Slashdot Mirror
Cory Doctorow on Shrinkwrap Licenses
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].'"
I know, I know, RTFA is so passe... but the point the guy was making was not that Microsoft was going to do this. The point was that some company is going to go bankrupt, and their obligations & contracts will get bought by somebody with the mentality of a patent troll. And that's when people will start getting sued. And if he/she/it's successful, it will encourage others to do the same.
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
Here's the news: EULAs are bullshit. They always have been (except in a few benighted countries)... they were always meant to muddy the legal waters rather than enforce their ridiculous conditions.
Microsoft's dream has always been to enforce EULA restrictions by *technical *means. This means no need to deal with legal matters... want to change things, or enforce patently bullshit restrictions, then they just change them. This is why they started the TCPA, subsequently the TCG (Trusted Computing Group), and spent time designing their dream hardware along with the likes of IBM, Sun, HP etc etc: they call it Trusted Computing, and the hardware is a "TPM"... which will now be installed in every PC (and is already in the Apple Mac). The hardware gives Microsoft (and Apple) the ability to actually enforce the EULA by technical mans... read your EULA, read the specs, and criticisms, and be afraid.
Given that a EULA contains a huge amount of intellectual property...
Actually most EULAs consist of the same language used in other EULAs. In that sense they are full of what in copyright is referred to as "scenes a faire," or components that are common to a particular type of work. For example, a movie about the Middle Ages might show some poor wretch gnawing on a piece of stale bread. This is so common that that particular scene in itself has no special creativity.
EULAs have at best a thin layer of creativity in the selection of certain stock phrases in order to compose a whole. In that sense they are probably akin to literary compilations, which have a very thin layer of copyright over the selection and presentation of the collected works. In the case of EULAs, I think it would be difficult to say that "You agree to indemnify and hold harmless..." and other stock phrases are anything more than scenes a faire.
I was talking with a rather high-powered copyright lawyer about this a few months ago, and he agreed with my assessment. There doesn't see to be any real pertient caselaw on this, so all opinions are equal until someone finds reason to bring suit for copying of EULA terms. I can't really see why any company would bother with it though. The language of a EULA is not something worth protecting, because in itself it does not produce revenue.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ