Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

CNN Uses P2P Video & Adds Terrible EULA

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the you-gotta-be-kidding-me dept.

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.' "

16 of 254 comments (clear)

  1. good luck with that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:good luck with that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    2. Re:good luck with that by mcgrew · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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?

      --
      Free Martian Whores!
    3. Re:good luck with that by cdrguru · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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?

    4. Re:good luck with that by torstenvl · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    5. Re:good luck with that by commodore64_love · · Score: 5, Insightful

      >>>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.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  2. shit, I already broke the EULA..... by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.
    1. Re:shit, I already broke the EULA..... by characterZer0 · · Score: 5, Funny

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

      --
      Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
    2. Re:shit, I already broke the EULA..... by Sancho · · Score: 5, Funny

      What's a "NO CARRIER" joke?

  3. OK, then... by serviscope_minor · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
  4. Tin foil hat by sstpm · · Score: 5, Funny

    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!

  5. Well, they should have read my Eula by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.
  6. I noticed this during the inauguration of Obama by DrewBeavis · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  7. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    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?

  8. So then CNN is taking responsibility for my system by rindeee · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  9. The linked story says it's done with Adobe's help. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 5, Informative

    "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.