EULA as the word means today -- a license that pops up during installation, after you've bought the product and brought it home.
In short, it does exactly what you want -- it gets rid of the crap license you don't like, but keeps the ability to have the all-important disclaimer.
The enemies of Democracy are
Referring to this as an "Anti-DRM" bill is not the way have any hope of getting it (or a similar bill) passed. Better to present it as a bill that supports DRM by clarifying consumer rights within a DRM regime.
It's more than just a pain. Most retail stores prominently post something to the effect of "No refunds or returns of open software, music or DVDs. Exchanges Only!"
According to the EULA, you're supposed to return it to the place of purchase for a full refund if you don't agree, except they've already informed you that they refuse to abide by that agreement. The EULA not only attempts to force the customer into a contract with no explicit agreement, it also attempts to force the retailer into the agreement by requiring it to act as an agent of the manufacturer.
So you can return it if you don't agree, except you can't return it except to exchange it for another copy. Somewhere in here is a consipiracy to defraud, whether it's intentional or not.
Exactly. The problem is that now it is perfectly possible that the consumer ends up out of pocket through no fault of their own - this is wrong. As it stands, no one really knows if EULAs are even worth the paper they're written on, mainly because of this problem - how can someone be taken to have agreed to something they have never read?
My belief is that EULAs should be binding, should be allowed to contain any clause they want to add, but MUST be featured prominently in advertising, P.O.S, on the box, etc etc. That way anyone buying the product knows the terms under which they make that purchase (i.e. they know the terms of the sale contract). This brings retail contracts and EULAs up to speed with all other forms of contract.
---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"
IANAL, but I took a freshman law class. According to that, children can enter into legally binding contracts. The big differnce is that, except for necessities, they can end the contract at any time, causing a reversal.
l )
I think I remember hearing that too. I'm sorry for being imprecise on that one. They certainly cannot enter into a contract that binds their parents. Even better, say you have a contractor stage all of your PC's for you. Are they supposed to be agreeing to all of these EULA's for you? I can't imagine you executing a power of attorney to this guy so it would certainly be a sticky wicket.
The first amendment only applies to the government. Ever hear of an NDA?
NDA's are very specific in nature and can be held up to challenge on first ammendment grounds. The first ammendment doesn't only apply to the government as the powers and enforcement of this "contract" come from the government as well. I believe Atty General Spitzer (NY) is suing a few software companies over these clauses for this very reason. (http://www.nwfusion.com/news/2002/0207nysnai.htm
As for the doctrine of first sale... that's a copyright ruling for selling a copy.
True. I believe portions of that have been adjudicated (the suit by Adobe versus the resellers) in favor of first sale. Additionally, MS has attached a EULA to Windows and then refused to honor its terms when people tried to use the license language to demand a refund (look for Windows Refund Day references).
Unenforceable or illegal is merely splitting hairs. The fact is there is language in most EULA's that violate consumer rights.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
what if Microsoft stated in their EULA that, if I want to run Windows, I have to go find a Linux-using hippy, break into his house, reformat his hard drive, and install Windows on his computer?
They don't. Nobody does.
It's not until after you've paid your money that you get asked if you want to accept the EULA. And find a software store that will accept a return of an opened box.
The box states that there are conditions defined inside. If you don't want to take the chance, don't buy the box. It you do want to take that chance and you later find don't like those conditions, well, thems are the breaks. You were given fair warning.
As far as I can see, you are complaining because you do not want to take responsibility for your actions. You want to buy a companies product, but under your own terms.
You must realise that the "product" is both the software *and* the vendor's terms.
I am a Karma Library.
The second should be addressed to your congressperon's Chief of Staff, c/o Committee to Re-Elect Congressperson XYZ, at the reelection campaign's address (but not not not at a US Government address). The letter should be more or less the same. But stapled to it should be a check for $20, $30, $50, or whatever you think reasonable. Check made out to the re-election committee natually.
I think 20 or 30 thousand such letters would start to get the attention of Capitol Hill.
sPh
When it comes to legislation it mostly boils down to what the congress critters believe will keep them in their jobs. If they believe that enough of public opinion is going to come down on them for going one way or another with a vote, they'll follow the opinions most of the time. In the absense of a clear public mandate they will go toward that which tends to promote their long term job stability, that being the big piles of cash from lobbyists.
Given that, in an environment where we've got an economy in the toilet, an active war on terrorism, and a soon to be war against Iraq, people as a whole have much better things to worry about than DRM. If you have to pick your next congressman based on their stand on war in Iraq vs. their stand on DRM, which is the higher priority? So, in the absense of a direct link between a congress critter's stand on DRM and their job security they'll go where the money is.
Don't get me wrong, I believe that congress critters do acutally make ethical decisions based on their personal belief. That sometimes in spite of money and public opinion they'll make a choice because they believe it to be the right one. But in order for legislation to make any real headway, you need more than just the ethical stand of a conscience possessing minority.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Because once you buy it, it's your product. But the entire software world is broken. They insist that they aren't supplying you with a product -- only a license to use the software. That's why you have to agree to the EULA and then, only after having done so, come to find that the product is hopelessly broken and that the EULA precludes you getting a refund.
Consumer protection laws exist for a reason. Imagine what the world would be like if all products were sold like software.
And to everyone reading this, don't start with the whining about software being "different." It's only different in that commercial software is often a bug-ridden mess due to the fact the EULAs prevent consumers from having legal recourse. Software isn't more complex than a Boeing 747. It's not more complex to engineer than a modern 3D graphics accelerator. Because of EULAs, Microsoft is protected and, thus, feels safe in creating bad video editors rather than making their OS secure and stable without crippling bugs. The best thing that could happen would be for the courts to declare software a "product" and make the industry (of which I am a part) responsible for what they sell to the public.
The RIAA has sued radio stations for pirating music
~ now you know
It's good enough, better than nothing. Let them put copy protection on, it is breakable. Someone will screw up or leak the right set of specs.
If the data can be loaded into a PC, it can be cracked.
If nothing else, there is always the "analog hole".
If you want this bill (or something like it) passed, you have to let your House Rep. and Senators know that you consider it important. A short email or, better yet, snail-mail message will work wonders; here's the one I sent off to the Ohio congresscritters:
"My life's work has been to prompt others... and be forgotten." --Cyrano de Bergerac
Actually, the most interesting part of this bill (to me) is that it modifies the worst part of the DMCA (17 USC 1201) concerning circumvention devices. Paraphrasing ...
... " such act is necessary to make a non-infringing use under this title; and "
... " such means are necessary to enable a non-infringing use ..." ..."
Circumvention is not a violation if:
" the copyright owner fails to make publicly available the necessary means to perform such non-infringing use without additional cost or burden to such person. "
Providing a circumvention device is not a violation if:
" such means are designed, produced and marketed to enable a non-infringing use
" the copyright owner fails to make available the necessary means referred to "
This is great! With those in place, the DMCA becomes a mere annoyance rather than a real impediment to software development.
My own DMCA Battle...
My mom always said, "Jim, you're 1 in a million." Given the current population, there are 7000 of me. God help us all!
The President can't actually propose laws, although it's easy enough for him to find a congresscritter to forward one from him.
1/2 of both houses is required to pass the law; 2/3 is required to override a presidential veto.
And amending the constitution requires approval by 2/3 of the Senate and 2/3 of the State legislatures (IIRC), and is next-to-impossible.
"No refunds or returns of open software, music or DVDs. Exchanges Only!"
We've already figured out how to handle this, in the various articles about not-really-CDs: buy, open, find defect, exchange, open, same defect, rinse and repeat, until we deplete the store's stock of that item.
Will I retire or break 10K?
The box states that there are conditions defined inside. If you don't want to take the chance, don't buy the box.
If there is a chance involved, that's gambling, and running a gambling establishment without a license is illegal in almost all U.S. states. You may be able to use that theory as part of a case against software stores that don't take returns.
Another possible theory is that when you handed over your cash to the store, the store agreed to the EULA as well, which means that it must take returns of software whose outer box has been opened but whose inner shrinkwrap (the one with the EULA booklet glued to it) has not.
You were given fair warning.
No I wasn't. As far as I know, only the complete terms constitute fair warning under contract law in most states.
You must realise that the "product" is both the software *and* the vendor's terms.
But without having the full terms available before the exchange of consideration (the cash for the copy of the software), do you even have a contract?
Will I retire or break 10K?
For clarification, most contracts do _not_ need to be signed to be legally binding. Examples of those that must be signed are contracts for the sale of goods $500 or more and prenuptial agreements. Also, minors can bind contracts and enforce them against adults. However, the contract is voidable at the option of the minor.
Most EULAs do stipulate that the software can be returned if you reject the EULA. While this may not be entirely feasible, that does not give you the right to agree and subsequently break your agreement. For the legality of EULAs to be fully known, they will have to be tested in the courts or a supervening law (or administrative regulation) must be passed. I suspect that exactly _what you are purchasing when you buy software_ will have to be determined first. If you are purchasing the right to use the software, the imposition of an EULA ex post facto may lack consideration and thus be found unenforceable.
I am not a lawyer but have studied law. However, do not rely on the above information as legal advice.
sm
1. Find out who your Representative is at www.house.gov/writerep . The form wants your zip+4, and they give you the link to the USPS to find your 4 digit extension.
2. The next form will tell you who your Representative is, and let you send a text message to your Representative, -or-
3. Go to clerk.house.gov/members/index.php and find the office of your Representative and give them a call. They have nice people there to take down exactly these types of calls. Tell the person that you want to express your support for "Zoe Lofgren's Digital Choice and Freedom Act of 2002", and they will ask for your name and there you go.
So don't just sit there, call/write/email your Representative and let them know how you feel.
I'd really like to see a "forward this email" campaign with information about why this bill/proposal is so good, and including the information on how to contact your Representative. I'd start one but I don't know the best way to phrase the rest of the information.
"The box states that there are conditions defined inside. If you don't want to take the chance, don't buy the box. It you do want to take that chance and you later find don't like those conditions, well, thems are the breaks. You were given fair warning."
This post has conditions inside.
By reading this post, you agree to send me $15,000 in small unmarked bills within 24 hours, and you also agree to any other terms I can think up that I will put in my Post Reader License Agreement (PRLA) (that you didn't agree to, by the by.)
What? That's unfair and probably illegal? Then why is it OK for software companies to do it?
Point of law (although IANAL): You cannot modify the terms of sale after the sale has occured. Saying "HEY, THERE IS A CONTRACT IN HERE" does not bind you to said contract, just as buying a car and finding a slip of paper in the glove box that said "No warranty, ha ha!" would invalidate your warranty, because, again it is ILLEGAL to modify the terms of a sale after the sale has occured. Companies know these are bullshit. If they thought otherwise, everything would start shipping with EULAs. "This crib not warranted for holding babies. May grow tentacles and eat them." "This Pizza User License Agreement hereby requires that you eat no more than 3 slices at a sitting and must give a positive testimonial if asked about the quality of it." etc etc ad infinitum.
Just because the software companies want to will something into existence doesn't mean it's legal (or even sensical.)
Don't forget large companies, as part of the "unofficial" government model. They can pass large amount of bribes... "assisting" government and other officials in coming to more "benefial" decisions for corporations.
It's cynical, but in today's government, unfortunately true - phorm
So, is this good or bad for the small developer? How does this bill relate to UCITA? Is it generally against the provisions of UCITA or for them? *confused*
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
First off, the product is not just the software. The product is the software *and* the regulations.
Secondly, The Box clearly states that there are conditions defined inside. It may not state what the conditions are on the outside, but it does let you know that you are making a gamble by buying it. If you don't want to make that bet, dint buy the product.
It might not be what we want from a product, but life is tough.
I am a Karma Library.
BlackSnow Interactive took Mythic Entertainment to court in order to challenge the EULA and lost.
For details, go to Google and search on "BlackSnow Mythic EULA"
The rights of the individual are more valuable than the rights of business. As a society we give up some of our rights(copyright being the best example of this) for the good of businesses, but we only do this in so far as it's a greater benefit to society(copyright inspires more creative works).
Also in many cases you can't legally give up your individual rights so agreeing to a EULA means nothing.
I have no idea what you are talking about. As a responsible member of society, I stopped reading your original post at the warning. ;)
I am a Karma Library.
Clearly, radio as well an legal internet radio and download services are a different class of licensing than consumer purchase, but I think this area needs some work as well. The current situation is that they can pretty much ask what they want (dollars and terms).
Broadcast is well established and somewhat competetive. The problems relate to content providers pushing certain content (payola, etc.), and restricting outlets and such. This can be monopolisting and anti-competetive, and as we have seen with Napster, they don't want to sell the appropriate licenses at a reasonable price because they want to monopolize their own outlets.
Not only is this unfair, it is stupid because it looses them money in the long run. It is very similar to the recent drug patents story. If you could get access to the intermediate patents at a reasonable price, it would serve to make the ideas more valuable and useful. Instead, a legal framework that was meant to promote the sharing and exchange of ideas is being used to lock them up and maintain monopolies.
The law (this one or another one) needs to provide for setting reasonable fees. The constitutional foundation of IP law isn't supposed to give the author/inventor a monopoly power, just fair value.
First off, the product is not just the software. The product is the software *and* the regulations.
Unsigned stipulations from a vendor do not constitute "regulations." The product is just the software.
Secondly, The Box clearly states that there are conditions defined inside. It may not state what the conditions are on the outside, but it does let you know that you are making a gamble by buying it. If you don't want to make that bet, dint buy the product.
Then I hope to some day sell you software with a EULA that states that, by opening the package, you agree to deed all of your real property to me and that you will send me nude photos of your wife/girlfriend (so that I don't have to download them from newsgroups).
It might not be what we want from a product, but life is tough.
That's why we have consumer protection laws. It's so that manufacturers can't pawn of any non-functional junk they want on the American public. If anyone ever deserved to be screwed over by a company, it's you with your whole macho "life is tough" mentality.
Please explain to everyone why you believe that software should be treated differently than cars, microwave ovens, and dishwashers. What is it about software, as a product, that makes you believe it should be exempt from truth in advertising laws? Why should they be able to disclaim responsibility when their product fails? Why should they be able to limit how you use it (did you ever buy a rake and find the manufacturer limiting its use to leaves and prohibiting its use to clean up grass clippings?)
Okay, I never write "mod this guy up" posts, but MOD THIS GUY UP. I decided to write this instead of posting a redundant message. He/she said what I wanted to say. We've talked about writing our congresspersons to gripe about bad laws, here's a chance to write to support a (fairly) good one.
Oh, yeah. Go ahead and write to Zoe Lofgren if you live in the state and district that Zoe represents. If not, write the letter to your congressperson, and your state's two senators. Be sure to identify the bill. According to the Congresswoman's web site, the bill doesn't have a calendar number yet (HR-somenumber), so be sure to write that you are supporting the "Digital Choice and Freedom Act."
Do make the contribution to the campaign of each. True, they might not vote as you'd like. But believe me, even a hundred checks coming in all saying they support the Digital Choice and Freedom Act will make them think about it seriously.
So here's our chance to get the public back in the Republic. Do it!
(Oh, yeah -- and like the parent of the previous poster said, join the EFF. I did. I feel good and I got nice sticker for my laptop lid!)
Will you marry me, Mrs. Lofgren, just kidding, but seriously, it is nice to see that some politicians are actually spending the time to pay attention to shit rather than try to just say "everything digital should have copy protection', coughhollingscough, lets hope our "friends" in Washington take this approach toward our freedoms.
I hate sigs.
Wars pass, DRM is forever if it gets a foothold.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
It likely depends on the state. In Washington state, they simply can't enter into a binding contract.
An AC wrote:
> of this getting passed? How much support does this
> bill hold in congress?
I don't think it even matters if it ever gets passed. The real value of this bill is to make Congress stop and think.
The sergeant of the senate recently had to shut down the senate's P2P network because of all the file sharing going on. These congress critters aren't very tech savy, but they apparently share the public's interest in file sharing. Holling's bill would put a stop to that. DRM would keep them and us from even rip/mix/burning our legally bought CDs. I doubt Hollings and his cohorts even realize that - they've been fed a line by the media sharks.
What this bill will do is *education*. It will make them *think* about what they are doing and how it will affect their lives and ours. Hopefully it will keep them from ruining our future by passing the Hollings bill. If it does that, I will be happy.
If by some miracle this bill passes as well, I will be thrilled!
"Mothra, you are Life Eternal! Hear the prayers of your servants.
Come back to us from out of the legend.
Come and save us with your power of Life!"
From the US release of "Mothra" May 10, 1962
G Countdown: 26 days (www.godzillaoncube.com)
I very much doubt that collections of names from across the country allegedly in support of one thing or the other means very much to a given congress critter.
If you sent a letter who someone who doesn't represent you, we forwarded it to the office of the person who does.
In the case of petitions, internet or real, responses will be sent to anyone we have an address for in district. The rest gets chucked.
A rule in Outlook routed anything from vote.com directly to the trash bin.
But if the congressperson's stands on your key issues are neutral or unknown, you have a dilemma. The problem is that a legislator can afford to take strong stands (particuarly stands which offend orgs with bags of cash such as the RIAA) on only a few issues. She must maintain her position in the "gray zone" on everything else, carefully maintaining spin control until the last minute (or forever if possible). In this way she avoids making premature committments, avoids offending too many people, and keeps her options open.
So - unless your congressperson has taken a strong stand one way or another - to get his attention you will have to contribute cash "blind". That's why I suggest making a micropayment of $10 or $20 on each letter, rather than 1 or 2 big payments every year.
sPh
It only makes unenforcable any provisions in the EULA that would limit the rights granted in the bill.
Nothing to see here, move along.
As the saying goes, if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. I won't hold my breath for this one.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
"Protects lawful consumers by prohibiting non-negotiable shrink-wrap licenses that limit their rights and expectations."
Well, that's simply not part of the actual Act. So if that is indeed the intent of the Act, then they need to reword it.
The issue with the good and the bad was to address the "we can do whatever we want" argument that people are putting forward.
That simply isn't true. In order to sell something as a commercial venture you accept some severe limits on your behavior.
The issue is that EULA's are a completely artificial construct created by the software companies. It has been shown that because of the way they are "executed" they are seriously lacking in power compared to normal contract law. (Heck, if they were so effective then why would all of those companies be trying to ram UCITA down our throats?)
So, I'm not saying EULA restrictions are a "cost of incorporation" I'm saying that the "I can do whatever I want" misconception is a "cost of incorporation". After all, if that "I can do whatver I want" were true then all of the various laws like anti-trust and the whole debate about bundling wouldn't be going on.
As to the agency law, the burden is on the other side to prove that you appointed an agent to perform these actions. Frankly if the credit card company executed a contract in your name signed by someone else then they have the burden to prove that the person was acting on your behalf. (How would you like to find out 2 months later that you have a new credit card that's been being used by your kid brother without your consent (no consent for the issuing or the use of it)?)
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
It requires ratification by 3/4 of the state legistlatures, not 2/3.
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
does anyone who is not a programmer ever nest parenthese like in the example above? - i would guess not (it amuses me whenever i see it (i do it myself)).
btw right on with yr comment
Honestly none of the canidates given as options are even remotely okay in my opinion. I will not vote for any of them. If I were old enough or well off enough I'd consider running myself but I'm not. If I could find somebody, even if they had no chance of winning, that was okay to me I'd vote for them. I've seen a couple such canidates but none of them within a district I lived in. Find me the person and I'll sign my name, punch the dot, or whatever for them.
Also the last time I tried to register to vote they returned my application as invalid the day before the election without explanation. Given I had nobody I wanted to vote for I just shrugged it off. I really had no idea what to do about being denied my vote anyway.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
It is rude to quote, or in this case, wholly transcribe someone else's work without proper credit.
Granted, a large portion of the USA audience knows where to place the credit, but this post was directed to an Australian reader, yes?
The text of the parent post is the script for a segment of Schoolhouse Rock, which appeared on the television network ABC in the United States in the 70's and early 80's.
All kings is mostly rapscallions. -Mark Twain, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn
I wonder what Richard Stallman would have to say about this.
Patrick Doyle
I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
EULAs seek to take away rights that your normally have under the law, and seek to do so with no contract. The GPL seeks to give you additonal rights that you do NOT normally have under the law, but places conditions on those rights.
Copyright is an inherant thing, if you create an orignal work, you possess the copyright to it. Proving it can be another matter, but registration is not required, the right is inherant. Now, as copyright law states, you cannot redistribute or make derivative works of copyrighted material without the copyright holder's consent. So when I release a peice of software, being my orignal work, I possess the copyright to it. You may not modify and give it to others without my permission.
Well, with the GPL, what I am saying is that ok, you may modify and redistribiute my copyrighted work BUT only if you meet these conditions. If you don't like my conditions, that's fine, you can still use or modify the software for your personal use, but you can't distribiute it, that's illegal under copyright law. The only way you can get around that is to get my permission and to get my permission you must meet my conditions.
Just because something includes the sourcecode doesn't mean that you are magically allowed to do what you want with it. Inprise (Borland) includes almost all of their source code for their C-Builder and Delphi software with the professional versions so you can modify the built in libraries to meet your needs. That doesn't mean you can distribute it though, that's prohibited by copyright law (and they remind you of that fact in their docs), it is for your use only.
Planning ahead, in the event that Big Media comes up with some OTHER "non-analog" format (such as quantum recording, to make one up). Even tho the statement *presently* makes zero tech sense, it makes perfect legal sense, if the object is to protect FUTURE rights.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?