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."
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
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] ?
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!
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?
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
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.
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
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?
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.
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
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
marketing@permissionedmedia.com
"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.
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.
..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!
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.
Q. How do you uninstall Permedia Ads?
A. To uninstall Permedia Ads, follow these steps,
From the Windows Start button select Settings and then Control Panel.
When the Control Panel window opens, double-click on the Add/Remove Programs icon.
When the Add/Remove Programs Properties window opens, locate "WinSrv Reg" in the list of installed programs. Click on it one time and then click on the Add/Remove button.
Follow the on screen instructions.
That or you can email them for help at support@permissionedmedia.com .
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
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
- 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, 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
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]
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.
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.
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".
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.
(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
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?
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
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
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?
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.
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
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.
"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.
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.
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
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!
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.
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.
> 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.
<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.
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.
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.
HAHAHAHAHAH!
whoops, that was a big typo. sorry about that.
Ceci n'est pas un post
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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?"
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.
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
Be careful, then, that you have the right to use the software without accepting the EULA; if acceptance of the EULA before use is a condition of the sale, then you're potentially breaching the sales contract if you "agree" to the EULA while not competant.
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
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.