Fight Woodworking Piracy: Add EULA Restrictions

An anonymous reader writes "Ed Foster's Gripelog discusses EULA restriction on a new woodworking tool. A small woodworking tool manufacturer, Stots Corporation, includes a license agreement on its TemplateMaster jig tool. The tool is licensed, not sold, and customers cannot sell it or lend it to others. Nor can they sell or lend the jigs they make with it. "Shrinkwrap licenses are showing up everywhere," a reader recently wrote. "I just bought a jig for making dovetailing jigs -- this is woodworker talk if it's unfamiliar to you. The master jig contained a license that says I've licensed the master jig, not bought it. The license says I can't lend or sell the master, and furthermore I can't lend or sell the jigs I make with the master." The reader was referring to Stots Corporation of Harrods Creek, KY, and the user agreement for its TemplateMaster product. Sure enough, the Stots license says TemplateMaster may be used "in only one shop by the original purchaser only" and that "you may not allow individuals that did not purchase the original Product (to) use the Product or any templates produced using the Product..." A FAQ document on the Stots website explains that the license is necessary because "the purpose of the TemplateMaster is to clone itself. Therefore we are verifying your honesty that only you will use the tool and you will not be passing it around to others to use for free. It is exactly the same as the 'shrink wrap' agreement that comes with almost all computer software. Please help us fight 'tool piracy'."

Comments

I can see it now

[robbyjo]

EULA

License Rights

We grant you a nonexclusive, nontransferable limited license to use the woodworking tool for purposes of developing your new tools and cutting trees only. You may
also give, lend, or sell this tool to the third party. If you want to use the tool for any purpose other than as expressly permitted under this agreement you must contact
us to obtain the appropriate license. We
may audit your use of the tool. Tool documentation is either shipped with the programs, or documentation may accessed online
at our website.

Ownership and Restrictions

We retain all ownership and intellectual property rights in the tool.

You may not:

• use the programs for any purpose other than as provided above, including but not limited to, literally hacking computers and harming others;
  
• make tools that compete with our product lines;
  
• distribute the tools unless accompanied with the document;
  
• charge your end users for use of the tool;
  
• remove or modify any tool markings or any notice of our proprietary rights;
  
• use the tool to provide third party training on the content and/or functionality of the tool;
  
• assign this agreement or give the tool, tool access or an interest in the tools to any individual or entity except as provided under this agreement;
  
• cause or permit reverse engineering (unless required by law for interoperability), disassembly or decompilation of the tool;
  
• disclose results of any program benchmark tests without our prior consent; or,
  
• use any our company name, trademark or logo.
  

Re:Can't do it.

[Anonymous Coward]

that seems to be contradicted by the statement in the EULA that says "this is a product designed to copy itself" they are worried that sombody will make 100 1st generation jigs and give them to people who will use them as masters. Those people should buy the masters from them.

or so the theory goes.

Let's see what's right here and what's not

[dunstan]

OK, let's treat this jig not as a tool, but as a pattern. What would seem reasonable with a pattern?

Would it be reasonable to make copies of the pattern and give them to one's friends to use in their own workshops? I would suggest not.

If I lent the pattern to my friend for him to make end products, that would seem reasonable.

If I lent the pattern to my friend, he made a copy, and then he used that copy to make end product while I used the original pattern to make end product, that would seem unreasonable.

But clearly these guys are taking the view that, while the jig itself can be considered goods which have been purchased, its use constitutes making copies - in the same way that when you buy a software CD, actually using it in your computer is considered copying (from the CD into memory). By using this logic, the maker has chosen to treat the use of the jig as copying, and *in* *law* he may well have a case.

This takes me back to the 1980s when the old Sun 3 machines came with an operating system "right to use" licence, and if used hardware was sold, then the puchaser had to purchase another "right to use" OS licence because he wasn't covered by the original licence. They stopped that years ago. More recently we've seem Microsoft suggesting to schools and charities that PC hardware donated to them by businesses probably has an OS licence which is non-transferable.

Anyways, rather than complaining about this EULA on a jig/pattern, if they really can be used to make replicas then there is clearly a need for a Free Jigs Foundation so that these silly people go out of business.

Dunstan

Re:Can't do it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps you should mention that to IBM who did exactly this with their mainframes for several decades without any legal problems.

Re:These seeds may not be planted

[vidarh]

Don't joke about that - go read up on what Monsanto think is reasonable use of their seeds... Monsanto is one of the largest seed manufacturers in the world, and one of their pet peeves is that farmers who collect seeds from their harvest are undermining their income stream. To the point where they are trying to restrict it with license agreements, patents and genetically modified crops that don't produce viable seeds...

Re:Can't do it.

[tony_gardner]

There are some things where its not clear whether they are a physical object or not. Clearly they are talking about the master pattern for the dovetails. A dovetailer is a machine which cuts the end of a bit of wood into crennelations (up and down bits like on the top of a castle). It does this often by using a hand router to cut around a metal form which is the "master form" which then produces copies of the master form in wood. Obviously they think that their master form is an original pattern, and that copying is is analogous to photocopying a book. That is: they consider the pattern, rather than the metal of the form to be the thing of value. You could equally use the pattern of the metal to cut copies of that pattern into metal, rather than wood; thus destroying what they consider to be the value of the item: its rarity and uniqueness.

Having seen a few dovetail forms, I'd have to say it would want to be a pretty amazing form.

I think another way of looking at it would be to consider keys. your landlord can't stop you from lending your key to someone else, but I'd think that making copies of it and distributing it to all of your friends would create a bit of a stir, as would selling your key: and the key is also one of your "rivalrous assets".

Re:These seeds may not be planted

[ron_ivi]

We've already been there and back with seeds with usage restrictions built in.

But on the subject of sesame seeds... they're a very big crop - the sixth largest in the world production of edible oil seeds.

And yes, there is valuable intellectual property in sesame seed genetics.

Re:Can't do it.

[Afty0r]

You don't buy a license to a physical item - like a dovetailing bit - you buy the bit. It's your's. You own it and have full right to use it for the purpose intended. You can sell it, loan it to someone else, and modify it

You can do, but in the USA, the company responsible for the EULA can take you to court for doing so. If you cannot afford a good enough lawyer to make a convincing argument that the EULA should not be valid, you will lose an enormous amount of money. In the event that you do hire a good enough lawyer, you will only lose a large amount of money.

This is an enormous, and rapidly growing, problem in the USA. Many other countries have employed a policy of "plaintiff pays" the legal fees, should they lose the suit - but in the USA one must initiate yet more costly action (I believe you call it a SLAPP suit?) in order to obtain these fees, and such suits are rarely succesful.

In the UK for example, our government offers "Legal Aid" - a scheme by which people can get free or reduced cost legal help for fighting cases. This greatly reduces the disincentive to fight that an ordinary (non supported) court battle would have, which in turn reduces the incentive for companies to sue individuals with cases that are not strong.

The end result is that in the UK there are very very few frivolous or weak lawsuits brought about against individuals, lower costs for everyone, and a fairer system for society.

Does anyone know why the US does not have a system for aiding people in legal battles, and why when a motion in court is found to not be enforcable in law, does the person who brought the suit (and therefore a large monetary cost) to someone erroneously, does not have to pay?

Re:Simple

[DNS-and-BIND]

In no event shall Microsoft be liable for any damages whatsoever, even in the event of fault (including negligence).

--Windows XP Professional license agreement

Re:Any woodworking people out there?

[nathanh]

From the poor-quality pictures on the website, this appears to be a shaped metal template which you copy onto a piece of wood with a router (a kind of jigsaw?).

A router is a very high speed cutting tool primarily used for making decorative edges though you can also use it for trimming edges, cutting grooves, rounding edges, creating tongues, etc. It's more like a drill than a jigsaw though the cutting edges are different to drills. If you've ever seen a dremel with a milling bit then imagine something 10x bigger and 100x more dangerous.

Am I missing something? That seems a pretty simple thing - not the kind of thing you'd expect to make millions selling, or be able to force people to agree to such a licence to use. Does it have some magical properties not apparent to a guy who failed woodwork?

A dovetail jig lets you create two types of edges. These edges interlock to create an incredibly strong right-angle join with no nails and no screws. The dovetail shape determines the properties of the join and every jig vendor vigorously defends their unique shape. It's an identity thing. It's not magical, but I can understand why they're trying to prevent people copying their jigs.

Take note that dovetail jigs are fairly modern (as are routers). The dovetail joint is ancient (1000s of years?) but was traditionally done with a handsaw and a chisel. It takes an extremely skilled person to create a good dovetail joint by hand. The dovetail jig allows any semi-skilled amateur to make incredibly good dovetail joints in just a few minutes. Any hobbyist worth his (or her) salt has a dovetail jig.

Re:Look at the silly monkey

[benhaha]

Software is covered by first sale, even though you have to copy it in order to use it. This is because the United States Code contains a specific exception for software users. The exception is:

Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:

(a) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner

This means that you do not have to agree to the EULA in order to use the software, even though using the software involves making a copy. So just click past it.

DJB's page on Software Rights

I am not a lawyer though...

Re:Can't do it.

[TA]

No, IBM did not. You rented the mainframe from them. Nobody at the time imagined that anyone would ever want to buy their own computer, so the first businesses were all built around the rent-a-mainframe concept.

Re:Monsanto

[bigkahunafish]

I am actually a seed producer here in the US. On Monsanto's Roundup-Ready Soybeans, we, as a producer, must pay royalties to get into RR's in the first place. Then prices are higher for them to the seed customer (around $20/50 lb.) due to about $10 in tech fees (about $7 goes to Monsanto per 50/lb.) which we send to them. Every customer must sign an agreement (essentially EULA) which establishes that they will not reclaim GMO seeds for planting, farmers must instead go through a seed company, like us, so they pay the royalties. For signing the agreement, every farmer gets a Monsanto #, which keeps track of purchases year to year. We, as a seed processing company (a small one at that), get audited by Monsanto every so often. They check our farm records, and make sure RR seed we sold to farmers was in fact sprayed with Round-up and not a generic brand. They will also take samples of our seed to determine its generation in its genetics, so they check that we are not pirating their seed. If we were, they threaten fines of over $500/acre of produced soybeans (which is enough to bankrupt most farms).

A bit screwy ?

[o'reor]

Now read this :

Percy Schmeiser's web site. Percy Schmeiser is a farmer from Bruno, Saskatchewan Canada whose Canola fields were contaminated with Monsanto's Round-Up Ready Canola. Since he uses his own crops for seeds, and Monsanto's GM seeds are patented, Monsanto's position is that it doesn't matter whether Schmeiser knew or not that his canola field was contaminated with the Roundup Ready gene and that he must pay their Technology Fee.

You are surrounded by lawyers. Resistance is futile.

Re:A bit screwy ?

[bluGill]

While I disagree with your conclusion, you must understand that Percy Schmeiser did intentionaly plant seeds near his neighbors, and then spray the offspring with roundup in a deliberate attempt to get the roundup ready genes into his otherwise tarditional seed crop. (By spraying with roundup he assured that only the roundup ready plants would survive)

Now if he had just planted his seeds near the neighrbor, and without spraying roundup continued to do so I would agree that nothing should happen, but he tried to get the patented genes, so I'm not on his side. He could plant near those crops one year, waited until the patent expired, and then sprayed with roundup to develop his seed, and I would be in his favor.

Re:A bit screwy ?

[LordKronos]

That's according to Schmeiser's story. I was a bit disturbed about the whole story for a long time, until I read a couple of third party accounts of the whole situation. According to the articles I read, although Percy didn't actually introduce the patented seeds into his crops (it was accidental contamination...probably seeds blown in by the wind from nearby crops), after it happened he knew full well what he had on his hands. He knew it was Round-Up Ready, and he took advantage of that fact. He harvested seeds from the crops so he could continue to benefit from it, knowing that what he was doing was in violation of the patent, but believing that if he were caught he could just claim ignorance.

I'm certainly no Monsanto fan (it's one of the few companies I actually actively boycott), and I'm sure that any evidence they present on the case is only going to be the evidence that proves their case (and according to what I've seen, they've even distorted evidence and exaggerated the facts). However, I also realize that Schmeiser is looking at serious repercussions for what he did, and his website is probably only going to present evidence that makes him look good (and makes him look like the little guy being picked on buy the big bully).

I wish I could remember where those articles I read came from, as they appeared to me to be the most unbiased reports I had read. If anybody has links to them, I'd appreciate if you could post them.

Licensing Tools

[a1z26b2y25]

Just don't buy from them. The rest of the tool manufacturers will get the message. Woodworkers are not a dumb sheep bunch like the typical PC user. I have been woodworking for years now. These people will not sit by and let someone do this. They are used to building / fabricating their own tools if need be. This will flop, mark my words.

Re:Can't do it.

[RedWizzard]

You don't buy a license to a physical item - like a dovetailing bit - you buy the bit. It's your's. You own it and have full right to use it for the purpose intended.

I think you've acutally understated the situation. You don't just have the right to use the purchased good for the purpose intended, you have the right to use the purchased good for any purpose.

Re:Monsanto

[schon]

Every customer must sign an agreement (essentially EULA) which establishes that they will not reclaim GMO seeds for planting, farmers must instead go through a seed company, like us, so they pay the royalties.

The difference between this and the "EULA"s in the article is that these are legally binding - they're presented before the sale, and they're signed by the purchaser.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just that the Monsanto contracts are legally binding.

Re:Look at the silly monkey

[NormalVisual]

Dang it - I even previewed the damn post and screwed up the law firm's URL. Here it is: Oppedahl & Larson LLP:

Re:Can't do it.

[cybergrue]

Just one minor thing. IIRC (IANAL) SLAPP stands for Spurious Lawsuit against Protesting People. Its a lawsuit launched (usually) by a large corp aginst some protesting group on frivouls grounds to make them shut up, or to bankrupt them with legal fees. I believe its illegal in several places.

Ahh, isn't the american legal system grand.

Re:Purchaser _of the license_

[rizzo420]

a jig is a tool used to help in the wood working process. most woodworkers make custom jigs for their own use for certain types of projects that they do over and over. i'm sure most serious woodworkers have made their own jigs for dove-tailed joints. this product seems like a stupid way to make money off of newer woodworkers so they can save some time. the cost is appalling. it looks like a little piece of crap thing.

Re:Look at the silly monkey

[mcrbids]

In order to be upheld in court, an EULA would have to be presented to the purchaser before they buy it, not afterwards (at which point, it doesn't matter whether the user clicks "I agree" or not.)

Let me guess.... you forgot to mention the whole "IANAL" thing...

Explain your legal theories in a context where it's clear that they are just theories. Posts like this one make it real clear why you actually need a license to practice law - because of people like you. (BTW, IANAL)

According to my understanding, the only thing questionably legal about software is the fact that in many cases, you can't return it. It's very normal for contracts and agreements to be changed after an initial contract has been signed.

For example, last week I received a notice from the local phone company notifying me of changes in the billing terms. Nothing major, and nothing I'm worrried about - but contained therein was a phrase like "continued use of our services constitutes agreement to these terms". It's perfectly legal - the next time you make a payment, you're legally binding yourself to those terms.

Another example - your credit card company changes the interest rate, up or down. They have similar language which means, in effect, "If you don't like it, pay off the balance on the card and don't use it anymore.".

How is this substantially different than a EULA? "If you don't like these terms, don't use the software!". Where this starts to break down is when you can't take the software back when you don't agree to the terms...

Of course, it's possible you might actually have legitimate legal credentials, but I sure pity the sorry schmuck who retains your services for Intellectual Property matters.