Slashdot Mirror
End User License Gems
satosphere writes "TG Daily has an article on EULA Gems, priceless statements that companies want you to agree to in their End User License Agreement." From the article: "You agree, if purchasing by credit card or charge card, that you permanently and irrevocably waive any and all right to cause a 'chargeback' ... You agree that, if you institute such a "chargeback", it constitutes a material violation of this license, and damages Company in ways impossible to calculate, and with long-term adverse effects to the Company."
This is in MOST MS agreements
You may install and use one copy of the software on one device. You may install multiple copies of the software on one device provided that you have a license for each copy.
You may install and use a second copy of the software on a portable device for use by only the primary user of the first copy
It pays to read the ms ones if you have a laptop. This is in Dungeon Siege (I & II), in XP Pro and Home, and Office.
so why not charge back if you can :)
Aaron McKenna
22 Oct 2005 13:22
AaronThe End User License Agreement. You probably have grown accustomed to clicking through on these when installing new software, so accustomed that you don't even read them anymore. Well, we have and here are some of our favourites. We also present them with simultaneous plain English translations.
Do not criticize this product publicly
There are in fact clauses within EULA's, including a number by Microsoft in the MS XML and SQL Server EULA's, which state that [you] may not without Microsoft's prior written approval disclose to any third party the results of any benchmark test.
In other news, half the staff of Tom's Hardware Guide have been sued, arrested, jailed and hit on by their cell mates.
Free speech? Heh, not bloody likely under the EULA... man.
Do not use this product with other vendors products
The reason that software vendors don't want you or I to use a program in conjunction with another one is so that for example you don't go out with a packet sniffer to discover all that malicious spy and adware running alongside the piece of software you've just installed.
For example take a Claria EULA:
You agree that you will not use, or encourage others to use, any unauthorized means for the removal of the GAIN AdServer, or any GAIN-Supported Software from a computer . . . Any use of a packet sniffer or other device to intercept or access communications between GP and the GAIN AdServer is strictly prohibited.
Oh, and by the by, "sniffer" is a trademarked word, guys.
When your computer dies, it's not our problem
Oh, well, this is reassuring. "We're pretty confident in our software, but if it happens to entirely accidentally turn your machine into a cold fusion reactor and open up a hole in space, you cannot, we repeat, cannot hold us responsible."
As an example, let's look at a typical clause in the Windows XP EULA:
Except for any refund elected by Microsoft, YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO
ANY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, if
the Software does not meet Microsoft's Limited Warranty, and, to the
maximum extent allowed by applicable law, even if any remedy fails of
its essential purpose.
Dude, where's my computer...? Well don't ask Microsoft, that's for sure.We'll make any changes to this agreement we like, and you've just agreed to them
Take for example Apple's service agreement for iTunes:
Apple reserves the right, at any time and from time to time, to update, revise, supplement, and otherwise modify this Agreement and to impose new or additional rules, policies, terms, or conditions on your use of the Service. Such updates, revisions, supplements, modifications, and additional rules, policies, terms, and conditions (collectively referred to in this Agreement as "Additional Terms") will be effective
immediately and incorporated into this Agreement. Your continued use of the iTunes Music Store following will be deemed to constitute your acceptance of any and all such Additional Terms. All Additional Terms are hereby incorporated into this Agreement by this reference.
So, if we happen to install Ming the Merciless as our CEO and President for Life all you iTunes users shall be doomed to spend the rest of eternity listening to 90's pop music.
We're watching you
Some EULA clauses allow software manufacturers to monitor your machine at will - DRM being a good example - and send data back and forth at will. They can even download new content onto your machine without having to notify you - anything from an innocuous patch to full blown spyware.
For example take Section 6 of the Pinnacle Studio 9 movie-making EULA:
You acknowledge and agree that in order to protect the integrity
of certain third party content, Pinnacle and/or its licensors may
provide for Software security related updates that will be automatically
downloaded and installed on your computer. Such security related updates
Make sure you read this before posting.
Reminds me of Something Awful's recent lampoon of the same subject. Nobody reads these things because they're all in legalese. No wonder companies think they can slide in anything. And what are the users going to do, not accept the terms?
How will I know about them? I clicked Accep errrrr Reply without RTFA
liqbase
Where do these doofuses get the notion that you can go to jail for failing to comply with the terms of a contract?
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
It's har to believe that there are ppl that actually read them.
It's strange there is no eulaeater.com site (like 419eater).
my sstream of consciousness
Love this one they added to WoW. Every once in a while there's a huge fuss about Blizz's "Warden" program. Anyways here's the TOS excerpt:
:)
A. WHEN RUNNING, THE WORLD OF WARCRAFT CLIENT MAY MONITOR YOUR COMPUTER'S RANDOM ACCESS MEMORY (RAM) AND/OR CPU PROCESSES FOR UNAUTHORIZED THIRD PARTY PROGRAMS RUNNING CONCURRENTLY WITH WORLD OF WARCRAFT. AN "UNAUTHORIZED THIRD PARTY PROGRAM" AS USED HEREIN SHALL BE DEFINED AS ANY THIRD PARTY SOFTWARE, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION ANY "ADDON" OR "MOD," THAT IN BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT'S SOLE DETERMINATION: (i) ENABLES OR FACILITATES CHEATING OF ANY TYPE; (ii) ALLOWS USERS TO MODIFY OR HACK THE WORLD OF WARCRAFT INTERFACE, ENVIRONMENT, AND/OR EXPERIENCE IN ANY WAY NOT EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZED BY BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT; OR (iii) INTERCEPTS, "MINES," OR OTHERWISE COLLECTS INFORMATION FROM OR THROUGH WORLD OF WARCRAFT. IN THE EVENT THAT WORLD OF WARCRAFT DETECTS AN UNAUTHORIZED THIRD PARTY PROGRAM, BLIZZARD MAY (a) COMMUNICATE INFORMATION BACK TO BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION YOUR ACCOUNT NAME, DETAILS ABOUT THE UNAUTHORIZED THIRD PARTY PROGRAM DETECTED, AND THE TIME AND DATE THE UNAUTHORIZED THIRD PARTY PROGRAM WAS DETECTED; AND/OR (b) EXERCISE ANY OR ALL OF ITS RIGHTS UNDER SECTION 6 OF THIS AGREEMENT, WITH OR WITHOUT PRIOR NOTICE TO THE USER.
Nice, no? Of course "WE NOW OWN YOUR COMPUTER GG NOOB" would have been shorter and more to the point, but it doesn't sound nearly as eloquent.
http://www.tgdaily.com/2005/10/22/rtf_eula/print.h tml
Everybody's a libertarian 'till their neighbour's becomes a crack house.
I hope these idiotic EULA's don't stand up in court. I mean after all, some software I have actually used wants me to release my source code if I use thier source code in the software I write. Now how in the world could that be reasonably enforceable by just a click through license.
Wow, place is loaded with ads and ads and ads..
print version
All your base are belong to us.
DYWYPI?
I'm glad my company keeps it's license agreements pretty loose. We only request that once you choose accept you will no longer fraternize with any of our competition, nor will you install any free or otherwise non-profitable software on your computer.
...::----::...
I am in no way affiliated with this sig.
If there's no license granting you permission to take actions governed by copyright, you can then be liable for copyright infringement.
An increasing number of forms of copyright infringement are criminal.
I scrolled all the way to the bottom.. but there wasnt an accept button. I thought it might be one of those scroll to bottom, jump through hoop, check box, sell soul, then click accept but that didnt work either. Yet I am able to post... maybe I have a hacked copy of Slashdot...
- Your stupidity got you into this mess, why can't it get you out? -Will Rogers
$8,000 in liquidated damages, and not as a penalty? Look, if your server melts every time a credit card transaction is cancelled, that's your fucking fault, and not mine.
Liquidated damages only stand up in court if they're a reasonable approximation of the actual damages incurred by a breach of contract. Eight thousand dollars for a simple chargeback is punitive - regardless of the language in your EULA.
- Bachelorhood is the father of necessity.
...you agree to give me your firstborn child.
'Every story, if continued long enough, ends in death.' --Ernest Hemingway
read the new clause in TG Daily's EULA about agreeing to have its writers look at you in a creepy way.
% mkdir
% ls -dF
While working for a small Amiga publisher, we demanded the buyer's first-born in the software license. In the follow-up product, we asked for the second and for the rights to facilitate production of same. Later at a game company, I inserted the right to pitch a tent and toast marshmallows in the customer's yard, but the text was yanked by the publisher. :(
Yeah, I'm thinking that might breach the third party program's EULA, contravene the DMCA, etcetera.
Everybody's a libertarian 'till their neighbour's becomes a crack house.
I know that EULAs are pretty bad and all... but do the members of the court have to go through heart attacks and coronary artery bypass surgery (presumably caused by frustation) just to realize that EULAs aren't that great?
Companies seem to be going a bit over board with thier EULA's and generally making things hard on the customer. If EULA's were written in plain english and kept short and to the point, without "Lawyer Speak", it could benefit both the company and the User. As it is now, most EULA's only set up the customer to take a shafting if they bring up an issue with a company.
"Yeah, but by we know yo mama gives EVERYBODY root privilege..." -jpetts (208163)
That's hilarious. I think I'm going to start throwing stupid little clauses like that in my EULAs.
By running the Program, you agree that:
(1) You will not, under any circumstances, write a bad review about the Program, and;
(2) Any declaration in which language found to be slanderous of the Program or the Company will result in impossible to calculate damages to the Company. You further agree that you will pay the Company a preset repayment of no less than $50,000 and no more than $50,000,000, within 24 hours of publication of such declaration. Failure to comply will result in death by catapult.
"Crime fighters fight crime. Fire fighters fight fire. What do freedom fighters fight?" -George Carlin
Microsoft's OS's have never been licensed for 2 installs - but all copies of Office do. (The employee take-home copies of Office do NOT include this clause, other volume-type versions may as well)
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
About the most egregious license agreement comes from Skype, which all but says they own your computer. Basically, they assume the right to all "computing resources" while you're running the program. They take advantage of this to turn PCs with high bandwidth into relays for chatting pairs who are both behind firewalls, and to turn random systems into directory nodes, suffering sudden influxes of upward of a thousand connections.
My cell phone contract contained similar language. It stated that cancelling the contract before the term was up would could "cause damage to the Company that is difficult to determine, but is approximately $150". I was ready to pay this (because US Cellular is the absolute worst phone company EVER... I live in Chicago and didn't even get good reception at US Cellular field!), until I read the whole contract and realized that my cell phone company screwed up -- they said my term was "0 months" (not 2 years like I thought). Needless to say, I called them and pointed this out. They said they'd call back, but I haven't heard from them in months. I haven't gotten a bill either, so I guess they just silently admitted defeat.
:)
Funny how the contract can actually screw the company over sometimes
My other car is first.
check out craigslist.org's EULA. They itemize fines you are subject to if you violate their terms of agreement.
This whole thing is out of hand....
Are you sure you don't want to change your answer to the poll? I read the EULA... Maybe?
If memory serves, the Java user agreement requires you to acknowledge that any deaths resulting from Java use are on your own hands. The wording is less direct, working through the logic that Java isn't to be used where somebody's life is on the line, but it still makes me nervous. :)
WHY DO END USER LICENSE AGREEMENTS LIKE CAPS SO MUCH?
Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted! Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
There was a clause in an NDA I signed with Sony that said something along the lines of "In the event of You disclosing material which is considered proprietary under this agreement, the Company will seek maximum damages, and financial reparation may not be sufficient".
:-)
That scared me slightly... I still signed though. And I made sure not to have any first-born (hah! As if I had the chance back then
Simon
Physicists get Hadrons!
I'm a bit puzzled as to why this bit of old history is considered a story.
There are lots of these stories about, some of which might even be upheld in court if M$, disney et all contribute enough to the judges retirement fund.
We do occasionally read a EULA, but only for its amusement value. If the product itself sucks, then there is usually no way to get your money back, and only occasionally you might get a fresh copy of the stuff with a builtin vacuum, but only in the industrial/broadcast market does it do you any good to squawk at the vendor. He's usually so big he can tell you to go screw yourself and get away with it cause he's got more lawyers than your car has valves in its engine. To me, thats a pretty powerfull reason to use open source, such as linux.
Only where the market is a niche market, and the software folks are eating well only if it works, are you able to actually relay your dis-satisfaction back to the coders. That assumption goes with the price of the software/hardware. For a $500 computer you don't get that priviledge, for a $18,000 video server hardware software package, he knows he'll never see the last $12,000 if it doesn't work 24/7/365, so thats a pretty strong incentive to not screw the one of maybe 700 customers who might be interested in the package.
This is not a worthy story for slashdot IMO, its just a fact of life.
--
Cheers, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
I think OSTG (or at least ./ is based in the US) in which case all you have to read is this.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
http://www.geocities.com/external45739/Disagree.zi p
- Enables disabled buttons (like "Next" even if you don't select "I agree")
- Makes EULA edit boxes editable again
- Saves and prints EULAs
Have him. He's a total mooch. He uses my computer all night, eats all my food, and keeps demanding stuff 'for school.' Heck, I've read your comments several times; do you want the rest of 'em, too?
and before the flamebait police come out, no I don't really have kids. I'm a 20-something that has been smart enough to avoid them. My parents raised me better than that. They kept telling me that if I really want children, I should go out and buy them -- or, in the case of the parent comment, simply ask for them.
Nothing funny here, time to move on.
IANAL. However, I am a law student.
To respond to your post: actually depending on your jurisdiction, it may be a binding contract. One of the keys is that acceptance of an offer to contract may be manifested by conduct. Some courts have recognized that conduct as running the software and/or failing to return it. However, the EULA is still vulnerable to the doctrine of unconscionability, among other reasons for a court refusing to enforce a contract.
Perhaps the seminal case on the subject of EULAs is the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals decision ProCD v. Zeidenberg , from 1996. I dissect that case (and my strong opposition to it), in this episode of my podcast.
Courts have not been consistent with their treatment of EULAs, so what the law is will vary based upon where a case is brought. At the tail end of the ProCD episode I outline some of the ways we can legally fix the damage caused by EULAs.
- Neil Wehneman
My legal education, in nifty podcast format
Oh i'm not fully against Warden. I understand why it's there, and I trust Blizzard enough that i'm willing to risk continued use of their software. But that doesn't mean I don't think this is an utterly rediculous invasion of privacy. I mean come on... Maytag doesn't get to lace my house with CCTV cameras when I buy one of their dishwashers. Why does Blizzard get unlimited access to my computer simply because i'm using their software? Just because its the norm? Infact, i've got a better word than "norm". Try "collusion". Look around - software EULAs have gone completely off the deep end while everyone was busy being mesmerized by the internet. It's just too bad avalanches are easier to start than they are to stop.
Wouldn't a click to agree thingie constitute merely a verbal agreement? Most legally binding things can't be done via a simple verbal contract, they require a signature. I don't know how good of a defense that would make, but that is a good start.
The other big argument here is can you know the terms before "agreeing" to them? Many of these are 'shrink wrap' licenses, and are supposedly agreed to by opening the box. Of course the terms are inside the box, so there's no way to know what you're "agreeing" to before doing so.
Though some shrink wrap licenses direct you to return the product immediately for a refund if you do not agree. And I have read on several occasions of companies with such a clause, which then refused to allow the product to be returned on those grounds. So they can't even play by their own rules..
But the evil of evils is the 800 line EULA that is displayed in a scroll box that is, at most, four lines tall and 30 characters wide. I counted on one of them, it took me over 110 clicks of Page Down to view the whole thing, three lines at a time. That would be another interesting one to see brought to court. Another similar EULA I have encountered had slightly shorter text, a 4 line window, and DID NOT respond to page step clicking in the scroll bar, or Page Down. It also did not enable the 'agree' button until you had gone to the bottom. So I spent 30 seconds holding the Down button on the scroll bar down, to get to the bottom.
The stupidity and arrogance of businessmen never ceases to amaze me.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
The EULA clause that threatens you with $8 grand in damages if you dispute a credit card charge would certainly violate their merchant account terms. Somebody needs to report them to MasterCard, AMEX and VISA. I would, but I'm not a customer of theirs, nor would I ever be.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
From Max Payne's EULA: "SOFTWARE Backup or Archiving. After You install the SOFTWARE into the permanent memory of a computer, You may keep and use the original disk(s) and/or CD-ROM (the "Storage Media") only for backup or archival purposes." And yet the game requires you use the CD for non-backup or archival purposes to play.
Anyone here an expert in common or civil law? Is it possible that the law can override the stuff written in a license?
So, I have yet to see a product where the norm is to buy it with a credit card and where you actually get to read the ELUA before charging the card. Now, what happens if you charge the card to buy the product, read the ELUA and go "Holy cow! I don't agree to this!" but by then you can't do a charge back. How could that stand up in court?
But more to the point... how could that wash with with a Visa merchant account agreement? Seems to me that a quick call to Visa where you quote the ELUA and surrounding circumstances, and somebody's merchant account just got yanked.
"Nintendo wont be held responsible for the players psychological sanity, post traumatic eating disorders, or illegal actions taken by the above-mentioned individual after his/her Nintendog died"
//WR
To use a service, you need to agree to the terms. If you don't agree, they have a fight not to provide the service to you. So it's incumbent on you to check what the terms of service are and figure out if they are acceptable. However don't presume you can dictate to them how they must or must not run their service. You can suggest, of course, and if they don't agree vote with your dollars and go elsewhere, but it's theri service, and thus they make the rules.
Now of course there are legal limits, as with everything. If Bilzzard decided to take over your ocmputer and use it as a spam bot, they'd get criminally charged regardless of ToS. But, in general, they can get terms for using it.
The reason that's legal and EULAs usually aren't is because with a ToS, they are giving you permission to use their stuff, and giving you the rules for using it. If you don't like it, you don't use their stuff and don't pay them money. However an EULA is additonal terms on a good you've already bought, and they do it after the sale has happened.
So while Bilzzard probably can't legally stop you from using the WoW client however you please (not that they might not try) they can terminate your ability to use their servers if they want.
Scenario #1:
I asked my non-English-speaking friend to buy me a new computer and install OpenOffice.
Of course he got the English-language MS-Windows and of course he had to walk through all the EULA and activation stuff. He'd watched someone else do it before so he knew what buttons to press but didn't understand a word of what was on the screen.
He didn't know enough to tell me he'd just signed away a bunch of rights on my behalf.
Who if anyone is liable if I violate the EULA - the very EULA that neither me nor my friend is aware of.
Scenario #2, except instead of me asking him, he did it on his own and gave me the PC w/ OO installed for Christmas.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Jeezus, the defence of Blizzard in this thread is just moronic. Slashdot used to be a place for technical folks ...
If a games system allows cheating, this means that there is a problem with the design of the games system, end of story. **NOTHING** that runs on a person's own machine should make any difference whatsoever, even if the client itself is modified, because the point of control should be at the network interface on the server end.
Blizzard have no business snooping around on your machine to make up for their design incompetence. If they've compromised their security by offloading sensitive work to the client and not checking at the server end, that's their lookout.
Flipping hell guys. Have some principles.
One thing that got pounded into my wife's head during 1st year law school (yes, she is a software licensing attorney) is that some legal "terms of art" are good, and some are crap.
The crap comes about in the following way: 1) lawyer writes obtuse clause into a contract. 2) litigation occurs. 3) obtuse clause causes much confusion. 4) case is decided. 5) case is appealed, partly due to obtuse clause. 6) appellate court rules that obtuse clause means some specific thing. 7) obtuse cluase goes down as a precedent, and now future lazy lawyers re-instantiate obtuse clause because it has been held to mean something specific.
In her first year legal writing class, they were drilled to watch out for such crap, and replace it with simple, clear language that is damn difficult to misinterpret, thus short circuiting the whole obtuse clause scenario.
That said, there are indeed "terms of art" that are not crap, have long standing, are quite clear to a lawyer trained in the art, but to a mere programmer are utterly indistiguishable from modem noise.
EULAs are money-making scams, and the victims are the gullible companies who slap EULAs on their products. The person who profits is the lawyer who convinced the company that they need a EULA to protect themselves from . . . whatever. Lawsuits, piracy, corporate espionage, legal liability, Al Qaeda, cosmics rays, etc. The lawyer paints a vision of a world full of risks which he can mitigate with a well-crafted EULA, for only a few thousand bucks.
And the companies pay. The lawyer gets his new Lexus, and the users are inconvenienced by having to click the "agree" button on a legal agreement that is, properly speaking, neither legal nor an agreement.
There's also an intimidation factor. The EULA doesn't have to be legally binding in order to have some effect on the behavior of users. If the company sends you a nasty-gram and threatens to sue you for violating the EULA, you don't want to be taken to court. Nobody does. Probably the company doesn't really want to go to court either, but are you willing to take that chance? Unfortunately, a large part of business in the USA is now based on this kind of intimidation tactic. Between companies it appears to be quite common. Between companies and customers it's less common, but hardly unknown.
Aussies may be nutty in some ways, but I do believe I like what you say about Aussie law in this respect. Yes indeed. This is only a first impression of course, I have not taken any time at all to consider the further implications of such a view. ;)
Slashdot - where to disagree, is to be a troll
Something that bothers me, why do EULAs typeically come in eight-point font in a 400x200 dialog box, and make it impossible to copy the text? There's absolutely no excuse for the small font--no paper is being saved, and the tiny window is just to discourage people reading and finding out just how many ways they are getting screwed.
Think again. It clearly states here that you can only install on one desktop at a time. Don't tell me otherwise, tell the Microsoft rep that I had on the phone because I had previously installed the os on another machine 6 months ago - yet it still kicked out my online authentication. And this was the $300 Professional version.
You must still be using Windows 2000, which I also have.
And if I edit the contract to simply say "1) Microsoft owes [My Name] $1,000,000,000." with a resource editor before launching the program for the first time, does that mean when I agree to the contract written by me that Microsoft owes me $1,000,000,000 in the jurisdictions that consider these things binding? If so, can you please direct me to one of those jurisdictions :-) Ok, ok, how about this. Let's say I swap the button names so that clicking the "Disagree" button performs the installation and "Agree" cancels it. Am I now free to do whatever the hell I want with it? Ok, ok, ok... This is a good one. How about I let my 6 year old niece install my software for me. She isn't likely to read, much less inform me of the language of the EULA, and it certainly isn't binding for her. It isn't illegal for six year old kids to install software is it? I'm going with the six year old defense. Let's see their fancy lawyers bribe their judge around that.
From a Broadband Reports' security forum thread for those who missed it in my EULA poll reply:
PLEASE READ this end-user license agreement ("eula") carefully. By being born, you agree to be bound by the terms of this eula. If you do not agree, do not exit womb and, if applicable, return to the place of conception for a full refund.
1. GENERAL. This eula is a legal agreement between you (either an individual or an entity) and the scientific or religious establishment of your choice ("God"). This eula governs your Life, which includes all seconds from the time you are born until you are legally pronounced dead (. This eula also governs the container supplied with your Life ("Body") and any support services ("miracles") relating to Life except as may be included in another agreement between you and God. An amendment or addendum to this eula may be presented to you by your retail suppliers ("Parents").
2. THE PARENT PROGRAM. All complaints and technical support requests should be addressed to your Parents, who may or may not, depending on the subscription level you have elected, offer you additional warranties. Parents are third-party components, and not subject to warranties under this eula. God is not liable for the quality, competence, character, number, gender, species, ethnicity, religious affiliation, or presence/absence of your Parents, or for the quality of the relationship between them, if any, and does not supply technical support for Parental units. Any Parent may be terminated or exchanged at any time without notice and without recourse.
3 CONSCIOUSNESS. To reduce piracy, God requires certain components to be activated. The license rights granted under this eula are limited to the first five times you gain Consciousness ("Wake up") after you are Born unless you supply the information necessary to activate your Life. You may also need to reactivate your Life if you modify your Body or alter your Consciousness. God will not collect any personally identifiable information from your DNA during the activation process without your consent.
4. DIGITAL RIGHTS MANAGEMENT. Content providers are using digital rights management technology to protect the integrity of their content so that their intellectual property, including copyright, in such content is not misappropriated. If your Brain's security has been compromised, content providers may request that God revoke your right to copy, display, and/or play protected content. Revocation does not alter your Brain's ability to access unprotected content, if any exists.
5. OUT-OF-BODY EXPERIENCES. Your Life may not be shared or used concurrently among different Bodies.
6. YOU ALSO AGREE:
a. Not to remove or obscure any copyright, trademark or patent notices ("Birthmarks") that appear on the Body as delivered to you;
b. To indemnify, hold harmless, and defend God from and against any claims or lawsuits, including attorneys' fees, that arise or result from the use or distribution of the Life;
c. That God reserves all rights not expressly granted.
3. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS AND OWNERSHIP. God reserves all rights not expressly granted to you in this eula. The Life is protected by copyright and other intellectual property laws and treaties. God or Its suppliers own the title, copyright, and other intellectual property rights in the Life and in any derivative works produced by you during the course of your Life. The Life is licensed, not sold.
4. MEMORIES. You may make a single back-up copy of the Life. You may use one (1) back-up copy solely for your archival purposes and to reinstall the Life in the Body. Except as expressly provided in this eula or by local law, you may not otherwise make copies of the Life, including the imprinted materials accompanying the Life. You may not loan, rent, lease, lend, or otherwis
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
I've been noticing a lot of this in recent months. As you read through the article notice what look like hyperlink references to words in the article body. Actually they are so called sponsored links. Well they're very cheeky links to their sponsors advertisements. I suppose they'll trick you at least once ;)
In Soviet Russia, the software licenses you.
I hate it when they put paragraphs in ALL CAPS. It makes it even harder to read the EULA without my eyes going crazy. I think they do it to ensure that you have even less chances of reading the EULA.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
The marvelous company that came up with the no charge-back EULA also has a EULA for their website. The grant you a revocable license to browse their site, but no bots without permission (I found the site through Google, so I hope the got permission). Their terms for use of the website includes such gems as:
MBFS does not permit unsolicited reviews of its products.
MBFS grants you a limited license to access and make personal use of the Site and not to download (other than page caching)
You are granted a limited, revocable, and nonexclusive right to create a hyperlink to the home page of the Site so long as the link does not portray MBFS, its affiliates, or their products or services in a false, misleading, derogatory, or otherwise offensive matter.
I'd include a link to the terms of service, but I don't think I'm allowed to.
Wanted: witty unique signature. Must be willing to relocate.
firstly, i do not agree to any of these terms prior to recieving said email, so they aren't binding in anyway. it's like trusting a contract in my face and claiming now that i have seen it, i most obey it.
if someone sends me something, that email is my property, i'll do what i bloody like with it.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
"you agree that your sister will never ask me to borrow money" and expect that that actually obligates your sister not to do anything, even if you do sign it.
What about "you agree that you will never ask your sister to ask me to borrow money"? Then if she does ask, the onus is on "you" to prove that she asked not because of you. That's the correct analog to "you will not initiate a chargeback transaction through any financial institution involved in payments associated with this Program".
While you won't get much support for that view in the massively lawyer-centric US, your explanation is fairly close to the truth.
The same could be said for the chaos of USPTO-granted crap patents, where the main beneficiaries are always the lawyers regardless of whether a patented "invention" (hahaha) stands or falls.
Lawyers are dragging civilization into the gutter, they're really the scum of humanity.
OSTG may terminate a user's account in OSTG's absolute discretion and for any reason. OSTG is especially likely to terminate for reasons that include, but are not limited to, the following: (1) violation of these Terms; (2) abuse of site resources or attempt to gain unauthorized entry to the site or site resources; (3) use of an OSTG Site in a manner inconsistent with the Purpose; (4) a user's request for such termination; or (4) as required by law, regulation, court or governing agency order ; or (4) for being a smarty-pants and pointing out that this clause of the OSTG license was written by someone who couldn't count up to 4... errr.
just ponder that shit for a moment. the contract is inside, they aren't letting you view it before claiming you agree to it. i'd be willing to bet if you voilated some part of it and they took you to court they would quickly find ALL their EUL stipulations would be thrown out for basic breaches of contract law.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
The reason for this is because Microsoft licenses for Windows XP (and all of its operating systems) are per machine (or per processor), whereas its licenses for Office and other applications are per user.
Hence, it's permissable for an individual to install a single copy of Office on both their desktop and laptop without requiring more than one license, as long as both aren't used simultaneously. However, installing Windows XP on both those machines would always require two licenses, regardless of how the machines are used.
One side effect of this is that people who use Office at work can normally buy a copy of Office to use at home for a nominal fee. For example, under the terms of Microsoft's licensing as it applies to her mid-sized employer, my girlfriend is entitled to purchase a copy of Office for around £10, which covers the cost of media, postage and packaging and processing her request.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
I doubt that the clause would EVER stand up in court. But if it prevents a few chargebacks, it's served its purpose and more than paid for itself... Adding it there was basically "free" after all.
Freedom: "I won't!"
Let's say I swap the button names so that clicking the "Disagree" button performs the installation and "Agree" cancels it.
In addition to Landaras' bad faith theory, you have likely also violated the DMCA by circumventing the installer's EULA agreement method, which is a technical protection measure that controls access to the copyrighted computer program contained in the encrypted .cab files.
How about I let my 6 year old niece install my software for me.
If you knew or should have known (given the text on the outside of the box) what was in the contract, you're likely still bound. Otherwise people would routinely use minors to avoid keeping up their side of the bargain in contracts even outside of software.
to protected theirselves. There are evil companies, but there are also evil people. Some people exploit some products to earn easy money by suing companies in the most stupid and unfair ways. Therefore, when making a product eula you must obligate the user to accept he is respnsible for its use. Or just wait to be sued by someone that says he got hacked by someone that used your mine sweeper software to steal his bank acount number.
http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux /core/development/i386/eula.txt
1. THE SOFTWARE. Fedora Core (the "Software") is a modular Linux
operating system consisting of hundreds of software components.
The end user license agreement for each component is located in
the component's source code. With the exception of certain image
files containing the Fedora trademark identified in Section 2
below, the license terms for the components permit User to copy,
modify, and redistribute the component, in both source code and
binary code forms. This agreement does not limit User's rights
under, or grant User rights that supersede, the license terms of
any particular component.
First of all, it ain't hundreds, it's thousands.
According to this EULA, I am responsible to download thousands of source RPMs, extract them, and scan all the files for their copyrights and see if anyone (like TrollTech or MySQL) is trying to f*ck me.
Is it GPL or not? Can I use it for any purpose or not? Trolltech and MySQL are the obvious sore thumbs, but I only know about those via word of mouth. How do I know there are not others in the thousands of source files this EULA says it is my responsibility to examine?
What the hell happened to "No front or back cover text" in the GPL? Isn't that exactly what TrollTech and MySQL are doing to the GPL, adding additional clauses that change the rights given under the GPL? I'm USING their software, not modifying it and redistributing it.
If anyone wants to bitch about EULAs potentially hosing people or their employers, look no further.
The vendor cannot now impose restrictions on the use of the product unless they were made clear to the buyer as a condition of the contract ... So anything that is shrinkwrapped is not valid as it did not form part of the contract of sale.
Conspicuous sticker on the box: "The sale of this product is restricted by an End User License Agreement, published at the URL http://www.microsoft.example/eula/06620 , which you may view on this store's Internet terminal." Now are the lawyers happy?
I always cheat in games by modifing the packet stream... on another machine that the Blizzard software has no way of knowing exists.
Wouldn't something analogous to SSL key exchange defeat such man-in-the-middle attacks?
I know you're joking, but that is a good point. Apparently, some Free Software projects think the GPL is an EULA (End User License Agreement), and make you click through it to install the software. This is wrong. The GPL has provisions only related to distribution, so the end user has no need to see the license -- the software is free to use without agreeing to anything at all (other than copyright law).
I do think making the end user aware of the license during install is useful; however, it shouldn't be presented as "you MUST agree to this to install the software." Instead, it should be "you ought to read this in case you want to do something beyond simple use later."
Incidentally, the biggest project that does this that comes to mind is OpenOffice, so take a look at that installer if you're wondering what I'm talking about.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
It is called "mitigation of damages" and if you think you have been damaged, you have a duty to mitigate, and can only seek relief for unmitigated damages over and above those you *could* have mitigated had you not sat on your thumbs.
Then please explain things such as the $750 to $150,000 per work "statutory damages" available to successful plaintiffs in a copyright infringement suit.
... not if you lose your merchant account over it. That would be painful.
EACH USER'S USE OF THE OSTG SITES IS AT HIS OR HER SOLE RISK. THE OSTG SITES ARE PROVIDED ON AN "AS IS" AND "AS AVAILABLE" BASIS AND OSTG ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE TIMELINESS, DELETION, MIS-DELIVERY OR FAILURE TO STORE ANY USER COMMUNICATIONS OR PERSONALIZATION SETTINGS. EACH USER WILL BE SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY DAMAGE TO HIS OR HER COMPUTER SYSTEM OR LOSS OF DATA THAT RESULTS FROM THE DOWNLOAD OF ANY SUCH MATERIAL. OSTG EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, WHETHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NON-INFRINGEMENT. SPECIFICALLY, OSTG MAKES NO WARRANTY THAT (i) THE OSTG SITES OR ANY SERVICE THEREON WILL MEET YOUR REQUIREMENTS, (ii) ANY USER ACCESS WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED, TIMELY, SECURE OR ERROR-FREE, (iii) THE QUALITY OF ANY CONTENT, PRODUCTS, SERVICES, INFORMATION OR OTHER MATERIAL OBTAINED BY ANY USER WILL MEET HIS OR HER EXPECTATIONS, AND (iv) ANY ERRORS IN THE SOFTWARE WILL BE CORRECTED. EXCLUDING ONLY DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF OSTG'S GROSS NEGLIGENCE OR WILLFUL MISCONDUCT, OSTG SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF OSTG HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM ANY USER'S USE OR INABILITY TO USE ANY OSTG SITES OR SERVICES THEREON; THE COST OF PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE SERVICES; UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE OSTG SITES; OR ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE OSTG SITES. IN NO EVENT SHALL OSTG'S TOTAL CUMULATIVE LIABILITY TO ANY USER OR OTHER PARTY UNDER THESE TERMS OF SERVICE OR OTHERWISE EXCEED $1,000.00. SOME JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN WARRANTIES OR THE LIMITATION OR EXCLUSION OF LIABILITY FOR INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES. ACCORDINGLY, SOME OF THE ABOVE LIMITATIONS MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU. NOTHING HEREIN SHALL BE DEEMED TO CREATE AN AGENCY, PARTNERSHIP, JOINT VENTURE, EMPLOYEE-EMPLOYER OR FRANCHISOR-FRANCHISEE RELATIONSHIP OF ANY KIND BETWEEN OSTG AND ANY USER OR OTHER PERSON OR ENTITY NOR DO THESE TERMS OF SERVICE EXTEND RIGHTS TO ANY THIRD PARTY. AS NOTED ABOVE, OSTG DOES NOT AND CANNOT CONTROL THE ACTIONS OF OSTG SITE USERS, VISITORS OR LINKED THIRD PARTIES. WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO REPORT ANY MALFEASANCE THAT COMES TO OUR ATTENTION TO THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITIES. WE DO NOT GUARANTEE CONTINUOUS UNINTERRUPTED OR SECURE ACCESS TO OSTG SITES. OPERATION OF OSTG SITES MAY BE SUBJECT TO INTERFERENCE FROM NUMEROUS FACTORS OUTSIDE OUR CONTROL. FURTHER, SCHEDULED AND PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE AS WELL AS REQUIRED AND EMERGENCY MAINTENANCE WORK MAY TEMPORARILY INTERRUPT SERVICES OR ACCESS TO THE WEBSITE. THE DISCLAIMERS OF WARRANTY AND LIMITATIONS OF LIABILITY APPLY, WITHOUT LIMITATION, TO ANY DAMAGES OR INJURY CAUSED BY THE FAILURE OF PERFORMANCE, ERROR, OMISSION, INTERRUPTION, DELETION, DEFECT, DELAY IN OPERATION OR TRANSMISSION, COMPUTER VIRUS, COMMUNICATION LINE FAILURE, THEFT OR DESTRUCTION OR UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO, ALTERATION OF OR USE OF ANY ASSET, WHETHER ARISING OUT OF BREACH OF CONTRACT, TORTIOUS BEHAVIOUR, NEGLIGENCE OR ANY OTHER COURSE OF ACTION BY OSTG.
My copy of MS Office's EULA says:
Dear user, you are valued and important to the Microsoft Corporation. We understand that you've paid a lot of money for out product and we really appreciate it. We encourage you to share this program with your friends if you find it to be of a high quality and might be of use to them. We also really appreciate any comments and feedback you may have about the software, particularly if you experience difficulty with it. We hope your enjoy using our product.
Ohhh you mean I'm not meant to edit that file before I install it?
I only use Warez. Who needs this legalese mumbojumbo. Now I know a very nice Russian site......
My fav units are dead Mavs
Maybe all these "Gems" are to the legal industry what "Easter Eggs" are to the programming community.
Why do the developers of these games concentrate on the "work" required to get teh uber statz instead of on making every aspect of the game fun to play? walking across a zone for the thousanth time to empty your bag is not fun. If it was fun, people wouldn't be writing "hacks" to try to get around it.
The solution to "hacks" is twofold:
1) try and detect the hacks and prevent them as you say
2) (and this is the most important) design your game so that the hacks themselves are less fun than the game itself.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Didn't MS have a license with Front Page for a while that said that it violated the license to use the product to create web pages critical of MS? As I recall they took the clause out after people complained about it, but the fact that they even had the audacity to consider it is troubling.
It has to be an exchange of things.
Not under any definition I know of. A quick Google search turned up this page on FindLaw.com. It states:
It says nothing of an exchange of things. Further, that's silly because a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) is a contract, but there's no "exchange of things" there. Just the promise that one party won't go blabbing (not a legal term) about the information another party agrees to share.
It has to be before the fact.
Which is why you can see the various agreements before you sign up for my game, Meridian 59:
End User License Agreement
The Rules of Play (in-game rules)
Terms of Service
All these are freely available for you to read before you buy our game or join our service.
If you take a moment to read our EULA, you'll see that at the top it says, "WARNING: YOU ARE ABOUT TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT." That was written by the lawyer that drafted our EULA.
It has to be mutually agreed upon.
That's what "I agree" means, and it's written button you click on. At the very least I figure this is equivalent to a verbal contract; verbal contracts are usually valid, but usually not used because it can be hard to prove consent of both parties without a written records (which is why signatures are usually preferred). If you don't agree, then you shouldn't use the software. Clicking "I agree" then claiming it wasn't a valid agreement is the worst option, really.
Along those lines, it has to be open to negoation.
What are you doing to that goat for the contract? *shiver* Oh, wait, negotiation. Right....
Have you ever tried to negotiate? For my company, we have contact info posted on our website. You could revise any of our agreements and send it to us before you sign up and play the game. Of course, many companies will probably reject any revisions, but that's their prerogative as with any contract negotiations. And, nobody is forcing you to agree to the EULA. In most cases you can send the software back and get a refund. At the end of our EULA, we state:
Given my counters to your objections, it looks like our EULA is a valid contract, hmm?
It comes down to this: companies use the EULA to cover their liabilities and to assert their rights. If you don't like the EULA, you have the ultimate recourse: don't use the software. There's not much software out there that is essential, so whining about how the unfairness of the EULA solves nothing. Unless you're willing to not use the software nothing will change. Think Microsoft's OS EULAs are crap? There's a few alternatives out there, I've heard. Don't like the EULA on my game? Don't play. I promise not to be too hurt by your rejection, personally. Of course, I think our EULAs
Brian "Psychochild" Green
MMO developer's blog
I actually read most of the EULA for daoc... I don't know... I just kinda did for once.
Part of the thing, it mentioned if they felt like it they could tell you to break your CD in half.
Kinda funny really, but they never got my backups!
"You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
Even in Shakespear's time EULAs weren't binding. Shylock owned the end user's heart, but by the end of the trial, through some legal fudging, Shylock was being lead to his death.
Now if only we can find a way to reverse the MS EULA in a similar way..
My EULA on all my software, regardless of any written or implied language in the 'agreement', is interpreted by me, the primary user, to be:
(1) The possessor of this software, regardless of how the possessor came to be in possession of the software, is entitled to do whatever the fuck they want to with the software. Included but not restricted to: giving the software to whoever the fuck I want, for any or no compensation that I so chose; examining and altering the software in any fashion that I chose; commenting negatively or positively on the quality of the software, in totality or part, in any forum that I chose to, public or private.
(2) I, the primary user of the software, accept that the maker of the software offers no assurance, either explicit or implicit, that the software in any way, works for the purpose or any purpose that I, the primary user, acquired it for. Nor, do I, the primary user, make any assumptions that the data produced by the software be accurate, correct, realistic, are in any applicable to the purpose that the software was acquired. Regardless of the consequences of the use of this software, the makers or providers of the software to the primary user will hold no liability for any fucking thing that can happen as a result of interaction with the software on any level.
This is what I am agreeing to when I click on I agree. The lawyers for large software corporations have this incomprehensibly weird idea that anyone would agree to clause #2 without the corporation's acceptance of clause #1.
Sure, but where does the trusted key come from? The user's hard drive? You can't trust that. What if you can though? Then you have to trust libssl, loaded from the user's computer. Well you could check the checksum of the library via the net. But what if the user replaces the checksum checking code? Etc.
Then you're deep in DMCA violations, EULA or no EULA.
Yes is no and no is yes, do you agreee to the terms?
From the WIN XP EULA
Except as otherwise expressly provided in this EULA, you may install, use, access, display and run only one (1) copy of the SOFTWARE on the COMPUTER. The SOFTWARE may not be used by more than one (1) processor at any one time on the COMPUTER,
You may also need to reactivate the SOFTWARE if you modify your HARDWARE or alter the SOFTWARE. MS, Microsoft Corporation and its subsidiaries will use those measures to confirm you have a legally licensed copy of the SOFTWARE. If you are not using a licensed copy of the SOFTWARE, you are not allowed to install the SOFTWARE or future SOFTWARE updates.
Most Adobe apps allow an additional installation on a laptop. Luxology Modo, a really badass 3d modeling program, allows installation on a home machine, a work machine, and a laptop. Not that most people wouldn't do that anyway, but it's nice to know that you can, legally.
Friend: "The NIC is misconfigured..." Me: "No prob, I'll just telnet in and fix it." *Silence*
Parent's post is comforting, but erroneous in a number of ways.
1. EULA's are classic contracts of adhesion. As such, some courts disfavor them, but they are not per se invalid because of their form. Consideration (a benefit detriment relationship or exchange) is indeed required in contract law, but this can be pretty minimal and contracts of adhesion do not fail this test. Ability to use software can be enough of a benefit for consideration to exist.
The big hullaballoo surrounding contracts of adhesion is that one party does not play a significant role in negotiating it. This is why they are occassionally disfavored, but again they are often upheld even when seemingly remarkably unfair.
2) I frankly don't understand this point. EULAs do have to be accessible for reading before they take effect. Thus, they get put on the shrinkwrap or in the installer. If they aren't readable before they become binding, then courts will likely hold them invalid. But, contrary (I think) to the parent, this is almost always the case (i.e. they usually are readable before binding), so this point is no real help.
3) Contracts do not require a witnessed signature to be enforceable. A witnessed signature is merely a way to show that a contract was agreed to, but any number of other articles of evidence may be used, such as opening a box with a clear license over the seal or installing software that required you to read something before moving on. One side can indeed tell the other how it's going to be (though this is just an instance of the general argument against contracts of adhesion that the parent makes throughout). The law has no per se restriction on unequal bargaining power. It takes more for a contract to be unconscionable and therefore unenforceable. Granted, some of these provisions may pass that test, but courts are still hesitant to find such contracts unconscionable (the whole freedom to contract thing).
4) This is again an argument against contracts of adhesion. No dice.
Settled case law is that you can exchange money for a box, read what is on the box and decide to take it back with no offense to contract law. Just because you already spent money does not mean you agreed. Opening a box or installing software that you didn't have to is the key point. Now, some courts are sympathetic to the pain of returning an item, but not all that sympathetic.
Not that anyone is using slashdot for legal advice, but the parent is dangerously off-base. Contract law is considered binding law as to the parties agreeing. Provisions are enforceable in most cases (again, with quite narrow exceptions for unconscionability) just because the parties agreed, not because they "enumarate [sic] the laws that govern software anyhow"
AC
The fact that purchase/ownership[...] contains no age verification criteria
Given the bills in many U.S. states that would prohibit selling to a minor any video game that glorifies violence, this is likely to change soon.
The fact that [...]installation contains no age verification criteria
False. In the case of subscription multiplayer games such as World of Warcraft, you need to use a major credit or debit card to pay the game's monthly fee. Banks have your date of birth.
You purchase your computer with software preinstalled. No EULA's included in print, and no obvious notice on the disks.
Then whoever sold you a new computer broke the OEM agreement.
You purchase a used computer with software preinstalled. Who is now bound by the contract? One might even argue that since returning the product to the original manufacturer for a refund is no longer allowed, since the contract was never agreed to in the first place, etc. that it does not apply to the user
This is called a "transfer of license" and is dealt with in most larger EULAs. The original end user of the software is bound by the license to require you to agree to the license as a condition of the purchase. If you don't agree, return the computer. If the seller did not present the EULA to you, then the seller broke the EULA and is now liable for any trade secrets that you may release.
Go outside!
This is MBFS's website EULA:
www.mbfs.com/copyright.asp
What a crock of shit.
Consultancy: If you're not part of the solution, there's money to be made in prolonging the problem
link..
http://www.pcpitstop.com/spycheck/eula.asp
!! DO NOT READ THIS SENTENCE !! Failure to comply will immediately void this End User License Agreement.
I came across one particularly egregious EULA that (besides not actually licensing anything) said that it made me an employee of the vendor and that I waived several of my rights as an employee that are granted to me under Federal laws such as COBRA and ERISA.
Some employers are unwittingly doing this to their employees when they hire certain outside HR services companies.
For example, the wonderful example where The Breeder Standard (is this real, and not a joke?) says that you agree to pay them $8k if you try to chargeback. I'm pretty sure this is incompatible with the UK Sale of Goods Act, which gives you various rights, and with other UK sale of goods regulations which limit what contracts may be imposed in the mass market. For example, from a UK Government site:
"The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (SI 1999 No 2083) provide that a term which has not been individually negotiated in a consumer contract is unfair (and hence non-binding on the consumer) if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the rights and obligations of the parties to the detriment of the consumer." There are similar regulations in effect in the whole of the EC.
There was a discussion some time ago here on whether Apple could, by Eula alone, prevent buyers of OS X from installing it on non-Apple hardware. The issue is the same as the question of whether MS can, by Eula alone, prevent buyers of Office from installing it under Wine.
The answer in both cases is no: not because of any difficulty with Eulas. But because such linked sales conditions are unlawful under EC competition law.
In the same way, a Eula condition which placed the buyer in involuntary servitude would not be lawful in the US, not because Eulas are problematic, but because involuntary servitude is unlawful under the constitution. Whatever boxes you check on a Eula, no court is going to place you in involuntary servitude.
So really, the most helpful way to look a this is not by focussing on Eulas. The thing to focus on is whether the company behaviour and conditions which they are trying to enforce in this way are lawful, regardless how they are enforced. The involuntary servitude example: suppose they had a guy standing at the exit to the store who had you sign a contract in the presence of three witnesses, and under oath. That would not be a Eula, and it would not be enforceable either...
The onus would not be on you to prove that you did not ask the sister, since you would be "defendant" the onus would be on them to prove you asked your sister to do it. As a "defendant", in the civil law of the country I was born at least, you do not have to prove anything, this is to the prosecution/attacker to prove your misdeed. I assume it is the same in the US (at least for criminal law, I dunno for civil law).
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
you answered your own question: to discourage people from reading it...
but what is really frustrating is not being able to SEE the license until AFTER PURCHASE; and then yes, it is in very inconvenient form during the actual install process; and that's after you've opened the product and voided any return/refund policy with the retailer.
but it's hard, darn near impossible sometimes, to find an EULA to software **before** you purchase it. and often, especially for consultants, it is important to examine a license before making decisions or recommendations.
microsoft has them posted (i was *shocked* to find).. they don't go out of their way to make it known, but they're there (for retail software). and only *two* clicks from their home page..
http://www.microsoft.com/legal/useterms/
their volume licenses are accessible elsewhere, but their oem/dsp eula's are a bit harder to track down.
how many other companies make it *easy* to find them before you commit to the purchase? not very many.
AMX (makers of high-end touch panel control systems) makes and distributes their own software. To download it, you've got to click through their EULA. Well, a few years back, after a site update they left the EULA text field editable. So, I guess that meant that they DID want me to make a counter-offer! I replaced the entire text with "AMX will pay me one million dollars every time I use their software", took a screenshot, and clicked "I agree" and what do you know, I was able to download the software! I sent their support department the screenshot and they "fixed" it the next day - but I haven't billed them yet.
I've recently dealt with another company whose EULA states that I will remove thier software if I fail to renew my annual license. Well, it was a free download, so I suppose that next year I'll have to re-download it.
Never never never smoke crack before geometry class!
By clicking the Big Red Button you agree that All Your Base Are Belong To Us!
Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
Either you or Valve has the right to terminate or cancel your Account or a particular Subscription at any time.[...]
In the case of a one-time purchase of a product license (e.g., purchase of a single game) from Valve, Valve may choose to terminate or cancel your Subscription in its entirety or may terminate or cancel only a portion of the Subscription (e.g., access to the software via Steam) and Valve may, but is not obligated to, provide access (for a limited period of time) to the download of a stand-alone version of the software and content associated with such one-time purchase.
And no, this is not like a standard game EULA where the company can terminate the license only if you violate the agreement (cheating, copying, cc fraud, etc.).
And there is also this "we can change the agreement and billing anytime without notification" crap.
i know other posters have pointed this out, but I just wanted to clarify:
The distinction between the GPL and most software licenses is that the GPL GIVES YOU RIGHTS that you would not otherwise have, whereas most ohter licenses TAKE RIGHTS AWAY
It's right here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/usc_sec_17_00 000117----000-.html
The relevant sentence says "...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: 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..."
Other actions exempted from copyright in this section: making a single backup copy, selling your copy, copies made pursuant to repair or maintenance of the machine running the primary copy.
No EULA can remove these rights. If a company doesn't want you to have these rights then they must not sell you copies of the software. They can always license the software to you: on that model you do not own any copies of the software, you just have certain rights with respect to the company's copies of the software. They can either sell or license, but not both. Or rather, you either have to purchase or license, but not both. YOU may CHOOSE to do both--you can purchase software and then subject yourself to a license for that software--but you don't need a license to use software you have purchased and you don't need to purchase software that you have licensed.
The other part of the combo-punch here is the UCC, the Uniform Commercial Code. It says that if you put something on the shelf with a price tag, and I carry it up the counter and pay for it, and you take my money and give me a receipt and I walk away, I OWN it. You cannot just sell me an "option" to agree to a license in that manner. You sold me everthing in the box and I own it all outright. If there is software in the box then I can use it in anyway not restricted by the Copyright Act. It would be the same for a music CD, a software CD, a photo CD, or a CD of random data. It's the same for a book or a piece of artwork. I can't redistribute it, but I can use it, back it up, and sell it. Well, backing up of books and artwork aren't expressly allowed in the Copyright Act as they are for software, at least not as far as I know.
To suggest that a EULA can attack the First Sale doctrine is ridiculous, every lawyer knows that it can't. So why does everyone think it can attack the provisions of section 117? The First Sale doctrine actually was upheld vs. a EULA in court against Adobe. Adobe tries to remove your right to "unbundle" the software in their reduced-rate software bundles. They tell you in the EULA that you can't split up the bundle and resell the items individually. That was shot down.
'nuff said.
Today's show is brought to you by the number 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0: 25
A long time ago, in a galaxy far away... erm, back in the day of MUDs, Bartle described four types of players, based on what their primary goal and source of entertainment is in a game. Bear in mind though, that noone falls squarely in one category, but may have one which is dominant and one or more which they barely do, if at all. And this applies to MMOs too, because MMOs are a glorified MUD with graphics.
- Socializers. These are the people who come there to socialize, make friends, organize a guild, an in-game dance party, an out-of-game meeting at a pub, etc. A 100% pure socializer (but again, noone is 100% in one category) would basically treat the game like a glorified IRC channel, and if they're ever dragged on a mission, it's just to be with their friends.
- Explorers. These are people who just have to _know_ what's in the game, how it works, what the stats on each item are, where each door leads to, etc. This doesn't only mean exploring the world. These people just have to know the exact numbers involved in combat, the exact formula that determines the to-hit ratio, the exact number of HP a boss has, etc. You can think of them as not "playing" the game, but really "reverse-engineering" it.
- Achievers. These are the people who set out to achieve something, to have a high score if you will. They have to have the biggest bank account, the most rare armour set, the biggest castle in UO, the fastest vehicle in other games (e.g., SWG), etc. (It should also be noted that for most achievers the keyword is on personally _achieving_ those results, by their own work, be it farming the game or social engineering, or whatever other personal effort. Cheaters actually annoy most achievers, because getting that stuff by a hack diminishes the signifficance of getting that stuff by hard work and skill.)
- Killers. This category is perhaps mis-named, because it doesn't actually mean "PvP" players. It means what the rest of us call "griefers". These people actually live to annoy, harrass, and victimize. The greatest achievement is, yes, "killing" someone completely out of a game, as in, making them cancel their account and stop playing.
Again, don't confuse this with mere PvP, as the two are unconnected things. A killer doesn't want to fight you (unless you're much weaker or AFK), a killer wants to annoy, harrass, humiliate you, and generally make you feel unwelcome in the game. (That's why for example socializers are their favourite prey: people coming looking for friends tend to feel hurt if they're received with outright hostility.) By whatever means necessary. If it takes cheating or scamming to achieve the same result, it's all fair game.
So, yes, when you say "other users have no recourse against cheaters except to stop playing the games in question. i did. and i'm not coming back till cheaters go away or armageddon, whichever one comes first.".. Well, far from appealing to a "killer's" humanity and empathy, you've just told him he's doing great. It's the ultimate compliment.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
... and wanna make chargeback? Do I still owe them 8 grands? :-)
So when do you get to see the EULA for the software bundled with a machine? When do you get to see the EULA in a COTS package?
Oh, *after* the sale.
who remembers those warez group intros before a game starts, most of them also contained some form of EULA which says something like this:
we provide these games for test reasons only, you can try them out for 2 days and must then delete them. if you like the game you should buy it blah blah blah...
On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
walking across a zone for the thousanth time to empty your bag is not fun. If it was fun, people wouldn't be writing "hacks" to try to get around it.
That's silly. No matter how well a game is designed, hacking will always give you an edge. Blizz could put banks and vendors every 30 feet in-game and people would still install hacks for the advantage they give in PvP.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized!
For the record, I'm a Mage, so I can just teleport wherever I want. :-)
Information wants to be anthropomorphized!
Why am I not surprised? Software for dog and cat breeders. Like we need them, with the millions in shelters.
At the very end of the EULA for a very old Macintosh System 6 extension called HeirDA, ( for Heirical Desk Accessory ), said 'If you call me at home, I will kill you." Written by Jorg Brown.
I would never have known if he was serious, because I never did have the nerve to call and thank him for the years of laughter.
This would no doubt be simultaneous for all reference frames traveling less than, or equal to, the speed of light. If I spend more than a few seconds doing a task at point A and someone else is doing a task at point B at the same time from my reference frame, then it is true that for all reference frames that are traveling less than, or equal to, the speed of light we are doing these tasks as the same time - as long as points A and B are both located on Earth.
Of course I'm belaboring the original point now, but hey, this is slashdot.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
A couple of points from ANU law school.
As noted by another person in reply, a contract doesn't have to be an exchange of things, but an exchange definitely has to take place. The exchange has to be equitable and reasonable. For example, I couldn't indenture myself for 10 years for a packet of peanuts.
You can buy the right to negotiate for another contract. You can swap secrets and have NDAs as contract clauses. You can make any arrangement you like as long as the parties are well defined, and it's reasonable for each party to feel like it's a good deal.
If the details are not complete, a court has the power to fill in the details with what's "reasonable". If you call for a service and they don't quote and then charge too much, you might still have to pay - if it's really too much, a court will decide what's reasonable, and they'll probably decide for the other guy's benefit (eg twice the going rate instead of thrice).
If the box says "contains the usual EULA", then most clauses are almost implied in the contract of sale.
And finally, if you really want to give something away from the goodness of your heart, rather than to mutual benefit, and you want that promise to be legally binding, you can deliver it in the form of a writ. Sort of a one-way contract, it usually contains the word "solemnly" as in "I solemnly declare that my son can have my house for free". A lawyer could write one up in a few minutes.
*#*#*#*#*#******* I love peanut butter sandwiches!
To put an end to the confusion of consumers about EULA's, the US government works on a standard for EULA's. Any software producing company or free-lance developer will be forced to use this, and only this, standard EULA.
It's main points are:
- no complex schemes: software can only be licensed on a 'per-seat' base;
- a clear focus: EULA will contain a clear description of the purpose and use of the software;
- responsibility will be clear: EULA can only be an agreement between the consumer and the original holder of the copyright, and
- the copyright on the software should be owned by one and only one company.
The standard for EULA's will be developed in cooperation with America's leading software companies.
Trust me, I work for the government.
When I read these it reminds me of the Airplane EULA:
Male voice: "The white zone is for loading and unloading only. There's no parking in the red zone."
Female voice: "The red zone is for loading and unloading only. There's no parking in the WHITE zone."
Male voice: "Listen, don't start with your white zone shit again!"
I made the decision awhile ago to use only software that guarantees me my Four Freedoms. The chances are that such software will come under either the GPL or a BSD-like licence. Both these licences are easy to understand and do not seek to abridge your statutory rights.
The only way EULA madness will be brought to an end, is when people stop accepting it. Otherwise it's going to come to something like this:
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
These are from www.mate1.com, an online dating site
You may transmit only offline or non-electronic contact information, such as phone numbers, names and postal addresses, via the internal email and instant messaging systems of the web site. You may not transmit any electronic or online contact information, including, but not limited to, email addresses, instant messenger nicknames and URLs, through the internal email or instant messaging systems of the web site.
How retarded, its supposed to be an "online" dating site. And the worst part of the TOS:
With the exception of personal financial and billing information, You hereby grant to the Company the perpetual, unlimited, royalty-free, world wide, non-exclusive, irrevocable, transferable license to run, display, copy, reproduce, publish, bundle, distribute, market, create derivative works of, adapt, translate, transmit, arrange, modify, sub-license, export, merge, transfer, loan, rent, lease, assign, share, outsource, host, make available to any person or otherwise use, any information or other content You provide on or through this web site or which is sent to the Company by e-mail or other correspondence, for any purpose whatsoever. The Company shall not be subject to any obligations of confidentiality regarding any such information unless specifically agreed by the Company in writing or required by law. The Company shall not be obliged to delete any such information from the web site. Should you choose the option listed on the web site as "Remove my profile" ("Remove"), your profile will be removed from public view, but will not be deleted from the web site
Nice one!
EULAs are so ridiculous. I bought the software and I'm going to use it how I want unless the software (not the installer) tells me otherwise. No one will take EULAs seriously unless each copy of the software includes a lawyer who reads it to you and makes you sign a contract.
Apple reserves the right, at any time and from time to time, to update, revise, supplement, and otherwise modify this Agreement and to impose new or additional rules, policies, terms, or conditions on your use of the Service. Such updates, revisions, supplements, modifications, and additional rules, policies, terms, and conditions (collectively referred to in this Agreement as "Additional Terms") will be effective immediately and incorporated into this Agreement. Your continued use of the iTunes Music Store following will be deemed to constitute your acceptance of any and all such Additional Terms. All Additional Terms are hereby incorporated into this Agreement by this reference.
So will they notify you about these changes when they are made? I've actually seen EULA's that specifically state that "updates and revisions" can be made without notifying the user. So what's to stop them from claiming your first born? You know, aside from not having a first born child.
At the top of each Slashdot page: "The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way."
That's the entire contract that binds Slashdot and those who comment on Slashdot. Any hidden contract that says differently is invalid. Why? Because that would be fraud.
fraud -- A deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain.
The people who own Slashdot, I'm guessing, know that if they asked for anything more than the contract at the top, Slashdot would be less popular. But lawyers in the U.S. are in general the most immoral group of people I've ever met, although there are many very moral lawyers, too. So, somehow, those who own Slashdot try to have both ways.
From OSTG Eula point number 6: "In each such case, the submitting user grants OSTG the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, transferable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, and display such Content (in whole or part) worldwide and/or to incorporate it in other works in any form, media, or technology now known or later developed, all subject to the terms of any applicable license."
Do you really give Slashdot owners the right to modify your comments? I don't. For me, the ENTIRE contract is the one at the top of every Slashdot page. I own my comments. Slashdot is not responsible, and has no ownership, other than having the implied right to display my comments as part of the Slashdot discussion in which they were posted.
That line at the top of every Slashdot story is The Fine Print, as it says. Any sneaky, hidden terms are invalid.
Most North American states have a 'Sale of Goods Act'. Go and read it, it is probably on your governmental web site.
Oh well, what the hell...
How it can be proven that I clicked through the "agreement"? I could have some bum off the street with a "will install programs for food" sign, good luck having your lawyers chase him down.
/. once said that when he comes across a "shrinkwrap agreement" he smears bacon grease on the box and lets his dog open it.
Or better, get a ten year old to do it.
One wag here on
Why does anybody take this nonsense seriously?
In short: I broke your so-called "agreement." Find me and sue me, moron. And when the judge laughs you out of court, the countersuit will be delicious.
Since it is established that hardly anybody reads them and that clicking proves nothing, has any court ever upheald a EULA? Cany any court do so with any seriousness? Is there anyone out there that acuually reads and understand them? Does anyone care? Is anyone even reading this? Do I matter? Who am I?
Athiesm is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.
Doesn't MLB (Major League Baseball) claim that you can't even describe a game without permission?
That's what I thought I heard when I was trying to find something other than baseball on TV.
Kinda hard since I only have one channel...
So much for the office water cooler talk.
If you are the intended recipient of an encrypted message, then that gives you an automatic right to decrypt it.
This was true in the United States until October 1998, when the Digital Millennium Copyright Act was enacted. Now the common law property rights have been preempted in the case of copies or phonorecords of copyrighted works. See Universal v. Reimerdes.
As a "defendant", in the civil law of the country I was born at least, you do not have to prove anything
In the United States, civil law procedure requires the defendant to prove a 51 percent likelihood of being in the right. This standard is called "preponderance of evidence". If the plaintiff presents evidence is of a chargeback and evidence that it is usually the case that chargebacks of this type are initiated by the cardmember, then the defendant who is the cardmember needs to present evidence that the transaction was not in fact initiated by the defendant.
By reading this 'post' you agree to pay 'me' or anyone who 'I' designate a sum, in US Dollars, of no less than $5.
This post is legally binding because 'it' says so, and because 'you' agreed to it by clicking the link to read it.
Also, you agree to give up all legal rights to 'me' and all your limbs will also become 'mine' at 'my' discretion, or upon any legal contest.
You also agree to have a nice day.
--- We need more Ron Paul!
You can also filter it so that is it all lowercase. Open the cdrom's EULA directly and copy it to a plain-text file and then apply some regular expression on it. Yes, it is more work, but will make all upper-case words lowercase.
"UNNAMEDCOMPANY does not permit unsolicited reviews of its products." is a clear violation of the law. No private/publically held company is higher than the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights to limit my freedom of speech.
- Just my $0.02, take with a grain of salt, your mileage may vary.
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
I wonder how many people comply to my license for my custom RSS ASP.NET server control. The final requirement of the license reads: "If you use this control, you must stand on your desk, turn in a circle three times, and sing at the top of your lungs, 'If you're happy and you know it, clap your hands.'"
I could not justify my existence if I were a turkey farmer. Would I terminate myself? Undoubtably, yes.
I agree completely. It's one thing to have a EULA on a download
before I have paid for it. It is entirley another to have to buy
the software and then find out what the EULA states. Once I've
bought it, if you want to change the rules of the game (and that's
just what a shrinkwrapped EULA is) the onus should *not* be on me.
At the very least, it should be on the software maker, or in some
cases the vendor. But neither is likely to show up at my door
within 24 hours and kindly hand me back my cash, check, or CC
chargeback and cart the software off, are they?
that the program can enforce the EULA. E.g. the "I can install or remove what I want" from WMP may not be legally binding, but the program will do what it wants when you execute it. If that means removing programs or installing "spyware", then there isn't a thing you can do about it. Ecxept maybe take them to court for computer trespass, which could be dumped because you didn't disagree at the time (that there was no option is avoided). If you try to take the EULA section to court, the court won't take the time because the problem is currently hypothetical.
Fuxked either way
I remember reading about a company that offered a siginificant amount of cash just for reading a clause in the EULA. It took months and thousands of downloads before someone claimed the cash.
Can't remember where/who this was.
My favorite at the moment is Hoyts New Zealand which has this as the first term:
This site is made available solely for access from places in Australia and to users ordinarily resident in Australia.
Now I wonder why they would want to ban users from New Zealand from accessing movies times for movies showing in New Zealand...
[Please type your sig here.]
The question is what the reseller actually does, not what he's contractually obligated to do.
Then the reseller gets sued.
However, if the retailer really does require agreement to a set of terms then I agree that those terms potentially form a contract between him and the customer. Of course, privity of contract prevents anyone else from suing or being sued over that contract.
Isn't it possible for a contract to have more than two parties? In this case they'd be the publisher, the retailer, and the customer.
I buy a copy of Dungeon Siege, and am asked to agree to the terms of an EULA. I give the game to my nephew as a birthday present.
Stop right there. It's likely that future EULAs, signed in the store, will forbid the outright transfer of a copy of the software to a minor. In this case, the transfer would not be to your nephew but instead to your sister, establishing a new three-way contract among the publisher, you (the new seller), and the sister (the new buyer). Under this contract, she would be held liable for letting the neighbor reverse-engineer the program.
I saw this decades ago. Still good for EULA. ;)
This product is meant for educational purposes only. Any resemblance to real persons living or dead is purely coincidental. Void where prohibited. Some assembly required. List each check separately by bank number. Batteries not included. Contents may settle during shipment. Use only as directed. No other warranty expressed or implied. Do not use while operating a motor vehicle or heavy equipment. Postage will be paid by addressee. Subject to CAB approval. This is not an offer to sell securities. Apply only to affected area. May be too intense for some viewers. Do not stamp. Use other side for additional listings. For recreational use only. Do not disturb. All models over 18 years of age. If condition persists, consult your physician. No user-serviceable parts inside. Freshest if eaten before date on carton. Subject to change without notice. Times approximate. Simulated picture. No postage necessary if mailed in the United States. Please remain seated until the ride has come to a complete stop. Breaking seal constitutes acceptance of agreement. For off-road use only. As seen on TV. One size fits all. Many suitcases look alike. Contains a substantial amount of non-tobacco ingredients. Colors may fade. We have sent the forms which seem right for you. Slippery when wet. For office use only. Not affiliated with the American Red Cross. Drop in any mailbox. Edited for television. Keep cool; process promptly. Post office will not deliver without postage. List was current at time of printing. Return to sender, no forwarding order on file, unable to forward. Not responsible for direct, indirect, incidental or consequential damages resulting from any defect, error or failure to perform. At participating locations only. Not the Beatles. Penalty for private use. See label for sequence. Substantial penalty for early withdrawal. Do not write below this line. Falling rock. Lost ticket pays maximum rate. Your canceled check is your receipt. Add toner. Place stamp here. Avoid contact with skin. Sanitized for your protection. Be sure each item is properly endorsed. Sign here without admitting guilt. Slightly higher west of the Mississippi. Employees and their families are not eligible. Beware of dog. Contestants have been briefed on some questions before the show. Limited time offer, call now to ensure prompt delivery. You must be present to win. No passes accepted for this engagement. No purchase necessary. Processed at location stamped in code at top of carton. Shading within a garment may occur. Use only in a well-ventilated area. Keep away from fire or flames. Replace with same type. Approved for veterans. Booths for two or more. Check here if tax deductible. Some equipment shown is optional. Price does not include taxes. No Canadian coins. Not recommended for children. Prerecorded for this time zone. Reproduction strictly prohibited. No solicitors. No alcohol, dogs or horses. No anchovies unless otherwise specified. Restaurant package, not for resale. List at least two alternate dates. First pull up, then pull down. Call toll free number before digging. Driver does not carry cash. Some of the trademarks mentioned in this product appear for identification purposes only. Objects in mirror may be closer than they appear. Record additional transactions on back of previous stub. Unix is a registered trademark of AT&T. Do not fold, spindle or mutilate. No transfers issued until the bus comes to a complete stop. Package sold by weight, not volume. Your mileage may vary. Known as Hellman's east of the Rockies. Beware of greeks bearing gifts. Beware of gifts bearing greeks. This side up. Don't take any wooden nickels. Don't take candy from strangers. Void where prohibited. Caveat Emptor (Buyer beware) Caveat Vendor (Beware of street people). Donde esta el bano. Beware of DOS. Look both ways before crossing the street. All your base are belong to us. Always wear safety belt. Always wear deodorant. Don't forget to breathe. If you park, don't drink...accidents cause people. This supersedes all previous notices.
This modified disclaimer may not be copied without the expressed written consent of whoever I stole it from.
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
Dunno about other countries, but I hope that in Germany the courts would find a $8k "fine" for trying chargeback a "surprising clause". And things that you don't normally expect in a contract are void ("You also give me the irrevocable right to marry your sister.").
However, that's not the intention. The real intention is to ring you upon finding out about the chargeback and to scare and intimidate you by trying to tell you that an EULA is a contract, that court costs will be n*$8k and an utter waste of time anyway, etc. pp. "Look we're right because it says so."
Don't do trade with them.
If EULA's were written in plain english and kept short and to the point, without "Lawyer Speak", it could benefit both the company and the User.
At least someone seems to think that an EULA need not be arcane:
From Epic's EULA for Unreal Tournament 2004:1. Thanks. Congratulations and thank you for licensing our software. We're sorry to cramp your style, but out lawyers tell us that if we want to keep control and ownership of the cool stuff we're developing, we have to make sure you understand and agree that you are just buying a right to use it and that that right is limited in certain ways. So what follows is what you need to know and agree to.
6. Termination. This license is effective until one of us terminate it. You may terminate this license at any time by destroying the Software and related documentation. In the unlikely event that you are naughty and fail to comply with any provision of this license, this license will terminate immediately without notice from us. Upon termination, you must destroy the Software and related documentation. Please don't wait for us to come after you; it would not be pleasant for either of us. If we do have to come after you, we're going to expect you to pay us for our troubles, including the cost of our lawyers.
It pretty much says what other EULAs say, but with a sense of humor and fairly straightforward language.
From Judge Easterbrook's opinion:
(I am a lawyer, but I am probably not licensed in your jurisdiction, and this does not constitute legal advice.)Let's say you budget 2 hrs. a day to play the game. further let's say that during the course of your activities you have to walk across the zone to the main town for whatever reason a half dozen times. further let's say that it takes 5 minutes to walk across the zone.
2*6*5=60 minutes. Do you really want to spend half your budgeted time playing a walking simulator?
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
That's a lot of "let's say"s. I just make sure I have everything I need done in a particular area before I move on--I usually don't have to walk back and forth more than once or twice. And you do have a hearthstone, you know.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized!
That if drugs were legalized that they'd never make people do bad things. but wait, we're talking Liberatarians, there would be NO bad things, all crime would be legal.
I though there where laws against assinine contracts, I know that i very well cant draft up a contract to sell a car that is filled with 20 pages of bullshit and then state that if the driver opens the hood at anytime i have the right to take the car back with no financial obligations to the buyer. I most definately can't state that if the buyer wears blue to pick up the car I can hit him upside the head with a blunt object, these things are obsurd and they do not constitude a legal contract, so should be the same with eula's.
While maybe technically not a EULA, I had to sign a waiver before I was let on the cruise ship in Puerto Rico, essentially saying (quite explicitly) that there was no implicit or explicit acknoledgement of the seaworthiness of the ship, and of the suitability of the food and drinks for human consumption. I tried to argue with the girl at the counter, and she found it strange too, her supervisor found it strange too, but of the many thousand customers they serve every day, I seem to have been the first one to be actually miffed by it...
Hurricane Application Group, Dept of Meteorology Control, Ministry of Proactive Defense