Slashdot Mirror
UK Report Slams EULAs
draevil writes "Britain's National Consumer Council has completed an investigation into the practice of software End User License Agreements(EULAs) with the conclusion that many consumers are signing away their legal rights and agreeing to unfair terms, which they could never have scrutinized before purchase. The report also acknowledges that even if the EULA were available prior to purchase, it would be unreasonable to expect an average consumer to understand the terms to which they were agreeing. Here are the full report (PDF) and a summary." The NCC recommends that the European Commission bring softwre licenses under the same consumer protections that apply to other products in the EU.
Someone in power has been soundly beaten with the Common Sense Foam Cluebat. (Copyright, All Rights Reserved)
I like to place meaningful quotes in my sig, so people will know that I know what meaningful quotes are.
By replying to this message, you agree to sign away all your rights to me, and once a month, go to a public place, stand on one foot and howl at sky at 12am.
What no replies?
*yawn*
But I always felt that EULAs, especially 'shrinkwrap' ones, never met the old tests for a contract:
- a 'meeting of the minds'
- agreement in exchange for 'a valuable consideration received'
You can't talk about Wikipedia's flaws on Wikipedia
Would have been awfully nice to see the GPL considered side-by-side with these other licenses.
Does the GPL also create an imbalance between the rights of the distributer and the rights of the consumer?
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Contract's a contract... maybe if many people get totally ripped, they'll start looking more into the alternatives than blindly accepting their MS overlords.
And no, this isn't an MS bashing post, I use MS for a lot of things... but most things can be done on the cheap and free and without a lot of legal hassle.
The next thing you know is that any published novel written in MS Word will be the property of MS.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
UK consumers who have reason to contest contract terms would likely be protected by the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.
GPL != EULA as you don't have to agree to the GPL.
NFP! (nearly first post :)
The EULA has for a VERY long time been a form of consumer abuse that has been tolerated for far too long. While I have little doubt that this is likely to be an attack against Microsoft, once again, but this time it will address a kind of global form of consumer abuse that had likely started with Microsoft but has become a standard practice in the industry.
Of course if it were allowed, every other player in every other industry would hope to disclaim liability for anything and everything they sell you. But most governments, local, regional and national already have consumer protection laws in place to form the base-line of product liability. But for some reason, software as a product or as a service has somehow been overlooked in most areas (though some states in the US have consumer protection laws that include software). It'll be about time to see those same laws apply to software.
If I've signed something away, there should be something in writing with my signature. I don't have it, and I bet the software companies don't, either. IANAL, but how does clicking a button on a VB form constitute a legally binding signature? If I hack the installer program and remove the form, does that mean I'm not bound by the EULA (even if it tells me I'm not allowed to hack the installer program)?
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
If they revamp how EULAs are used and written, will they still include caveats for government retribution against the impossible case where they find you have done something that is illegal no matter what software you might have used?
http://sycrat.com/sycrat/screenshots/screenshot1.png NO WMDs please
Yes, I know the example is for US cases, but just the same.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
I always wondered how they were affected by british consumer law (If memory serves you can't change a contract after the point of sale, in the UK), especially with games such as WOW were you buy an expansion seperate to the subscription fees with a possible EULA changing as well, and how the EULA would stand legally.
"I may be full of crap about this game, and I may be wrong, and that's fine." -Jack Thompson
Considering they object to 10 page EULA's for products I wonder how they feel about Terms and Conditions for product and services bought online? Last time I signed up for a server host I read through about 15 pages of terms and conditions which were contained with a tiny scroll box and that company was UK based. As far as I can tell the reasons they give for objecting are equally valid for every UK ISP I've signed upto and every service I've bought online. Should be interesting to see where it goes.
One might argue that if the law is so weakly formulated that it is rendered invalid simply by one party telling the other that it is, then the law is the problem not the EULA. Haven't read TFA so no idea if this is just another misleading summary or not, but it strikes me as strange that would be possible in most any country.
Where I live there's no way to sign away my legal rights. A EULA can demand I agree to being boiled in oil if I reverse engineer the program, but that means less than the pixels used to display the EULA in the eyes of the law. Especially since reverse engineering something to make it suit my needs is explicitly protected by law last I heard.
Come to think of it, don't most EULAs actually include a phrase stating it's not applicable where void by local legislation?
In many country (in EU for example) you cannot give up fundamental right, or agree to give up protection of the law by signing a contract. This in many case nullify the contract utterly. But surprise, surprise, many of those EULA (particularly the one drafted for the US and just translated) just do that, for example in saying they are not liable for any damage occasioned by the software. Although in recent year I saw in a lot of EULA added "except in the country which forbid such clause, in which case it does not apply" or something similar.
I USED to before install go and change the text of the EULA for fun (so that the CEO of the software maker give me his first born). Or delete the text file before install. Or ask my nephew to install your software (kids aren't contractible if parents refuse). Such shenanigan would not happen with a real signed contract.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
it would be unreasonable to expect an average consumer to understand the terms to which they were agreeing
Then they shouldn't agree to it. As long as the license is available before purchase, people should not be buying a license they don't comprehend. It's just that simple. Just like the mortgage lending problems people are agreeing to terms they don't understand or don't have the patience to read. What we need is not regulation as much as consumer education.
Developers: We can use your help.
Doesn't the UK have the Unfair Contract Terms Act to protect consumers from sinister fine print that they may have signed up to?
Drill baby drill - on Mars
If you are presented with a contract by a company, you can cross out sections of the contract that you can't live with. If the company's agent accepts that contract, they are bound by it. (subject to vagaries of contract law)
If I were to write a utility that would allow me to electronically cross out sections of an electronic EULA, and then the program (the owner's agent) accepted that modified EULA, would both parties be bound by the new contract? What if my utility allowed me to add sections as well. i.e. If this MS program crashed, MS will pay me $1,000,000
Most EULAs will allow you to print them before accepting them. I could make the same modifications to the paper copy as well. Even if there was a pre-clause that said the EULA couldn't be modified, I could cross that out too.
So would such a program mean the end of EULAs as we know them? Would software publishers have to fall back to straight copyright and save the legal mumbo-jumbo?
All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
Contains a EULA which forbids it from being read.
If you are presented with a contract by a company, you can cross out sections of the contract that you can't live with. If the company's agent accepts that contract, they are bound by it. (subject to vagaries of contract law)
If I were to write a utility that would allow me to electronically cross out sections of an electronic EULA, and then the program (the owner's agent) accepted that modified EULA, would both parties be bound by the new contract? What if my utility allowed me to add sections as well. i.e. If this MS program crashed, MS will pay me $1,000,000
Most EULAs will allow you to print them before accepting them. I could make the same modifications to the paper copy as well. Even if there was a pre-clause that said the EULA couldn't be modified, I could cross that out too.
All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
Sounds like it would apply to the type of contracts US cell phone companies force upon us. Can anyone really figure those out without a lawyer?
I used to be conscientious about reading them, but I came to the same conclusion as a report: IANAL, and I don't have a clue what all the legalbabble actually means. In the unlikely event I ever end up in court over one of them, that's exactly what I'll tell the judge.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I'd like to know how many people here have actually been taken to court, or taken someone else (a company) to court or other legal proceedings over what was said in an EULA.
I'm sure I "read" the EULAs just as closely as most consumers: I don't. The times I've tried, it took a VERY long time and it made sense, I guess... but by the time you get through it you can hardly remember the content or context of what it said. 99% of the time I just click OK... I've never had an issue where I've had to refer back to an EULA, personally.
Contracts with minors are usually unenforceable.
If you start a new computer (w/ Vista) for the first time, you are presented with a screen to accept the EULA.
What's (NOT!) funny here is that the only option is to accept and click Next.
There is no option for Cancel. Just poweroff...
If you live in X, this EULA may not apply to you. Furthermore, tearing open the shrinkwrap doesn't necessarily void the warranty (expressed or implied) for occupants of Y.
So what about the rest of us? Where is the chainreactionofcommonsense?
In the 1980s, Borland products came with a "treat it like a book" license.
It was written in Plain English. It essentially said you could trade, lend, buy, sell, resell, etc. as long as no more than one person had copies at a time and that the software wasn't being used on more than one computer at a time.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
"Consumers can't have a clue what they're signing up to when some terms and conditions run to 10 or more pages. There's a significant imbalance between the rights of the consumer and the rights of the holder.'"
So on a fundamental level this is a move against overly complex, lengthy, technically worded agreements. Which I think is a good thing. I have to wonder what happens if we apply this to other overly complex, lengthy things that should be knowledge that is accessible to the average citizen. While part of me has little sympathy for anyone who signed up for an Adjustable Rate Mortgage, or a crappy cellphone contract there is some indication that they didn't really understand what they were getting into. Or take this principle to our legislatures and ask if it is possible for any legislator to actually understand a 700 page bill that came out in it's final form three days prior to voting. While lawyers may try to tell you that all that wording is necessary in order to be clear, I think in more and more cases it has the exact opposite effect.
We are all just people.
I think that counts as duress, becuase you've already repartitioned/reformatted/whatever you call it, and anything you had before is kaplooey.
They should make you agree to it BEFORE you install it. Won't do much as far as enforceability is concerned, but it will let you decide on how you want your eggs before they've already been cooked.
...which one reason why lots of people have, rightly or wrongly, replaced their EULA with the pirate bay version. Download it illegally, ignore the license, install and play with it. If they need it or are using it and feel guilty buy it. Even when they do buy it a lot of users continue to ignore the EULA. I'm not condoning this behavior but I am saying that onerous conditions in the EULAs directly contribute to piracy.
The other thing is that no one reads all their EULAs thoroughly. If they did heavy computer users would be complaining about spending weeks installing software (or not understanding something about the EULA), when in reality software installation is something people often are doing in their "spare" time after all their other obligations are met. I've found that those people who suggest they do read all their EULAs are either doing it for a job or socially impaired or just plain liars.
Most people just understand that unless it's free software it's not legal to copy. Beyond that they use their software however they choose paying no mind to the EULA. In fact I've come across many a game forum where people openly are flouting the terms of the EULA and the company who creates the game turn a blind eye and don't wish to even discuss licensing issues beyond regurgitating the "copying is stealing" mantra. This is enough enforcement for the company to benefit from the inclusion of the EULA for individual users. Only when the software is used on a grander scale contrary to the EULA does the company act to put a stop to that use, and even then only when it hurts their commercial interests.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
"The NCC recommends that the European Commission bring softwre licenses under the same consumer protections that apply to other products in the EU."
Software companies has enjoyed unprecedented loose consumer protections. In fact, no protections has existed at all. The only protection is really the laws about advertising. That is, the software should act and do something that atleast is near what the adverts says.
If EU would bring normal consumer protection to software it should also work as expected. That is, it should not crash and burn without the manufacturer fixing it for you. With the same protections as for hardware it would cost countless millions to make your users the beta testers.
My work as an sysadmin would more be about tailoring solutions and less about getting expensive systems running with bandaid, duct-tape and broken patches that shouldnt be there in the first place.
Its about time software stops being treated like books and start living under the same rules as everything else. If a patch hooses my system the most i can hope for today is a patch regardless if it costs me millions in business. Most often in my case the answer has been "buy our next version, it really works this time, promise, cross my heart".
Things like this would punishing poor quality and i think that is really about time. Right now software really sucks.
HTTP/1.1 400
That, and there's no consideration, as the buyer has already paid for the computer and the software.
One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
I'd love to see someone do a return-to-store test case:
Go to a Big Box Computer Retailer, use cash to buy an expensive item you know the manager won't "just let you return" in the interest of customer satisfaction, take it home, open it, start to install it, click "no, I don't agree," then try to return it. Use cash so it's clear you don't have recourse through your credit-card company.
The store says no. File a several-hundred-dollar-plus-court-fees small-claims action.
Wait for the store to transfer the case to regular court. Amend your suit to include legal fees and triple damages for being an ass, offering to settle for the original purchase price plus legal fees incurred so far all the while, so the judge knows you aren't being an ass.
Wait for the ruling that the contract was not complete until you click on "yes, I agree." The judge should rule that either:
*you had a contract with the store, in which case the product did not meet ordinary merchantability standards i.e. it would not work without imposing other obligations not present at the time of the contract, in which case you can void the contract
or
*The store is acting as an agent for the software maker. You gave the store owner funds to hold until you entered into a contract with the software maker. If you did not enter into the contract you have a reasonable period of time to seek a refund from the store.
In the worst case, the judge will let the store off the hook but allow you to add the software maker as a co- and later sole-defendant, and rule that the software maker owes you a full refund plus sales tax. In this case you will be out your legal fees though.
In any case, there will be a ruling giving consumers protection up to the point that they say "yes, I agree."
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
I once bought 3 PC's from a local company that had done a mass "upgrade", they were 1.8gig Pentiums with sizeable drives (low-level formatted) & oodles of RAM, for the princely sum of one pound sterling each :-) c/w 19" CRT, kb, mouse & speakers. It was cheaper for them than scrapping
:-)
Can't say fairer than that
But when I want a new PC for home, I buy from novatech, for the reasons given in above post (no affiliation, have just been buying from them for ever)
If I had an Ass, I'd call it Fanny Bottom, then I could slap my Ass; Fanny Bottom, on the Arse.
A contract is binding when you agree to it. I have always been tempted to simply mail them a letter before installing the software in which I say "I am writing to inform you that I do not agree to your EULA, and I do not agree that I need a license to use this software. Since you sold me these nice shiny CDs containing the software, I am going to go ahead and install it. Have a nice day." Now this violates the Do Not Poke The Bear principle, but is on firmer legal ground than just ignoring it and hoping it will go away. The question is, when their lawyers send you a reply, what can they argue about? You didn't violate copyright (you bought a legal copy from the owner). You didn't agree to a contract so it isn't breach of contract. What legal grounds do they have to say "don't use our software", other than "we don't give you permission"? And who says I need their permission? It's my computer. If nothing else, their demand letter would have to include a refund check, otherwise they are in violation of their own EULA.
Wut? This is ta legal contract. The primary funciotn of the government is to enforce contracts and protect the homeland. Evereything else is communism. These customors gladly signed on to these contracts in exchange for getting there software. If they didn't understand the agreement they shouldn't'uve bouht the softwrae.
--
RON PAUL NOW!
I seriously doubt a $6K a month worker from a cash and manpower strapped governmental agency during a time of severe economic recession would be wasting rare taxpayer dollars to investigate a trivial situation involving a piece of $35 software bought from wal-mart.
This is the end. Das ist das ende! Es etes fini! The very idea that software may actually cause a liability on the seller to produce:
1. A product
2. That actually works per the implied Warrantee of Merchantibility or Fitness
3. Complies with the Irish Sale of Goods Act
4. Actually is required to have a value more than nil
5. A product that is liable to be sued if it fails
just like every other non-monopoly preferred consumer product! Maravelous AusGeseichnet!
C`est bon! Hope it flies past the sock puppet European Commission.
Let's call it by its true name: Coercion.
By the time you're presented with the EULA, you've already exchanged money for a box advertising the features of the software. That's a contract if ever I heard one. The EULA attempts to force you into a new contract, with NO CONSIDERATION beyond releasing their hold on the features and properties of the software that are already yours. That is coercion.
And no, disclaiming on the box that you have to agree to a contract is NOT sufficient if they are not disclosing the terms of the contract itself.
IANAL, but I have studied with one.
Yes, I'm aware some courts have upheld EULAs valid. Bad facts make bad law.
But the simple fact is a sale has taken place with certain terms. Imposing other terms afterwards is simply called "reaching". If the companies wanted EULAs enforced, they'd have tear-off signing cards on their products. Then it would be very simple. But the companies choose not to do so for marketing reasons or other convenience. Yet still wish to have the advantages of contract bestowed upon them. Have their cake and eat it too.
By reading this EULA, you hearby agree to retroactively and forever afterwards never be bound by the terms of an other EULA.
Actually, I wonder how they would prove that I clicked the EULA box. I purchased a refurb machine for example from a local reseller. A bunch of software was pre-installed. Some I blew away, some I kept.
At that point, I agreed to nothing, nor did anyone ask me to agree to anything.
Like most waivers, EULAs are more to dissuade you from believing you have rights.
If you buy software, or a system, and it does not do what you may reasonably expect then you get your money back.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
I liked the "as a book" license because it was very clear what right you had, and it explained this by means of a very simple concept. I personally found it one of the easiest licenses to work with. And then they screwed up and went the way of the dodo..
Insert
The evidence I point to the most is that I work for a state university. As a state employee I can't sign anything for the university, it all has to be sent to legal. Have to make sure that everything is kept in a row as far as what the state agrees to. However they've told us we can just click through on the licenses on software. Clearly, it is because they don't believe they are enforceable, and they are a rather cautious lot.
As for being a contract it fails in several ways:
1) As you noted, there's no exchange. A contract MUST have an exchange to be valid. Even if you do something like quit a claim to a house (like you helped your kid by co-signing for it and now you are giving it over to them) it will still read "For the sum of $10 and other valuable consideration." Why? If there wasn't an exchange, the contract would be null.
2)It's ex post facto. Contracts have to happen before the sale, not after. That's why when you buy a house all the loan documents and such are done before you take ownership, before money changes hands. You can't try and say "But you agreed to this!" after the fact, you do it before hand or it is too late.
3) Not open to negotiation. That's what the "meeting of minds" thing means. A contract has to be open to negotiation. You don't have to meet face to face or anything (often it is done through the mail) and you certainly don't have to accept what the other side proposes, but you have to be open to it. You can't hand them a contract to sign and then have no way to get back to you.
4) No proof of agreement. That someone clicked "I agree" means nothing. There's no proof you agreed to it, or indeed that you were capable fo doing so. What happens when a minor buys a game and installs it? A minor can't enter in to a contract on their own, the parents never cosigned, etc.
There is really nothing about an EULA that meets the normal standard of what a contract is. If they want a contract governing their software, they need to have you sign it beforehand. However I'm going to guess that if people are presented with a 10 page wodge of text (EULAs are longer than any rental agreement I've seen) to read and sign when they try and buy an Xbox game, that it'll prove quickly to be an unworkable business model.
There is a difference, in the EU consumer rights mean something.
Do you know about dead pixels in LCD screens? The one the industry tells you are acceptable? Dutch law clearly FORBIDS this. ANY LCD with a single defective SUB-pixel has to be replaced. No argument possible. The netherlands is the only country where sony replaced every PSP with ANY pixel problems.
So you are right in saying these EULA's are not illegal in the US, but the EU has far better laws for protecting the consumer and it has long been known by any who follows consumer afair programs they are entirely without worth within the EU and any company that tries to take you to court over one will find a very hostile judge. Hence why they never been tested, the companies know they will loose it.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
I despise the signs at every store claiming that "due to copyright law" they will not accept returns. This is complete and utter nonsense and there is nothing in copyright law preventing them from accepting returns on software that doesn't work.
If retailers were forced to accepts returns and provide refunds for every software item that doesn't work as advertised, doesn't work on a specifc computer, is too slow to use, has lousy technical support, or breaks something else, we would likely see overall quality jump pretty damned fast.
As it stands now the end user is asked to drop $200, $300 or more for non-returnable disc with no promise whatsoever that it will actually do what's expected. Is it any surprise that tech savvy people choose to shop at Pirate Bay before laying out cold hard cash?
Three Squirrels
I have always been curious about the legality of children and EULAs. Is it technically illegal for a child to purchase and install a computer game?
It even says in the preabmle that merely to use the software (therefore be an END USER) you don't have to agree to squat. If you are going to be an INTERMEDIATE USER, I.e. give copies to other people, you do have to agree to how you will give those copies out. Even if you don't agree, all that means is you cannot be an intermediate user.
However, reading your comments, despite being highly modded, you don't WANT to understand, you just want to say "not true, it's a lot more difficult".
Why? The only reason why it's so difficult is because of copyright itself.
Even if there was a pre-clause that said the EULA couldn't be modified, I could cross that out too.
;)
Actually, most EULA's seem to have a clause saying that they can be updated at any time without notice, and to be sure to check their website hourly so you don't miss any changes.
In which case, you can simply cross that out and have it point to your own website, where you will maintain EULA's you can live with.
What's (NOT!) funny here is that the only option is to accept and click Next.
There is no option for Cancel. Just poweroff... ...So the button actually says "Next" and there's nothing to clike that says "Yes" or "I Agree" or something like that?
Take the Virgin Digital one for example:
VIRGIN DIGITAL
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
Please read the following usage agreement carefully. It is a legal contract between you and Virgin Digital that governs your use of Virgin Digital's services. By agreeing to the terms within, Virgin Digital is granting you a limited license to use the software, subject to certain restrictions. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE, DO NOT USE THE SOFTWARE. YOU MAY RETURN THE SOFTWARE TO THE PLACE WHERE YOU PURCHASED IT FOR A REFUND. IF THE SOFTWARE WAS ACCESSED ONLINE, CLICK "DISAGREE/DECLINE".
NOTICE
This software is licensed to you only for the reproduction of music and/or video that you own or have the expressed right to use as the software allows. Any attempt to reproduce copyrighted material that you are not expressly permitted to use is not legal, not good for the economy, and not nice. Furthermore, it is not cool, it is not kosher, nor is it the kind of thing that your parents would be proud of. Put the kibosh on it. Hey, are you reading this thing? I didn't think so. Nobody ever really does, do they? Except the lawyers who write it. Think about it - you're a lawyer, making god-knows-how-much and hour, and this is the best you can come up with? Lame.
WARRANTY
The usage of the Virgin Digital software is at your sole risk, and all risk as to all aspects of the service including quality, accuracy, and performance is on you. Yes, we worked hard to make this thing great. But, regardless, it is provided "as is" and without any warranty at all. Should the software not work correctly (or affect the performance of your toaster or other small appliances in your home), you assume the entire cost of any servicing or correction. Sorry if this sounds harsh. If it helps, think of this past paragraph being read aloud by a chorus of small leprechauns. With lisps. And gas. There, that's better.
PERMITTED USES
This License allows you to install and use the Virgin Digital Software. The Virgin Digital software, and all other software made available by Virgin Digital on or through the Service, are protected by intellectual property laws and your use of them is governed by this Agreement as well as any applicable end-user license agreements. You may not reverse engineer it. You may not copy it. You can take an occasional screenshot if you want to show family & friends, but that's about it. Please don't hack it. We worked really hard on this thing. Okay, finally, we recently saw the following disclaimer on a competitor's usage agreement: "THE SOFTWARE IS NOT INTENDED FOR USE IN THE OPERATION OF NUCLEAR FACILITIES, AIRCRAFT NAVIGATION OR COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEMS, LIFE SUPPORT MACHINES OR OTHER EQUIPMENT IN WHICH THE FAILURE OF THE SOFTWARE COULD LEAD TO DEATH, PERSONAL INJURY, OR SEVERE PHYSICAL OR ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE." What does that mean? Who would use music software to operate a nuclear facility? Did they put that disclaimer in because at one point someone did in fact navigate an airplane by using their music software? Is that even possible? I can't imagine it is, but hey, if they feel that it's necessary to put that stuff in a software usage agreement, well then so do we. Needless to say, when we think about it, we get pretty creeped out.
SERVICE DESCRIPTION
The Virgin Digital Service affords you the unique and thrilling opportunity to experience 30 second samples of music and to stream, download and think about digitized sound recordings and related nifty digital content. To access the Service, you will need to install or activate Virgin Digital's proprietary software application; occasionally, you may also be required to install other software made available through the Service (collectively this is referred to as the "Client" - do you think our lawyer named this for us?). You may also need to install certain third-party software, although we have no idea what that might be. You are responsible for any hardware, systems and/or software program(
I don't need to test my programs.. I have an error correcting modem.
When a company discloses a EULA to you post-sale, that is FRAUD. For example, when Microsoft answered my question about the EULA on XP Pro with one copy from their web site, but then tried to force me to agree to another one on the CD, they committed fraud against me.
My recourse was to take Microsoft's property in compensation for their criminal fraud. I have a worldwide, nonexclusive, perpetual license to distribute all Microsoft software until the corporate career criminals at Microsoft are punished.
I'm such a nice guy, I give it away free. Check the torrents.
Andy
What a load of bullshit. If you buy a computer game (yes, Microsoft Office is a computer game;-)) how can you be expected to know that the part of the game where you need to click the Accept-button below a shitload of bullshit text is not part of the game? Of course it is part of the game.
0x or or snor perron?!
You don't get the chance to review the contract before you sign it.
Sign it? I've never signed a EULA. I might have clicked 'I agree' but that carries no legal weight, at least in the UK. They need my signature.
Actually, you didn't purchase the software and you don't own it. That's the nasty thing about the EULAs and what makes them so wrong.
According to most EULAs *cough*Microsoft*cough* I have read, what you actually laid your money on the table for was neither the software nor the CDs. It is for the license to use the software.
So in essence, sending a letter saying you don't agree to the EULA doesn't matter to them. They will happily point to the EULA and say "But you don't own the software, we do. You have paid for the license to use it on your computer. You sent a letter to us refusing to abide by our licensing terms, therefore you have no legal right to use the software. Have a nice day and the BSA will be visiting you soon."
Software companies look at the CDs and the software as just incidentals. They don't really matter. All that matters is the license.
Seppuku: Your solution to my problems!
Even though this is UK but someone notice how bad for the consumer these EULA are written. I wish that the Feds had enough nuts and intestinal fortitude to do this also. Reading the most EULA will take at least 1 hour and even you had a question it will take another day or more to get an respond (good luck if anything else without a form letter). I remember a long time ago that there was one EULA from a company that actually had a prize of $100 if anyone would read entire EULA and someone did get that prize. I wish that EULA were written in shorter and human language (not lawyerese) so humans hand read it in a reasonable period of time. Also someone like the ACLU (I'm not a fan of) or independent party that ensure that the EULA is not unconstitutional. Note I didn't legal since so many laws are leaning towards big business so the consumer is on the losing the end of most laws since the lobbyist are "encouraging" the law makers to make laws for the big business.
I don't get how they could have, since copyright law specifically states that copies made as part of the normal course of operation of a piece of software (i.e. from disk to memory) aren't violations.
Whose copyright law says that?
As far as I'm aware, there is still this dubious legal situation in the UK where the relevant European-level agreements carry such a waiver, but the UK implementation of the corresponding law accidentally forgot that innocuous-seeming little detail. I agree, though, that if that "oversight" were fixed it's hard to see how any consideration is moving in the direction of the user and thus why they would have any obligations under any contract with the copyright holder once they have obtained a legitimate copy of the software to install.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
In the UK we've got various laws protecting consumers. Also worth remembering that Scots law is somewhat different from the law in England & Wales. The main bit of law is the Sale & Supply of Goods Act 1994 which states that goods must be of reasonable quality, as described and fit for purpose. If you buy second hand, goods have to be as described but that's it. The contract is between you (as the consumer) and the retailer. The manufacturer doesn't get a look in and they can't add terms to the contract after it has been made. If the goods become faulty within 6 months of purchase, it is assumed that they were faulty when they were purchased and it's up to the retailer to prove otherwise. Specifically on guarantees, section 15 of the Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002 mentions that "The guarantor shall ensure that the guarantee sets out in plain intelligible language [my italics] the contents of the guarantee and the essential particulars necessary for making claims under the guarantee, notably the duration and territorial scope of the guarantee as well as the name and address of the guarantor."
Something else we have is the Distance Selling Regulations which covers mail order stuff. This gives you a cooling off period of 7 days after the goods arrive, during which you can cancel no questions asked. If the supplier wants the goods back, they have to pay the postage. They also have to refund within 30 days.
As far as EULAs go, it's a bit like Heinz putting a note on the inside of a tin of baked beans that says you can't sell the tin to someone else and they aren't responsible if the tin explodes and causes damage. The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 covers one part of this and the Consumer Protection Act 1988 covers another bit.
All these rights are protected by law and it's illegal for any contract, EULA, guarantee or whatever to exclude them.
Another bit of protection is offered courtesy of the case of Donoghue v. Stevenson. May Donoghue met a friend at a cafe. Her friend bought some drinks, including a bottle of ginger beer. Mrs Donoghue drank it and found a dead slug at the bottom of the bottle. Naturally enough she fell ill and decided to sue David Stevenson whose company made the ginger beer. Stevenson claimed that she wasn't entitled to anything because it was her friend who bought the drink and not her. The case ended up in the House of Lords (highest court in the UK at the time) and it was decided that Stevenson had a duty of care to the end consumer, even if they didn't pay for it. (Claims in advertising are covered by the case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co, another bizarre one).
It'll be interesting to see what the OFT investigation comes up with. There's more to writing an EULA than just crossing out "
Dealing with EULAs is a real annoyance for software used at work, because of a simple fact: lawyers don't install software, I do. Why the hell is the software shoving this crap in my face, since I don't have the authority to legally bind my company to scary terms?
The result is simple: I can't bind the company so I don't use the software. In other words, software companies, your EULA directly reduces your sales. It makes me recommend free/open software to my managers every single time. A bullshit-free, get-on-with-your-day, you-won't-go-to-jail software installation process makes for a very productive group that day, whereas sending something to a legal department for review can take months. (And no, I am NOT kidding...lawyers can be slow as hell when it comes to these things.)
Of course at home, I frankly ignore an EULA and grumble about its very existence every single time. Except when I encounter a window that helpfully disables the Agree button until I scroll down to the bottom, simulating absorption of mindless legalese before being allowed to continue (in which case, I also grumble about those who wrote the installer).
"Microsoft killed my company, I hold a personal grudge. I don't use Microsoft products and neither should you."-JWZ
Contract's a contract...
Yes and no.
As others have mentioned, there are various laws that can invalidate some or all of a contract, for example if it is unconscionable. Of course, this is like a reasonableness test: it's unwise to bank on it too readily, as in most cases it's subject to interpretation.
To give a relevant example: when I installed my legally purchased copy of Crysis the other day, I was presented with a licence agreement a full 70 (seventy) screen pages long. The final section relates to the PunkBuster anti-cheat software, which is installed by default, and contains text that pretty bluntly says you accept that they will be scanning your entire system and can copy whatever data they like off it even if this might be regarded as invasive, and you have no guarantees in return. Personally, I think that is completely unreasonable and should be held unconscionable. However, there is no guarantee that the law will agree with me, unless there's been a test case I haven't heard about.
The more interesting question is how an EULA can possibly form a contract in the first place. For a contract to exist, there must be something in it for both parties. Once you've paid up and taken the box home (a simple contract of sale with the vendor), you now have a legitimate copy of the software, and there are certain provisions in European law that say you are allowed to make copies necessary for the normal operation of that software without further permission (though the UK implementation of these is rather incomplete, and I don't know enough about the legal technicalities to know which takes precedence). If the European law dominates, then there is literally nothing in it for the user, so why would a contract exist that imposes any further obligations on them? Then we get into product activation and technical measures, which in turn leads to a debate about planned obsolescence, anti-DRM laws, fitness for purpose of the product sold at the store, etc. Those issues start to go beyond simple copyright and contract law, of course.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
At my old company, not quite a year ago, we were looking to get services from Microsoft (not my decision). The President of that company is really anal about having all vendors and employees of vendors sign a NDA. Microsoft lawyers said they would sign for the company, but they would not allow their employees to sign NDA's for themselves. Their reason: their employees are not lawyers so they should not be forced to agree to a contract they may not understand. Talk about contradiction...
This is for a new computer with Vista. The first boot is where it asks you to accept the license.
When you click to accept the license, the only option is to click on Next.
If you do not click on the license, there is no option to switch of the computer other than doing a hardware shutdown.
If they were, Ford would simply say "by opening the glove box, you
agree not to sue us if (when) this vehicle explodes in a fiery ball
of death". And they would be off the hook.
They didn't. End of discussion.
"Software companies has enjoyed unprecedented loose consumer protections...protection is really the laws about advertising" Perhaps you haven't seen Windows ME or Vista in action, the advertising laws' effects were close to *meaningless*. Basically the "artistic warranty" with a liberal use of lawyers allowed MS "engineering" to set the example of unresponsible behavior and defective software for the software industry, shipping alpha software despite deleting highly hyped features. Maybe that was Bill's 800V showing as an "alpha male".
Contracts like end user license agreements (EULAs) need not necessarily be bad for individuals. For the purpose of promoting privacy or other rights, an individual might post an agreement on her web site or social networking page, or broadcast the agreement via e-mail or radio. A small business might try the same to deter a snoopy tax collector. These ideas aren't legal advice, just something to think about.
Benjamin Wright, Dallas, Texas, benjaminwright.us
The 'do not reverse engineer' clause has always seemed to me the most unreasonable restriction. If I buy something mechanical - a clock, say - I am free to take it apart, reassemble it, use the parts in artworks, etc. The software vendor have already given me instructions on precisely how the software works, in machine-readable form. Why may I not also understand how it works, tinker with it, improve it? They are taking advantage of the fact that most desktop software currently happens to be compiled to binary form. If it is written in an interpreted language - Python, say - it already happens to be in human-readable form, too and there's no reverse engineering necessary.
But then, I don't see how they could ever enforce it - if I don't post it anywhere, how would they know? This is how knowledge advances - "intellectual property" be damned!
Sadly, i can not code in the least. Else i would program something useful like a video-cutting-program with an EULA like hell on earth, just to see how much i can abuse the system of "software license" agreed by the user after buying my software for a low fee.
1. The developer of this software is by no means responsible for his shitty code, which may damage your computer, drink your milk or threatens your life.
2. Agreeing to this EULA is a tacit agreement by you, to sacrify your first born son to Satan on his fifth bithday on a moonlit night in your backyard.
3. Should you attempt to copy, sell or reengeneer this software to your needs, you agree to be boiled to death in oil.
4. You agree to let this software collect all your e-mail adresses of your buisness contacts and to let it send them at least weekly to an internet server located in russia for marketing purposes.
5. Agreeing to this EULA is also bound to a contract with Scientology, where you will be enlisted automaticly to a brainwashing program and have to pay heavily for knowlege you don't really need. Your soul and mental health is now our property!
6. If any of the above terms does not legally apply in your land, it can't be refused. It then will apply ILLEGALLY!