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."
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?
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
I'm pretty sure this also applies to packet sniffers and such, as they wouldn't want you to reverse engineer packets sent and received by the game in order to write a private server. Either way, they're basically saying that they can collect information on you and (I'd image) terminate your account, sue you, etc. if you're running programs they don't like.
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....
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. :)
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!
The EULAs for GPL software are actually different than EULAs for traditional software. It's simply a statement of the copyright terms - any violation would be charged as a copyright infringement. A traditional EULA attempts to behave like a contract, and even worse it appears after you have purchased the product. With the GPL license, you know before hand what your getting, not to mention it doesn't pretend to be a contract.
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."
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.
Text is both legible and readable. All caps is very legible but not very readable. Legible text to catches your attention. That's why newspaper headlines are all caps, to catch your attention. Reabable text helps the process of reading, going from word to word and phrase to phrase.
Companies really don't want you to really read the EULA. So they put it in all caps and it's hard to read without making the user suspicious. There are other ways to make text less readable but all other methods tend to stand out and look strange to the average person. Personally, I also think all caps also seem to suggest an air of legality.
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....
I wonder if this isn't crossing the line into illegality -- this sounds an awful lot like spyware that monitors what you're doing and reports back to someone else without telling you about it. If spyware is being outlawed, why isn't this sort of thing? ("you agreed to it when installing"? People "agree" to install spyware buried in long EULAs all the time, and the law is still cracking down)...
i am a soviet space shuttle
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....
"As to your million dollar example the EULA would almost certainly state that modification is not allowed, and by modifying the EULA you are actually making a new offer. Since the copyright holder has never agreed to that offer (by conduct or otherwise) you would be in violation of copyright as you never accepted the holder's only offer of license."
How about this. A copy of the modified EULA is mailed to the software company with a note enclosed that reads "By opening this envelope, you agree to all terms enclosed in this envelope regarding SOFTWARE."
Seems as watertight as a EULA.
Seriously.
Steve's Computer Service, Hobbs, NM
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
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.
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.
In this case, it's more like "you agree to not ask your sister to borrow money from me, even though I am under a binding contract with your sister not to ask you not to ask her."
In other words, report these clowns to Visa and they're likely to get their merchant account revoked. I strongly suspect that attempting to circumvent the terms of your merchant account agreement would constitute a violation of the terms of said agreement....
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
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.
Their EULA has actually toned down since 1998...
9 7735 is interesting too.
In some of them it says:
"You agree that, even after the ten-year non-compete period listed above, that
any product you may create will not in any way resemble or act like the Software,
will not be able to read or convert the databases created or used by the
Software, will not use any of the same methodologies employed in the creation
and operation of the software, and will not use any trademark, logo or name
used in the Software."
So if you thought the DMCA was bad...try this guy. I'm afraid this all helps to form my opinion that John Tamburo is a dickwad. Apparently a serial bankrupt dickwad.
http://66.160.129.140/scoop/story/2004/5/13/0529/
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
You've never read an Oracle license then (or was it Oracle?). Basicly any review needs to be first approved by Oracle before it can be published.
Not in the least. Everyone agrees that a EULA has to be readable before binding.
Further, the EULA likely does not even have to state that it can't be modified.
AC
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.
What interests me about EULAs like this are the vagueness of the terms.
"Monitor", for example, what is Blizzards intended definition of monitor? Obviously in the context of WoW it means it will look for known third-party WoW-hack fingerprints, but the semantics could equally mean it could scan your memory continuously to the point where your system degrades as a result. Is this permissable?
Strictly speaking, Windows itself would "mine" information fron the WoW process as part of its own internal memory/pagefile management system. Similarly at the very technical level Windows must assign processor timeslices in a manner that keeps the OS running smoothly. How can it do this without mining information from the WoW process?
My gut feeling with EULAs like this is that they are meant moreof as a deterrent to casual cheaters than as a legally binding document. It's feasible that people who would otherwise consider cheating might think twice if they thought Blizzard could (and would) be checking their PCs and would automatically cancel their accounts.
Very interesting reference! Thank you! However, if you read it without any further knowledge the law you cite says nothing at all about that would require SHOUTING. Is there some common interpretation that justifies the use of ALL CAPS for clauses excluding implicit warranties? Because, from my own experience, I must say that I find it hard to read these sections of the EULAs, mainly because I can't stand the shouting.
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!
Glad to know I'm not the only one who finds it difficult to wade through capitalized disclaimers; I'm glad when they let me paste it into a text editor so I can lowercase it.
I know I've seen at least some EULAs that use bold text to make a section more 'conspicuous'; it's still not the most readable, but it's a whole lot easier to process than all caps.