CNN Uses P2P Video & Adds Terrible EULA

Futurepower(R) writes "CNN's use of software called Octoshape presents an incredibly abusive EULA. If you agree to the EULA, you agree that CNN can use your bandwidth, and that you will pay any costs. Also, you lose the right to monitor your own network traffic. You can't even use information collected by your own firewall. Quoting the EULA: 'You may not collect any information about communication in the network of computers that are operating the Software or about the other users of the Software by monitoring, interdicting or intercepting any process of the Software. Octoshape recognizes that firewalls and anti-virus applications can collect such information, in which case you not are allowed to use or distribute such information.' "

Comments

good luck with that

[Anonymous Coward]

Does anyone actually believe that click-through licenses are valid? If asked, one could always say that they let their cat chase the mouse around until the software worked.

Re:good luck with that

[Shakrai]

Does anyone actually believe that click-through licenses are valid?

Who gives a shit if it's valid? Is the no-monitoring part enforceable? They gonna install DRM on my machine that makes sure I'm not capturing packets? They gonna push that DRM out to my gateway to make sure I'm not capturing them there?

This is what happens when you let the lawyers draft the EULA without even consulting with the techies.....

Re:good luck with that

[j0nb0y]

Yes. The US Legal system believes that they are valid. Does anyone else matter? I know its "common knowledge" on slashdot that they aren't valid, but find one US case that says they aren't valid. There are many that say they are...

Re:good luck with that

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

You will, if you get sued over it. Obviously, the terms are ludicrous and nigh-unenforceable. This doesn't mean that they won't be enforced; just that they'll probably be enforced selectively to, say, silence critical reviews.

Re:good luck with that

[Crashspeeder]

Contracts are legally binding but if the terms of the contract are outlandish, the contract can be deemed null and void by a court. Same thing with this, they can't expect me to not monitor my network because they said so. The key word was MY. Next thing you know their EULA will say you must run the software for a minimum of 8 hours a day.

Re:good luck with that

[Anonymous Coward]

Person A accepts EULA.
Person B owns network and watches packets through router.

Person B did NOT accept the EULA and thus is not bound by it.

That's like people saying 'You can't read out signs' as a parade or protest walks by your window.

Re:good luck with that

[Big Boss]

Are you willing to pay a lawyer to argue that in court? That's what it will take to get rid of this sort of thing.

Re:good luck with that

[mcgrew]

Contracts are legally binding

Only if it can be proven that both parties to the contract agreed to the contract. If you set up an agreement with a company over the phone, your recorded voice proves it's you. When you take out a loan your signature proves you agreed to it.

With a clickthrough EULA there is no proof. When I install software on someone else's machine, and I click the EULA, how can they be held to it? If the EULA is on the box, how can they prove who opened the box?

Re:good luck with that

[Anonymous Coward]

Good luck my computer has an EULA that the software has to agree to when using my computer. It contains little details like agreeing that all EULA's are to be considered void.

Re:good luck with that

[mdmkolbe]

Next thing you know their EULA will say you must run the software for a minimum of 8 hours a day.

Please don't give them any ideas. They might think this would be a good way to get more seeders.

Re:good luck with that

[cdrguru]

The issue is privacy. Since they are "borrowing" user's bandwidth this exposes other users potentially personally identifying information to the first user. Now you can track other user's activities (within a fairly narrow scope) by using information that can be gathered on your own computer.

I suspect they had to put this in because of this potential. Would it fly if it was clearly exposed what was happening in EU countries? I doubt it. How about if they said:

By using the CNN service you will be receiving information about other user's online activities as they will be receiving information about your activities. This is an essential part of the service that cannot be disabled. By accepting this agreement you acknowledge that no part of your activities on the CNN web site or other related services may be private, secret, anonymous or in any way protected from every other user of the CNN web site or other related services.

Would that be better?

Re:good luck with that

[Ark Ku Mon]

Yes. The US Legal system believes that they are valid.

Actually the US case law is inconsistent and have only ruled on the validity specific EULAs not about them in general. There have been cases where EULAs have been ruled enforceable and valid and others to the contrary. So your statement is actually misleading.

I know its "common knowledge" on slashdot that they aren't valid, but find one US case that says they aren't valid. There are many that say they are...

In this case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that a EULA disclaimer waiving all express and implied warranties, printed on the outside of the box, was not binding.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Step-Saver_Data_Systems,_Inc._v._Wyse_Technology

Also Rich, Mass Market Software and the Shrinkwrap License (23 Colo. Law 1321.17)

So, there you go. And, yes, there are cases where particular EULA has been held up by a court, but contrary to your claim there has been no case law that has ever ruled on EULAs in general in such a definitive manner as you have claim.

Re:good luck with that

[profplump]

So for free services like this, exactly what consideration am I putting up? They're giving me software/media/etc., but I'm not giving them anything. I'm pretty sure mutual consideration is one of the required elements of a contract -- am I missing something here?

Re:good luck with that

[DoofusOfDeath]

With a clickthrough EULA there is no proof. When I install software on someone else's machine, and I click the EULA, how can they be held to it? If the EULA is on the box, how can they prove who opened the box?

I think this issue recently arose with some user writing bots for an online game. The problem is, if you don't agree to the EULA, then (ostensibly) you haven't met the copyright owner's terms for using their work. And thus, using the service/software/whatever is a violation of copyright law at that point.

Re:good luck with that

[Firethorn]

They gonna install DRM on my machine that makes sure I'm not capturing packets?

Given they specifically mentioned firewalls and not using/distributing the information, they should be aware that no DRM on the machine itself is going to work.

Another topic would be a network with firewall/monitoring systems run by a non-agreeing party. Let's say I'm running a coffeshop that offer free wireless. Customer A comes in with said CNN program installed. Not having agreed to the terms of the EULA, I'm free to analyze the heck out of the stream.

Or the usual fun - 'my 12 year old installed it', or 'the techs in the store did'.

Re:good luck with that

[Anonymous Coward]

You're giving them your bandwidth! /bonk!

Re:good luck with that

[mcgrew]

So for free services like this, exactly what consideration am I putting up? They're giving me software/media/etc., but I'm not giving them anything. I'm pretty sure mutual consideration is one of the required elements of a contract -- am I missing something here?

CNN is putting up a website. Web sites are supposed to be accessable. What did I have to give up to read your post, to which you own copyright? To have a EULA for web content is antisocial at best.

Imagine putting a dollar bill in an envelope and writing a EULA for taking the free dollar on the envelope. Would you seriously expect that anyone would respect that EULA? Well, that's what CNN did, and the fact that they expect anyone to respect their EULA shows that they're not exactly living in reality.

Re:good luck with that

[geekoid]

well... it depends. in some case some parts of EULAs have been allowed. That doesn't not mean ALL EULAs are legal or enforceable. Just like any contract.

Re:good luck with that

[impaledsunset]

Why not? The more crap goes into the EULA, the better. If they try to enforce the crap inside them, they'll manifest how low these EULAs are worth, and certainly undermine their value more and more in the eyes of everyone. And I doubt these parts are enforcable.

Re:good luck with that

[Budenny]

You need to put it much more precisely. Here is an attemnpt.

Clauses in contracts entered into by click through may be binding and enforceable. You have, by clicking through, entered into the contract. So the question is, whether there is anything special about such contracts, and also, which clauses, even if they occur in contracts validly entered into, may not be enforceable.

All click through contracts are contracts of adhesion. That is they are take it or leave it contracts. You will mostly consent to them as an essential preliminary to using something you have bought and paid for. Clauses in it may be unenforceable for a number of reasons, including that they are unconscionable. Or they may conflict with the law of the jurisdiction in which the product is sold.

To diverge for a moment, sometimes people argue that when you buy a retail copy, you are in fact not buying but licensing, in law, and they draw various conclusions from this about the enforceability of clauses such as the OSX-only-on-Macs clause. This is certainly not true, following Softman. You have bought a copy in law. Whether it is OSX, Windows, Office, makes no difference. However, that does not affect the validity of the click through contract, which is independent of the fact that you have bought your copy. You may have bought your copy, and you will have various rights which are consequent on that, including the right to resell it, but it does not follow that when you subsequently entered into a different contract by clicking through, none of the provisions in that second contract were binding. So, to take the OSX case, you did buy your copy of OSX, it was a sale not a license, but it may still be that the click through contract you later entered into to only install on Macs is binding.

So, taking up the thread of the click through contract again, any clause in such a contract meets the first of two necessary tests for unconscionability, that of being a contract of adhesion. The question of its enforceability will depend on whether it meets other conditions in respect of its substance. The starting point for this is Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co. Its also part of the Uniform Commercial Code. It might be that the condition meets the criterion because it is simply unreasonable. It is not realistically possible for any business now to take the risk that would be involved in not using firewalls and anti viruses, so any EULA which forbids one to do that cannot be enforceable.

The effect of this would be, if it is correct, that you would have bought the software, not licensed it. You would have validly entered into a contract, by click through. But that contract would contain one clause which was not enforceable, so if the supplier tried to sue you for breach of contract, they would fail. However, the rest of the contract would still be in force.

The situation is very similar to the OSX issue. The difference is whether the very different clause is enforceable in the OSX case. Or in the case where MS proceeds against you because, contrary to the UELA, you are running your copy of Office under Wine. Or perhaps you are supplying PCs with Office preconfigured with Office running under Wine. You'd still have entered into a contract by clicking through. The question would be whether there is some reason why this particular clause is not enforceable. As an example, in the EU, it probably would not be, but for very different reasons to do with consumer protection legislation and post sale restraints on use. As another example, in some jurisdictions the iTunes DRM, whereby tunes were locked to a particular player, was in conflict with consumer protection legislation. You can be sure that a EULA which bound you to not trying to play your iTune on a non-Apple player would not have been enforceable. Its a very different reason for unenforceability, but it illustrates the principle.

Re:good luck with that

[Bert64]

A recording of your voice maybe, but a signature really doesn't prove a thing...

Re:good luck with that

[jslarve]

Whether or not the license is valid, I've tried on numerous occasions with several browsers to install that Octoshape add-on. Not once was I successful. Maybe it's just me, or my antivirus, Vista, or whatever. But it's pretty bad if an experienced propellerhead like myself loses interest before installation fruition.

Re:good luck with that

[torstenvl]

They are emphatically valid in most U.S. jurisdictions.

Re:good luck with that

[LordKronos]

The issue is privacy. Since they are "borrowing" user's bandwidth this exposes other users potentially personally identifying information to the first user.

Oh no. Is my computer broadcasting an IP address again?

Seriously, that's all the personally identifying info it should be sending out. And rather than trying to stop other people from looking at such info, they should do the EULA the opposite way. Simply inform each user that other users may be able to determine which content they are watching (which they should already be warning about anyway, even with the current restriction)

Re:good luck with that

[moderatorrater]

Too bad we don't have methods of encryption that could work around that. It would never be perfect, but it's a lot better than a bad EULA and is already protected under the DMCA (which is retarded as well, but there you go).

Re:good luck with that

[Anonymous Coward]

No you'll probably find that by clicking the advanced button and actually looking at what the installer wants to do to your system that you have "over-done" it.

Hell the thing likely only works if you click next each time within a second.

Re:good luck with that

[N1AK]

Web sites are supposed to be accessable.

I'm sorry what? Last time I checked what the website was supposed to be was up to the owner to decide, and plenty of owners have decided that accessibility at all costs isn't what they want.

To have a EULA for web content is antisocial at best.

Practically every website with any form of registered users has a user agreement, even if it is just to cover the admin's ass with regards to young children and membership. Regardless of whether an EULA is really enforceable or not, until it's decided in court they can have various uses for the site owner.

Re:good luck with that

[torstenvl]

This post is wrongly moderated. It is not informative. It is misinformative, or uninformative at best. The argument that the recognition of particular EULAs is distinct from recognition of the validity of EULAs "in general" betrays an ignorance of the judiciary and of contract law. This is simply not the way that the legal system works; courts must rule on an actual case or controversy and are not permitted to announce "general" rules of law. Furthermore, Step-Saver is anachronistic and the Third Circuit is relatively unpersuasive. In fact, there are NO major legal markets and NO major software companies within the Third Circuit's jurisdiction. ProCD v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996), however, has higher persuasive authority because it is (a) newer, (b) out of a major circuit, (c) written by an enormously influential appellate judge. In addition, it is the law in the entirety of the Seventh Circuit, which includes Chicago. Others may point to Klocek v. Gateway, 104 F. Supp.3d 1332 (D. Kan. 2000), but Klocek is a district court case, and therefore has no precedential value beyond its persuasiveness, which is in turn less than that of ProCD.

Trial courts don't make law. The only U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals cases on point hold, unanimously, that EULAs are enforceable. The law is relatively clear here, and is unlikely to change unless and until the Ninth Circuit or the Supreme Court take up the issue. I'm sorry, but you're just wrong.

Re:good luck with that

[Joe Snipe]

So if I write a EULA that invalidates all other EULAS would that be valid?

Re:good luck with that

[mcgrew]

Last time I checked what the website was supposed to be was up to the owner to decide

And last time I checked if you can access a site, you can access it. A site owner can no more say "you can only access this site if" any more than a book publisher can tell you you can't resell the book or rip off the cover (which publishers have tried to do).

If you don't want your work seen, don't put it on the internet. It's up to the owner to decide what to post, NOT how I may or may not access it.

Practically every website with any form of registered users has a user agreement

Half of all married people commit adultery, too. That doesn't make it right. Antisocial behavior is antisocial behavior no matter how many people practice it.

Re:good luck with that

[mcgrew]

A copyright owner doesn't have the right to issue terms of use, at least not in the US. The only thing you, as a copyright holder, can do is to keep me from making and distributing copies. Your copyright gives you no further rights than that.

Re:good luck with that

[bennomatic]

I actually think your wording would be better and more honest. Add to that something saying that by using the service you are agreeing not to use information that may be available to you regarding other users' activities for nefarious purposes would be good. Naive, maybe, but better than what I see here.

Re:good luck with that

[DoofusOfDeath]

A copyright owner doesn't have the right to issue terms of use, at least not in the US. The only thing you, as a copyright holder, can do is to keep me from making and distributing copies. Your copyright gives you no further rights than that.

I assume that terms of use can be a condition for them granting you a license to use that work. Isn't that the whole theory on which software EULAs rest?

Re:good luck with that

[sexconker]

I hear the Interceptor is nigh-uncatchable.

Re:good luck with that

[sexconker]

Can't believe I fucked that up.

There's no ship as can match the Interceptor for speed.
I've heard of one. It's supposed to be fast. Nigh-uncatchable. The Black Pearl."

Re:good luck with that

[_KiTA_]

Does anyone actually believe that click-through licenses are valid?

Who gives a shit if it's valid? Is the no-monitoring part enforceable? They gonna install DRM on my machine that makes sure I'm not capturing packets? They gonna push that DRM out to my gateway to make sure I'm not capturing them there?

This is what happens when you let the lawyers draft the EULA without even consulting with the techies.....

What are you talking about? It seems pretty self explanatory.

1. They are using a Bittorrent type protocol for some reason or other. P2P.
2. They don't want to get sued when some twit on a pay as you go Internet connection runs up a huge bill, presumably after leaving the client open (perhaps even overnight). This is the same reason MMORPG boxes say an Internet Connection is required and that yes, you have to pay the ISP bill, not Turbine/Sony/Blizzard/etc.
3. They don't want you sniffing the IP addresses of every other person watching videos. There's probably some privacy law about that.

Re:good luck with that

[dubbreak]

Contracts are legally binding

Only if it can be proven that both parties to the contract agreed to the contract.

That would be the "meeting of the minds" portion of contract law. Beyond that is the "consideration". Even if the terms are "accepted", without an exchange of value it is not a contract.

Generally, when you purchase software monies were exchanged for a license to use a particular piece of software (something of value must be exchanged for there to be a contract, whether that be a penny or a single mustard seed, there needs to be something of value). Once the offer has been accepted and consideration is provided the contract has been fulfilled. BUT software makers attempt to change the terms after the exchange with a EULA. The manufacturer has no rights to modify the terms of the contract at that point. A new contract could be formed, but that requires a new offer, acceptance of said offer and NEW consideration (something of value that differs from the original contract).

IANAL, but in with my limited legal knowledge I am convinced the types of items that are mentioned in a EULA must be made clear before purchase if they are meant to be enforceable. My best guess is that they aren't meant to be enforceable. The companies just take advantage of people's ignorance, "Well you agreed to X,Y,Z in the EULA ..." And I'm quite sure that > 90% of the time it works.

I'd love to see some case law involving EULAs. Does anyone know of someone that has be sued because of breaching terms in a EULA?

Re:good luck with that

[sexconker]

Or if the contract involves a minor, or if the contract violates any of your unalienable rights, or etc.

Since freedom of speech is one of my unalienable rights, they can't put me in jail for going through all that data and doing whatever I want with it.

They could sue me for damages, but they'd have to demonstrate actual monetary damages.

Re:good luck with that

[sexconker]

I can't wait for the Scout update.

Re:good luck with that

[Hatta]

A click-through license isn't really any different than a website's Terms of Service. Both are essentially contracts agreed to by clicking instead of signing. There is established precedent that violating a websites TOS amounts to computer hacking under federal law. Given that this software accesses network resources, violating its EULA may also expose you to federal computer hacking charges.

The only time when such a contract wouldn't be valid is when you don't have a chance to read the license before agreeing to it. e.g. shrink wrap licenses where the contract is not readable before opening the shrink wrap.

Re:good luck with that

[von_rick]

What would be even more interesting would be if person A accepts EULA on a machine M1, and uses machine M2 to gather packet information from M1. Is a person bound by the EULA on any computer he/she uses but accepting it on a single machine?

Re:good luck with that

[Todd Knarr]

Except that that goes back to a situation we discussed in business law classes. Take the case where you've paid the seller for the goods, he's accepted your payment, and all that's left is for him to actually deliver the goods. If the goods are still in his possession, say on his loading dock, and he won't give you access to them, you have to go through the authorities to get them (or sue him for non-delivery, demanding your payment back). But if he's released the goods into your possession but is preventing your access, eg. he's shipped them to you but the shipping container's sealed with locks and he won't give you the keys, being owner and in possession of the goods you're allowed to call a locksmith to remove the locks and gain access to your property. You can't unduly damage the seller's property in the process, but you aren't helpless.

Applying that reasoning to the case where the seller delivers the goods sealed with a piece of tape saying "By breaking this seal you agree to additional terms contained inside.", breaking that tape would be legally meaningless. You own the goods, the seller has delivered the goods into your possession, the seller has no more legal right to demand agreement to terms regarding your property.

Another analogous situation: you pay for your groceries, take your bags and head to the door. On the way, a supermarket employee stops you and asks you to complete a survey. You refuse and he says "I'm sorry, we can't let you leave with your groceries until you do.". Not only can you ignore his demand, if he tries to stop you you can call the cops and have him arrested for unlawful restraint.

Which all comes to the question: if the seller has accepted your payment and delivered the software into your possession, does he have any legal right to demand you agree to additional terms at all? If he doesn't, what gives any legal force to the idea that doing what's neccesary for you to gain access to your goods constitutes agreement to a demand the seller has no legal right to make?

Re:good luck with that

[Anonymous Coward]

Right. If I sign a contract it does not apply to you, unless we are the same entity(acting as a cooperation).

So, ISPs and Schools that provide internet access don't have to comply. If I install it, or we install it as part of a corporate venture, I can't data mine the results.

It's not about restricting the rights of regular end users, it's clearly targeting people who would use the p2p meta data for personal profit. The only time it would be enforceable is if evidence was gather via discovery or is publicly disclosed.

Of course, folks here at slashdot like to panic and worry, regardless of if there is any real concern, so they do.

Re:good luck with that

[Khyber]

No, all it takes is the threat of suing the lawyers themselves since they obviously drafted this EULA - don't sue CNN, sue the lawyers individually. When you start making it too personal for their comfort, then they'll start paying attention. Also, taking this to a small claims court and winning will set precedent for larger and larger suits - the snowball effect.

Re:good luck with that

[Peet42]

Privacy is an issue, yes, but I suspect there's another motive here. They don't want anyone analysing how much the system slows down the average user's web connection and publishing the results.

Re:good luck with that

[Anonymous Coward]

That is exactly what i do!
Luckily i have split personalities, so it is much easier to do such a thing.

Re:good luck with that

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, the free dollar would be a gift. You can't contract for giving a gift, as there's no consideration. Also, you don't need each party giving the other something to have consideration. You just need a bargained for exchange that induces each party to do something. You could find consideration in a number of ways here--one might simply be your visiting their site and increasing their web traffic. Consideration needn't be equal between the parties.

Also, though these are adhesion contracts, as various people have said, they're recognized as valid in most jurisdictions.

Certain terms, however, could be found unenforceable. To clarify what budenny said below on unconscionability, there are two components to the test: a procedural component (discrepancy in bargaining power, absence of meaningful choice, etc) and a substantive component (the terms themselves). Adhesion contracts are presumed procedurally unconscionable. The question then is whether a particular term is unconscionable, which ends up being a fairly vague standard. Though this term on its face seems pretty outrageous, people have made arguments here for why the term in some form or other may be reasonable. But even if it were found substantively unconscionable, that wouldn't void the entire EULA. As people have said, nearly every EULA (this one included) has boilerplate with exclusion clauses, saying that if any term is found unenforceable, the rest of the contract still applies.

Regardless, though, nobody is actually going to sue over this EULA. Even if someone did sue, there would almost definitely be a settlement before going to trial. Instead, much as what happened with Chrome, the bad publicity will just lead to a modification or removal of the term.

Re:good luck with that

[LunarCrisis]

Oh no. Is my computer broadcasting an IP address again?

Seriously, that's all the personally identifying info it should be sending out.

At the very least, you also have information on what content they are downloading.

Re:good luck with that

[flakblas]

I can't imaging much of this holding up in court. I think it's pretty obvious that they're trying to hide the inner-workings of the whole thing as well as protect themselves from every possible angle. I think this is an example of what happens when an overly litigious atmosphere and an overly greedy corporation collide.

Re:good luck with that

[Shakrai]

They don't want you sniffing the IP addresses of every other person watching videos. There's probably some privacy law about that.

If there is such a law I'd be curious to read it. It would be utterly unenforceable in any case and I think you lose your right to privacy when you start relying on a p2p system to provide you with content.

Re:good luck with that

[LunarCrisis]

A copyright owner doesn't have the right to issue terms of use, at least not in the US. The only thing you, as a copyright holder, can do is to keep me from making and distributing copies.

Such as the copy you make in installing it to your computer? Copyright law is strange. . .

Re:good luck with that

[mcgrew]

There are no terms of use for a hardbound book. No publisher can say on the cover "by opening this book I agree to...".

Licenses aren't for end-users, they are for publishers. If I buy a copy of Garage, Inc (with its Free Speech for the Dumb cut), I can do anything with it I damned well please short of distributing copies (or, since they have the DMCA, cracking its DRM if it has any).

Re:good luck with that

[billcopc]

"Borrowing" implies they give it back after they're done using it. There is no such thing as "borrowing" bandwidth. They are "using" bandwidth, other people's bandwidth, to deliver their content without having to foot the bill.

Now I'm all for P2P and decentralized communities, but CNN does not fit the description. They are a corporate entity encroaching on other people's property.

Re:good luck with that

[LordKronos]

I know that (you will see that if you reread my post), but that isn't personally identifying info.

Re:good luck with that

[sumdumass]

The interesting thing here is that when I checked the inauguration coverage from CNN's site, it told me I had to install that plug in in order to view the content. I selected no and realized it worked without it.

I wonder how many people were/are being tricked into installing this thing under the false pretense that it is needed in order to view content. The inauguration probably roped in millions of people who were tricked into thinking they needed this thing. It seems to me that if a transaction starts out as fraud, then any license or requirement after that wouldn't be enforceable. Surely, I wouldn't be obligated to deliver merchandise to someone who's check bounced or used stolen credit cards.

Re:good luck with that

[raddan]

And, case in point, an end-user may not be signing away their own rights here. If a user at my company installs this software, there's no way they can sign away _my_ rights as the systems administrator to monitor traffic. Their machine is not their property, and management of network resources is not their responsibility.

Re:good luck with that

[commodore64_love]

>>>Who gives a shit if it's valid? Is the no-monitoring part enforceable?

No it's not enforceable, because it's invalid. ;-) Yes I went-round in a circle, but let me back that up with a Supreme Court ruling, which invalidated Paypal's EULA back in 2006, and ultimately led Paypal o hand-out $50 or $200 refunds to its customers. The Justices determined that consumers can not sign-away their rights, and therefore large sections of the EULA were declared invalid/illegal. I suspect if the justices reviewed CNN's EULA, large portions of it would also be declared invalid because "citizens can not sign away their rights as protected by law".

It's your bandwidth. It's your computer. And it's your home. You have a right to monitor what passes into & out of your own home, and no EULA can override that legally-protected right. Therefore if I ever use CNN, I'll just keep running my bandwidth meter and counting how many megabytes I used today. Screw em.

Re:good luck with that

[mcgrew]

Well, the free dollar would be a gift

Not if there were a EULA on the envelope saying that to access the dollar you had to do something for it.

You just need a bargained for exchange that induces each party to do something.

There is no bargain between me and any website owner. If they don't want me to access their content they should keep it on a private server, not the public internet. They made this bargain with me by placing their content in a PUBLIC PLACE, no different than if they hung a painting in a public park with a sheet over it that said "before you can look under this sheet you must..."

Re:good luck with that

[Anonymous Coward]

It has been ruled by the US courts that copies necessary for the display or use of the electronic file, such as the copy you make in installing it to your computer, does not violate copyright.
So EULAs are not necessary for that.

Re:good luck with that

[sumdumass]

You may try to sue the lawyers but you probably won't have any standing to do so. Sure, they drafted it but it would be CNN or whatever company who put it to use in which effected you. You may be able to sue them in addition to (alongside) CNN but your still on shaky grounds. Of course they probably have some blanket coverage thing where CNN pays expenses so it probably still wouldn't make it personal to them.

Re:good luck with that

[JWSmythe]

    It still doesn't stop data mining.

    If you, an employee of company X agree to the EULA, and start sharing the P2P, there's nothing to preclude me, a network administrator of company X from monitoring the traffic. Once I've identified what the offending traffic is, I could block it, ignore it, or report it in any way that I see fit.

    I never necessarily saw the EULA nor installed the software. Sometimes it's as simple as going to the user (you) and asking "Hey, did you install something new on your computer? I see some weird traffic coming from here."

    "Oh ya, the new CNN P2P software, so we can use up our bandwidth instead of them."

    Now, the IP's probably won't do me much good. I suspect I won't see much else right off.

    Where this is going to start upsetting people, is at the providers. The normal flow of traffic is going to change. Instead of 90% down, 10% up (normal traffic patterns), the pattern will be reversed when the customer is typically not doing anything. I wouldn't be surprised if quite a few providers start blocking the related ports if it becomes a problem.

    Then again, it may be helpful.

    CNN used Akamai for their edge network, which put their content as close to customers as they could get. The providers still had to pay for the bandwidth.

    Now, with the data being downloaded once and shared within the provider, it could lower their bill. That is assuming CNN's traffic is even a detectable percentage of the overall traffic for any provider. When I've monitored traffic on a few office networks, I rarely noticed CNN.

    I guess the important question would be, is this CNN doing this for themselves, to get away from Akamai, or is this CNN distributing a new tool for Akamai? This could effectively cut Akamai's footprint down to just a few machines in a few datacenters. Right now, I've noticed them in almost every datacenter I've worked in. I suspect the ones I haven't seen them in, I just didn't happen to walk past their cabinet or cage. Their bill just for space and power must be huge. I won't even attempt to guess what their bandwidth bill is like.

   

Re:good luck with that

[TheSpoom]

Splitting a funny post in two with a mistake corrected in the second post = awesome way to get double karma.

Welcome to the game, sir. Well played.

Re:good luck with that

[SanityInAnarchy]

I have no problems with corporations using P2P to cut costs.

Where I have a problem is when they also want to revoke rights.

If they just used BitTorrent to deliver streams, no problem, I applaud that. Maybe multicast would be better for some streams, but whatever. If it's really a problem, I can limit my upload, or block them from uploading at all.

However, when their EULA prevents me from reading my own logs (much less any of the above shaping), that's when I have a problem.

Re:good luck with that

[Anonymous Coward]

It's your bandwidth. It's your computer. And it's your home.

No. No. No. If you own the home, pay the ISP bill, AND own the computer then it is "yes yes yes". A click through by an employee on our company PC, ISP, business (etc) does not obligate us to shit. And please don't say we ought to better secure this or that. No shit. It is my job to do that and I'd rather read Slashdot (OK - some half truths there - it is nobody's job per se). We're small, so lay off. Having companies like Adobe with admin installed software do this just sucks. Sucks for Adobe. Foxit 4evah!

Re:good luck with that

[IndustrialComplex]

If you, an employee of company X agree to the EULA, and start sharing the P2P, there's nothing to preclude me, a network administrator of company X from monitoring the traffic. Once I've identified what the offending traffic is, I could block it, ignore it, or report it in any way that I see fit.

Well, that would be a damned murky legal problem if you did that and Media company Y decided that Company X is violating the terms that the first employee agreed to.

It certainly wouldn't turn out well for employee Y, but it would be a nasty legal mess for Company X.

Re:good luck with that

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Your assertions are contradictory: As you say, the EULA only applies to the person who "agrees"(clickwrap is weak sauce, in my view), not to anybody else on the network who could be listening. Then, though, you claim that the EULA, which only restricts the rights of end users, is not aimed at end users; but at other entities entirely, who you just said won't be affected by the EULA.

Confused, or shilling?

Re:good luck with that

[mcgrew]

Someone please mod that comment up!

Re:good luck with that

[DMUTPeregrine]

It depends. The WoW bot mentioned above was violating the terms of service. That's different from an EULA, you agree to those conditions to get access to their servers, not to install or run the program on your own computer. Of course, it's useless without the servers.

EULAs are different, as you supposedly have to agree to them to install the software. Otherwise copying the software to your hard drive would be copyright infringement.
That said, IIRC (IANAL) installing to a hard drive constitutes "normal use" and is NOT copyright infringement. Also, one can conceivably make a backup copy, destroy the original, and modify the backup to remove the EULA. Then install from the backup, never agreeing to the EULA.

Re:good luck with that

[kLaNk]

I'd love to see some case law involving EULAs. Does anyone know of someone that has be sued because of breaching terms in a EULA?

The Blizz/Glider lawsuit might be an example? I don't know how legally Terms of Service are different than EULAs though...

http://new-pc-games.blogspot.com/2008/07/blizzard-wins-wow-botting-lawsuit.html

Re:good luck with that

[ais523]

Funny doesn't boost karma.

Re:good luck with that

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no bargain between me and any website owner. If they don't want me to access their content they should keep it on a private server, not the public internet. They made this bargain with me by placing their content in a PUBLIC PLACE, no different than if they hung a painting in a public park with a sheet over it that said "before you can look under this sheet you must..."

So... what's up with websites' terms of use then?

Re:good luck with that

[Anonymous Coward]

suppose you claim copyright on your
router logs, etc. would the dcma
consider this eula a circumvention measure?

Re:good luck with that

[DoofusOfDeath]

There are no terms of use for a hardbound book. No publisher can say on the cover "by opening this book I agree to...".

Licenses aren't for end-users, they are for publishers. If I buy a copy of Garage, Inc (with its Free Speech for the Dumb cut), I can do anything with it I damned well please short of distributing copies (or, since they have the DMCA, cracking its DRM if it has any).

I believe the reason EULAs for bought software come into play is that some jackass judge ruled that using software is copying it, since the bits get copied to your computer's memory each time you use the software. And that's why the doctrine of first sale doesn't tell the whole story, the way it would with books.

But I could certainly be wrong. IANAL, thank goodness.

Re:good luck with that

[mcgrew]

Absolutely nothing. It's like some book publishers (haven't seen any try this crap in decades) who try to warn you against reselling the book or removing the covers.

It's meaningless to anyone but the clueless.

Re:good luck with that

[Anonymous Coward]

And last time I checked if you can access a site, you can access it. A site owner can no more say "you can only access this site if" any more than a book publisher can tell you you can't resell the book or rip off the cover (which publishers have tried to do).

That's like saying "I can physically access so-and-so's private property, so even though there's a no trespassing sign it must be okay to for me to access it". Think about the Lori Drew case and eBay v. Bidder's Edge, which essentially frame TOS violations as trespass.

If instead what you are saying were true, the internet wouldn't be what it is today. If you could only put up a website if you allowed fully unconditional use of it, I don't think many people or businesses would put up websites. And yes, this doesn't make all terms of service right. But it doesn't make them wrong, either. If the terms are reasonable, I don't think a judge will care that you find it antisocial.

Re:good luck with that

[Red Flayer]

Half of all married people commit adultery, too. That doesn't make it right. Antisocial behavior is antisocial behavior no matter how many people practice it.

That's nonsense. Please, look up the definition of the verb 'to socialize'.

Married people who do NOT commit adultery are practicing antisocial behavior.

Now please excuse me, I'm off to socialize with my secretary.

Re:good luck with that

[mpeskett]

I'd mod you funny, just for shits and giggles... or at least I would, if I weren't so busy trying to get myself modded funny.

Re:good luck with that

[JWSmythe]

    It's a good thing I just don't care. If a user starts sucking up too much bandwidth with weird traffic, I'll just shut down their port until we figure out what the problem is.

Re:good luck with that

[Anonymous Coward]

Your post, whilst mostly crap, does mention Foxit reader, and I have to say its bloody great!

Much faster and less bloated than Acrobat reader.

Re:good luck with that

[schon]

Such as the copy you make in installing it to your computer?

Yes, exactly - that same copy that "is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine" and is therefore explicitly authorized under Section 117 of US copyright law.

Re:good luck with that

[Anonymous Coward]

Not so Fast.

Person A Accepts EULA for WOW.

Person B Invents bot to automate WOW without ever accepting EULA.

Person A Uses Bot.

Person B found guilty of millions of EULA violations.

Re:good luck with that

[F'Nok]

Yeah, but the informative on a correction usually does. :)

Re:good luck with that

[LunarCrisis]

Cool, didn't know that. Thanks for correcting me!

I wonder if Canada has a similar exception. =)

Re:good luck with that

[cailith1970]

Here I was thinking of the Interceptor from Mad Max - known overseas by the looks of it as the Pursuit Special, but we Aussies will always call it by its real name :)

Now THAT was nigh-uncatchable!

Re:good luck with that

[Budenny]

It isn't quite the same, is it? You buy your copy typically from a retailer. You do walk out the store with it and the retailer has no further claims. The conditions on use in the click through are being imposed by the maker. The traditional way of getting around your point that the maker cannot impose additional conditions after the sale, is that he can only do that if he provides some simple way of getting a refund if you do not assent to them. Eulas seem to have been generally upheld on account of this.

I agree it is odd, and that analogies are quite disturbing. Lets say I buy a packet of pancake mix, take it home, and find it is shrink wrapped. The label on the outside says, by opening this package you agree only to mix this with Brand X milk. Are you really bound? I think that the law on shrink wrap and click through is that in principle, there is nothing to make the contract which you enter into by opening it unenforceable. The question will be what the clauses are, and whether they are generally enforceable in contracts however entered into.

But yes, it does not seem right that having bought, for example a book, you can then find yourself subject by opening its packaging, to a clause which says you may not read it in the bath. Or that when you take home a drill, you will find you have assented to a contract where you undertake not to use it in way of trade.

But doesn't the general history of click throughs being upheld by the courts suggest that the principle is right - that it is, despite what I agree is a disturbing point you make - a valid contract. The issue is the clauses and whether they are lawful in the jurisdiction and not unconscionable?

Your point might apply very powerfully to Apple and Hackintoshes. Having sold you a retail copy of OSX, can they really then later demand you enter into a contract which limits your use of it? Same regarding copies of Office running on something other than Windows. Is the offer of a refund if you don't accept enough? Are you then obliged either to accept the contract or return for a refund? But I think this is what the law says, subject to the clauses being valid and enforceable. Do you agree?

Re:good luck with that

[arkhan_jg]

But yes, it does not seem right that having bought, for example a book, you can then find yourself subject by opening its packaging, to a clause which says you may not read it in the bath. Or that when you take home a drill, you will find you have assented to a contract where you undertake not to use it in way of trade.

The doctrine of first sale came about precisely because book copyright holders tried to enforce additional restrictions post-sale (you may not resell this book).

The basic rule is this, with copyrighted works:
Once a copy of the copyrighted work is sold, the copyright owner can extend no further restrictions upon the use or resale of the work, other than those already included in copyright law. Adding a EULA that you don't see or agree until after the sale is completed simply isn't valid under doctrine of first sale. This excludes UCITA states, where they have a specific law making EULAs valid contracts, even applied post sale.

Software companies try to get round this by claiming that by installing the software to the harddrive or even into the memory for operation, you are making an illegal copy that requires their permission every time you install or run the program; and their permission hinges upon acceptance of the EULA, whether you installed it or not.

I don't know about the US in this case, but in the UK, copyright explicitly states you're allowed to make any copies required in order to operate the software in the normal manner., so EULAs fall back under doctrine of first sale, and are thus unenforcable.

This excluded business contracts conducted prior to sale, or licences for ongoing services - the xbox live EULA is likely generally valid, like a mobile phone contract, because there's an ongoing consideration/service in exchange for your acceptance.

It's also worth pointing out that the senior case regarding this in the US, procd vs Zeidenberg in 1996, did regard EULAs as valid contracts; possible because the information within (phone listings) wasn't covered by copyright law, as bare facts are not copyrightable.

With any luck, this exception to normal doctrine of first sale will be overturned in the US by the supreme court. in the UK though, I'm not aware of any court case finding EULAs valid outside of pre-existing business contracts/bulk licence agreements.

Re:good luck with that

[torstenvl]

That should be, "The only U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals cases on point within the last 15 years hold, unanimously...." I think I accidentally deleted an important part. Since the GP had cited to a Third Circuit case, and since I talked about how the case was old, I hope people caught the mistake and weren't confused. Either way, I'm sorry for my mistake.

Two other cases deserve mention. It turns out there is a Ninth Circuit case. The Ninth Circuit includes California and Washington, which is to say that it includes Silicon Valley and Redmond, and so is obviously quite important to the software industry. The Ninth Circuit has upheld a non-software EULA before:

We agree with the district court that Lexmark has presented sufficient unrebutted evidence to show that it has a facially valid contract with the consumers who buy and open its cartridges. Specifically, the language on the outside of the cartridge package specifies the terms under which a consumer may use the purchased item. The consumer can read the terms and conditions on the box before deciding whether to accept them or whether to opt for the non-Prebate cartridges that are sold without any restrictions.

Arizona Cartridge Remanufacturers Ass'n, Inc. v. Lexmark Intern., Inc., 421 F.3d 981 (9th Cir. 2005). There's no reason to believe that software would be treated any different, since the point of contention isn't the nature of software, but the nature of shrinkwrap/clickwrap licenses.

Another case arises out of the Second Circuit, which denies to enforce the arbitration clause in an EULA. However, the grounds for such a denial are not that EULAs aren't valid, but that the terms weren't conspicuous enough -- conspicuousness being a standard which any contract has to meet. In fact, the court was careful to avoid people misreading their case as saying EULAs aren't valid, citing Circuit cases I have already indicated as well as some state court decisions:

Defendants cite certain well-known cases involving shrinkwrap licensing.... For example, in Hill v. Gateway 2000, Inc., 105 F.3d 1147 (7th Cir.1997), the Seventh Circuit held that where a purchaser had ordered a computer over the telephone, received the order in a shipped box containing the computer along with printed contract terms, and did not return the computer within the thirty days required by the terms, the purchaser was bound by the contract. Id. at 1148-49. In ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, the same court held that where an individual purchased software in a box containing license terms which were displayed on the computer screen every time the user executed the software program, the user had sufficient opportunity to review the terms and to return the software, and so was contractually bound after retaining the product. ProCD, 86 F.3d at 1452; cf. Moore v. Microsoft Corp., 293 A.D.2d 587, 587, 741 N.Y.S.2d 91, 92 (2d Dep't 2002) (software user was bound by license agreement where terms were prominently displayed on computer screen before software could be installed and where user was required to indicate assent by clicking "I agree"); Brower v. Gateway 2000, Inc., 246 A.D.2d 246, 251, 676 N.Y.S.2d 569, 572 (1st Dep't 1998) (buyer assented to arbitration clause shipped inside box with computer and software by retaining items beyond date specified by license terms); M.A. Mortenson Co. v. Timberline Software Corp., 93 Wash.App. 819, 970 P.2d 803, 809 (1999) (buyer manifested assent to software license terms by installing and using software), aff'd, 140 Wash.2d 568, 998 P.2d 305 (2000); see also [i].Lan Sys., 183 F.Supp.2d [328, ]338 [(D.Mass. 2002)] (business entity "explicitly accepted the clickwrap license agreement [contained in purchased software] when it clicked on the box stating 'I agree' ").
These cases do not help defendants. To the extent that they hold that the purchaser of a computer or tangible software is contractually bound after failing to object to printed license terms provided wit

Re:good luck with that

[Todd Knarr]

But doesn't the general history of click throughs being upheld by the courts suggest that the principle is right - that it is, despite what I agree is a disturbing point you make - a valid contract. The issue is the clauses and whether they are lawful in the jurisdiction and not unconscionable?

The problem is that so far, in every click-through case I've read about, the user started off by admitting they'd accepted the agreement and then trying to find the agreement invalid. That's a dead loss from the start. The difference here is starting with the assertion that I have not accepted the agreement, and that I do not need to accept the agreement to use the software since I have all the rights I need from my having paid for and received possession of my copy and through copyright law. The question then becomes the rather different one of does the copyright owner now have any legal right to prevent lawful access to my own property in my possession, and if they try whether I have the right to remove, bypass or ignore their attempts. It's back to that piece of tape: if the car dealer doesn't own the car anymore and has no legal right to prevent me from getting in to it or demanding additional terms from me, can he legally object to my ignoring his unlawful piece of tape and hold me to his interpretation of it?

Re:good luck with that

[sexconker]

That's what I always think of when I hear (read, etc.) "interceptor". That and how Australia is filled with really, really gay biker gangs.

Re:good luck with that

[Garwulf]

"And last time I checked if you can access a site, you can access it. A site owner can no more say "you can only access this site if" any more than a book publisher can tell you you can't resell the book or rip off the cover (which publishers have tried to do)."

In point of fact, that's not how publishers work. What a publisher can, and sometimes will, do is state that if you want to return a book, you cannot rip off the cover, destroy the rest of the book, and return just the cover for a refund. In short, some publishers, like myself, will only honor refunds when the product is returned undamaged. You can rip off the cover all you like - but don't expect me to give you your money back for doing it.

"If you don't want your work seen, don't put it on the internet. It's up to the owner to decide what to post, NOT how I may or may not access it."

Within reason, they can. Some information or documents are confidential, and placed into a password-protected part of a site. That does not give you license to break into the site and look at it if the site owner doesn't want you to. Also, some sites restrict access to members or subscribers only - that's the website owner's decision, not yours.

The website owner cannot impose unreasonable restrictions on how you access the site's content, but s/he can impose reasonable ones.

Re:good luck with that

[mcgrew]

In short, some publishers, like myself, will only honor refunds when the product is returned undamaged.

But that is completely different and beside the point. You can't return ANYTHING if you've damaged it. What a publisher can't do is say "you cannot resell this book if the cover is ripped off". You CAN rip the cover off and resell it. The publisher isn't required by law to accept returned sales, it's a perk you give your customers.

Some information or documents are confidential, and placed into a password-protected part of a site.

That's completely different. You are likewise able to write your book and put a copy in your sock drawer as well. That's not the public internet.

some sites restrict access to members or subscribers only - that's the website owner's decision, not yours.

Yes, and the website must take physical measures, like password protection. Copyright law doesn't cover it.

The website owner cannot impose unreasonable restrictions on how you access the site's content, but s/he can impose reasonable ones

True, but beside the point - EULAs aren't worth the paper they're not printed on.

Re:good luck with that

[Snaller]

"Does anyone actually believe that click-through licenses are valid?"

Yes. The courts.

Re:good luck with that

[Dan541]

Such a license would be invalid even if signed with a pen, CNN don't own any infrastructure on my network.

Dear CNN,

[Anonymous Coward]

No.

Re:Dear CNN,

[Jurily]

No.

You misspelled "Fuck you."

Re:Dear CNN,

[Anonymous Coward]

No.

You misspelled "Fuck you."

You misspelt "misspelt". ;)

Re:Dear CNN,

[Thaelon]

the keys are like right next to each other.

Re:Dear CNN,

[emlyncorrin]

No.

You misspelled "Fuck you."

Easy to do, the keys are like right next to each other.

shit, I already broke the EULA.....

[Shakrai]

Noticed how much upload bandwidth was being used and fired up Wireshark to figure out what was going on. Hang on a sec, there's a knock at the doo$*)&!&*()@*!)(*)(NO CARRIER

Re:shit, I already broke the EULA.....

[Anonymous Coward]

You still have dial-up? haha :)

Re:shit, I already broke the EULA.....

[overlordofmu]

The Nintento Wii and SCEA Playstation 3 both have very similar "you can no longer monitor you own network" provision in their online EULAs. How is CNN doing it new or important? This is a long time problem and nothing new. These sections, however, are non-enforceable because they are not legal. If the EULA said you must close your eyes and were not allowed to open them it would also be non-enforceable and not legal.

Re:shit, I already broke the EULA.....

[Anonymous Coward]

and his hangup was able to type in a catchpa AND hit submit...

Re:shit, I already broke the EULA.....

[characterZer0]

Who the hell knocks on your door, pushes you out of the way, pounds on they keyboard, types "NO CARRIER", and hits Submit?

Re:shit, I already broke the EULA.....

[Anonymous Coward]

Who the hell knocks on your door, pushes you out of the way, pounds on they keyboard, types "NO CARRIER", and hits Submit?

Who the hell has a UID in the 100,000s and doesn't know the NO CARRIER joke?

Re:shit, I already broke the EULA.....

[aquarajustin]

Christ, how could you have possibly moved the 'p' over that far? It's "captcha." Also, if you didn't always post AC, you'd know that there's no captcha for regular users.

Re:shit, I already broke the EULA.....

[Sancho]

What's a "NO CARRIER" joke?

Re:shit, I already broke the EULA.....

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because it is commonplace doesn't mean it isn't stupid. The entire joke is doing it wrong, and anyone who doesn't immediately recognize it shouldn't be making jokes like that.

It is like inb4. Most everyone doing inb4 does it wrong. It is like typing ... or candleja when doing the candlejack joke, everyo

Re:shit, I already broke the EULA.....

[Anonymous Coward]

Long story short, back in the day, your computer would print "NO CARRIER" when you lost your network connection.

The joke is that the above poster implies his connection was suddenly terminated.

Re:shit, I already broke the EULA.....

[stefanlasiewski]

See, there are two guys, with two different jobs.

One guy carries the victim out of the building to meet his fate.

The second guy wipes the computer (No carrying). As a warning to others, he always writes his name in ominous all-caps -- NO CARRIER.

---

Ba-dum-dum. How bad was that? To subtle? Contrived?

Re:shit, I already broke the EULA.....

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I did get the joke. My joke was the UID in the 10,000s not getting it.

I fail at humor :(

Re:shit, I already broke the EULA.....

[Joe Snipe]

what's a fail?

Re:shit, I already broke the EULA.....

[Ranzear]

Candlejack does it to keep up the lege

Re:shit, I already broke the EULA.....

[PitaBred]

Who's on first?

Re:shit, I already broke the EULA.....

[Anonymous Coward]

You might know the "NO CARRIER" joke, but there's one you don't seem to know. Ready? Here goes.

"WHOOOOOSH!!"

...it's a pretty old joke, too.

Re:shit, I already broke the EULA.....

[Anonymous Coward]

He must have died while writing it.

If he had died he wouldn't have bothered to write "AHHHHHGGGG" he would have just said it and died.

Re:shit, I already broke the EULA.....

[Shakrai]

It's what you just did ;)

Re:shit, I already broke the EULA.....

[Anonymous Coward]

Not just pounds on the keyboard - holds shift and pounds only on the number keys.

Re:shit, I already broke the EULA.....

[Taevin]

Perhaps he was dictating?

Re:shit, I already broke the EULA.....

[raddan]

Is there a bot that trawls Slashhdot just to notify you low-UID people that now would be a perfect time for a low-UID-related comment? 'Cuz I don't see much of you otherwise.

Re:shit, I already broke the EULA.....

[Sancho]

Yeah, but they stopped handing the bots out around UID 400,000.

But really, my guess is that you only pay attention to UIDs to it when someone mentions them in a comment.

Re:shit, I already broke the EULA.....

[Joe Snipe]

:(

Re:shit, I already broke the EULA.....

[Anonymous Coward]

It's like how the submit button gets pushed when Candlejack comes fo

Re:shit, I already broke the EULA.....

[rk]

He could be on to us though. Should we send a team to pick him up?

Re:shit, I already broke the EULA.....

[David_W]

Damn, I'll need to tell everyone to be less obvious at the next meeting...

Re:shit, I already broke the EULA.....

[Sancho]

I'll defer to your wisdom in this one.

Re:shit, I already broke the EULA.....

[mewshi_nya]

17056!

Re:shit, I already broke the EULA.....

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, Candlejack hits Submit so I gue

Re:shit, I already broke the EULA.....

[Anonymous Coward]

This made my day! I always wondered the same thing, too.

Re:shit, I already broke the EULA.....

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't you google it? :) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NO_CARRIER

Re:shit, I already broke the EULA.....

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't there a "NO CARRIER" in Cornwall?

OK, then...

[serviscope_minor]

OK, then. Install it on your machine (and agree to the EULA, if you wish), and then plug your machine in to my network. I certainly didn't agree to the EULA, so I can and will make use of that information.

Re:OK, then...

[BSAtHome]

But, but,... the license is viral. You are a slave of your users and especially big media.

Re:OK, then...

[qoncept]

Sweet! I won't be watching CNN video, but I bet the things I am downloading would go a lot faster than on my 1mb connection.

Re:OK, then...

[Spatial]

I always wondered about stuff like that with EULAs in general.

What happens if you replace the EULA with your own terms before installing, and therefore never agree to anything they said at all? It occurs to me that the agreement not to modify the software is actually in the EULA, so what are they going to do about it?

Re:OK, then...

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting idea. I like your line of thought. I suppose that as long as you don't redistribute the modified installer, you might have a legal leg to stand on.

I'm totally going to try this. (For academic purposes, of course)

Re:OK, then...

[bendodge]

I'm in the habit of calling small children over to the desk and letting them click the EULA. They couldn't read it; how could it be binding?

Re:OK, then...

[Sheafification]

I don't think the courts would be very sympathetic. I'm not sure that there is anything outright wrong with modifying the EULA before agreement, but I think you'd have a hard battle to get a judge convinced.

I'd be more curious to see what would happen if the EULA was changed somewhere between the master being sent to the presses, and the pressed CD being delivered to a retail store. What if some rogue individual modified the EULA to, say, remove the `no liability' clause before the CDs were pressed, and hence all customers got a modified EULA? Could a customer hold the software company liable for failures of their product that would have been covered in the original EULA?

There's nothing obviously wrong with a EULA not having a `no liability' clause, so I don't think a court could invalidate it off-hand for being ridiculous. And the customer accepted the EULA in good faith - they made no modifications of their own. But I somehow doubt that a court would rule against such a software company if the customer were to sue.

If clicking `agree' is my indication of accepting the terms, what indication does the software company give? It seems like either a company could be held liable in the above scenario (as the fact that the software is presenting the terms should count as the company's acceptance of the terms), or an EULA isn't really a contract since the company hasn't really indicated any acceptance and can always say "But we never agreed to that!" any time a EULA goes sour.

Re:OK, then...

[DMUTPeregrine]

If the software comes on CD you may have a problem (can't modify the CD) but you could make a backup (fair use), destroy the original, modify the backup, and install that.

Re:OK, then...

[Anonymous Coward]

Absolutely. I've thought the exact same way regarding buying Windows, making an unattended install without an EULA (the EULA says you must agree to it to use the software, but as you said, that clause in itself is part of the EULA)..

If you bypass the EULA (which the EULA doesn't allow you to do), then you haven't agreed that you can't bypass it.

So I don't see how you're bound by it, unless there's a law against avoiding or bypassing contracts! (No doubt someone will find one).

Re:OK, then...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll laugh when someone not only ignores the EULA, but decides to replace the CNN peer share files with content of their own. Imagine if that happens to actually propagate. CNN might end up having more fun than Comcast in Arizona on SuperBowl Sunday.

Well it'll work great then.

[elashish14]

The majority of CNN's demographic doesn't even know what a EULA is anyway. You could say the same thing if you replace CNN with Microsoft too.

Get out of EULA free card

[NonUniqueNickname]

I did click Accept, but i did not inhale!

Really?

[dcollins]

Does it really say "you not are allowed"?

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

It sure does.

here is the official EULA

Half way down in section three. What is it about EULAs that, despite being universally hated and legally toothless, inspires companies to make fucking assholes of themselves when writing them?

From the article:

[igotmybfg]

At first glance, Ferrell adds, the multiple connections to his PC looked on his security alert system like some kind of SQL attack.

Oh really.

Re:From the article:

[Kushieda Minorin]

Damn skiddies trying to hack the gibson.

News at 11!

[MozeeToby]

Company creates abusive and unenforceable EULA, News at 11!

Tin foil hat

[sstpm]

CNN is providing us a service, making sure that Big Brother can't monitor what news stories we are watching. The EULA is there for our protection. Thank you, CNN!

Re:Tin foil hat

[Anonymous Coward]

Pull it on tighter. I don't think its on tight enough for you.

Re:Tin foil hat

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know why this is modded funny. This is actually helpful against the RIAA.

Re:Tin foil hat

[OolimPhon]

Pull it on tighter. I don't think its on tight enough for you.

Oh, you meant the tin foil hat. I thought you meant... never mind.

Re:Tin foil hat

[DMUTPeregrine]

No, it isn't. THEY didn't agree to the EULA, they're not bound by it. Just you.

Well, they should have read my Eula

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

I send an extra header in my http streams that contains a Eula stating that by responding to the request, they acknowledge that any Eula they present to me is null and void.

Re:Well, they should have read my Eula

[Anonymous Coward]

I like this idea.

It is even standards-compliant as far as I know.

CNN sucks anyway

[RoCKeTKaT]

Who watches CNN. It's by far the most biased, full of propaganda news channel in existence. Why bother with them or their software.

Re:CNN sucks anyway

[Kelz]

I generally watch CNBC and Bloomberg for economic stuff (CNBC is generally conservative biased but they more or less acknowledge it), and the BBC/Al-Jazeera/NPR for anything else.

CNN, fox news, and MSNBC seem to be all aiming straight for the dumbest 5% in america, where there is very little detail, high on entertainment, and very little actual news or interesting bits. Listen to Lou Dobbs for more than 2 minutes and you'll feel dumber and less informed, and only have vague generalities about whats going on in the world (the world being, of course, the continental US).

Safeguard??

[pixie.pt]

I usually pay for the bandwith I use on torrent both download and upload, if I don't want to use it I'll shut it down, it's that strange that cnn wants to play on the safe side so that no wacko try to bill them for the upload they make? As for the rest I see it as 'you cannot use any of this information for selling or using against us'...

Uhm, this is legal content, so....

[jadedoto]

I could see the consumer protection factor involved (i.e. preventing some MPAA official from spying in) were the content illegal. But seriously, wtf?

And therefore also understood it

[samjam]

Most users won't even know what the EULA was talking about and so are not capable of agreeing to it; and so I doubt there is actually a contract.

Re:And therefore also understood it

[CannonballHead]

I'm fairly certain that doesn't matter... You can sign a rental contract for an apartment without having read it. You're still legally bound to it. You signed it. Ignorance, especially willful ignorance, is not an excuse for breaking a contract.

Re:And therefore also understood it

[AndrewNeo]

You signed it.

I think there's a difference, here.

Re:And therefore also understood it

[samjam]

Yes, firstly because the ignorance is not willful, and secondly the individual may *THINK* that they understand it, and thirdly it's not reasonable.

In many cases the individual will turn out to have been agreeing to something else, and thus there will be no contract.

Re:And therefore also understood it

[sumdumass]

Not necessarily, there are some provisions of contracts that are simply illegal and legally immoral. You cannot be bound to something like giving your landlord a kidney if he ever needs one while your renting from him.

That's an extreme example but I know people who have signed contracts that they know couldn't be enforced. There are some things that the courts cannot enforce by law or by moral right. There is also a defense of "necessity" that allows this to happen if the need for the services are great enough that someone would be severely worse off without the benefits of the contract. Suppose your out of work, the bank is about to foreclose on your home, State aid is about to run out, your children have holes in their shoes and there isn't much hope left. Now you find a job but they want to sign a wavier stating that you can't work in your trained field of specialty for 5 years after employment terminates. Now, your signing this doesn't matter because you have a right to find gainful employment. The only part that can be forced on you is the spirit of the clause where you don't use or transfer trade secretes to new employers. You might have to goto court and fight for your right to work (some EU countries already stop this before it hits the courts) and show that your not taking advantage of their trade secretes but you can get out of the contract that you signed through necessity.

Necessity is a legal concept that specifies that something was necessary because the alternative or current conditions were somehow unsustainable and perhaps life threatening. Robbing a store for food is a crime, robbing the store during an emergency for food and medication where it wouldn't otherwise be availible and people's lives were in danger is not a crime. Killing a person is illegal, killing a person to save your own life when you aren't the aggressor isn't. Escaping from prison is illegal, escaping from prison because the warden is torturing you and you watched others die in front of you isn't. There seems to be a need for inherent danger to the preservation of life to effectivly use necessity as a defense.

From what I understand, it's defeated more then it's successful in a court and the judges take a strong view of alternatives present.

Re:And therefore also understood it

[atraintocry]

Housing & renting laws are much more complicated than that, and the agreements are limited by what the law allows. There a lot of things that a landlord is not allowed to force you to do. And the tenant has a lot of leeway when it comes to "breaking" the contract (being late on rent, etc). Otherwise you could be out on the street at a moment's notice, because you didn't agree with something stupid that your landlord did. And most of the content of the agreements are standard practice, with a few variations. So it's less like not reading a EULA, and more like buying or renting a place without caring anything about what's required of you.

And in the end, actual signature (especially one that comes with a monthly bill attached) is a much better indicator of your intent than a button clicked in some software you got for free. The question is not whether you broke the contract, it's whether there really was a contract.

It'd be a funny story if someone crossed out the parts they didn't like, then initialed next to them and mailed it off to CNN, adding something like "by throwing out this letter you are affirming my license to use your software under these revised terms". It's not like you're giving them any less notice or chance to reply than they're giving you.

Re:And therefore also understood it

[Anonymous Coward]

I've gone skiing a few times, and the agreement you sign to be able to ski waives all rights one may have to sue, even if the ski facility was negligent. I've always thought this should be deemed illegal, but apparently there have been some court cases that upheld these terms.

If you're on a ski lift, and the thing breaks, and you lose a leg, you can't sue the ski resort. You signed the agreement! You can't sue!

One time I went, I was with an acquantince who was a lawyer, and he drew a line through the negligence clause. I don't think the ski resort checked the papers, because he was allowd through. I would think both sides would have to agree to ALL The terms. If one side found one part disagreeable, and they did not agree to it, the other side would have to agree to waive that portion (to waive their waived liability) before the contract/agreement would be accepted. If it had gone to court, if something had happened, I wonder if, by crossing out the liability section, if the ski resort would have been held liable afterall.

That being said, I still don't think 90% of the population read the EULAs. Of that 8% that do read, I thnk 90% of them don't even understand what's going on. And I think a lot of people don't agree with giving up their rights for a small program...

I noticed this during the inauguration of Obama

[DrewBeavis]

I have Little Snitch on my mac and noticed all the OUTGOING bandwidth being used while watching their video stream. After I figured out what was going on, I went to MSNBC instead. The quality is great at CNN and the idea is decent, but unless I read the EULA (which I didn't beforehand), I wouldn't know my contribution to the cloud. My employer monitors outgoing bandwidth usage and I could have been in trouble for high flows if I would have watched the whole thing. Being at a university, we have a large pipe, but I think I needed to be asked first a little more explicitly if they could use it.

Re:I noticed this during the inauguration of Obama

[geekoid]

Please contact CNN and let them know you aren't going to use this.

Enough people contact them, they will change the EULA. Not that I think they could enforce the parts about what yu can do on your machine.

Re:I noticed this during the inauguration of Obama

[MrPerfekt]

I hope you realize the upside to this. The p2p selection isn't random. The idea is that you'll hopefully be paired with people on your own local network so that everybody on your segment can watch it with minimal inbound bandwidth across your Internet link.

All the paranoia about this is expected from this crowd but when you realize that hey, the other 99% of the population on the Internet probably isn't as savvy, the big picture becomes a bit clearer.

The irony is the amount of people willing to use p2p for illegal uses and spew a big chunk of bandwidth out for that but unwilling to allow the same for a free, high quality legal video feed that costs real money (and a lot of it) to produce.

Re:I noticed this during the inauguration of Obama

[DrewBeavis]

I could throttle my outbound traffic, but I only want to throttle the outbound traffic of the video, not everything else. But its possible. Another thing is that the ip's that I saw flashing by on Little Snitch's activity monitor weren't local. I was getting connections from other .edu domains but 10 states away. Lots of people here were watching the inauguration, but I didn't see one connection to anyone here. All the connections were outside our lan.

Re:I noticed this during the inauguration of Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

...but I think I needed to be asked first a little more explicitly if they could use it.

In other words, you don't mind getting screwed, but you want to be kissed first?

EU monitoring requirements

[tonyreadsnews]

Wouldn't something like this be required because the EU has laws against tracking IP and content. Also, you wouldn't want someone to try and inject alternative data in the shared file. If you install a P2P program of course you have to let them use your bandwidth, and according to the article, it stops sharing shortly after you stop watching. I'm all for making sure companies aren't taking advantage of people, but isn't P2P for video a good thing?

Simple solution

[suraj.sun]

here's a simple solution : Dump CNN.

Any clue how to uninstall Octoshape?

[chaosdivine69]

Sorry for a newbie like question but anyone know how to uninstall this Octoshape plugin? I mindlessly clicked "agree" in a fleeting effort to watch live video on that plane that crashed into the Hudson river on one of my machines. For all I know I just signed away rights to my kidney and left "testie" too. Any info. would be appreciated... Cheers.

Re:Any clue how to uninstall Octoshape?

[chaosdivine69]

Answered my own question (glad to have BOTH my jewels back fyi!) Read this from GrindStone Media: http://www.grindstonemedia.net/2008/12/04/octoshape-peer-to-peer-video-streaming-technology-for-flash/

Re:Any clue how to uninstall Octoshape?

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless that's a cute name your girlfriend came up with, the singular of "testes" is "testis", dude. You would have known this if you read CNN's EULA.

Re:Any clue how to uninstall Octoshape?

[drew]

Control Panel -> Add/Remove Programs.

It's called something like "Octoshape Plugin for Flash Player"

Re:Any clue how to uninstall Octoshape?

[Anonymous Coward]

That can't be right. If the singular were "testis" the plural would be "testii."

Simple solution...

[Krojack]

Don't let CNN or any of its software into your computer/network. This just adds to the list of reasons why I deleted the channel from my TV listings.

Covering their backsides

[Anonymous Coward]

CNN probably realizes the bandwidth doesn't belong to the end user, but to the ISP. When Net Neutrality becomes a reality, ISP's will be forced to abandon the flat-rate service model and charge by usage. CNN is just trying to make sure that when the end user receives that four figure Internet bill, the end user can't sue them for theft of service or some such.

Most large ISP's already have usage based billing trials going on in various cities around the US, so it is coming.

I think people forget that in the early days, the Telcos wanted to charge ISP's by the minute for their dialup lines. That is the model the Telcos understand and like. The cable companies are coming around to that point of view as many have their own usage based trials. It will simply take an event that allows them all to change at once. I'm betting on the passage of a Net Neutrality bill to be that event. Independent ISP's are all but non-existant anymore, so who will oppose them?

No Eula on Linux

[GRW]

I went to CNN and ran a live video and didn't get the EULA pop up. Just another reason to abandon Windows for Linux.

Re:No Eula on Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

As the article stated, you could have easily pushed "No" on the Eula screen (using windows or macs) and watch the stream just as fine.

Re:No Eula on Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't get it to work on Linux. I guess that's a good thing. Who needs their version of the news anyway!

Explains why my work banned it.

[insomniac8400]

On inauguration day cnn.com live video was banned for using too much bandwidth. Now I know why. It was probably flooding the upload pipe.

P2P is a good idea for video

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if the EULA is bad.
Where's the open source P2P video streamer?

They don't even offer me the EULA!

[AliasMarlowe]

I'm on Linux, and as a test, I just watched some [boring] live video on CNN:
1. CNN did not try to install a P2P application on my PC
2. I was not offered any EULA
3. My upstream data traffic did not change
Obviously, CNN hates Linux. Good news!

Re:They don't even offer me the EULA!

[xgr3gx]

Ha, I was just going to ask:
Yes, but does it run on Linux?

They need these permissions

[itsdapead]

Imagine you didn't agree to these conditions. How do you expect CNN to deliver the service?

If you agree to the EULA, you agree that CNN can use your bandwidth, and that you will pay any costs.

Its a P2P service - so if you use it, you are sharing your bandwidth with other users. Or, top put it another way, CNN are using your bandwidth to deliver their material to their customers.

So if some joker leaves it running in his hotel room and gets charged $1 per megabyte, he shouldn't sue CNN. Sounds fair.

You may not collect any information about communication in the network of computers that are operating the Software or about the other users of the Software by monitoring, interdicting or intercepting any process of the Software.

So if I collected data about the other CNN customers who are sharing my bandwidth via the P2P service, their IP addresses, what they were watching, and when and published it, that would be OK, would it?

We take these things as read when we use P2P, but obviously some lawyer at CNN has done a bit of due dilligence and covered his arse in case some troll comes along and sues them.

The fuss about this is a bit like the scare stories photo-sharing sites requiring permission to reproduce/modify/sub license your photos: they need these permissions to run their service.

Re:They need these permissions

[drspliff]

So if I collected data about the other CNN customers who are sharing my bandwidth via the P2P service, their IP addresses, what they were watching, and when and published it, that would be OK, would it?

Why would it not be OK? Perhaps not morally justifiable, but it's no different from publishing web-server logs or putting a live webcam of your house on the internet. It's a legal way around something that's technically impossible to stop, and something which just happens to be an accepted part of every day life in the real-world.

The consent is implied when the other person accesses your computer, knowingly or unknowingly, that it may be logged and may well pop up somewhere in future, so why should this program do something completely differently from the rest of the internet?

Re:They need these permissions

[itsdapead]

The consent is implied when the other person accesses your computer

Yes, but they didn't know they were accessing your computer. They thought they were accessing CNN. If they complain, they're going to complain to CNN, not you. The program they ran was branded "CNN" not "John Doe's PC".

This is defensive ass-covering from a big, deep-pocketed company which would be an attractive target for legal trolls. Nobody is going to be bothered to start a $20-million class action suit against your webcam.

Re:They need these permissions

[Khyber]

That is some PISS-POOR ass covering.

The solution then isn't to sue CNN, but sue the lawyers responsible for this DIRECTLY, for a violation of your property rights, violating the First Sale doctrine, AND you slap a bill on them charging them for the bandwidth they've used.

Makes it harder for a legal team to do much when you're picking their asses off individually in smaller courts where you stand more of a chance of winning, as opposed to trying to file a crappy class-action suit

"Kill all the lawyers" has never had more meaning. Forget the corporations, you kill their legal defenses THEN you try killing the company while they're vulnerable.

Re:They need these permissions

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I didn't agree to the conditions, and was able to see the video just fine. When I clicked "play," a little box came up saying I needed a plug-in called "Octoshape" to view the video. Did I want to install it now? No thanks. Hit cancel and proceeded to watch the video with no problem.

So then CNN is taking responsibility for my system

[rindeee]

Since the EULA requires me to be hands-off, is CNN then going to assume legal responsibility for my system. In the event that a vulnerability is exposed in their P2P software, are they responsible for patch management and compliancy assurance? Should my system become compromised and, say, used as a distribution point for kiddie porn because of their EULA requirements, can I assume their legal council will represent me? How about we turn this around on them. They've removed all responsibility for security from the user, so demand it from them.

What If the router is mine?

[dmomo]

And someone is running that software? I didn't agree to any EULA. I am not using the software. Those data packets are mine! I can monitor them all I want.

Is this correct?

Re:What If the router is mine?

[rufty_tufty]

Nope. You're completely liable for things outside of your control. This is thanks to the Because Act. This little known piece of international legislation is, in fact, at the heart of many of the most prominent legal actions in the world today. Much loved by the RIAA, MPAA and the US due to it's implicit allowal for random search and seizure, legal 'fishing trips', non-judicially warranted wire taps, and it's espousal of 'guilty until proven guilty' legislature; the entire text of the Because Act has been reproduced below:

Because Act

1. Because.

1.1. Just, because.

Errrr

[Anonymous Coward]

"can use your bandwidth, and that you will pay any costs."

so, how is this different from skype, zattoo, skynet or any p2p stuff...?

CNN is Fox Lite

[Murpster]

This is atrocious, but I don't really care. CNN has long ago stopped being a worthwhile news outlet when they adopted Fox News style sensationalistic pseudojournalism. CNN TV is now full of garbage like Nancy Grace, Glenn Beck, and very light on actual news updates. Their website likewise has become less like a news site than like National Enquirer Online (don't forget you can buy this headline on a tshirt!) and there are hundreds of better internet and TV news sources. Add this stupid license and bandwidth theft to all that, and I have to wonder why any of you would consider cnn.com a web site to visit.

Re:CNN is Fox Lite

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, Glenn Beck is now at Fox News (where he belongs) and Nancy Grace is on CNN Headline News which (sort of) isn't CNN.
Not disagreeing with you because CNN still airs Xenophobia Tonight with Lou Dobbs, just being a pedantic asshole.

This language sounds good to me.

[DocSavage64109]

1. P2P Video is the best way to scale video feeds to tens or hundreds of thousands of viewers.
2. Because of how P2P works, it is unavoidable that you get direct IP addresses of other video watchers.
3. Legal language is necessary just to prevent (or make less inviting) outside agencies or users from spying, collecting IP addresses, and otherwise abusing all the other users of their P2P network. Isn't this a good thing for privacy? Would you rather grant every person/agency on the internet full permission to abuse their video customers instead?

Really, not every bit of legalese is a big attack on the average user.

Re:This language sounds good to me.

[AtomicJake]

3. Legal language is necessary just to prevent (or make less inviting) outside agencies or users from spying, collecting IP addresses, and otherwise abusing all the other users of their P2P network. Isn't this a good thing for privacy?

No, it's misleading. No privacy is ensured because of some ckick-through legalese.

Would you rather grant every person/agency on the internet full permission to abuse their video customers instead?

Say it otherwise: what's the risk for the Internet user? Maybe these risks should have been clearly indicated within a notice before the installation. In all cases, those risks are still there.

Re:This language sounds good to me.

[psydeshow]

Sorry, but multicast is the best way to scale video feeds to an unlimited number of viewers.

P2p is only marginally better at scaling because you can decentralize the connections. There is still a 1-to-1 relationship between the number of viewers and the number of data streams on the wire.

P2p gives you the same amount of traffic, in other words, just not all coming from one source. It's easy to imagine how that would be less efficient, since you're setting up many more connections per stream in order to discover peers and pull in all the bits.

Multicast provides real scalability by ensuring that there is only ever one stream of data per router, no matter how many viewers are watching it downstream.

Re:This language sounds good to me.

[DocSavage64109]

I was under the impression that multicast forced everyone to watch the video in a synchronized fashion -- which wouldn't work in an on-demand environment. Is that not true?
Otherwise your point seems to be correct.

Re:This language sounds good to me.

[tobe]

"There is still a 1-to-1 relationship between the number of viewers and the number of data streams on the wire."

That bit's true. However what the broadcaster cares about is that it's not their wire. It's all about reducing the cost for them. Multicast's unworkable as long different people own the networks and routers.

Basically just a no-reverse-engineering clause?

[NekoXP]

All it says is, while you may see exactly what's going on through means available to you like firewalls and antivirus programs, you are not allowed to look too hard through it because that's tantamount to working out how our P2P protocol works.

I guess, you're not going to see a WireShark module for Octoshape protocol any time soon. Or maybe you will..

It becomes illegal to read your own firewall logs.

[Futurepower(R)]

I think you missed the point, Lord Kronos. The issue is not what information is there. The issue is that agreeing to the EULA means that it is illegal to read your own firewall logs. Maybe they would never prosecute, but maybe they would install software to prove you are looking at your logs. If they prosecuted, maybe you would win, after five years and tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees.

The issue is that the EULA says you lose control over your network.

LOL.

[Futurepower(R)]

Funny.

Great EULA

[imsabbel]

Really, i dont understand most of the retards here. Kneejerk anybody?

The EULA ensues
a) that its a P2P service (you know, YOUR upload)
and
b) that you still have privacy when using it.

Both are required AND desireable.
True, you cannot really enforce it. But at least they did try to do the best for their customers.

Re:Great EULA

[LordKaT]

The problem is the wording. Essentially, the EULA prohibits you from doing any packet sniffing - on your own network - without CNN's express written consent.

Re:Great EULA

[Anonymous Coward]

That's what he meant by 'you still have privacy'.

You aren't allowed to sniff other people's packets that are sent to your machine and they aren't allowed to sniff yours.

Well... At least that's what the goal seems to be legally speaking.

Re:Great EULA

[AtomicJake]

The EULA ensues
b) that you still have privacy when using it.

No, it does not. Your privacy is exposed the same way with or without this Eula.

Or do you want to add security the next time by saying: and, you're not allowed to hack ...?

The EULA applies only to live video. Later...?

[Futurepower(R)]

The article says that CNN offers other ways to watch the video, but that is not always obvious.

Not quite

[Anonymous Coward]

You're confusing contractual obligation with actions that are illegal. It requires a law to make something illegal, not a contract. If you breach the contract, you are not a criminal, you have merely opened yourself to whatever actions open to the other party stipulated in the contract (which is what a license agreement is).

Here's how it happened:

[Futurepower(R)]

CNN and Adobe executives put a lot of thought into that software. They sat around at a 3-hour lunch drinking, talking about their million-dollar salaries not being enough, making rude remarks to the waitress, and wondering "How can we sink our companies, fast?"

Re:Here's how it happened:

[Khyber]

Octoshape is HQ'd in Denmark. I doubt Adobe and CNN created it.

Overrated CYA

[mr100percent]

That's quite a lot of fearmongering in this article.

If you agree to the EULA, you agree that CNN can use your bandwidth, and that you will pay any costs.

CNN is afraid of being sued by someone if that person's ISP makes them pay an overage fee.

Also, you lose the right to monitor your own network traffic. You can't even use information collected by your own firewall. Quoting the EULA: 'You may not collect any information about communication in the network of computers that are operating the Software or about the other users of the Software by monitoring, interdicting or intercepting any process of the Software. Octoshape recognizes that firewalls and anti-virus applications can collect such information, in which case you not are allowed to use or distribute such information.'

Well, you quoted the relevant bit. They're basically saying you cannot spy on other users of the network (standard EULA rule), and since this is P2P, other users data will go through your network so please don't snoop on other users.

Is this news?

Re:Overrated CYA

[Khyber]

"You may not collect any information about communication in the network of computers that are operating the Software or about the other users of the Software by monitoring, interdicting or intercepting any process of the Software"

The first part I quote is more relevant. If my computer got hit by malware, I can't even monitor my network to determine a way of stopping it from spreading/replicating, all thanks to software not related to it and the EULA that comes with it.

That is pure bullshit.

Re:Overrated CYA

[Anonymous Coward]

How is that different from any other EULA? I don't think CNN is the first or only to do this

Is an EULA an eulogy?

[LordWoody]

Has anyone else notice the coincidental (?!) connection in sound and appearance of "EULA" and "eulogy"?

From Wikipedia: A eulogy is a speech or writing in praise of a person or thing, especially one recently deceased or retired.

So a EULA would then be a death speech for the software or device for which it is written. ...We think this is great software, but now due to this EULA, it's dead (or at least we are going to make it that way)...

Not a bad idea..too bad the EULA sucks

[xgr3gx]

They have the right idea I suppose.
Why not use P2P if you can get the video faster?
I guess they want to protect themselves from privacy issues.
People that don't care about what's in the EULA probably don't want to know anything about IP traffic - they are the majority.
The people who do know about IP traffic and do care about the EULA (./ers) are the minority, and CNN can probably give a shit what we think of the EULA

Re:It becomes illegal to read your own firewall lo

[LordKronos]

No, I don't think I missed any point, but I think you missed mine? Why did they add this clause to the EULA? You think they did it to stop you from looking at your firewall logs? Huh? What do they have to gain from that?

cdrguru made a relevant point. The most likely explanation for why they did this was to "protect" the privacy of their other users, since this is something like a bittorrent application. I was simply pointing out that since they can't actually protect anything, they should have just notified users of the shared info rather than pretending like they can legalese such shared info out of existence.

I also was not saying you shouldn't worry about the EULA or anything. I was saying why their approach to setting up the EULA was backwards.

Comcast

[Nom du Keyboard]

You don't need to monitor your traffic, Comcast will do it for you - and shut you down for exceeding their cap.

Re:Don't use it?

[Spatial]

Crazy, isn't it? You'd almost think we were on some kind of news discussion site where people just wanted to talk about nerdly goings-on.

I hope this license holds up in court.

[Xest]

Because then we can attach it to every P2P client on earth and it'd mean the RIAA was no longer allowed to collect any information on the files being shared whilst at the same time you could still just share CNN's content, win win!

Oh well, we can always dream ;)

Re:Don't use it?

[stewbacca]

Ok, let's discuss then. If you don't like the EULA, then don't use the product. The "A" in EULA stands for "agreement". If you don't agree, don't use it. I get the whole nerdy discussion site, but THIS particular kind of story gets far too much attention relative to the seriousness of the issue.

The linked story says it's done with Adobe's help.

[Futurepower(R)]

"Obviously, the terms are ludicrous and nigh-unenforceable."

Also, there is another point. Slashdot editors change stories submitted to them seemingly at random, but retain the submitter's name.

The story as I wrote it mentions that Adobe is allowing Octoshape to use Adobe's Express Installer to install the software.

Basically, that means that if you allow rights to Adobe, you are also giving rights to anyone who pays Adobe. Adobe's updating software is very annoying, in my opinion, but this new situation takes the abusiveness to a much higher level. See the linked story, Watch a live video, share your PC with CNN, at WindowsSecrets.com.

The good news

[dontmakemethink]

Now when ISP's defend their practice of throttling/blocking P2P clients, we can say "screw you, we want our CNN!"

...and our Pirate Bay...

So what if...CNN provided an RIAA video to users

[Anonymous Coward]

So if CNN is using P2P on my machine and I don't "break their EULA", but rather just switch the networks packets to be an RIAA song, then will the RIAA mafia boys sue CNN?

copyright only covers copying

[Anonymous Coward]

That whole argument hinges on the "RAM is copying" angle, which has not been consistently upheld. Copyright traditionally covers publication, not personal use.

Copyright owners have not traditionally had any say in what people do with their works, apart from specific things like publication and public performance.

I can read a discarded copy of the NY Times no matter what the publisher thinks. Authors don't get to decide who can read their books.

Software companies have aggressively tried to grab "rights" that have never before belonged to copyright holders.

What about

[Voyager529]

Isn't is possible to use a software firewall to throttle your overall outbound bandwidth? Set that to 1K/s, and your employer won't be on your case about your outbound bandwidth, plus it's still within the EULA - you're not monitoring your traffic, you're controlling the flow of ALL outbound traffic...but the university will probably be on your case for installing software...damn.

Re:It becomes illegal to read your own firewall lo

[commodore64_love]

>>>The issue is that agreeing to the EULA means that it is illegal to read your own firewall logs. Maybe they would never prosecute, but maybe they would install software to prove you are looking at your logs. If they prosecuted, maybe you would win, after five years and tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees.
>>>

I'd rather just aim a bullet at the head of whichever manager was trying to sue me. If I'm going to waste my time & money in court, let's make it for a REAL crime, not pissant stuff like EULA violations. Down with all tyrants, whether they be politicians or corporations.

How do I uninstall it from my computer?

[alchemist68]

Anyone care to explain how to uninstall/delete octoshape from our computers? I have Mac OS X and have no idea where it was installed or what other files it sprinkles throughout the system folder.

Probably not legal.

[hawkeye]

You can't sign (or click) away your rights. They've overstepped their bounds, but isn't that what EULAs generally do??

Re:Don't use it?

[Anonymous Coward]

I get the whole nerdy discussion site, but THIS particular kind of story gets far too much attention relative to the seriousness of the issue.

If you don't like this kind of story and these kinds of comments, then take your own advice and don't read them! As if bitching about the content of the stories and comments on slashdot that you don't like is ever going to change anyone's mind about posting them.

The language of the EULA is too broad.

[Futurepower(R)]

You said, "Why did they add this clause to the EULA?"

I don't know. The language of the EULA is too broad:

"You may not collect any information about communication in the network of computers that are operating the Software..." Presumably they know the meaning of the words. Certainly they are allowing themselves the option of being far more abusive in the future.

Remember the Sony software scandal? Judging from that, there won't be any corrections to Octoshape's bad behavior until people start demanding that the CEOs of CNN, Adobe, and Octoshape be fired.

One of the worst issues about this abuse is that Adobe is using software that is meant for updating its own products to install 3rd part software of its own choosing.

Re:The language of the EULA is too broad.

[Futurepower(R)]

"install 3rd part software" should be "install 3rd party software"

Re:It becomes illegal to read your own firewall lo

[weiserfireman]

The recent Myspace case in California resulted in misdemeanor computer trespass charges against someone for violating the MySpace EULA.

The prosecution theory was violation of the EULA resulted in her exceeding her authority to access the Myspace servers and was therefore a crime.

It is being appealed, but once 1 prosecutor succeeds with a theory, others will copy them.

Now can you be charged with Computer Trespass for accessing your own equipment and logs in violation of an EULA written by a 3rd party? I would think it was an overreach, but 20 years from now? Possible that overzealous privacy advocates could get the question framed in the form of when you agreed to the EULA, you agreed to turn off all of that kind of logging, by keeping the logs, you illegally intercepted the communications.

obligatory XKCD

[dltaylor]

http://xkcd.com/501/

No carrier

[Anonymous Coward]

It is what a commander of naval forces might say when there's an unfortunate turn in the battle.

English:outlandish - Legalese:unconscionable

[D4C5CE]

Contracts are legally binding but if the terms of the contract are outlandish, the contract can be deemed null and void by a court.

In Legalese the term will probably be "unconscionable" instead, which probably isn't exactly a less harsh way for the court to say it that no one in their right mind would knowingly sign such a thing.

walk away, there's alternatives to CNN

[m509272]

better solution, don't go there

The Part that irks me is...

[WeeBit]

"NOT SUITABLE FOR CRITICAL USE The Software is build for personal entertainment use only. It should not be used in or allowed to communicate with any health critical applications or systems or any other vital, critical or valuable applications or systems."

The 20th was still a day to work. Many employees I am sure were hooked up to this that day. So it is not just the regular every day user that has to worry about the bill coming. Also many did not read the EULA. That includes the many on the job in the health profession, etc. So it is safe to say that many businesses will be getting a bill from hell as well.

Re:It becomes illegal to read your own firewall lo

[RareButSeriousSideEf]

[...] I would think it was an overreach, but 20 years from now?

"I would think it was an overreach, but 2 years from now?"

There, fixed that for ya.

Hey, neat idea, CNN. Can I do it to?

[capologist]

Can I create a bittorrent client with an EULA that allows me to put torrents on your system, hide them from the UI for a certain period of time, and forbid you from looking under the hood to see what's there?

Then if a copyright holder comes after you for sharing their stuff, you can claim that I put it there (they'll have no way of proving whether I did or you did), and there was nothing you could legally do to detect or prevent it. You have now attained carrier status and thus shielded yourself from lawsuits.

As for me, I'll live in Sweden, just in case.

Re:So then CNN is taking responsibility for my sys

[Anonymous Coward]

Since the EULA requires me to be hands-off, is CNN then going to assume legal responsibility for my system. In the event that a vulnerability is exposed in their P2P software, are they responsible for patch management and compliancy assurance? Should my system become compromised and, say, used as a distribution point for kiddie porn because of their EULA requirements, can I assume their legal council will represent me? How about we turn this around on them. They've removed all responsibility for security from the user, so demand it from them.

You are kidding, right? They don't make these rules to put themselves in jeopardy. The serfs have to look out, not the masters. *They* have rights. *You* have responsibilities.

Re:The linked story says it's done with Adobe's he

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember a time when Slashdot editors would keep the summary people wrote and give credit to someone else. Now it's the other way around! Ah, how times are a changin'.

Inaguration, Octoshape and post-Inaguration access

[youngjohn14]

Hi All, living outside the US but anxious to watch the Obama Inaguration in all its glory I installed the octoshape application and used CNN, which was the most reliable video I found on my 1Mb DSL circuit. A few days later I noticed that my P2P would shut down after an hour or so, and I could not repair the internet connection. Have to reboot. I had not connected Octoshape with this behavior, but it started at about the same time and until this /. article I had not thought about Octoshape at all. (Thanks to FuturePower!). Wondered if anyone else had seen this...? I googled and did not spot anything. Thanks, YJ14

EULA

[Anonymous Coward]

EULA

By reading any part of this EULA or its entirety, you agree to be bound by its terms. This EULA is an agreement between you, hereinafter Garbage, and us, hereinafter The Important Party. Garbage agrees that Garbage is garbage and The Important Party is important. Garbage agrees that everything it has is now the property of The Important Party and is on loan to Garbage only until The Important Party decides otherwise, at which time Garbage must turn over the requested property. Garbage agrees that The Important Party has every right it chooses without limit. Garbage agrees that The Important Party has no duties or responsibilities of any kind. Garbage agrees that Garbage has every duty and responsibility as determined by The Important Party and as amended at any time by The Important Party. Garbage agrees that Garbage has no rights whatsoever.

Silver lining?

[Anonymous Coward]

As I read this, they understand that firewalls, antivirus, etc. will collect data. It also seems that they don't really care that you collect the data, but rather they want to make it illegal for you to use the data. They don't want you to collect information about the users of the software or even information on their computers. They even write in some lines for subverting the software to get this information.

Is it just me, or does it sound like some of their actions are making it incredibly difficult for the MPAA, RIAA, or like entities to carry out their standard practices to find people sharing content?

P2p is Bad?

[Hordeking]

Ok, EULA aside, how is this a bad thing? Come on, /.! I read all the time how terrible it is that ISPs throttle/shape bittorrent/p2p traffic and read the praises upon high at how efficient p2p is.

How is this any different?

Turner Broadcasting / CNN's Response

[MIchael Wise]

Since its founding, Turner Broadcasting has been a technical innovator working to deliver the very best media experiences to its consumers. As part of Turner and the first TV-affiliated news site on the Web, CNN.com likewise has worked to bring online news to millions of consumers in the most innovative and user-friendly manner since 1995.

As a natural extension of the innovation core to the DNA of both Turner and CNN.com, Turner selected Octoshape as a best-of-breed P2P technology to help provide CNN.com's users around the globe with what we believe is the best live webcast experience available on the Internet. Octoshape is an
established P2P delivery company, and has served several other media companies besides Turner.

Further, using P2P technologies to distribute commercial content on the Web is hardly new. Companies like the BBC, Joost, AOL and many others have delivered content using P2P technologies for years. P2P technologies are also used by millions of consumers daily for activities such as the transmission of files via instant messaging applications and Internet telephony.

Today, P2P technologies have evolved to the point where previously unattainable scale for live webcasts is now achievable. In preparation for high interest in viewing CNN.com's Live streaming of President Barack Obama's inauguration on Jan. 20, Turner anticipated that the resulting
stresses on the various CDNs and the Internet in general would make it extremely difficult - if not impossible - to serve such an unprecedented audience without the use of P2P technologies. In concert with CDNs, CNN.com was able to provide over 1.3 million simultaneous live video streams on Jan. 20 - and more than 650,000 of those simultaneous streams were delivered with P2P technology.

Turner has been forthcoming about the use of P2P technologies in the CNN.com Live video player - both with users and the public at-large. Since Octoshape was incorporated into the CNN.com Live player in Nov. 2008, users have been presented with the option to accept the P2P plug-in to enhance performance upon initial launch of the live player; and if they exercise that option, are presented with the end-user license agreement (EULA) that describes how the software operates. It also is important to note that users are not required to use the software in order to receive the requested video stream. All of CNN's video is available to consumers without the use or installation of a P2P plug-in.

There are also multiple ways to delete the Octoshape software from a user's computer. Within the CNN.com Live player's "Help" feature, users are referred to Octoshape's website and provided with instructions on how to uninstall the plug-in. Additionally, the software can be uninstalled via traditional Windows tools for adding/deleting software.

As Turner continues to deliver quality content to the largest audiences possible, we recognize that the Internet will continue to evolve, and methods for scalable delivery of Web content will necessarily evolve with it; and as a company, we will continue to work with industry stakeholders - including ISPs and privacy experts - to develop the latest, most innovative and user-friendly methods for scalable delivery of content on the Web.

Re:Turner Broadcasting / CNN's Response

[MIchael Wise]

Another perspective:

CNN: Inauguration P2P Stream a Success, Despite Backlash

http://bit.ly/vfEl

Re:It becomes illegal to read your own firewall lo

[Dan541]

Because they don't want you to see how nefarious they really are. It like trying to stop the police searching your vehicle.