Slashdot Mirror
The Self-Modifying EULA?
An anonymous reader asks: "Years ago, when I first installed Windows 2000, I accepted its EULA. Despite serious defects in the product, I resisted installing Service Packs because they modify the original EULA. Now even Homeland Security is on my back to upgrade and install a fix. I would be happy to install SP4 and all the security patches BUT ONLY IF IT IS DONE UNDER THE ORIGINAL EULA. Otherwise, Microsoft has made me an unwilling zombie. The clear fact is that Microsoft delivered a defective product- should not allow them to redefine our agreement. I cannot think of any other market that successfully browbeats its customers in this manner. Can this be legal? Has it been tested in court?"
...what terms have changed that you object to?
-b
If I wanted a sig I would have filled in that stupid box.
Security is not a feature.
Security is a reasonable expectation.
There are some rulings which have held eulas to be invalid primarily because you're forced to exchange the money before youre allowed to actually see the contract, and on other grounds I as someone who is not a lawyer know nothing about.
Other sellout--err judges have held eulas are valid contracts.
To me it seems like they should all be invalidated in their entirety. EULAs as contracts are not negotiated between two parties who have equal latitude. One party has extreme market power, and the other doesn't even have the capacity for negotiation with said entity and has the choice of either accepting unreasonable terms or living in a cave by candle light. (no,that's not an exaggeration; companies are now insisting they still own your electronics even after you buy them --see microsoft tirades against xbox modders--)
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
you purchase a car with a 70,000 mile warranty, but when you take it into the shop they automatically "upgrade" you to a 60,000 warranty because you recieved "consideration" in form of warranty service? In a court of law that would never hold for automobiles.. and yes, they've tried it.. it's amazing those cases aren't applied to software just as easily.
"And now you see how our "culture" has gotten where it is and how the next generation will accept that which the parent will find abhorent."
EXACTLY!
just look at the unreasonable crap they cram into EULAs.
When companies tried this in the old days american workers were willing to stand up and strike, even in the face of direct threat to their familie's lives
This generation is one of mindlessness, cowardice, and greed.
This is because of the way our schools and news are used to bombard us as citizens and our children, to teach us to be "good little consumers", to teach us that anyone who questions what the news outlets say is a "tinfoil hatted nut-job", and to persuade us not to act on the mountain of evidence that a wealthy few are impeding and keeping down the lower 95% of us by pounding in this false message that "you too can become rich if you work hard and play by our rules"....bullshit. The people whom these eula's represent are above the laws, they write the damn laws, and they write them with the specic aim of making sure they never have to share their power or money with we the peeons.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Here's how I imagine this would work: a web site to which anyone can post a EULA they've encountered, and a group of lawyers who volunteer time to analyze each EULA and translate it into language anyone can understand. Inconsistencies, gotchas and other noteworthy problems would be highlighted, and the overall validity of each EULA assessed. Hopefully there would be enough buy-in that a large database of EULA analyses would be built up. One problem: are there enough lawyers out there who would be willing to donate their time and expertise?
I understand that English is a living language, but I object to changes arising merely from repeated errors.