Slashdot Mirror
First Worm with a EULA?
ErikRed1488 writes "There is a new virtual postcard from Friend Greetings, owned by Permissioned Media that prompts you to install their software to view the card. You are then presented with a EULA granting them permission to e-mail all the Contacts in your Outlook Address Book. Those people are presented with an e-mail from you telling them they have a greeting card to pick up. So, this thing spreads like a worm, but includes a EULA that 95% of users won't take the time to read. Symantec isn't detecting this as a virus, but does have information about it on their site. In addition to the worm-like way it spreads, it also installs spyware designed to deliver ads to your computer. You also give them permission to install further software any time they want. In my opinion this is completely nasty, but it's all clearly in the EULA that you must agree to before it installs the software."
Need I say more?
Sigs? We don't need no stinking sigs!
Just beautiful. The more insane EULAs get, the more people will start taking a harder look at all of the ones they currently sign their souls over to.
This can only be good for Open Source.
This may be a cynical thing to say, but I think it was only a matter of time before some shady software like this was made.
I would remark "How could the makers of such a thing sleep at night?" - but I already know the answer: they sleep just fine. People like that don't believe that they're doing anything wrong.
Experts agree: everything is fine.
to help force the govt to evaluate the merits of EULAs. While it can be argued..."you shouldve read the license before you agreed"
I would rather say "There shouldn't exist any such licensing format. And we as the people should not allow it to ever exist."
hehe.. is the EULA similar to the same one in windows 2000 SP3? this is sad.. anyone actually agreeing to tis needs to be strung up with Cat-5 and smacked about the body with old ISA cards solder side in so they get poked to death.. :)
The company is called permissionedmedia! Well, they did ask for permission first...
From excellent karma to terible karma with a single +5 funny post...
I think this should actually shield the virus-writer from any sort of prosecution, shouldn't it? I suppose you could do all sorts of nasty stuff and be completely protected so long as you could prove the user clicked "ok" to the license.
Maybe this will be the tool which turns the tide on the EULA.
RIP: Senator Paul Wellstone.
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
This points out the absolute absurdity of click-through EULAs. Hopefully, a case against them could be used as a legal defense against other badly-licensed software.
John
I am workin on a EULA that gives me power of attorney over for the user.
for kicks, we (and by "we", I mean somebody else) need to have an EULA that contains and absurd clause (firstborn child upon installation), then try to collect. It'd be like challenging the concept of EULAs, but from the other side. Try real hard to get sued.
--
fight global cooling
And I have nothing more to say, ms lameness filter
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
This adware/worm is a pain, we got to slog through it yesterday. Mcaffee has info on it [mcaffee.com> as well. Unlike Symantec, they actually include removal instructions (if you trust them) and their software will detect and remove it.
I got in trouble for saying the following to one of our users (after he installed it, agreeing to all of the nasty terms):
Apparently that's not a valid response, at least according to my boss.
Eulas like these should be regulated by the government. It is pretty common in contract law that unreasonable provisions are not enforceable and illegal. Like for example a credit card agreement cannot mention it deep in the fineprint that if you default they own your house or are allowed to enter your home and steal your pants. This kind of EULAs are a consumer protection issue.
If the AV vendors are going to be able to keep any credibility that they have left, they are going to have to detect and block this type of software.
SM MBL-VIR looking 4 SIG 4 LTR. must be DDF, no 420, SD ok.
this is hilarious! these guys made my day :)
besides, it's about time someone taught us a lesson about clicking 'accept' on EULAs of everything and anything we use.
Hopefully this will do people some good, the whole story just needs to get decent exposure in the media.
Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe.
H.G. Wells, "The Outline of History"
Literacy is important, no it seems we cannot afford to skip reading the EULAs. I have seen some funny stuff thrown in EULAS including:
- the right to borrow your car at any time -
- the right to sleep with your spouse at our discretion -
- the right to submit and enforce decorating standards in your home -
- the right to reduce you and your pets to a dissarrayed, sub-atomic goo-
-=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
So the virus companies ignore this on what grounds ? are they saying that if a virus/worm has a EULA its not hostile/malicious code and therefore immune from detection/removal
what exactly constitues a virus/worm and why should the virus companies ignore this yet still target [insert worm without eula name here] ?
The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.
but includes a EULA that 95% of users won't take the time to read
;-)
Didn't you know that 48% of all statistics are completely made up?
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
I know I shouldn't be laughing, but this is just one of those things which makes me grin in amusement at all those poor outlook-users out there...
-----Rhad
Slashdot needs to interview Natalie Portman.
This to me is a primary example of the sometimes dichtomous nature between was is legal and what is ethical.
Is what these business professionals done legal? Probably.
Is it ethical? Absolutely not. Otherwise, why hide the email's worm nature in the EULA?
I know there are those that are going to say, "Hey, you had the opportunity to read the EULA, you didn't, and you clicked it anyway."
But caveat emptor, though a fact of life, does not exempt the screwer from his reponsibility of what he did to the screwee.
May be legal. But in my mind, definitely not ethical.
"We're sorry, but the website you're trying to reach has been disconnected."
I looked at that one today. That's the one that says "You can't publish .NET benchmarks" (because .NET sucks) and "This software is under warranty, and we'll try to fix it, but if the fix doesn't work, tough shit."
I'm thinking of starting a stupid EULA collection.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
So what happens when two different EULA's claim 100% control of your machine?
At least it's not a greating card sport a bunch of stupid butterflies running around New York...
Life moves pretty fast; if you don't stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it. -FB
You had me scared for a second. I though you said EBOLA virus.
Best Windows Freeware
RTFEULA
This could make a good legal test, since many people have questioned the legal validity of click-through EULA's. If you could successfully argue that this EULA wasn't valid, then the others would be on very shaky ground.
By reading this message you authorize certain large entities to hereby and forewith make large withdrawals from you personal and business bank accounts. You further allow that Helga, when she is in the
"mood" is more then welcome to come up and see you sometime.
If you do not agree with this EULA please do not read this message.
--
EULA - If we don't own you yet... we will!
I've been just waiting for this very thing to happen! My edge-of-the-chair suspense is finally climaxed with a barrage of laughter. Great stuff. :P
I thought of doing this quite a few times myself, but have always lacked the resources. This is pure genius, really. You get people to propigate the virus willingly, all the while having them agree to transmit it without their knowledge - despite the fact that they agreed.
This brings forth some fairly serious implications and issues involving EULAs. I'm not exactly sure what they are, but I'm sure they're there, and have probably already have been discussed in this or that post concerning MS's dastardly EULA garbage.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Legalese yibb, yabb...
By installing this software you agree to have your silly windows partitions eradicated and replaced with real mens operating system (that's Linux.) and NO WARRANTY.
Look a monkey!
... the only worms with EULA will be from Microsoft. See how things will be better.
What's the difference between this and the Spyware that Kazaa packages. What % of the users do you think read, let alone understand the EULA that they just agreed to.
Bonzi Buddy and some global time (spywayre) thing does almost the same thing. It sends your personal info to companies and sells it.
The only diffence I can see here is that this is not done by a major company....
Tibbon
tibbon.com
Some may scream that the law should enforce morality, but then you must wonder "Who's Morality?".
I read a very interesting book recently, called Human Action, by a lovely looking grey haired man called Ludwig von Mises. It was left by my old boyfriend in the bathroom, and I picked it up and smelled it unhappily one evening, but before long found myself readin Mises' interesting take on the fundamental sovereignty of man.
Mises would warn us all against enforcing a common morality, for that is a sure way to tyranny, in the end. This company should not be legislated against. We should instead encourage people to read EULAs and to take responsibility over themselves, over their own bodies, over their computers. Anything else is slavery to government.
I thought I had left slavery to the state behind in my native Scotland. As a Catholic girl, I understand only too well the attractions of worshipping an idol like the state. But we are better to resist laws that seem fair and moral, and instead trust in common deceny and responsibility.
Thanks,
Margot. XXX
--Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The
By installing this software, you acknowledge that Company Inc(r) will gain ownership of your 1st born child.
How many of you have read the Slashdot EULA?
Now what reasonable person would expect this to be called a worm? The sysadmins are of course up in arms about any piece of software that threatens their delicate Windows networks. While I'm aware that most of the Slashdot audience consists of MS-certified admins fresh out of college, their lips adorned with sharp objects, I plead with readers to approach this with some sort of objectivity. Is any program that offers the ability to distribute itself to others now to be deemed a worm? That's hardly fair.
In fact, given that the GPL'd software that's touted so often on this site is propogated through a similar device, villainizing this program borders on hypocricy. I don't even understand why traditional "worms" are given that name. Someone sends you an unknown executable that happens to distribute itself to your contact list, and you run it without Googling first to find out what it is...who's to blame here? The program's function is well-known, so the informed user won't be surprised when he fires it up and it does exactly what it's supposed to do.
Let's use some common sense here, please.
Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
I haven't found anything on Symantec's site on this, but I did find McAfee's page Here
;) )
p x? <extra contentremoved>
And the removal instructions
Google has a newsgroup post on the sucker
And here are some sample infection URLS for those who wish to catch the sucker or download the files for analysis:
Infect Me 1
Infect Me 2
A similar worm is described by Symantec here
It works in IE, but not Phoenix (Mozilla based browser)
You have to download the installer and the MSI file, which takes a while.
I went so far as to download the files, but didn't go past the first EULA to see the really bad one that's supposed to come during the second install, so I didn't see the text in a live install myself, just in the McAfee
writeup.
So I downloaded the Microsoft Installer SDK and decided to crack open the MSI install file. Accroding to Servant Salamander, the word "Outlook" was in "Friend Greetings.msi."
Then I decided, "To hell with it, it's in there as clear text anyway" and opened the install File with VIM. Here is the offending text:
1. Consent to E-Mail Your Contacts. As part of the installation process,
Permissioned Media will access your MicroSoft Outlook(r) Contacts list and
send an e-mail to persons on your Contacts list inviting them to download
FriendGreetings or related products. By downloading, installing,accessing
or using the FriendGreetings, you authorize Permissioned Media to access
your MicroSoft(r) Outlook(r) Contacts list and to send a personalized e-mail
message to persons on your Contact list. IF YOU DO NOT WANT US TO ACCESS
YOUR CONTACT LIST AND SEND AN E-MAIL MESSAGE TO PERSONS ON THAT LIST, DO
NOT DOWNLOAD, INSTALL, ACCESS OR USE FRIENDGREETINGS.
If anyone is interested, I'll e-mail out both EULAs. There's some rude stuff in there. (You agree to receive pop-up and pop-under ads and HTML e-mail for example)
Below is the original e-mail from Cheryl, for the sake of reference and forwarding:
--- Forwarded Message Follows-----
FYI...
It's not so much a virus as it is a potential worm. And it's an interesting one at that because it's a "permissive" worm. It banks on the fact that people install products without reading their EULAs. If you read the EULA they include, it specifically says that by accepting the EULA, you are giving them permission to send email to everyone in your MS Outlook Contact list!!!!! (I included the pics they sent us, but I'm not sure how many of you will actually see them).
Pretty fascinating, actually. And smart. Because people don't read EULAs! (Er, for Dad: EULA is "End User License Agreement" - and I'm guessing you and Steve read them because you are lawyers...
Ilene
-----Original Message-----
From: Kronos Norton AntiVirus
Sent: Friday, October 25, 2002 10:51 AM
To: All Kronos Employees
Subject: Please read about a potential virus....
Importance: High
Potential virus as a Greeting Card ~ Please be aware of this
potential threat via a web link.
Friendgreetings
iscovered on: October 24, 2002
Last Updated on: October 24, 2002 03:20:23 PM PDT
Symantec Security Response is aware of a widespread E-card which appears to have the characteristics of a worm. Security Response does not classify this as a malicious threat and as such will not detect any files associated with the E-card. The installation of software associated with the E-card requires the user's permission in order to perform it's mass-mailing capabilities. By cancelling the installation of the software, no worm-like activities will be performed. The recipient would recieve an email with the following characteristics:
Subject: %recipient% you have an E-Card from %sender%.
Message:
Greetings!
%sender% has sent you an E-Card -- a virtual postcard from FriendGreetings.com. You
can pickup your E-Card at the FriendGreetings.com by clicking on the link below.
http://www.friendgreetings.com/pickup/pickup.as
Message:
%recipient%
I sent you a greeting card. Please pick it up.
%sender%
When the link is followed, the recipient is asked to download some software in order to view the E-card.
The installer package will require the user to accept 2 End User License Agreements in order to complete the installation. The second EULA (see below) explicitly states that by accepting the agreement the end user is authorizing the software to send an email to all contacts in the Microsoft Outlook Contacts List. The email is formatted as displayed above.
If this agreement is not accepted, the installation is not complete and the software will not send a link to the www.friendgreetings.com website via email.
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
Ma - get me my gun! We a goin' huntin'!
Seriously this back me cringe with anger at the slimy bastards that do shit like this.
I want to hit these people in the face with a shovel, and then tell them that they never specifically signed anything that said i couldnt hit them in the face with a shovel.
Let's compile a list of the email addresses from this company and their clients, add them to an Outlook Address Book, and let 'em have it!!! Payback's a *itch!!!
This just describes what the program does, and by placing it in the license, they hope that you don't read it. Kinda like saying something in 4pt-font fine print: ("note: Happy Fun Toy will explode into sharp shards, killing your child"). Shady practice, but not directly related to the real problems with EULAs ("you may not use this program unless...").
Just nitpicking.. But it's true, you should always read your EULAs (prounounced EWWWWWWW-lahz).
Here's a EULA that would be a cool clickthrough for someone to send to Microsoft...
...55) The USER by agreeing to this transfers property of this computer to company XXX.
.....
67) The USER transfers all worldly possesions to company XXX upon clicking this...
Transfer all of corporate assests of Microsoft to Slashdot's control if we could get Bill to click through...
Tibbon
tibbon.com
This thing which automatically sends itself to everyone in your mailbox is saving a lot of people a lot of time. It's only slightly worse than the emails which end, "Send this to everyone you know." Most people believe the crap in them and forward to everyone they know.
Never: EVER, have I recieved an email which read "Forward to everyone you know" that should actually have been forwarded to anyone.
NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER send to everyone you know! How many times must I say this? There is *NOTHING* that needs to be sent to everyoen you know.
Execpt this excellent cookie recipie...
M@
Krispy Cream is people
It is nearly funny, except for the fact that I'll come off looking like a complete, paranoid loon for warning *my* address book of contacts to keep an eye out for this and try to warn them (and maybe, dare I say, educate) them that you can't trust anything you get by e-mail. *sigh*.
Damn. Whenever I get a greeting card I always
(1) open it
(2) download and install ALL the software necessary to read it
(3) when the software comes with a big EULA, I think: it's not odd at all that to view a picture of dancing pigs singing happy birthday, I have to agree to 20 pages of legalese, so i
(4) ALWAYS click "I AGREE" RIGHT away.
And here I thought my practices were fail-safe and prudent. Sigh. Oh welp, must be off to secure my windows system with this attachment that somebody sent me that is supposed to protect me from Klez.
Apparently several people where I work have installed this worm, and since the global address book includes all 3000 employees, it caused quite a mess. Supposedly our IT dept has blocked access to the FriendsGreetings website, and our antivirus has been set up to detect it from now on.
This is a great example of the type of virus that could affect any OS including Linux. If people are dumb enough to install this application with all caps telling you what it is going to do what is to stop somebody from writing a virus that says - "go to a bash prompt and type su and enter your password." Once you have the users permission you can pretty much do whatever you want. That's why education is so much more important than just saying it is a Microsoft only problem.
i got an email a while ago (during the .com bubble) telling me that i got that email because somebody was romantically interested in me (i don't use dating services of any sort, online or not).
...literally.
... but the notable thing is that i started getting TONS of spam at that address (>20emails/day)
basically, here's the scheme:
a person likes another, but is too shy to ask him/her. this site allows a way to anonymously email that person. the message essentially says "guess who"
i was expected to guess the admirer by giving the site every email i could think of that might be the admirer. if there's a match, each party is informed. for all those non-hits, an email identical to the first was sent out; spam.
i happen to use unique email addresses and handed this address to only four people, two of whom were female, so i knew it was one of them or a friend
this type of ponzi-style scheme with unforseen problems seems to be getting popular now; EULAs often take complete advantage: people blindly give permission to have third-party software downloaded and installed, to become the source of spamming and/or propogation, or to allow use of spyware.
Use my userscript to add story images to Slashdot. There's no going back.
Kind of reminds me of how Congress will pass a bill along and tack in all kinds of "other" language that the common citizen will not notice. How many of you read the EULA !everytime! ?
-516
...and a good example of why geeks and lawyers shouldn't mate. :)
Ad luna, Alicia! Ad luna!
I think they foresaw legal action...
Have you seen This?
And they're based in Panama
Wonder if they think they'll be immune from any lawsuits/etc that way.
Can you suggest a better option for use in installing software you download from the internet? I think that this is sleazy, and EULAS are terrible for a number of things, but the click through license idea is not that flawed, just abused (no one's going to read through 50 page agreements before clicking on "yes").
--
Overcaffeinated. Angry geeks.
My post may have not been the most insightful ever, but I think it's a valid point. A high profile incident of Bad Company A sneaking obviously bad things into an EULA is bound to draw attention to e.g. Microsoft's EULAs. In fact, I'd wager that C-Net's eventual coverage of this incident would also mention and draw parallels to the recent changes in the Windows XP license.
In other words:
This can only be good for Open Source.
Maybe if these things get aggressive enough, my mother will finally stop paying attention to chain letters and such.
Hey, I can hope.
If I sign a piece of paper in front of witnesses that gives you complete legal authorization for you to kill me and you do so, you still go to jail for murder.
-- "You can lead a yak to water, but you can't teach an old dog to make a silk purse out of a pig in a poke" - Opus
government (gvrn-mnt) n.
1. The act or process of governing, especially the control and administration of public policy in a political unit.
2. The office, function, or authority of a governing individual or body.
3. Exercise of authority in a political unit; rule.
4. The agency or apparatus through which a governing individual or body functions and exercises authority.
This is why I say there is no more US government - the RIAA, MPAA, and software industry in general controls all aspects of our lives through 'copyright' law, EULAs, and various other levels of contortion such as forced upgrade paths and product lifetime expiration. We pay their taxes and tarrifs. The so-called 'federal' government has become little more than their lapdogs, their police.
By very definition, the "US government" doesn't have governmental rule over the US any longer. We can kid ourselves that this EULA will promote the US feds to do something about the horror that is the EULA, and possibly consider software licensing in general in a more sane manner, but let's be honest with ourselves.
The government no longer cares about you, and you are simply a subject to be kept from doing stupid things, to be protected from yourself through inane laws. You are a consumer; you do not even obtain the status of 'citizen' any longer, despite the fact that you hold claim to the title.
This EULA will go untouched by the government, and won't even stir the water enough to break surface tension.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
speaking of lawyers... are eula's treated like contracts, legally speaking? if so (and i'm pulling from a business law class from several years ago), illegal or unethical points of a contract are null and unenforcable by default, regardless of what you sign. i.e. - if you sign a contract to mow my lawn, and it states that if you cut down my roses, i get to kill your firstborn in a satanic ritual - well, that's just not enforcable.
too bad online legislation moves so slowly... i think i'm going to register for every spam list i can with my representatives' email addresses, and see if that gets things moving along... umm.. just kidding, secret service guy reading this over my shoulder.
a
are the ones writing this software.
If you disagree with this post, please mod down plover (who dictated this) not me.
--
E_NOSIG
Does anybody have the actual EULA?
(This post does not contain emoticons or l337.)
This example is nice in that it may force a court to do what should have been done a long time ago: apply standard principles of contracts to EULAs.
I do, however, predict the result will not be happy for the author of this worm. The Court will rule that the EULA is a "contract of adhesion" and that its terms are unconscionable and unenforcable. The Court will then rule that the author is a cyber terrorist and will sentance them to severe punishment.
Microsoft will go on doing what they were doing before and nothing will change except that "little people" will have their face rubbed in the fact that the law only protects big money.
And if you don't get sued, hey, free kids!
While the EULA might indeed give them the legal right to send out email in your name, it does not give them the legal right to commit fraud. By sending out an email stating that "I sent you a greeting card. Please pick it up.", they are committing an act of fraud -- you didn't send a greeting card, but they are misleading the recipient into believing that you did, for their own profit.
Even if "by accepting this EULA, you give us permission to raid your bank account" were legal, "by accepting this EULA, you give us permission to rob a bank" is certainly not.
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
Just wondering..
if the guys that did the semi-recent "viruses" like Melissa and iloveyou had included click-thru EULAs that completely discribed what the program was doing....
would they have been in any kind of trouble? Would it not have legitimized their "virus" to the status of "legal"? If not, why not? I mean - "you agreed to the EULA when you clicked it"...
We seem to have here a EULA that can sign you up to the terms of the agreements on this story.. what then, fundamentally, is the difference between a virus and a "powerful EULA" for a piece of software written by a "legit" company? A click-thru?
Good heavens...
and honestly... if melissa/iloveyou, etc HAD had a click thru - does anyone believe that the damage would have been any less?
Of course not.
if this ever happens... and let me say - i PRAY THAT IT DOES.... it will finally get people to start noticing what it is they are clicking on.... and that could lead to nothing but good.
guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
The GPL is *not* an EULA. EULAs take away what rights you have to use a program. The GPL adds them.
Additionally, last time I read the GPL, I don't recall it saying anything about e-mailing itself to everyone in my ~/.mailrc.
It's unfortunate that it has to be this way, but unless people get burned by EULAs they're not going to take EULA's seriously. Discovering that they've agreed to let this software spam their boss, coworkers, and business contacts will hopefully encourage people to seriously read EULAs in the future. I expect that when people start seriously reading EULAs, they'll discover they don't actually agree with many of the terms. (Or at least they'll discover that they can't make heads or tails over the thing.) A little backlash would be help restore balance to EULAs and make the work a more fair place.
Search 2010 Gen Con events
But guess what? The page isn't available, and the machine doesn't answer pings. Either someone has DOS'd them, or they've been slashdotted by their own worms.
-
Under US law, storing personally identifiable information about children is [largely] illegal.
-
The EULA, as far as I can tell, makes NO mention about this product not being allowed for under 13s.
-
With its infection (uh, I mean, transmission) mechanism, it makes no attempt to discover the age of the user before beginning to log their personal information.
So, as soon as you discover your child has installed this program, sue them for failing to make any attempt to avoid violating their rights. Their EULA get out clauses don't work either as, being a child, they couldn't legally agree to the EULA anyway.Hopefully it'll spread better than they ever hoped. A class action lawsuit for every child in America would probably make a fairly clear point to anyone else trying this.
That's just the standard ro-sham-bo clause. Took me awhile to figure out what was going on, but once I started winning every now and then I don't have to pay rent that week.
Available here
To make a pun demonstrates the highest understanding of a language
So, when can we expect the first wrapper/hack/crack/workaround to get around this EULA?
Or can I just have a minor click through it to avoid giving this company the right to access my Address Book?
Just wondering.
Good judgment comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgment.
hey, osdn lawyers:
in the all-caps section of the TOS
you refer to "VA Software" as "VA Linux Systems"
so even slashdot can't get EULAs right...
=D
Use my userscript to add story images to Slashdot. There's no going back.
Who knew reading /. could be a public service?
Personally my favorite is the cracks that come with an EULA stating that you have no rights to use, distribute, export, import or otherwise do anything with the software, and accept no liability for anything this software might do. Not that I ever use any, I'm just reviewing them for educational purposes ;). Oh and about those 95% not reading it. I'm pretty sure that estimate is too low, I've clicked through hundreds while I think the last one to every try to read one gave up on the half-page two-words-per-line sentence on page 23.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Buckhurst's Tragedy of Ferrex and Porrex.
The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.
marketing@permissionedmedia.com
comes in as "Somebody likes you" from http://www.somebodylikesyou.com with a "secret" code to enter (always the same, no matter how many times I've recieved it)
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Wow, I got one of these this morning, but I don't think it did anything, b/c I don't run outlook. I never got a chance to agree to a EULA, I just had a screen that told me to 'click here to see your card.' I clicked on it and it didn't do anything. I was wodering why the person who sent it to me would actaully bother sending me a card. Now I know.
I think calling this thing a worm is a complete misrepresentation. This is a piece of software that does exactly what it's license says it is going to do. It is up to an end user to understand the ramifications of the software they install. By not reading or caring what they install, users are subject to whatever the consequences are.
Keep in mind, I think code that works toward the detriment of the internet as whole, should be dealt with (i'm just not sure how), but I think this code is an example of playing on the ignornace of the general user community.
It's about time people start looking at the EULA more seriously and this ridiculous madness stop. Then maybe companies will stop putting this garbage in there. I just bought Dark Age of Camelot (sorry I did) and after the 4 long EULA you need to accept I was about to return the game.
long live gnu/linux!
I really hope not. There's a good chance that you're right, but loook at what happened with Senator Carnahan's campaign (some eery parallels here -- creepy Bush-buddy's opponent dies in a plane crash. hmm.) but at least Mel Carnahan was appointed to fill the seat.
Ceci n'est pas un post
"Hi, could you add the following term to your EULA?..."
Third parties: You agree not to reverse engineer or exploit Microsoft Outlook in such a way as to create "worms" [define to your lawyers hearts' content] on penalty of $1trillion US, to be paid to [add deserving fund].
Now they can make their worms as legal as they like and, by expecting others to live to their EULA, they have to abide by Microsoft's and file for bankruptcy.
Never thought I'd like Microsoft having EULAs.
So I can't block it at the firewall? Why doesn't Slashdot's editors contact these people for an interview? A serious interview, mind you. Ought to be interesting.
This guy is way out there
There is a strong propensity here on Slashdot, to think that agreements or EULAs are automatically legally binding.
Except for the few agreement-types explicitly named in the law, very few agreements with consumers are legally valid. Most are simply not.
I doubt that one single courtcase can be found, in which the court established that the act of clicking the "I agree" button meant that the consumer agreed.
Yes, I know about Adaware, but average Sally or Joe computer user does not. They think that the copy of Norton bundled with their Gateway or Dell will protect them from everything bad and that it's okay to click on "Yes" when prompted "Do you want to install and run X by Spyware Inc.?"
This worm is no worse than the sites that have javascript to prompt you to install Cometcursor, Gator, Download accelerator, Bonzi Buddy and other spyware apps. I've already seen quite a few shockwave greeting card sites (with a Gator or other spyware install attempt) that ask you to "Send this card to a friend" and I've been sent links to these by my less computer-savvy friends. What's worse, you end up on more spam lists too...
Sooner or later, EVERYONE online ends up being prompted to install some kind of spyware. The companies that produce antivirus software need to include features to actively scan and disable spyware (with a default setting enabling scanning for spyware/adware, but an option to disable it if for some reason you want to). I've personally become sick of explaining to people that NO, their Norton or McAfee isn't going to catch the program that's been giving them all these popups and that they need some free program they've never heard of before (AdAware) to get rid of them.
While AdAware is great for power users, for the average population of PC users, automatic background protection like virus scanners provide for viruses is what is required. When a worm like this or a web page tries to install some new spyware, the user won't even be prompted - the antivirus software just says NO.
---
DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
I dont think i've ever wanted to denial of service a company in my life. Hey, this is slashdot, everyone start pinging them.
EULA:
Not responsbile for harm inccured upon greetings due to this post. By reading this post you aknowledge the terms of service. TERMS OF SERVICE by agreeing to the terms of service, you must beat up an old person today. If you do not, you are in violation of this TOS, and then must post your picture on slashdot. Click here to agree/.
"Martha Stewart can lick my Scrotum......do i have a scrotum?" -- Sharon Osbourne
..not just in software.
Enter to win a "Free Trip" at the mall, (and have your long distance service switched), for one example.
I know it's hard, but you have to read (and attempt to understand) what they are actually asking you to do. But, I guess the result of that will be ever more obfuscated wording, so that no real human could get the true meaning of what it is doing.
Legalese could expand a common, two line description into many, many pages. NO ONE would read and understand its true meaning.
Store files on my computer? Oh, that must mean the graphics that come with the card.
No, Virginia, they mean they will store whatever they feel like putting there.
Send emails to my friends? COOL!
No, send anything they want, any time they want. And possibly have their interface hacked by some OTHER fool next month.
"Oh, we reserve the right to change this EULA at any time. The new one will be posted on our website." (Way back 7 levels deep, at the bottom of the page in a font no human can read).
What might a new EULA do? Again, Virginia, anything they want.
" ... but the click through license idea is not that flawed, just abused ... "
Something so easily abused can only be described as deeply flawed.
Haven't click-thru EULAs been proven to be unenforceable in court? And if so, wouldn't this still qualify as a worm? And if so, shouldn't it subsequently be picked up and cleaned by Symantec/McAffee/Bob's Viro-matic?
Anybody that thinks that 5% of people read a EULA obviously gives a lot more credit to humanity than I do.
-Waldo Jaquith
This is the EULA that pops up when you start a DAMN-keygen. Quite entertaining :)
DAMN
Electronic End-User Software License Agreement
THIS PROGRAM IS PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT LAW AND INTERNATIONAL TREATIES. BREAKING THE FOLLOWING AGREEMENT WILL RESULT IN SEVERE CIVIL AND CRIMINAL PENALTIES AND WILL BE PROSECUTED TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT POSSIBLE UNDER LAW.
THIS AGREEMENT IS A LEGAL DOCUMENT. READ IT CAREFULLY BEFORE USING THE SOFTWARE. IT PROVIDES A LICENSE TO USE THE SOFTWARE. BY CLICKING ON THE "YES" BUTTON AND USING THE SOFTWARE, YOU ARE CONFIRMING ACCEPTANCE OF THE SOFTWARE AND AGREEING TO BECOME BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT. IF YOU DO NOT WISH TO DO SO, DO NOT RUN THE SOFTWARE AND PRESS "NO" BUTTON.
1. Definitions
"Software" means the programs supplied by DAMN herewith.
2. License Restrictions
You MAY NOT use this Software AT ALL. Using the Software will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under law. You also may not make or distribute copies of the Software, or electronically transfer the Software from one computer to another or over a network. You may not decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble, or otherwise reduce the Software to a human-perceivable form. You may not rent, lease or sublicense the Software. You may not modify the Software or create derivative works based upon the Software.
3. Ownership
This license gives you NO rights to use the Software. Although you own the media on which the Software is recorded, you do not become the owner of, and DAMN retains title to the Software. All rights including Federal and International Copyrights, are reserved by DAMN.
4. Limitations of Damages
DAMN SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR ANY INDIRECT, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF DAMN HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES AND EVEN IF A REMEDY SET FORTH HEREIN IS FOUND TO HAVE FAILED OF ITS ESSENTIAL PURPOSE.
You really think something as petty as impending doom will get people to drag their lazy selves through that much legalese? You give the average consumer FAR more credit than they deserve.
"Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs." P.J. O'Rourke
from their cocoons, little MSN butterflies come out.
From http://www.permissionedmedia.com/license.htm:
3. Updates/New Information. Permissioned Media reserves the right to add additional features or functions to the version of PerMedia you install, or to add new applications to PerMedia, at any time. As more fully disclosed in our Privacy Statement, PerMedia is designed to regularly communicate and provide information regarding your Internet use to Permissioned Media. Accordingly, Permissioned Media has the right and you hereby authorize it to update or automatically install a new version of PerMedia on your computer when a new version is released to the general public and/or when new features are available. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Permissioned Media and its business associates have no obligation to make available to you any subsequent versions of PerMedia. You may not distribute or copy PerMedia (r)other than for backup purposes).
So you can't distribute their program in any way? Isn't that the whole point of the program? These guys really are a bunch of idiots!
I hope Im not being redundant with other posts about this topic, but this worm brings up one of the most idiotic and everlasting stupidities about society. Its the fact that the software company can go around saying "its in the EULA" and possibly slip by this whole situation. Ok, so they did do it by legal means, but were adults, and there is no EULA out there that defies the reality of the software that it supports. The reality in this context is that this software is a worm. This company is knowingly abusing the user. If the government doesnt act empathetic to victims of this and ignore that it IS a worm, then it is just another disgusting step in which the government is no longer for the people, (instead for the corporations).
This is not enforcable, any more than if you clicked through a EULA that "permitted" a company to have the contents of your refrigerator. No rational judge could agree that a EULA is designed for the purpose of giving a company the rights to use your property as they wish.
The EULA is a device intended to protect a software company from abuses by the customer. It is not intended as a permission slip that lets the software company do as they wish to the end user or their property (upon clicking "I agree" the user acknowledges that they must "bend over and take it" both figuratively and literally. Upon personal visitation by a member of the board of BigSoft Co., end user must bend over and submit as the end to be user'd by said BigSoft Co.'s board member's BigHard member upon the board member's request.").
As stated, this "greeting card" company's End User Liscence Agreement is actually an SCLA, or Software Company's Liscense Agreement that was written on the customers behalf by the software company. How thoughtful of them.
I can create a virus and then sue anti-virus companies for distributing my virus "signature" in their software, which is obviously a derivative work.
Another idea is to apply for a patent and then sue for patent infringement. Does anyone know if the buffer overflow technique has been patented yet?
This space intentionally left blank.
Granted the microsoft one isn't dling the contacts, but you agree to having microsoft search your machine for installed software(automatic update) and then download and in some cases automatically install any code that it deems is a critical update. I would imagine that the makers of this worm felt that if microsoft can get away with it then they could too. The fact remains is that Microsoft should have no right to demand access to data on my machine nor the right to install code on my machine. The worm just shows an example of just how rediculous Microsofts use of the EULA is.
As of yesterday afternoon, Trend was classifying this as a virus, and will catch it.
I knew there was a reason I migrated us from Symantec to Trend at the office here.
"Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs." P.J. O'Rourke
So now is this enforcible?
Prove that the EULA violates federal / state laws
then sue their asses off.
--- Eat my sig.
The GPL is *not* an EULA. EULAs take away what rights you have to use a program. The GPL adds them.
They are both, as their names specify, licenses: "1.a. Official or legal permission to do or own a specified thing" (Source: The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 3rd Edition). Just because the GPL gives you "more" permission than a typical EULA doesn't mean it has a different function.
Michael
"No live organism can continue for long to exist sanely under conditions of absolute reality;..."
People who think that these 'free' sites and programs are useful can suffer with all the spyware/worms/viruses they get. TINSTAAFL.
The only difference between this and a conventional worm is that it doesn't come with a payload package that will cause damage to the system, although spyware isn't much better. From what I can tell, this software serves no legitimate purpose. You have to install it to read the greeting card, which is sent by someone else installing the software. Does anyone ever actually send a legitimate "greeting card?" If not, there would be no reason to install this software. The only functional aspect of this application is to provide the user with advertisements, which even the most clueless user probably wouldn't install intentionally for only that purpose.
:)
Because the user has no legitimate reason to WANT to install this software, he/she has to be coerced into doing so with false pretenses. If this is legal to do, it would be no less legal to install a dangerous payload, so long as the EULA explains it and gives the user an option to cancel.
Perhaps this would be a good time to try to challenge the validity of the EULA. Can't have it both ways. Either it's a binding contract and therefore if you agree to spam your contacts and have your harddrive formmated, you can't hold the author liable. Or EULA's will have to NOT be considered contracts and therefore this will apply to ALL EULA's. Or we can hope.
-Restil
Play with my webcams and lights here
> Can you suggest a better option for use in
> installing software you download from the
> internet?
Any Free Software license (GPL, BSD...) works for me.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
No, the EULA does not grant you any rights. The EULA removes many rights, basically if the EULA was not there you would be entitled to use the software in any way you see fit.
By agreeing to the EULA you necessarily limit what you can do with the software.
The EULA has nothing to do with copyright law! It is contract law.
In this one, Dilbert doesn't read the "EULA" and unknowingly signs his life away to be "Bill Gates' Towel Boy". Awesome stuff: Click here for the comic
...or it makes me wonder, at least, what other sneakiness is built into the damn thing, that they fail to mention in the EULA.
Spread the RC luvin'
- important items in the EULA are often hidden or hard to find. EULAs should be ordered in chronological order of what will happen when the software is installed. also, items should be ordered in order of probability of happening, i.e. any actions the program is written to do (like spam your mailbox's email addies) would have to come before the 15 pages of lawyer-speak about how we can't sue the developer in the case that the software malfunctions (which, hopefully, it wasn't programmed to do) and your house burns down.
- 90% of EULA content is the same. when software is released under the GPL or Apache or Artistic licenses, the user (assuming they've reviewed the license once before) has a reasonable idea of what they can or cannot do. common EULA sections, such as "you can't sue us, even if our program blows your machine up" (and the pages of related wording afterwards) can be summarized, or pointed to hyperlink-style. i.e. "this software is covered under the 'You Cannot Sue Us' clause, which could be a link to a standardized, common document that explains all the ugly details. the actual EULA could contain this statement, as well as any modifications the developers have made... that way, there's hopefully less to look at ("ah, they support the 'We Won't Ever Touch Any Non-Directly-Related Files on Your Computer', but they do take a snapshot of my entire filesystem and send it back to the mothership every night. *clicks 'NO'*
i think there are alot of very reasonable ways to standardize and govern EULAs. of course, I'm just a programmer, so what do i know.> What rights do you start off with that the EULA magically removes?
EVERYTHING IN an EULA "magically removes" rights you already "start off with". That is what an EULA is. It lists all the fair use rights you normally would have, but that you won't as soon as you click accept.
An EULA exists for no other purpose then to remove your rights.
> I can't remember the last time I signed/clicked a EULA that took away rights I already had.
Maybe try reading one next time, instead of just "signing/clicking".
Registrant:
Permissioned Media Inc.
Sun Towers, 1st Floor, Office #39
Ave. Ricardo J. Alfaro
Panama City, El Dorado Zona 6
PA
Registrar: Dotster (http://www.dotster.com)
Domain Name: PERMISSIONEDMEDIA.COM
Created on: 18-JUL-02
Expires on: 18-JUL-07
Last Updated on: 18-JUL-02
Administrative Contact:
Alfaro, Jay alfaro@hushmail.com
Permissioned Media Inc.
Sun Towers, 1st Floor, Office #39
Ave. Ricardo J. Alfaro
Panama City, El Dorado Zona 6
PA
571-628-5535
571-628-5535
Technical Contact:
Alfaro, Jay alfaro@hushmail.com
Permissioned Media Inc.
Sun Towers, 1st Floor, Office #39
Ave. Ricardo J. Alfaro
Panama City, El Dorado Zona 6
PA
571-628-5535
571-628-5535
i was once offered free ISP service. I signed up for it and then realized that it said that I can't cancel for 6 months and I must use for atleast 4 hours a month (or 10 hours, don't remember)! If I cancel earlier or don't use it for the number of hours prescribed, they will charge me. Now imagine this same EULA which would also say, you can't remove the software or disable it else you would require to pay them. You may think, how would they contact you; but remember, if you use your office internet, then most likely they would be able to trace your company and sue the company for the money which can put you in even worse shape.
OK, time to blow all my karma in one shot, but how the hell does this rate redundant? At the time of its posting it was the only comment attempting to draw the thread into a more meaningful discussion on social engineering vis-a-vis worms and virii. Sure we all know that its a key element in the spread of such things, but this is a new example to evaluate. Just because we've heard the term before means we can't discuss it ever again?
Or is it because the thought that a psychology degree may be more important that all of our computer science put together that frightens you?
Listen, this is a hole in network security that will never be plugged. Short of disconnecting all our boxes, I defy anyone to describe an effective way to fight against it.
"That naive cube! How long must I suffer this!" --Sheldon J. Plankton
I was always fond of the Happy Fun Ball EULA myself.
Ok, like I have stated in other places,
...
The EULA is a matter of contract law.
while
The GPL is a matter of copyright law
The two are fundamentally different. The EULA places _restrictions_ on what you can _do_ with the software.
The GPL _grants_ you the right to redistribute (which would normally not be there, because of copyright law) once certain criteria are met. The GPL does not impose any restrictions on what you can _do_ with the software.
In the absence of the EULA you would be allowed to do anything you saw fit with the software (short of illegal acts and within the copyright clause).
EULAs try to be contracts -- but think back to your business law class, and look at the requirements for that contract:
:)
- The parties must give the appearance that they're serious about signing a contract (one party can't be obviously joking).
- The parties must be competant (old enough, sane enough, sober enough).
- There must be consideration (both parties must gain something or force some new obligation on the other party).
- The purpose of the contract must be legal.
The third element doesn't matter if one doesn't get past the second: In your average software purchase, what does the EULA give you that you wouldn't otherwise have, or restrict the other party from doing that they otherwise could?
Now, if it's a free download, and you're only offered the download if you click through the EULA, that's an entirely different matter: there's clear consideration in that you're being allowed the download at all. On the other hand, if you purchase the software without the EULA being a condition of the purchase, unless the EULA offers some further consideration it may not be binding at all.
Another question raised: What if you aren't competant to agree to the EULA for a piece of software (due to being drunk, or insane, or a minor, etc)? Well, if the situation is such that you really have no right to use the software without agreeing to the EULA (which is likely the case with a free download conditional on clicking through the EULA, but unlikely to be the case if you purchased the software from a 3rd-party vendor who didn't make you agree to the EULA before the purchase), then you're using it illegally. If, on the other hand, you had the right to use the software even without agreeing to the EULA (say, because you purchased it from a 3rd-party vendor who didn't force you to agree to the EULA beforehand) then the EULA is invalid in any case because of the lack of consideration (unless, of course, the EULA gives you some other rights you didn't have before agreeing to it, or some obligations to the vendor which they didn't have beforehand) and you can still use the software even if you don't agree to the EULA -- and even if the EULA is legally binding (say because it obligates the software manufacturer to provide phone support which they wouldn't otherwise be obligated to provide), if you have the right to use the software without agreeing you can legally skip the EULA (say, by tricking the installer) and go your merry way -- but don't try to pretend you agreed to the EULA when calling for that phone support! That's the theory, anyhow. Before relying on it working that way in practice, talk to a real IP lawyer licensed in your jurisdiction, and hope you get a reeeal friendly judge.
Coming back to this particular case: Is sending email to everyone in your address book illegal? Probably not (though of course this may vary on your jurisdiction). Hence, is this EULA invalid due to the illegal-purpose clause? Once again, probably not.
The one that I loathe is the "hotbar" IE/outlook menu customiser (http://www.hotbar.com) which allows someone that has hotbar to send a card to a friend... but what the card does is download the hotbar and install it on the unknowning friends system...
It also contains some social engineering.. "Upgrade outlook - add COLOR to your Emails" link...
bah..
just had to remove these from about a gazillion corp machines... and the virus scanners dont see it as a virus...
even though it KILLS the systems efficency....
--
Time is on my side
Additionally, last time I read the GPL, I don't recall it saying anything about e-mailing itself to everyone in my ~/.mailrc.
Thats only because it couldn't decide which of the 3 dozen e-mail clients that are installed with Red Hat 7.3 to infect.
Do you have Linux and a DotPal? Click here now!
It's the oldest piece of scumware like that that I'm aware of (perhaps Bonzi buddy is similar age).
... "Give me a woman who loves beer and I will conquer the w
I'd be suprised if anyone has the desire and wherwithall to go challenging questionable EULAs throught he legal system. But perhaps that's not necessary -- the onerous terms sneaking in depend largely on the fact that nobody notices them, or that most people installing the software are ignorant of their implications.
So I've registered:
badlicense.org (and badlicence.org)
I'd be happy to let that be used for a site dedicated to explaining the EULAs of software. Perhaps an overview, and details on particular products.
Reasonably carefully worded it wouldn't even matter if the EULA had been interepreted in detail by a lawyer. Just highlighting the apparent detail should be enough to raise eyebrows and invite some clarification (perhaps, even, modification) from those issuing the EULA.
So, anyone interested?
If the greeting card popped up with a dialog that said "I will spam everyone in your contacts, and I will install spy-ware on your machine" when you tried to execute it, then nobody in their right mind would. The problem is, that the vendor buried what the application really does, in a bunch of legalese that they *know* end-users never read. And packaged the whole mess up as an innocuous greeting card.
I have yet to see ANY GPL software that is distributed this way.
"Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs." P.J. O'Rourke
Dang!!! Careful with tha return key, Eugene!!! Ok, here's the deal... back up your address book, delete all the entries and fill it with MS addresses. Install the software then after the deed is done uninstall it and restore your addresses. There, wasn't that fun? qz
I forgot to say...
End users should have the leisure of clicking through software liscense agreements without reading them. These agreements were designed to protect the software companies from legal action by end users.
If this intent is to remain intact, end users need to be able to click through EULAs with the mental summary of, "Yeah, Yeah, whatever, I promise not to abuse your software or sue you frivolously", instead of "I wonder if I just allowed a software company to use my computer and my data any way they see fit".
Nope. Neither are "shrink wrap" contracts (you know, the kinds that are kept inside the sealed plastic covering that start "By breaking this seal you agree to..." , and continues "...Microsoft does not garantue the usefuleness of this software for any purpose what-so-ever, even including purposes stated by Microsoft or Microsoft employees."
Yes, that's more-or-less an actual "shrink wrap" "agreement" I once had with Microsoft. Anyway, it's all illegal, if you live in Sweden, or any European country, or come to think of it most any country in the world except the US.
<simpsons>Haha!</simpsons>
I choose to remain celibate, like my father and his father before him.
...okay, so no one will read this at this late point, but for any and all software developers who are hunting for a useful product to build, why not create an EULA-distiller? Let it run in the background, and watch for installations. When it sees an EULA appear, it can display 2 or 3 bullet points that succinctly explain what the hell all the legal text means.
To get really tricky, you could create a Web site that allows users to upload the text of each EULA, and a distilled summary. Perhaps other people could even vote on the most accurate, most understandable summaries. Then your app could be constantly up-to-date. Perhaps by doing this, people who blindly click through these things will be made aware of what the real consequences will be.
My Greasemonkey scripts for Digg &
> Just because the GPL gives you "more" permission than a typical EULA
> doesn't mean it has a different function.
No. No. You're quite wrong. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 3rd Edition notwithstanding.
The function is completely different.
You do not agree to the GPL to use software. (EULAs you do)
You do not have to agree to the GPL at all, ever. (EULAs you do)
The GPL, if agreed to, does not remove ANY fair-use rights. (EULAs do)
While they are both "licenses", they are licensing completely different things. So yes, it does mean "it has a different function".
I am a law student. Every 1st year law student(1-L) must take a class called Contracts I. I am in this course right now.
In this class we read a lot of cases. Several recent cases have arisen regarding the EULA. I used to think that if you didn't read it, the EULA was unenforceable. This idea is incorrect. As long as you have notice of the existence of the EULA, and as long as you agree to it by clicking the "OK" or "Next" button, you are bound by the terms regardless of whether you read them.
This policy is considered to be a Good Thing(tm) because it stops people from just signing contracts or accepting licenses, abusing the terms of the contract or license, and later claiming that they were unaware of the true terms of the contract license and getting off the hook. If people were allowed to do this with any contract, it would allow shady people to fundamentally undermine the concept of a contract, which is considered a Bad Thing(tm) because contracts allow relative strangers to safely do business with each other without the fear of one person scamming the other and getting away with it.
Before you gasp and scream about the unfairness of this idea, there is a remedy that courts apply to dissallow abusive contracts. Courts apply the concept of unconscionability. From
http://www.law.cornell.edu/lexicon/unconscionab
So there you have it. The average user of this program will be able to sue(assuming they can prove how they are damaged) and recover because the average user would not realize nor agree to sacrifice their right to privacy.
[Disclaimer: IANAL]
That they will give you their freakin PERMISSION to 0wn them!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA
Eat at Joe's.
If you sell your soul to the Devil does he make you sign an EULA?
There's no way 5% of users read the EULA. I hate them, and don't trust them, but I won't waste the time to read them (another reason I read ./ - to find out what software has bad or changed EULAs).
:-) ) users would.
Of course, I probably wouldn't install something like this right away (at least without questioning it and a little research), though I doubt most (95%?
to have coined the rejoinder:
RTFE!
Unless someone else already has. In which case, I'm going to patent it instead.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
A bomb with an 'accept' button?
Actually, Wellstone was in favor of freedom on the internet, and he did not support the RIAA/MPAA. I personally talked to him about this, and he was, obviously, not a huge supporter of big business, and the RIAA/MPAA are a pretty big proponent of big business.
Why is it that people assume that censorship and the shutting down of the internet at the request of the industry is a liberal idea? Wellstone was the most liberal man in Washington, and he was against the above. Censorship does not fly along partisan lines, but if it did, it would not be a liberal idea.
The death of a senator probably won't affect the outcome of a national election two years down the road. The only way Bush gets elected in 2004 is if he is successful in keeping the voting public blind to the fact that the economy is more important than foreign policy, and that his failing policies both at home and overseas are, well, failing. Thus far he has been successful in keeping his blatant domestic failures a secret by focusing on foreign policy, and it is very ominous for the future of the republic if he is able to do it for an entire term and into another.
Either way, the death of Wellstone is not a political issue, and it should be looked at as the tragedy that it is. If anyone criticizes Wellstone as a man, they don't know who he was and are not qualified to talk about him. You can disagree with his views, but if you dislike him as a man, you are simply wrong.
Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
but includes a EULA that 95% of users won't take the time to read
Thats a little optimistic? So you are saying that 5 in every 100 people will read the license in detail?
More like 99.9% of users....
-- 7 string electric violin + live loop samplers
And thus it should be invalid due to lack of consideration. I've yet to hear a reasonable counter-argument to this, any lawyers want to enlighten me?
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
you're quite right - talking about EULA's is most certainly off-topic during a discussion about EULA's :P
Hey I don't think this click licences are legal here. Maybe down there in the USA but not here.
They call it blackmail here.
Don't think so?
Example
Buddie of mine got killed at work. Remember that piece of paper you got to sign that says you read the safety book that you usually sign before you get to read the book? My lawyers threw that piece of paper out of court so fast it not only had wings it was rocket propelled.
Ya can't do that here in this country.
It's ILLIGAL
Who actually clicked on the EULA? I never click on mine. I place the cursor over it and get my kid (2 years old) to press the button..
Nice kid.. It is no longer binding on me cause I never actually clicked it and my kid must of and is too young to have read it let alone agree to it.
Virus writers of the world please read this story and please include a EULA in the future please.
It will put a end to this stupidity once and for all.
The EULA removes many rights, basically if the EULA was not there you would be entitled to use the software in any way you see fit.... The EULA has nothing to do with copyright law! It is contract law.
This isn't accurate, not under U.S. law anyway. Copyright is granted automatically to a creator of any specific formulation of an idea, such as an essay or a piece of software. If you throw up an essay you've written on your website, you aren't required to register it with the Copyright Office for the copyright to be in effect. The same holds true with software you've written. You can, if you wish, explicitly grant permission to anyone accessing the essay to reprint it with or without modification, credit, links to your own website, etc. Such grants would constitute a form of EULA. But not specifying anything does not automatically invalidate your copyright nor implicitly grant permission to anyone to do whatever they want with your essay.
The same is true for software. A EULA (and the GPL) do not take away any rights from a user, they specify what rights the copyright holder grants the user. Without either, the user would have no rights. I can't imagine a situation whereby a copyright holder would be able to sue anyone for merely using a program that holder made available for download -- the right to use a program the holder makes available for download is implied by the act of making it available in the first place. (At least, I'm 99% sure any court would rule accordingly, if a case like that ever came up.) But you can't assume, in the absence of any form of license (which is what both a EULA and the GPL are) that you have carte blanche to do anything you want. Both licenses grant rights, neither removes them.
Michael
"No live organism can continue for long to exist sanely under conditions of absolute reality;..."
It is wrong to pretend that the EULA and the GPL are equivalantly evil. Even if we accept your premise that agreeing to distribute your changes to code free of charge is just as bad as the right of a piece of software to make malicious use of your computer, at least the GPL offers the user the chance to obey or ignore the licence. In other words, it doesn't take the inititive for you and publish the contents of your harddrive on the internet automatically.
If this EULA were to be equivalent to the GPL by your reasoning, the EULA would basically be a chain letter asking the user to please be so kind as to forward this message do 3 of his friends. That would require the full cooperation of the user, in much the same way the GPL requires full cooperation of the developer. Of course, full cooperation means that the intent of the GPL is not a document that hides its intent from the user, hoping he will not read it. Quite the opposite, as some Slashdotters lament, proponents of free software are more than willing to discuss the GPL ad nauseum.
On an unrelated note, the US of course won't sign the UN kids convention (which every other country except Somalia has) because that would in theory prevent them from executing kids - just now they have called for the death penalty for the 17 yo Jamaican boy arrested for sniping in Washington. So it seems "Think of the children" really means "Pass law xxx without reading it".
Have you looked into purchasing real-estate? I've found that around here, mortgage payments are pretty close to rent payments, after you factor in the tax break. It may be worth checking out if you haven't already.
I was a renter until recently, and now I'm building equity while paying about the same monthly amount.(after taxes)
"The virus you're about to install is signed and endorsed by Microsoft. However, to get the full effect, you'll need to update some of your older, resident viruses.
The installation should take 3-5 minutes on modem connection, just frenetically click next until there's nothing left to click on..
A horse can't be sick, you know, even if he wants to.
I used to like DOS, I think. It's been awhile. Upgrade to Windows 95 and all my games run at half speed. What the heck?
Karma: Not Particularly Funny.
...cripple fight!
I mean, eula fight!
Spread the RC luvin'
By default, when you acquire a piece of software, you can do almost anything you want with it, with a few exceptions (reserved for the copyright holder):
Making and distributing copies
Preparing derivative works
Public performance and display
And all of these have fair-use exceptions.
Copyright does not prevent reverse engineering; most EULAs do. Copyright does not prevent publishing benchmarks or product comparisons; some EULAs do. Copyright does not prevent resale; some EULAs do. Copyright does not prevent the article from being loaned out (it can't be copied -- but can be loaned!) while almost all EULAs do.
EULAs do indeed restrict rights which a user would otherwise have under default copyright law.
The GPL is different. The GPL doesn't interfere with any of the "default" rights; it only specifies terms under which one can exercise rights which aren't otherwise available -- that is, creation of derivative works and creation and distribution of copies. If you don't do either of those things, you don't need to accept the GPL to use software which it covers.
The basic test is simply this: Do you need to accept the license before you can use the software? Then it's a EULA -- it controls use. If you can use the software without accepting the license (but only need to accept the license to do things which would otherwise be unavailable to you) then it's in the same class as the GPL; it gives you new rights, rather than removing old ones.
a murderer saying 'hey, those murder laws don't apply to me'.
i wouldn't think it would be up to the offender to determine if a given law applies to him, but rather to the system which enacted the law, and it's checks and balances. I wonder if the UN would disagree with them on this point?
(no one's going to read through 50 page agreements before clicking on "yes"). ... and IMO, if you aren't willing to even read the license, you have no business running the software. Likewise, if you aren't willing to read the GPL you have no business using code from GPL-licensed software.
And, if you don't read the warning labels/user manual on a product, and are injured as a result of its use, you certainly deserve what you get. I bet you read the manual next time. Or not.
As long as a reasonable effort was made to warn you (be it a warning label, or a license for which you have to click "I AGREE" before installation), it is your fault for not taking precautions.
Do I feel these people are doing wrong? Absolutely. Do I think it should be regulated/outlawed? Hell no.
NGWave - Fast Sound Editor for Windows
Check out their home page: Our software protects user privacy 100% - while delivering unprecedented results for advertisers.
I [may] disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
I had two people in my company hit with this stupid ass program. They received the email from a verified vendor's email address, and being the dumb little lusers they are, clicked on the link at hand.
Wait... the page that opens up, it started some kind of installer... and BEFORE ANY EULA MENTIONED, it was ALREADY mailing fucking spam through Outlook!
Wait a second. These people never agreed to any kind of EULA. The installer automatically started up (fucking ActiveX, I hate you!). And best of all, it was already mailing to everyone in the global address book. If there wasn't a patch in place to mandate user permission for programs outside of outlook, it would've spammed thousands of mailboxes.
How, in the name of anything vaguely holy, is this NOT a worm or a virus? Nary a EULA was agreed to, and it abused my fucking machines!
1) Write a Trojan that will email me all the user bank account information.
2) Add an carefully crafted EULA, (using tons of legalese so nobody will read it) stating that by clicking you grant me the right to transfer money to my account.
3) Distribute it bundled with some stupid file share utility like Kazaa or AudioGalaxy.
4) PROFIT!!!!
I can also say that since my company is based in some 5th world country, its laws apply.
Will an EULA like that be legal?
Can you sue me if I transfer all your savings to my account?
Can I just say "You should have read the EULA"?
PENAROL: Seras eterno como el tiempo y floreceras en cada primavera.
Judging from the amount of e-card software/webpage links I get in email (and promptly ignore), I bet that this thing spreads fairly quickly - and there won't be much that can be done about it automatically. It technically isn't a virus doing something without a users consent (So I don't see antivirus companies blocking it ever, despite having some very virus like properties.... not since the user has to agree to have it do what it does!) Mind you I don't think the company will get any good will out of this, but I (add the usual IANAL) don't see any potential legal challenge in this - instead of exploiting security bugs or software flaws it's strictly using user stupidity against themselves. (And if you outlaw stupidity, half the internet would be gone overnight.... ok maybe far more than half if you include AOL in that bundle of non-working grey matter) Makes you realize how important it is to read the EULA these days before doing anything - since it seems free software has gone WAY beyond being simply financed by an ad banner.
Cool, link toads. Do they eat the spiders that made the web?
Normally Don't I have the right to modify a contract before agree to it?
-- tim
TKrabec Pahh
Upgrade?
Michael
"No live organism can continue for long to exist sanely under conditions of absolute reality;..."
Something so easily abused can only be described as deeply flawed.
I must ask, can you think of a better solution? One that makes sure the user understands what they are agreeing to by using your software?
Okay, granted this company is abusing this, but click-thru licenses have become somewhat of an industry standard by default. It is a commonly accepted method of informing the user on what terms they may utilize your product, and asking if the user agrees and wishes to continue.
I really don't want to see the day when, to purchase software, you have to go to the software store, take a number, and sit with an EULA Counselor and your attorney to go over and sign the legal documents...
Okay, that was probably a bit over the top, but I'd rather click-thru licensing remain/become a legally binding and viable way to set the terms a company wishes to impose on a user if that user wants to utilize the company's IP (did I just use that term?)
NGWave - Fast Sound Editor for Windows
And the Morons who Agree to these license just deserve all the spam they will get by agreeing. But what difference does it make? They probably already have tons of spyware running on their machine such as the one included with kazaa.
The company, permissioned Media, is only taking advantage of the fact that people are dumb which is pretty much what every business does anyways. So what difference does it make. We can only applause this company and laugh when you hear that such a thing can happen.
There must be consideration (both parties must gain something or force some new obligation on the other party).
IANAL - Have taken some business law classes. Not legal advice - Not FDIC Insured - May Lose Value.
It's for this same reason that EULAs on free-of-charge software cannot be enforced, unless you are giving them some consideration (like agreeing to look at their ads).
This makes this case even more complicated, since the spam company could argue that "in exchange for the good and valuable consideration of the right to run the program, you agree to let us use your good and valuable consideration of the right to use the contacts in your address book for marketing purposes" A clear exchange of consideration!
This may even apply to some free-speech software licenses that include restrictions above and beyond simply terms of copyright licensure, i.e. restrictions on non-distribution related use. Most free-speech licenses don't have such clauses, but a couple do.
In any case, this isn't simple, but I hope to god it is illegal somehow, or becomes so in the near future.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are.
-- Colonel Adolphus Busch
This is a great example of the type of virus that could affect any OS including Linux.
In theory yes. But almost all Linux user these days are geeks who damn well know not to run tools like that IMHO.
Maybe this will change in a couple of years, but today, most wanna-be-geeks give up at the installation level of Linux.
In addition to that you would have to write a worm which is compatible to one-hell of a lot of adressbook formats (evolution, kmail, mozilla..you name it).
"go to a bash prompt and type su and enter your password."
Yeah right. As i'd give my kids/wife the root password LOL.
Jeez, if this type of creative thinking could be put to positive use the world would be a better place.
According to the screenshot from Symantec's page on this, you agree to the EULA, you agree to have your M$ Outlook address book read. Don't use Outlook. On WinBlows systems, use Eudora. On every other OS, use another MUA, like Kmail. Beat 'em at their own game!!
Now, if it's a free download, and you're only offered the download if you click through the EULA, that's an entirely different matter: there's clear consideration in that you're being allowed the download at all. On the other hand, if you purchase the software without the EULA being a condition of the purchase, unless the EULA offers some further consideration it may not be binding at all.
I would be surprised if a court would review the EULA in total isolation in a purchase situation (i.e. completely separate from the purchase price) for the purpose of determining whether or not consideration was given. Courts generally try very hard to find consideration in contractual relationships when this becomes an issue. More likely, a court would say that in consideration for giving both a sum of money and agreeing to the EULA, the company is permitting you to use the software.
It seems like a lot of you guys are really down on Symantec and McAfee for not filtering this with their AntiVirus software, but consider this.
By clicking "I agree" on the EULA you are telling your computer "I want to do X". If you tell your computer you want to do X and Symantec's software tells your computer "he can't" how is that any different from all the DRM crap like Paladium?
I know the intention in this case would be to protect the user, but then again isn't that the tack that Microsoft is taking as well?
So, does this mean that the EULAs aren't binding if I click `I Agree' whilst intoxicated?
Yippie shit, another excuse to get fucked up! : )
3306/tcp open mysql
Guess we know where all those email addresses are being fed into.
Might make a great project for someone to pull the login/passwd from the executable, and start force feeding that thing.
But dont let me give you any ideas.
-- Knowing too much can get you killed, but knowing who knows too much can make you rich.
does it not prevent you from using the code in code which is subsequently released not-under-GPL?
No, because that's distribution, not use.
The GPL grants the right to distribute the code, provided you adhere to certain restrictions.
Without the GPL (just getting straight source), you have no right to distribute the code.
It is the brazen sickness that brings reference to Microsoft. Of course, the fact that it employs a signed application to access the Microsoft designed email resource is probably because they are ubiquitous and easy to give up all of their information.
You forgot the http in the link in your sig. It doesn't work.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
You are incorrectly using "dichotomous" here. Dichotomous means that there are exactly two states. Dichotomous in the context of the discussion would be where there are two states; either both legal and ethical or illegal and unethical. Obviously your post means to say that there are more than two states. Really 4 states exist:
-leagal and ethical,
-leagal and unethical,
-illagal and ethical,
-illeagal and unethical.
Im not trying to flame; Im just trying to make sure words get used correctly.
Im not here now... Im out KILLING pepperoni
Wrong. Of course you have the right to modify it. Lawyers do this all of the time. The original party does not have to accept the revisions, however. This is the process that a REAL contract goes thru before being finalized. And it is an obviuous sign that the EULA "contract" is not a contract at all.
as I said in my reply to one of your previous posts alleging same, you are incorrect.
No, he's not. You are.
The GPL grants rights you normally wouldn't have (the right to distribute a copyrighted work - it's explicit permission to distribute the work, subject to certain conditions - under normal copyright law, you do not have the right to do this.)
EULAs attempt to restrict rights you normally have (the right of first sale, fair use rights - sometimes even your right to free speech.)
Don't try to lump the two together.
I completely agree... I hope it multiplies like warm bacteria in a wet place. This way, when a congressmans computer starts emailing everyone in washington because he clicked the EULA, there will be a surge of support for ending the legal power of EULA's, and the legislature will be clear that EULA's are illeagal.
Im not here now... Im out KILLING pepperoni
"Our software protects user privacy 100% - while delivering unprecedented results for advertisers." If you believe that, I have some land in Florida to sell you. I know alot of people who download free software, then express outrage when it turns out to have spyware attached. TANSTAAFL. There is a price to be paid for everything.
"Give a woman two glasses of wine and some pad thai, and they'll agree to just about anything." the Sports Guy
Does anyone have the domains or netblocks that are being used? I'd like to blacklist them for spamming.
Of course, if the contract is null and void, you are still bound to the standard law regarding copyrighted material with respect to a GPL work. In other words, you can look at it, but you don't have any right to redistribute, modify, etc. etc. etc., all the nice rights that the GPL grants you THROUGH your acceptance of a contract, IN EXCHANGE FOR consideration. So it is clearly only possible as a result of BOTH copyright law and contract law that the GPL can exist. An EULA generally refers to a consumer good (a piece of binary software), that is also admittedly under copyright protection, and there is generally no "contract" that I think should be legally acceptable, because, as you point out, it restricts what you can do and offers you no consideration in return (though click-through licenses apparently offer you the consideration of being able to use software you already paid for - ROFL).
Summary: GPL depends on a combination of contract law and copyright law. Shrinkwrap EULAs depend on a serious misinterpretation of contract law to restrict rights that you have as a result of common law and copyright law (i.e. first sale doctrine, etc.). Clearly we can all agree that EULAs restrict freedoms, and most Free/Open Source Licenses, GPL included, grant rights you wouldn't otherwise have.
You do not agree to the GPL to use software. (EULAs you do)
Not necessarily. EULAs can be invalid. You are not required, legally, to agree to an invalid license agreement in order to use anything; therefore, you can use software without agreeing to a EULA.
You do not have to agree to the GPL at all, ever. (EULAs you do)
Same thing again. If you do not agree to the GPL, then you are not entitled to modify or redistribute the software under the GPL. This is no different from not being allowed to modify or redistribute software under a EULA. And not all EULAs prohibit either activity. Sure, corporate EULAs do, but many freeware EULAs don't.
The GPL, if agreed to, does not remove ANY fair-use rights. (EULAs do)
Neither do all EULAs; they can, in fact, grant rights above and beyond fair use rights. It sounds like you're observing (please correct me if I'm wrong) that the typical big, bad EULA functions differently, in practical terms, from the GPL. I'd certainly agree, though that seems rather like stating the obvious. What I'm saying is that, legally, they have the same function (because they are both forms of licenses): both grant the end use specific rights -- rights that, in the absence of either, the end user would not have. Frankly, that seems pretty obvious to me, too.
Michael
"No live organism can continue for long to exist sanely under conditions of absolute reality;..."
"if you cut down my roses, i get to kill your firstborn in a satanic ritual - well, that's just not enforcable."
oh thats enforcable alright... just not *legally* enforcable. In most parts of the world.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
13. Arbitration. Any claim or controversy arising out of or related to this Agreement, or installation or use of PerMedia shall be settled by binding arbitration in accordance with the rules of the Panamanian Arbitration Association.
So if you want to sue, you have to do it in Panama.
We feed this, and similar things, with an address list consisting of every published government email address world-wide, every published politician's email address, and every published email address from companies that support spamming (like MasterCard, Visa, ...).
while ...
The GPL is a matter of copyright law
The GPL is contract law:
it is a license between you and the copyright owner, giving you the right of ...
Of course IANAL
If anybody does click through to accept this thing, just make sure that marketing@permissionedmedia.com is in your address book first.
In fact, what if they were the only ones in your address book and their address had been duplicated a few thousand times....
(not that I'm actually advocating this of course, it's not their ISPs fault)
Point noted, you're probably one of the more intelligent users out there in this case. But, if I may misquote Shakespeare, one snowflake doesn't mean it's winter.
This sig no verb.
If you happen to use Outlook.
Back up address list to floppy.
Remove floppy.
Completely delete (with overwite utility) your Outlook address book.
Install e-card viewer and read e-card.
Remove the spy ware and restore address book from floppy.
This would comply with EULA completely - the EULA doesn't say the address book has to have entries.
You make the mistake of thinking you can educate the fundamental stupidity out of people. You can't.
If the EULA doesn't grant any rights, then under what how am I actually given the right to use the software? If I have the CD and I install the software, am I magically allowed to use it?
No magic required. If you buy a car then you're allowed to drive it. If you buy a painting then you're allowed to look at it. If you buy a CD then you're allowed to play it. If you buy a book you're allowed to read it. If you buy software you are allowed to use it. Where do you get the need for magic from?
Copyright prohibits you from copying the work or from public performances of the work. That's it. Copyright does not restrict use, just copying and public performance.
To summarise the summary of the summary: people are a problem. ~ h2g2
Hi, could you add the following term to your EULA?..."
Even if this would be legally binding and they went ahead and did this, what difference would it make? People would have to install the next version of Outlook with this updated EULA. And if they did that, they wouldn't be able to open an executable via email, and a popup window would appear asking for permission if this program did run and try to send email using Outlook. These two basic precautions have been available for Outlook 98/2000 for a while as an update, and are the defaults in Outlook 2002 (XP).
So I'd be happy if all Outlook users would just update their friggin software!
"And like that
Unless people or companies go completely overboard in abusing the EULA, nothing will probably be done by lawmakers.
These types of abuses will probably become more common until public outcry demands new laws. In the drafting of these new laws, the public can hope to address other EULA issues that have been plaguing us while the spotlight shines on this issue.
The difference is that what an EULA "grants" you is stuff you already have the legal right to do anyway.
Nonsense. Did you actually read the law you linked to? A EULA can grant you rights way beyond the limitations specified under Sec. 117. A EULA can say "This is it. Take it, modify it, sell it, pretend you wrote it...I, as the legal copyright holder, don't care." A EULA can be far less restrictive than the GPL.
You have no copyright on breakfast, certainly not on my right to prepare eggs for my breakfast, so you have no ability to restrict or request payment for my doing so. If you write a piece of software, you do have the copyright ... and it is therefore entirely up to you what rights you wish to grant me. You can, if you wish, show me the software, stick out your tongue, and say "Nyah nyah nyah, I wrote this only for me, and you can't have it." At which point I'd probably dump my cereal on you.
Michael
"No live organism can continue for long to exist sanely under conditions of absolute reality;..."
What the hell, clicked on the link and a company I'd never heard of was asking if I wanted to install some code (Moderated -1 Dodgy)
I was intrigued though, so emailed the alleged source of my e-card, asking if she knew she had sent it, a while later (I guess she was having problems with her email) I got a reply that it was "a virus" (Mod. -1 Bad News).
Just for grins, did google search (no hits for the website or owning company mentioned on the certificate. Mod. -1 low page rank). Also whois told me the site had only been up a few days (-1, suspicious)
So, I never read the EULA, never installed the program, never had a problem. For entertainment value, not sure what is more fun, investigating the dodgy email or getting yuks from reading the EULA - the geek in me tends to the former. For non geeks, RTF-EULA and enjoy!
this should be modded up.
This isn't accurate, not under U.S. law anyway. Copyright is granted automatically to a creator of any specific formulation of an idea, such as an essay or a piece of software...
Of courtse. And assuming that you're at least vaguely aware of the principles of copyright law then presumably you realise that it restricts copying, and public performance, not use.
If I write a book and give you a copy or sell you a copy or sell your best friend's mother's sister a copy and she lends it to you then you are 100% unquestionably entitled to read it. You can't copy it, that's what copyright is about, but read it sure of course you can. The same goes with software, go ahead and use it. It's copying that's forbidden by copyright law.
The same is true for software. A EULA (and the GPL) do not take away any rights from a user, they specify what rights the copyright holder grants the user. Without either, the user would have no rights.
Rubbish. The user has countless rights. The user has every right not actually prohibited by law. That means the user doesn't have the right to copy it. The user does have the right to use it, the user also has the right to sacrifice it to a dark god or to bury it in clay.
The GPL gives you rights to copy the software which you would not otherwise have. Those are rights that are otherwise prohibited by copyright law. EULAs, at least in general, do not. They purport to restrict rights that you would otherwise have. I agree that at least in sanely governed jurisdictions they will not be succesful in this.
To summarise the summary of the summary: people are a problem. ~ h2g2
And your posts begs the question as to why the parent, which gets is all wrong (not as a matter of opinion, but as a matter of fact), has been modded up to "Insightful." The world according to the way /. mods would like it to be, rather that how it is. Or, yet another illustration of "if we say it often enough and loud enough, maybe it will be true." It's a shame /. is taking a page out of the RIAA's playbook.
Michael
"No live organism can continue for long to exist sanely under conditions of absolute reality;..."
To invalidate all of those pesky EULA's through points 1 and 2 (be serious and sober) get together with friends and thoroughly wasted before installing the worst offenders. If the software actually makes it onto the computer it's a nice bonus, otherwise it's the typical plus of a keg party.
Problem solved, you were boisterously drunk at the time of install.
Any spoon would be too big.
Create a similar virus which also installs some software that has some moderate or nominal value. ..by accepting this license you agree to be billed by $XXX on a monthly basis. Furthermore, you agree that this software will search your harddrive and mail any interesting files to us which may be used to gather personal information to bill you. You authorize us to file negative credit items on your credit file with TRW, if you do not promptly pay when billed...
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
You are absolutely correct. Contract law holds a minor position in the GPL, while Copyright is the heart of the matter.
The EULA however, is all contract law. I agree completely with what you have stated. I still think we've said the same thing, you've just elaborated and provided the details. Thank you.
If M$ licensing is doing nothing wrong, neither are these folks. The only difference is the means of delivery. Microsoft gets it's rights denying software to you by bullying vendors and have you agree to it by opening the shrink wrap or turning it on. These folks get this to you by you graning it permision to do the same thing to others that was done to you.
My company got a similar worm to this two weeks ago. It was an email from a friend that came brightly colored with a button at the bottom that you could press to "upgrade" outlook. When you upgraded it uploaded God knows what and put a button on all of your outbound email, even after you removed it.
Of course it's wrong. It's deceptive and slimey to had someone a 15 page long unilaterally changeable EULA in the first place. All M$ and other comercial software has had this potential for abuse and many applications have taken advantage of it. The corporate world is going to be decimated by leaks of confidential information so long as they continue to use software that's designed from a marketing perspective to push shit onto the user and deny the owner control of their machine.
The free software model, which seeks to give the owner complete configuration management and control, is obviously superior for moral and practical reasons. This silly worm and others like it are going to clog mailservers everywhere. M$ IIS will simply die. They won't be able to filter out the hundres of varients that are sure to come. Nor will they be able to train their people to tell the difference between legitimate buttons that come from the company and bogus ones like this that come from peers, but can be made to look official. Rebuilding infected machines is going to cost all sorts of time and money, and that is intentional. The risks are much lower with free software, which is designed correctly in the first place, and the recovery is trivial when the attack is triggered from the kind of non privalidged account that should be used when browsing or emailing.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
The parent and I both agree. He has just given the more detailed account. You however, are completely wrong. The GPL is not an EULA nor is it anything like an EULA. One grants rights and one takes away rights. In another post you betrayed your ignorance by saying that the EULA grants rights that were not seen beforehand. This shows you know nothing about what you speak.
Everybody on /. add webmaster/support/marketing/whatever@permissionedm edia.com to their contact list, then start sending Friend Greetings to each other.
/. denial of service attack.
We could make their EULA worm into a
> Neither do all EULAs; they can, in fact, grant rights above and beyond fair use rights.
/gave/ you rights, instead of taking them away, why would you HAVE to agree to the license before being allowed to use the software?
Can, maybe. But they never do.
If they
The facts remain:
The GPL NEVER EVER takes rights from you. Ever.
EULAd software, in any real world case I've seen, takes many rights from you, and holds you liable to huge chucks of legalese.
GPL is a license for copyright.
EULA is a license for use.
By the way, we have too many techs. I'm expecting significant improvement from you if you wish to keep your job. You won't make those improvements by posting embarsing stories about the company on Slashdot. Now get busy fixing the server, you stupid fuck.
Love,
Your Supervisor's Manager's Boss's Boss.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
The GPL *is* a EULA. EULA stands for End User License Agreement. That is exactly what the GPL is. It defines the agreement between the copyright owner and the end user.
Secondly, EULAs don't take away rights, they add them. Commercial EULAs may not give as many rights as the GPL does, but they still give rights over and above what you had before you agree. This is because before you agree, you have *no* rights. Remember, you have not bought the software you've licensed it, so normal copyright uses don't apply. As for fair use rights, they can't take that away anyway. In short, all license agreements give rights, if nothing other than the right to use the software in a certain way.
My computer is EULA free, yours can be too.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
<I>No magic required. If you buy a car then you're allowed to drive it. If you buy a painting then you're allowed to look at it. If you buy a CD then you're allowed to play it. If you buy a book you're allowed to read it. If you buy software you are allowed to use it. Where do you get the need for magic from?</I>
<P>
The problem is you *haven't* bought the software, you've licensed it. Thats the whole point of the EULA. Because of that, you have no right to use the software unless you follow the terms of the license.
The GPL makes no restrictions whatsover on the use or "running" of a program. As Theo de Raadt so artfully put it, even if the program was used to automate a baby threshing machine the GPL has nothing to say about it. The GPL even explicitly states that "You don't have to agree to this license to run the Program." Hardly a EULA.
The ONLY activity the GPL restricts is redistribution whether it has been modified or not. Remember, the "default" in copyright law allows no redistribution whatsoever. All the GPL does is lift that restriction under carefully defined circumstances.
Now EULAs on the other hand:
Prohibit use of the Product to criticize the software maker.
Prohibit publishing benchmarks. How nice! It is almost impossible to objectively evaluate a purchase!
Allow revocation of software keys on a user's machine.
or even: Allow the replacement of software components for any purpose whatsover.
Any number of nasty things I didn't think of.
In many cases, Microsoft's software is the ONLY means to communicate with other people. Their stuff is insinuated in much of data interchange. It often not a matter of choice whether or not to accept a coercive EULA.
EULAs usually entail significant restrictions on the USE of a program as their greedy writers want more than even today's vastly expanded copyright laws allow. The GPL does not do this. EULAs and the GPL aren't even Apples and Oranges. Hell, one of them isn't even any sort of food whatsoever.
> No contract can remove fair use rights.
Well, the text of some claim to, at least. It's not been tested in court, but I wouldn't bet my business on fair use still existing. 'Specially after DMCA has already dealt it such a severe blow.
What smoke are you cracking ;)
..."
"This is because the copyright owner of the piece of GPLed software has decreed that anyone and everyone can use the software."
If you've legally happened upon a piece of software then you have an intrinsic right to _use_ that software. Just like if you've legally happened upon a toaster you have an intrinsic right to toast your bread. You do not need permission or need to enter into a contract.
The constitution grants a limited _COPY_right to authors. It does not grant them the right to determine how others will use the creations.
The copyright owner for the commercial software hasn't decided to give out that right."
You have been seriously befuddled by our corporate culture. The copyright owner does not _have_ that right to give out. The copyright owner has only one exclusive right, ie to _copy_. Get it?
"You simply don't get to use the software
See above.
> The GPL *is* a EULA. EULA stands for End User License Agreement.
The key word there is User. Someone using the program. An EULA governs use of software.
GPL does no such thing. It governs redistribution. GPLed software has no User license. You can use it however you'd like.
> Remember, you have not bought the software you've licensed it
To my knowledge, it's not been established by the courts that when you buy a box from CompUSA with a CD inside labeled Norton Antivirus 12.3, you haven't actually bought any right to use that software.
Nowhere do these boxes say they are merely licenses.
Why the fuck should you need to agree to anything to use software in the first place? We have copyright law for exactly this purpose.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Or you could set up a website where people could just get a EULA free Operating System and all the trimmings.
Not that brave? Then you can help the Free Software Foundation to Maintain this site, which deals with the specifics of software licenses. I know, EULAs are typically used to extend copyright deprivation by contract agreement, but it all starts with the license, and most are contain unacceptable clauses like unilateral termination. That's right M$ and Apple can litterally take their software away for any reason they please.
If all of that's not really interesting, just use Slashdot's great search of it's reporting to chronicle your favorite non-free software's audacity and abuse. It's all fun and games till the BSA has the FBI bust down your door and throw you in jail. Don't touch that dial and don't remove that worm!
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
The promise by the user not to do the things that the EULA promises they won't do is sufficient consideration from the user. The permission given by the author to the user to use the program is sufficient consideration from the author.
There's nothing difficult about an EULA contract being a contract, but the terms in the present contract are of the kind that requires clear independent notice to be given before the terms can be binding. It is not sufficient that the terms are merely present in the EULA.
Every commercial EULA I've ever read says (quoting from memory), "You may not disassemble, decompile, reverse engineer, modify, etc." Also, the EULA prohibits you from making copies of the software for your own use (except for backup copies). Those are all rights you would have otherwise had. According to copyright law, once I buy a copyrighted work, I'm allowed to do pretty much anything I want to with it, as long as I don't distribute copies or derivative works. (At least, that was the case until the DMCA was passed. I'm not sure of the status of fair use now.)
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed are not necessarily my own, as I've not yet had my medication today.
Another Gator come on.....
The problem is you *haven't* bought the software, you've licensed it. Thats the whole point of the EULA. Because of that, you have no right to use the software unless you follow the terms of the license.
If I walk into a shop, pick a copy of Word off the shelf, take it to the counter and say "I'd like to buy this please" then I abolutely 100% agree that the salesperson can say "I can't sell that to you but I can license it to you for the following limited uses, just sign here and here...". But you, me and the salesperson both all know that that's nothing like what happens. Furthermore I think we all have a pretty good idea that any shop that actually tries to license software to people who were looking to buy something are going to be running low on customers pretty fast. If you think it's a good business model then you try it, nobody else wants to.
To summarise the summary of the summary: people are a problem. ~ h2g2
Ummm... Actually, the GPL restricts your use of a given piece of software in the same ways that an EULA does, it just restricts different things. If you start from the base of, "you can do whatever you want to with this software," the GPL restricts redistribution (must include source code) and alteration of the software (must distribute changes) among other things. These are restrictions, not additional rights. Granted, they're pretty cool restrictions, but restrictions nonetheless.
This may be the first worm designed to only harm the unwary... it's a first lots of things, and there are lots of jokes that can be made, but, realisticly, information is expensive.
...and read every EULA. But information is expensive. It's very expensive. The people that accept these EULAs should read them, but most people, through no fault of their own, do not know how important the thing is. Nor do they have any reason, like many /. readers do, to suspect how dangerous and insedious they can be. So, because they have 1000+ things to do, and only time for 100, they skip over things which, as far as they know, are benign and mere "legal technicalities."
A number of posts deride those who accept this EULA, but, I believe, that is largley unfair.
How many readers know their senators names? Their representative? How about at the state level? Who's your govenor, your mayor? What's the serial number on your laptop? The VIN number on your car? What's more carcenigenic: aspertane, Sweet n' Low, or potato chips?
These, and many other things, are things we all should, in some sense know, just as we should all follow every debate, write our legislature on every issue...
Ignorance is a necessary result of the human condition. You can protect yourself, but then you would spend time doing nothing else than reading EULAs and case law, and that would certainly be a worse life than getting some spam and ads plopped on your computer. Most of the people reading this would have suspected something might be up, but, I guarantee, it might take more sophistication, but we are all vulnerable to this type of thing.
... but has anyone considered the possibility that they have done this specifically to show how useless EULAs are and to show that they should not be enforceable.
I actually think they're a bunch of slimey bastards, but I can't completely discount the other possibility.
They are not restrictions. Under copyright law you have no redistribution or modification rights. The GPL GIVES you many rights in these areas.
Redistribution and modification are not use, in a legal sense.
EULAs govern use.
Indeed, while big business and the internet might seem just like the legalization of drugs, they're not. Conservatives are for the legalization of drugs. Republicans are not. Conservatives are for the freedom of the individual. Republicans are for the freedom of the corporation. Conservatives want the government to spend less than liberals do. Republicans spend the same amount as Democrats but they tax less (deficits) and they spend too much on a centralized, federal military. Despite these obvious contradictions in the conservative/Republican mindset, they all contend that they are on the side of logic and reason.
I don't think I tried to slam conservatives in my post, but if you, as a conservative, were offended, then I can only assume that it is on account of your insecurity with your beliefs and yourself. Note the anonymity.
What I did do, however, was say that censorship is not a liberal idea. It is an idea that seems to come from the "Religious Right" (which I take to mean people who are both conservative and Christian, and take both too seriously), and has spread into the ranks of both Republicans and Democrats. The folly of censorship is not a partisan idea; it comes from taking a lot of money from wealthy people who want their way, and catering to their needs. Many Republicans and many Democrats in office do this, though some on each side do not. That is, I assume that there are more than one man who do not, because Paul Wellstone was one who did not take large sums of money and did not cater to the bribery.
It is interesting that you have to start your little rant by a personal attack on me; that seems to be the mark of a true conservative. Perhaps you should think about your views a little bit more and allow them to fight your fights for you, rather than having to result to such immaturity.
Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
So always sign an EULA when being drunk or otherwise intoxicated.
whoops, that was a big typo. sorry about that.
Ceci n'est pas un post
The right to 'modify' software is intrinsic.
You have the same intrinsic right to modify software distributed with a EULA as you do software distributed under the GPL. You can purchase software, decline the EULA, and modify it to your heart's content. Doing so would invalidate any rights you've been granted under the EULA by the copyright holder (for example, warranty, support, or usage). By the same token, declining the GPL would invalidate the rights you've been granted by the GPL. Declining either is not copyright infrigement. Both have the same function: to grant you certain rights.
So, it is incorrect to state that the EULA prevents redistribution.
Yes, redistribution is always prevented by default. The point it that you have to agree to the terms of either license in order to be granted rights under that license. You have to agree to the GPL in order to be able to redistribute; you have to agree to a EULA in order to be able to redistribute. (In the latter case, the EULA you agree to must explicitly allow redistribution and may or may not allow you to distribute your modifications, and in the former, your right to redistribute your own modifications is granted with certain restrictions.) Simply because a EULA can impose more restrictions than the GPL doesn't mean it has a different function than the GPL under the law, a fact many people here seem to deny.
Michael
"No live organism can continue for long to exist sanely under conditions of absolute reality;..."
Why the fuck should you need to agree to anything to use software in the first place? We have copyright law for exactly this purpose.
Yes, but the holders of the copyrights do not have to let you use their software at all -- they can keep it locked up.
One might propose that you can use their software for payment. One might instead choose to let you use it after signing an NDA. One might, as is the case here, allow you to use the software after agreeing to some other terms, in the form of an EULA.
So if you refuse to pay the fee, sign the NDA, or agree to the terms, as the case may be, you have no right to use the software.
I'm not saying I agree with anything this company is doing -- but I do think EULAs have at least *some* merit...
NGWave - Fast Sound Editor for Windows
Find me one court in the country that agrees that I haven't bought the software. When I walk into my favorite record store and purchase a CD of my favorite band am I also licensing the music? NO!
Same goes with software. I have not 'licensed' anything. I have purchased it. I do not remember _any_ contract negotiation (except the price) before or during my trip to the cashier.
They can not impose a contract negotiation after you've purchased the software. That is not in the chips man.
What makes you think that they can get away with this implied licensing? If you purchased a toaster do you ever think to license the use of the toaster? No, because you've purchased it. Pull your head out your ass man!
The problem is you *haven't* bought the software, you've licensed it.
Only if I was made aware of this fact before exchanging the money for the box. Otherwise, it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, so it is a duck.
What would Lemmy do?
Where exactly are you coming from? That vote was unanimous. Look it up.
Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
Man, you are really trying to bury your head in the sand.
If an 'EULA' did not impose any restrictions upon your intrinsic rights to use the software and if an 'EULA' granted you a right to redistribute the software then yes, it would be similar to the GPL. But then, it wouldn't be an 'EULA' in the common vernacular it would be a copyright license.
The truth is this never happens. EULA's attempt to restrict intrinsic rights you already have and almost never grant any rights to redistribute in any form or shape.
You are attempting to bend the common definition of 'EULA' so far around that it no longer represents what is commonly known as an 'EULA'. I can do the same thing. It is just semantics. How about we agree to describe pseudo contracts that restrict intrinsic rights and don't grant any rights to redistribute as POSL Piece Of Shit License and we'll call things that only _grant_ right's to distribute as KAL Kick Ass Licenses. Sound good?
I know of another set of programs by some company called eAcceleration.
One of their programs (Stopsign, to be exact)while not technically a worm, installs it's self over the web without actually telling the user that it will be installing software. They click a link to "SCAN" their system and it then gives the normal prompt for them to accept the software from blah blah blah.
This wouldn't be so bad if the software didn't proceed to install on the users system, but it does just that. To make matters worse, it doesn't provide any easy method of removing the software. You are able to disable the programs it installs, but they seem to like reactivating themselves after a reset (at least from what I've seen anyway).
These annoying traits are kind of dubious from a company that claims to be fighting spyware and malware. They tempt the user into installing the software out of fear they might have Spyware or Viruses, but then the provide no method for removing the software that later asks to be purchased.
I know this is slightly off topic, but it is in-line with unethical software, and while I hate to see laws that take away rights, I do wish more companies would be punished for the laws they break. In my view, this company is guilty of a form of fraud.
Everything would be peachy if they simply offered a method of truely removing the software, but they don't, and that's my biggest gripe.
"Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"
Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
I read their ELUA , and I couldn't find the part about stealing address books. So I'm not sure they are getting permission. The way I read it, it only lets them get information about me and my machine, not my friends...
Looks like the site got slashdotted....problem solved
Actually it's an AO(L)Hell subsidary. This just goes to show you how much AOL loves the foofy stuff over a solid browser product.
Save the World! Use a Quote!
If you have the money, dodge may be selling the 2003 Dodge Ram SRT-10. (a lot is unknown, but sources suggest it's going to be for sale, not a concept truck)
500 HP
500 Ft.-lbs torque
5000 lbs curb weight
0-60 in 5 secs
0-100-0 in 18 secs
¼ mile in 12.9
150 mph top speed
(All ests)
The 10 in the name is for the 10 Cyl. all aluminum viper engine driving the beast (with the 6 speed manual viper tranny too).
If you're states side, you're looking an estimated $40,000 to $52,000 for it (around $60,000 Cdn. I believe). Not bad, all things considered. And it looks sweet too.
See here and here.
A very sweet ride indeed.
For a good time call www.sawkie.com
That was four years ago. I talked to him four weeks ago, and his stand on the issue has changed since then. The most recent opinion is the most important, and I was talking about his current stance. Which is, by the way, the one I was talking about.
What do you mean the others didn't bother to lie? Paul Wellstone is the one politician in Washington who does not lie on a regular basis, at any possible opportunity. Wellstone was the best man to have around; the rest were just a bunch liars. The scum of the earth. Go ahead, anonymous sir, elect those who you can trust to lie. I will continue to support the candidate I can trust to tell the truth. Hopefully he is replaced by such an option.
Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
And assuming that you're at least vaguely aware of the principles of copyright law then presumably you realise that it restricts copying, and public performance, not use.
Yes, I am, and yes, it does. However, it also in practice grants the holder certain additional rights, such as the right to prevent his work from being commercially available at all. And it allows him to impose restrictions on usage. I can have a clause in my contract with a publisher that gives me the right to approve any magazine excerpts of my work. I can write software for Macs and deny anyone the right to modify it for use under Windows, unless Apple prevents me from doing so. The first would be easy for me to enforce, the second more difficult, but that doesn't mean I can't impose the restriction.
If I write a book and give you a copy or sell you a copy or sell your best friend's mother's sister a copy and she lends it to you then you are 100% unquestionably entitled to read it. You can't copy it, that's what copyright is about, but read it sure of course you can. The same goes with software, go ahead and use it. It's copying that's forbidden by copyright law.
Correct, copyright does not prevent the accessing of information. I could read an unbought book in a bookstore, as long as the store owner didn't prevent me, without infringing anyone's copyright. But you can't "loan" software in the same manner as you can loan a book, which has a physical form that is a pain to duplicate. The only way my best friend's mother's sister could allow me to use software she's purchased, without infringing copyright, is to let me use it on her computer; that is, of course, unless she'd been granted redistribution rights by the copyright holder.
Rubbish. The user has countless rights. The user has every right not actually prohibited by law.
And those would be? A user only has the rights that purchasing a product allows him. I can give the shiny disc I bought to my cat to play with. But I can't actually (legally) use the software on the disc if the EULA says I can't until I agree to it's terms. You're confusing the distinction between the user's right to do what she wants with her property and the copyright holder's right to impose certain restrictions on the usage of material he has licensed to users. If I want to challenge the validity of the EULA's terms or its enforceability in court, that's another matter. But short of that, I have three options: agree & abide, pretend I agree and do what I want anyway, or return it for refund.
They purport to restrict rights that you would otherwise have.
No, a EULA that says "use it, modify it, redistribute it, just don't sell it" or "just give me credit," does not restrict rights you would otherwise have, it grants you far more rights than you would otherwise have. Most freeware I use not distributed under the GPL doesn't impose restrictions on usage or unmodified redistribution. It does this without surrendering the copyright holders' rights. Even the most laissez faire of licenses is still a license, and so are the most draconian. The issue isn't "licenses take away rights I have," the issues are "am I happy with the rights this license grants me?" and "are these terms I'm agreeing to (and the manner in which I'm being asked to agree - i.e., after I've purchased the software) enforceable?"
Michael
"No live organism can continue for long to exist sanely under conditions of absolute reality;..."
I think you're getting hung up on a matter of definition. I (and many people here, probably including jmd!) define "EULA" as a license that claims to impose restrictions on use of your software which didn't already exist in copyright law. "For distribution only with a new computer..." tells you that, for some reason, Microsoft can arbitrarily waive the first sale doctrine on your behalf. If a shrink-wrap license does not attempt to impose any such restrictions, I and most people here would not call it an EULA. I suppose you could call any commercial software license an EULA, but that would dilute the term to the point of no longer being useful.
Such non-restrictive licenses are not very common in any case. After all, if the vendor didn't want to add any restrictions to the protections they already enjoy under copyright law, why would they bother writing a license at all? It's not like they have to spell out the fact that you're not allowed to redistribute additional copies of the work, or combine it with your own software and sell derived works.
As to the validity of EULAs, I think it's ridiculous that a software vendor should have the power to tell me what I can and can't do with a copy I have purchased. Imagine an EULA for books. "This is the `airport bookstore license' for [insert novel title]. By opening to the first page, you agree to be bound to the following agreement: You may read and re-read the Book on any airplane or in any airport lounge, so long as you do not read it aloud. You may lend the Book to any member of your travelling party, but you may not lend, give or sell the Book to anyone else. You may not publish reviews of the Book, and you may not disclose `benchmark' comments to anyone comparing the Book to any other book. (If you liked the Book and wish to say positive things about it, contact the Publisher for a `benchmark license', which will allow positive comments.) If you take the Book outside an airport, you must ensure that it remains shut until you re-enter an airport; this is to prevent unauthorised reading. If you want to bring a copy of the Book home to read, ask about the (more expensive) `home reading EULA'."
It's a big bluff. Software vendors probably know very well they have no right to tell us what we can and can't do with our software within the bounds of copyright law except by negotiating individual contracts with us, but they figure we will assume their shrink-wrap licenses are legally binding. And this has gone on long enough now that I doubt the courts will ever set them straight, for fear of unleashing chaos to the entire COTS software industry.
"How can you claim that you are anti-crack, while still writing a window manager?" — Metacity README
Examing my recent purchase of a copy of Neverwinter Nights, I see no indication at time of SALE that I purchased anything other than what was included in the box. Use of what is included within the bounds of copyright is not something they can restrict without a contract, and, at the time of sale, I have not entered into a contract with Bioware, Atari or any other of the parties that created Neverwinter Nights. I have become the buyer in a buyer seller relationship with Gamestop, in which I exchanged money for the Neverwinter Nights box and it's contents. There is no indication that the transaction was anything else, and therefore IT WAS IN FACT A PURCHASE OF PHYSICAL GOODS.
Now, software not being an entity into which contracts, so long as I do not distribute it and limit my copies of it for my own personal use within the bounds of fair use under the copyright act I may do anything I please with it, including, as part of it's use, installing it on my computer and running it. I may jokingly click 'I agree' while verbally saying 'This is a joke, why would I agree to this you stupid piece of software'. But, so long as I do not tell Bioware (or any of the other possible interested parties) that I agree and do not utilise any of the variouse valuable facilities I might have accsess to if I did in fact agree, I have not in fact agreed to the contract embodied in the EULA.
Now, is this particular case, I am likely to agree to the EULA so as to take advantage of the valuable consideration offered in the form of patches to the game and the use of GameSpy's servers for the playing of the game in an online forum. But, I didn't have to enter into that agreement in order to use the software in the absence of said consideration (such as playing the single player game) and in fact, did so in the absence of EVER communicating with Bioware (or any of the other possibly involved parties) as to my acceptance or lack of acceptance of an contract or license agreement. They don't have the exclusive right to authorise me to use the software, I neither need a license or their permission to use the software, I only need it to use their infrastructure and accsess other considerations provided on the basis of me having accepted the license.
Thats pretty much it.
Realities just a bunch of bits.
If you purchased a toaster do you ever think to license the use of the toaster?
Only someone who doesn't understand the difference between a book and a toaster could even formulate an argument this absurd.
"They" have gotten away with it since copyright was first established under Queen Anne. And you have consented to it everytime you have purchased any item that has the little copyright logo, as have billions of others, so there's plenty of legal precedent. Yes, when you buy a CD you are licensing the music; more specifically, you are licensing the right to play that music on whatever devices you have that render it playable. You do not, by any means, own that music -- you do not have the rights that ownership would grant you (performing it in public, redistributing an infinite number of copies, redistributing your own mixes of the source material, etc.). The only thing you own is the physical object itself. That is your property; the music itself is not.
Should all this be changed? Absolutely. But it won't be until more people pull their head out of their asses, as you so eloquently put it, and realize that it has not been changed. So get with the program.
Michael
"No live organism can continue for long to exist sanely under conditions of absolute reality;..."
All these people claiming they read every word in an EULA is full of shit. I would be tired of reading that repetitive crap for every software I install.
Do people actually think software companies take EULAs seriously? If they did, they would state everything in PLAIN ENGLISH, say:
* By clicking ok you agree not to pirate this software
Not "For score and....." They purposely want to bore you so you won't read it. You are all so full of shit, like that one dude that wears mario shirts and claims that he has a 10 1/2" dick from all the chicks tugging on it.
I got a pack of users that seemingly stepped out of the Twilight Zone. We've been over this how many times already? The "EULA virus" hits the department. and here we go again.
I work in County government so we have this gigantic global address list with every swinging dick who works here on it. It's like 13,000 people so it's the happy hunting ground if you are a virus and want to play with an address list. Outlook is of course our secure, trusty, and reliable mail client since we are bound forever apparently to the Microsoft world. I of course have no say whatsoever in this. It's local government what can I say. Some idiot-fuck-moron I'll never meet decides what the various departments can buy and that's what I get to support.
Minutes after it starts showing up I get three kinds of calls. The first is from the knuckleheads that always call me whenever anything comes into their inbox that they don't understand. These are the same drooling monkeys that call me because they just got an error message stating that their "internet connection is not optimized" So I start going through the "yes this is something you need to delete" speech over and over and over again. In a way these are actually kind of safe because they're scared of the beep sound their computer makes when they start it. I can live with these people.
Then all the dingbats in clerical start calling. Every single one of those ignorant bitches (I don't have a problem with relating to women so chill on my use of the term bitches. I am only applying it to the pack of shaved apes who type in my departments clerical section.) is trying like hell to see the greeting card that's been left for them online. No matter how many times we go over things like this they never get it and never will. They are my networks achillese heel. Anything new and unrecognized by their AV software is getting in. No questions asked. They've all been steadily clicking it since it arrived and aren't calling because it might be a virus. They are calling because "their internet" doesn't work. They can't see the card.
Finally I get the people calling who know better but like to call just to let me know they know better. The "Is this a virus" crowd who ask every time and know the answer (unlike group one who only remember their names because their business card has it written on the front.)
"What the fuck were you thinking?" What I wouldn't give for that to be considered a valid response where I work. If I had my way every one of those mouth breathing, six toed, no learning motherfuckers would be sitting in front of a dumb terminal with a monochrome screen.
"Is this a virus?" Well no shit it's a virus you fucking genius.
If you work all day in county government and your job consists of typing meaningless documents and you never, ever have even met one of the county judges, and your job doesn't require you to interact with any of them at any time for any reason then what are the odds that one of them pulled YOU at random out of the global address list and suddenly decided to leave YOU a greeting card at some web site?
Just let me make it to retirement. Please God? Please?
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
Liberal \Lib"er*al\, n. One who favors greater freedom in political or religious matters; an opponent of the established systems; a reformer
Wouldn't putting blocks in place to silently discard this email then, by circumventing its spread, be considered a violation of the DMCA and punishable by 25k per incident? Wouldn't it?
But then, it wouldn't be an 'EULA' in the common vernacular it would be a copyright license.
...which is it. "End User License Agreement": sure sounds like a license to me.
You have a completely different perception of what most EULAs are like than I do. I don't use bloated corporate software beyond the OS. I haven't installed any software with such restrictive EULAs in about two years, beyond updates to the OS. Much of the non-GPL'ed freeware I use has fairly simple, straightforward EULAs indeminifying the copyright holder from any damage to my PC, and allowing me to redistribute unmodified copies of the software. Go to any freeware download site; follow the links to the homepages of some of the programs. The majority of their EULAs would fall into your KAL category. Since these are the types of programs I use most often, I don't think of their EULAs as being contrary to the common vernacular. I think of them as the norm. Here's a hint: if you want to avoid POSL, stop using POSS (Piece of Shit Software). Someday I will take that advice for myself with regard to the OS, and then Microsoft-style EULA's will become a distant memory.Michael
"No live organism can continue for long to exist sanely under conditions of absolute reality;..."
"In my opinion this is completely nasty, but it's all clearly in the EULA that you must agree to before it installs the software."
And this makes it all OK, huh? Does that mean that if I get your OK before I shoot you in the head, that it's OK to kill you? How idiotic is that attitude? Sheesh.
-- Ed Carp, N7EKG erc@pobox.com PGP KeyID: 0x0BD32C9B What I'm up to: http://intuitives.mine.nu
Copyright law grants them legal retribution against people who copy their stuff, in return for giving it out. That's giving it out wthout restrictions. In return for contributing to the public good, the government will give them a monopoly.
Once they start putting additional restrictions on it...legally, the deal should be off. They aren't following the rules anymore.
At that point, if they want to have a contract, go right ahead...but it has to be a real contract, upfront, with a real signature and everything else a real contract has.
The whole problem started with the idiotic concept of copyrights as 'intellectual property'. No, it's not property...it's a limited term monopoly granted in return for something. And the same with patents. You do something for society, society will let you profit from it for a little. You do not 'own' it, in any meaningful sense of the word 'own'.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
You obviously are not getting it. As has been told to you over and over: The GPL is not restrictive. It _grants_ rights, it does not take them away.
You have so much invested in "GPL good, EULA bad" thoughtspeak that you can't grasp that both have the same function under the law.
Here is the EULA for a rather popular piece of German freeware I use called Exact Audio Copy:
Is this as unrestrictive as the GPL? Obviously not. Does it take away rights I would otherwise have? Obviously not. It in no way restricts my use of the software [same for the GPL], it restricts only certain things I can do (none of which are essential to its use) [same for the GPL]. Furthermore, it does grant me the right to redistribute it, a right I would not otherwise have [same for the GPL].
I can hear it now: "But that's not an EULA." Call it what you want -- terms of use license, usage license, 'license granted by copyright owner to all users of this software' -- it's all the same. Just because it doesn't look like one of Microsoft's EULAs doesn't mean it isn't one. It's a license, and so is the GPL.
And once again, the EULA does not have anything to do with copyright unless the EULA grants a copyright
And once again, the only reason the EULA can conceivably be imposed or enforced is because someone has a copyright. The only person who or entity that can impose the EULA is the copyright holder, or someone the holder has authorized to. Who requires you to abide by the terms of the GPL, should you wish to accept it? Who can sue you if you violate those terms once you do accept it? Without copyrights, there would be no EULAs, nor any need for the GPL, because neither would be enforceable. How, then, can you possibly assert that EULAs have nothing to do with copyright?
Michael
"No live organism can continue for long to exist sanely under conditions of absolute reality;..."
A small point regarding the validity of this
contract. No consideration has been provided by
the company. The card sent to the recipient
was generated by the program as a marketing tool.
The recipient thinks that he or she is installing
the program to read a card from a friend. Thus,
the user recieves no benefit from this contract and there is no consideration.
But more importantly, the email generated by the program to that person's contacts is intentionally misleading--thus the contract is invalid.
Second, the contract is in itself misleading. It would take very little effort to show that the company intentionally hid these clauses in a contract so standard and formulaic that a reasonable person would not be expected to read fully.
To prove this contract invalid, one would only need to prove one of those two points (both of which are obvious). Furthermore, the first point (sending bogus emails to attract victims) would not only void the EULAs but could also be the basis for clear cut criminal fraud charges.
So, to those of you who visited the site, doesn't it make sense now why this compnay would chose to operate out of Panama?
Sincerely,
Anonymous Coward
What if the toaster is patented?
Then you would not be permitted to copy its patented heating mechanism in the toaster you were marketing, unless you paid the patent holder for the right to do so. How difficult is that to understand? A patent can't demand that a consumer pay more for a product he has purchased in order to use that product. And if the toaster played a copyrighted jingle, then the toaster manufacturer either wrote that jingle, or paid a licensing fee to the copyright holder in order to use it. So you're in the clear. Even if the toaster maker didn't license the right to use the jingle, you're still in the clear. It's the toaster maker who has a problem.
Calling either purchase a license stretches the word until it has no real meaning.
I didn't call the purchase of a CD a license; I said that you are licensing the right to listen to the music when you buy one, as opposed to buying "the music" itself. If you don't like "license," what would you call it? Grant? Permission? Does it matter? Buying an audio CD gives you no ownership rights to the copyrighted material contained within, nor does buying a software CD. Read the fine print on a typical major-label CD: "Unauthorized copying, hiring, lending, [etc.] prohibited", "All rights reserved," etc. Crowbars (and toasters) don't have the same restrictions; buying a crowbar is just that -- buying a crowbar. You're right that the law and not the manufacturer defines how you can and can't use the copyrighted material on a CD, but those definitions are different for audio and software. See the Audio Home Recording Act, for example. If you genuinely believe a manufacturer (or distributor, copyright holder, etc.) is attempting to bind you to a non-binding agreement, you're free to take it to court (usually, of course, it's easier just to ignore it). But try to challenge the restrictions printed on audio CD packaging and you will lose because of what the law restricts. I'd love to see the expression on the judge's face when you trot out your crowbar/toaster analogies.
Michael
"No live organism can continue for long to exist sanely under conditions of absolute reality;..."
There are two possibilities, either you've bought the software, or you've licensed it. If you've bought it, then there is no license agreement, and therefore EULAs don't apply. If they don't apply, they can't take away any rights. If you've licensed it, you have no intrinsic rights to use the software, and therefore there are no rights to take away. I wasn't trying to comment on which one of these actually happens in real life.
But, if you've actually bought the software, like most of the slashbots around here seem to think, why the fuck are you all worried and talking about EULAs? THEY DON'T APPLY!!!! If you aren't licensing the software, there can be no license agreement!!!
I would take it a step further. Why are they doing wrong? If one party agrees to the terms of the second party, then where's all the wrongdoing? If I tell you that I'm going to strip your wife naked and hump her, but you cover your ears and yell, "I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!", where is the great wrongdoing? What do you want these software companies to do? Have each word creep along the screen?
Welcome (pause) to (pause) the (pause) EULA (pause) for (pause) Windows. (pause) Estimated (pause) time (pause) remaining (pause) for (pause) the (pause) display (pause) of (pause) the (pause) EULA: (pause) three (pause) hours. (pause)
Maybe that would make these ignorant lusers happy.
And, yes, I do read the EULA of every program that I install on my PC. You know how much effort it takes? Almost none. I even click on "disagree" sometimes, because I find the EULA unacceptable.
Would you argue that a driver's license is the same thing as an EULA? Why not?
Hmmm....lemme guess. Maybe because the authority to grant and enforce EULAs and the GPL is grounded in copyright law, while the authority to grant and enforce drivers' licenses is not? Maybe because violating EULAs and the GPL might land you in civil court (unless you're really naughty), while driving without a license might land you in criminal court? Am I warm yet?
For the record, I don't think EULAs have much in common with fishing licenses either. Any license, on some level, has something in common with every other license, presuming it actually fits the definition of "license." But EULAs have more in common with the GPL than with any license granted by state or local authorities.
Michael
"No live organism can continue for long to exist sanely under conditions of absolute reality;..."
And what grants the author the right to give permission for use?
The recent revisions of copyright law. Also the idea that making a transitory copy in order to use software is somehow different from making an image on your retina to read a book
If you have purchased the software then you obviously have permission to use, just as if you've purchased a toaster you have every right to use it or if you've purchased a book you have every right to read it. You are being hoodwinked by the corporate culture.
From the user side, EULAs are often often very anti corporate. Software being written to be registered to person at company, when the owner is a corporation. One "person" having to buy multiple copies, etc.
To all of those who claim that you are stupid if you don't read every EULA that you click through.
Well, I don't.
Maybe I am stupid but the way I figure it, the odds of somebody actually trying to enforce a EULA that I click through are so miniscule that they are damn close to zero. So let's assume that the odds of a EULA being relevant to my life are 1 in 1,000,001 (usually written as 1:1,000,000 against. In order for it to be worth spending 5 minutes of my life to examine the EULA, then the penalty for violating the EULA should be 1,000,000 times 5 minutes, about 9.5 years. About 12.7 years if you account for waking/sleeping hours.
Currently nothing that I do on my home computer is worth 12.7 years of my life. In fact, since the maximum damages I could expect to pay for violating most EULAs are a few thousand dollars or less, reading a EULA is dumber than playing the lottery!
If electricity is produced by electrons is morality produced by morons?
If you sell me the toaster, then no, you can't impose any restrictions. If you try to make me sign a sale contract that restricts my usage of the toaster, said contract wouldn't hold up in court. What right do you have to impose such restrictions? What precedent can you cite? Real estate owners often have rights to impose certain restrictions on property they sell to someone (no temporary structures, for example), and those rights are grounded in centuries of common law precedent. But not the owners of common household appliances. How could you enforce such restrictions? The law deals in practical matters; it's not interested in restrictions that are unenforceable (which, realistically, would probably invalidate your attempt to license your toaster to me with any restrictions).
This is the whole problem with copyright law now ... it's becoming unenforceable. Well, ok, there are quite a few other problems with it too, but this is the reason for the unprecedented copyright crackdowns we're seeing. Instead of realizing its time has passed and trying to come up with new economic models, the powers that be are trying to strengthen it. Meanwhile, others are coming up with innovative ways to modify it, such as the GPL or the open audio license. None of this changes the fact that it is still around, for now. None of this changes the fact that EULAs and the GPL are manifestations of it. There is, really and for all practical purposes, no such thing as a binding EULA on the usage of a toaster. There is, really and for all practical purposes, such a thing as a binding EULA on the usage of copyrighted material. Why the difference? Because of copyright. Because copyright grants the creator of the material certain privileges that the owner of the toaster does not have. Why is it so hard for you to see the causal relationship between the existence (and enforceability) of EULAs and the existence of copyright law? Where do you think the authority to create EULAs comes from? Where does the authority to create (and enforce) the terms of the GPL come from? Property rights? Man, I hope not, because that's exactly what the media conglomerates want you to think. They want you to believe that copyright is the same as real property (hence the term "intellectual property"). Sure, there are certain similarities, but there are very important differences, which is why a book or a song or software is not treated the same as a toaster under the law. And that, at least, is as it should be.
Michael
"No live organism can continue for long to exist sanely under conditions of absolute reality;..."
That is not correct. Software is not exempt from contract law. Is the GPL not a contract? Do you feel you can do whatever you please under the GPL.
The GPL is not an EULA, indeed it specifically states that issues of use are outside its scope. Copyright law states that you need permission of the copyright holder to distribute, copies of, copyright works. The GPL grants permission to distribute specific copyright works, subject to conditions and states what those conditions are.
An EULA attempts to regulate how you "use" a copyright work. It may also make redundent claims that you can't distribute copies, which copyright law prevents you from doing anyway.
See that part about "by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease or lending"? The copyright owner of a work *owns* it and can do with it whatever they please with it, including licensing ("leasing") a copy of it to you under terms of a EULA that may restrict your rights to use it.
If you pretended you were selling widgets, but put a little note in the box saying that you were actually leasing, there probably arn't that many civil courts of the planet which wouldn't throw the case out. More likely you'd wind up in a criminal court, as defendant, since laws against fraud go hand in hand with laws upholding contracts.
Neither are "shrink wrap" contracts (you know, the kinds that are kept inside the sealed plastic covering that start "By breaking this seal you agree to..." , and continues "...Microsoft does not garantue the usefuleness of this software for any purpose what-so-ever, even including purposes stated by Microsoft or Microsoft employees."
If they were valid you could simply send Microsoft a letter stating "Dear Microsoft, by opening this envelope you agree to transfer all your assets to me in return for the payment of one US doller".
You are incorrectly using "I'm" here. "I'm", a contraction of "I" and "am" needs a punctuation mark like so, "'", between the "I" and the "m".
By the way, why did you put me on your Foes list? No one else has except you.
ashaver at pdx dot edu
Their business practices might be vile but looks like this is one of the few companies with websites which seemed to handle the /. effect pretty well. Or am I speaking too soon? ;)
Representatives read emails? When did this happen??
actually you are getting something out of it. as you have to pay for it and agree to the contract to get the right to use it. however to make it fair most programs you pay for say that if you do not agree to the EULA you may return it for a refund.
just becease you paid for it dosn't make it any diffrent, as you each are still gaining somehting out of the contract. although it's unlikly you'd get anything like that on the EULA of a program you paid for as once word got out the program would no longer sell.
no becease if you still agree to it without modifying it you still agree to it. and if you get your layer to ring up the company and negotiate the contract while they would most likly say "piss off" that's the same as negotiating over anohter contract and one party says no to the suggested modifications. just becease it's electonic dosn't make it any less legal. the only possible loophole i can see here is that there is no way of verifying if the person who signs it is of sound mind.
What if I want my antivirus software to detect this. Just because there is an EULA doesn't mean some idiot in the company won't install it anyway, and the results will be much the same.
If people are ignorant enough to click on unknown attachments despite repeated warnings, they are ignorant enough to install this regardless of what the eula says.
Symantec should provide a signature and leave it as a choice to the administrator whether or not to detect it.
If you feel that this isn't true, consider this:
You are absolutely not obliged to accept the terms of the GPL when someone gives you a copy of a GPL work. If you don't, you can't distribute it or distributed derived works. Nothing at all prevents you from using it and making copies.
but that's NOT why it's not an EULA. An EULA could grant you tons of rights, and still be an EULA.
It's not an EULA because nothing makes you agree to it before using the software. You are not bound by it BY using the software. It's not a license to use the software.
You only have to accept the terms of the GPL if you want to do things that you would not normally have the right to do under copyright law, like distribute derived works.
An EULA could grant you tons of rights, and still be an eula. It's not about what rights they grant/take away; it's about how and when they come into play. A license stating copyright terms like the GPL could take away tons of rights, and still not be an EULA.
Nothing requires you to accept the GPL until you want to start modifying and distributing someone elses copyrighted work. You are not required to accept it in order to simply use the software. THAT is why we don't call it an EULA.
But that's just it. You don't violate the GPL. You can't violate something you never agreed to.
If you take a GPL work and distribute it without agreeing to the GPL (abiding by its terms), then you are breaking copyright law, plain and simple, because you have no license to distribute (or whatever you are doing). You are not in violation of a contract.
Picture it the other way around: Someone sues you for distributin gtheir software. You turn around and point out that they shipped a version of the GPL with it, and that you followed it's terms exactly. What will a court do? They will clearly decide that the author granted you permission to distribute under certain terms.
The GPL is not an EULA in the common sense of the word because you don't have to agree to it to use the software, plain and simple, it has nothing to do with what rights it grants or not.
The consideration is:
You can use our software (that's what you get) if you agree to not do these things that we see as detremental to our business model (that's what we get)
You ARE using Linux, right?? [smile]
/etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf file (don't include the line numbers; they are simply there in case SlashDot wraps the lines):
/you have an E-Card from/i /has sent you an e-card -- a virtual postcard from friendgreetings.com/i
Anyway, put the following seven lines in your
1. header SUBJ_FRIENDGREETINGS Subject =~
2. describe SUBJ_FRIENDGREETINGS Subject appears to be a FriendGreetings.com worm
3. score SUBJ_FRIENDGREETINGS 3.0
4.
5. full BODY_FRIENDGREETINGS
6. describe BODY_FRIENDGREETINGS Appears to be a FriendGreetings.com worm
7. score BODY_FRIENDGREETINGS 5.0
This should be two sets of three lines separated by a space.
This should tag the message as SPAM. Feel free to up the scores. I made the first test only a 2.0, since it just may be that it is a "legitimate" e-card. (Who actually reads those things, anyway?)
Note to all RedHat 8.0 users: SpamAssassin is included in your linux box! Use it!
"May I have ten thousand marbles, please?"
When you lease a car you won't find any hint of a lease or purchase on the car. You have to look on the contract.
actually you are getting something out of it. as you have to pay for it and agree to the contract to get the right to use it.
No! As soon as you pay for it, you have the right to use it immediately, unless some other status was stipulated as part of the sale. In short: If it takes the form of a sale, it is a sale; and the buyer owns their copy, and can do any thing not prohobited by copyright law.
Since you had the ability to use the software from the moment you purchased it (because usage is not something regulated through copyright law), a EULA purporting to give you the right to use the software you already purchased is thus void.
If the box or the vendor who sold it to you clearly states before the purchase that you need to agree to the licensing terms to use the software, that's a different thing -- but if you're granted no notice up front, you're buying the software rather than licensing it; and so you have all the rights not restricted by copyright law at the moment of the purchase.
Exactly, which in the case of the car, is the basis for it's purchase. On the other hand, the only contract at the point of sale of Neverwinter Nights, is the verbal agreement with the seller 'I pay you $39.99, you sell me this copy of Neverwinter Nights'
I haven't entered into any other contract, and I DO NOT NEED TO in order to use the software.
In the case of the car, you have my signature on a contract with the dealer of the car, 'I agree to give you $500 a month, you agree to give me use of this vehicle', but, in order for it to have those terms, there needs to be a contract, agreed to by both parties, to those terms. In the case of the PURCHASE of software at a retail store, there is no such contract. I don't go in to lease Neverwinter Nights, I go in to purchase a copy of Neverwinter Nights, and, having done so in good faith, there are NO LIMITS beyond those of copyright law as to how I can use Neverwinter Nights (well, that are enforcable by the creator of the software).
Realities just a bunch of bits.
I saw a comment of yours about smearing poop on somones face and I figured you were a troll. Sorry, I guess I should have read more of your comments before doing so. I changed you back to neutral if it makes you feel better.
Im not here now... Im out KILLING pepperoni
Well i'd think you do, just that the other party can then refuse to sign the modified contract just as you may refuse to sign the unmodified one.
More likely, a court would say that in consideration for giving both a sum of money and agreeing to the EULA, the company is permitting you to use the software.
Wouldn't the EULA have to be present when the purchase is made though? I mean, if i buy a car, and then after driving away find in the glovebox a requirement that all service must be from the dealer (and i was not presented with THESE terms up front), would that be binding?
The EULA governs the terms of the sale.
And most EULAs are only available AFTER the sale is complete. So the terms of sale have already been completed.
Yes, you also know if you're getting a lease or not up front. If you said 'i'm buying the car' and signed something that said it was a lease, i think you'd have grounds to take action against the dealer.
Get drunk before you install EULA'd software.
In the case of microsoft products, this is fairly natural behavior anyway.
I stole this sig.
I don't have any software boxes around at the moment, but don't most/all of them have a box of text (typically on the bottom) that says something to the effect of purchasing this box entitles you to use the contents in a way consistent with its licensing. And then usually something about if after you see the license you don't like it, you can return the box (with contents) to the retailer you purchased it from.
Need a Catering Connection
On further examination, there is such text, it was however, underneath a stick on pricetag barcode/antitheft thingy... Now thats amusing.
Realities just a bunch of bits.
The recent revisions of copyright law. Also the idea that making a transitory copy in order to use software is somehow different from making an image on your retina to read a book
The DMCA's title 3 clarifies that making an in-memory copy of a program by a 3rd party for maintenance or repair purposes is legal; the only case law I know of in which in-memory copies were legitimate grounds for an infringement suit presupposed just such a situation.