Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Cory Doctorow on Shrinkwrap Licenses

Posted by CowboyNeal on from the by-opening-this-page dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Web privacy advocate Cory Doctorow is on about shrinkwrap licenses, in his latest essay. They've always been onerous. Now, Doctorow says the new EULA in Vista and even the MySpace user agreement could put users at risk of being sued. He closes with: 'By reading this article, you agree, to release me from all obligations and waivers arising from any and all [everything].'"

3 of 125 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Are they actually binding? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    The whole point of the EULA is to ensure that there are so many conditionals that you'll be snagged by at least one or two unpalatable in any given jurisdiction. It doesn't matter if 95% or more of the EULA is outright illegal in your state or country; there'll still be enough leftover to have you by the short 'n' curlies.

  2. Not legally binding anyways ... by jopet · · Score: 4, Informative

    In many countries shrinkwrap licenses or license agreements that you can only agree to after actually buying the product, or that are "implicitly agreed upon" are not legally binding and are contrary to public policy. None of the things included in those "contracts" are legally binding and that includes the exclusion of warranties etc., even if written in all upper case.

  3. Re:Except for all the country... by GodInHell · · Score: 3, Informative

    ... where, if part of the contrat is illegal, then the whole contract is made null. In other word for all those country, making statement for example to make user sign up their basic right, or even consumer-protection right, is illegal, would simply nullify the EULA. So... The left over won't do shit in such case. That's an intresting (wrong) interpretation.

    Actually courts will usually do what they can to save a contract within interpretation - and will nullfy portions of the contract that cannot be enforced. But no, writing a contract so that it includes clauses which are unenforceable (ie giving up your basic human rights) does not void (the correct term) the contract.

    An illegal contract - one that is a contract to commit a crime (ie Rob that bank and I'll help you sell the gold for a 50/50 cut of all proceeds) is - yes - null and void in all states I don't think there are any EULAs out there in the main stream that include contract for crime though - so points for getting one legal principle correct, losses for applying it to the wrong case.

    -GiH
    (No, not a lawyer, just a law student).