Slashdot Mirror
CA Court Strikes Blow Against Hidden EULAs
vsprintf writes "Ed Foster's Gripelog has a story on California's ruling against some of our favorite software producers and software retailers. EULAs inside the shrinkwrap are no longer good enough. Retailers with rules against accepting returns of open software could be in for hefty fines or settlements. Finally, a break for the buyer. May this spread quickly to other states."
For those who can't see the article:
Mirrordot Mirror
N.
"Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence." - Charles de Gaulle
All that's happened is that the pigopolists are putting a url on the outside of the box pointing to the full eula on their website. Still the same obnoxious bullshit, just readable if you want to go to the effort.
"Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
No you moron, they expect you to read the package prior to opening it, SEE the reference to the EULA online. Go online and read it before opening the package..
If you don't agree you can then bring it back and not have any issues because the package is not open.
Personal Website
Quote: Also under
You want a signature? You can't handle a signature!!
Actually, courts are upholding EULAs (even those undisclosed at point of sale) as enforcable. I would love to back you and say "Screw EULAs!", but recent events like those on 30 Sept. are reminding us that courts are increasingly siding with the big companies on this one.
More disturbing, it is extremely important to understand what the EULAs say more than ever before, because companies like Blizzard are injecting clauses into the EULA that explicity say that by clicking "OK" and using the software, you are giving up specific rights like your right to reverse engineer for interoperability, and your rights protected under the first sale doctrine. This came out in the recent decision in the Bnetd case.
In fact, multiple provisions protected under copyright law and the DMCA that allowed certain actions are being specifically forbidden in EULAs because companies don't want you to reverse engineer their products, no matter what. Courts are allowing you to "sign" away these protections allowed for in federal law in EULAs, even if the EULA was not available at point of sale.
This isn't a great forum to discuss this type of thing because it is really quite intricate, but I did write two pieces on this in my blog over at Etherplex that treat it in more detail. If you're not in touch with what the courts have been doing recently, it may be of interest.
"Eventually, the GM will just post them next to the software."
No, not Best Buy. They will claim you are comparison shopping and have you forcibly removed from the store.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
I'm not sure that's true. You can waive your first sale rights (along with fair use rights and interoperability rights).
How many court cases have there been to seek damages from someone who didn't uphold the EULA?
Forgot about this one?
Yeah, it's under appeal, but the bnetd guys lost big on this one, because the EULA was violated in the creation of a competing product. The lower court ruled that the EULA was absolutely enforceable, and that the bnetd guys were absolutely bound by it.
It's a good job that you can't sign away your rights here in Europe.
I just ignore them, European law also sides with the signatory not the author if there's any doubt as to what was meant, since it's the authors responsibility to make sure the signatory understands the contract.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
So.. now help out your fellow geeks.
Give the name of the retailer so that we know not to shop there, but to go in and occasionally tell them why we're shopping elsewhere.
That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze
> You don't, as a consumer, have a "right" to a
> refund.
That's true; maybe I should've spelled my point out a bit clearer.
You have a right to expect a purchased product is "fit for purpose" in every Western country I can think of. That applies to any product you can name, and will override any business-specific statements to the contrary. If you buy software, take it home, open the box, start installing it and find it's not "fit for purpose" because of some EULA restriction that you didn't know about beforehand, then you have a right to return it for a refund on that basis.
There's no way that a reasonable court could believe that you had bought the product knowing before you purchased that it wasn't fit for purpose (i.e. you knew the EULA), given that EULAs run to 1000s of lines of legalese and change regularly and without notice.
Hope that clears up my point.
8.5 in x 11 in = 93.5 in^2 x 20 = 1870 in^2 / 4 in = 467.5 in / 12 in = 38.95833 ft / 3 ft = 12.98611 yards
You're confusing EULA and Copyright- which are completely two different things.
Copyright deals with the production and distribution of literary and other works of art. Nothing more, nothing less.
An End User License covers whatever in the hell the licenseor wants. It covers usage, etc.
Big damn difference there. With pure Copyright, the rules for use are anything that doesn't infringe- including copying snippets and even copying your friend's instance of the work for your own purpose if it's music (American Home Recording Act covers the compulsory license to be able to do so...). With an EULA, they can prohibit you telling anyone you're a user, whether or not it performs as well as they claim, and so forth.
Come on, wise up.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
I was under the impression any license agreement was not valid anyway without a notary present for a signature. Clicking a botton can not be interpetted as signing a document. Especially if no lawyer or notary is present.
Actually, as of October 2000, in the US clicking a button can legally be acknowledged as accepting a contract. The little thing that makes this possible is called the Electronic Signature in Global and National Commerce Act. President Clinton signed it into law on June 30th, 2000.
It was at that point commonly accepted that click through eulas were valid agreements. Questions about the validity of eulas have primarily focused on whether the wording of the eula itself invalidated the contract not the legal binding of the click through.
A short little article on the acthttp://www.cio.com/archive/011501/fine.html didn't see an entry on wikipedia on the act itself.
/* TODO: Spawn child process, interest child in technology, have child write a new sig */