Slashdot Mirror
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.' "
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.
No.
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
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
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.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Oh really.
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!
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.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
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.
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.
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.
"The weirdest thing about a mind, is that every answer that you find, is the basis of a brand new cliche" -
"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.