Slashdot Mirror
Don't Like EULAs? Get Your Cat To Agree To Them
An anonymous reader writes "Anne Loucks built a device which, when her cat steps on it, can click the 'I Agree' button of a EULA. Who knows what the lawyers will make of this sort of madness. Can a cat make a legal agreement? Does it need to be of legal age? She lures the cat onto the device, and the cat steps on it of its own free will. Anyway, folks who hate EULAs now have another tool to make the lawyers freak out."
Call me crazy, but since you built a device to allow your cat to agree to EULAs, wouldn't that mean you authorized the cat to act on your behalf - regardless of how inept a decision maker it may be?
Track your TV Shows with your iPhone - FREE
What the fuck is this shit? Seriously.
No, really. Does anyone sane actually think this would have even the tiniest chance of working?
Troll? It's a serious question. What the fuck IS this shit? And I am referring to the article.
What the fuck is next -- "Don't like contracts? Have you ink pen sign them! Simply coax your ink pen (through digital manipulation) into signing a facsimile of your name! Oh imagine the lawyers dismay!"
So seriously, what the fuck is this shit?
"She lures the cat onto the device, and the cat steps on it of its own free will."
Doesn't really seem to be free will then, does it? I mean, is the term "free will" even allowed in the same sentence with "lures"?
What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
Absolutely not. The software industry lives by "pig in a poke" contracts and by convincing people buying software that that's exactly what they do - buy software. If you have to sign a contract & actually agree to the license before you buy, people would stop buying. In fact, you wouldn't be able to sell this type of software to anyone under the age of 18 at all.
Think of it, loosing the entire under 18 demographic for game software. Listen, I can hear SOE & MS games screaming in terror right now.
Haha! Negative equity isn't a problem for me, I don't have to pay back my mortgage, because I got my goldfish to sign for it!
Combination - fun iPhone puzzling
Well, actually- it points out the absurdity of a contract without a signature.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
If you make the cat click on the 'I Agree' button, doesn't that make the cat the actual licensed end user, not you? Meaning you're actually using your software unlicensed (gasp!)?
And many EULA:s won't even hold in court.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
It doesn't give you any plausible deniability.
You could certainly argue that it wasn't you that clicked the button. Good luck using that to work around one of the disclaimers in the EULA (sure I thought windows was good software to run a life support system on, and since the kid down the street clicked the button, I never agreed not to sue Microsoft for my death...).
People that think the EULAs are about anything other than a good faith effort at notifying you of the disclaimers on the product are out of control paranoid. They put other stuff in because they can; they don't care much about it.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
The EULA itself is already a case of rules-lawyering. It's trying to avoid those irritating steps normally necessary to forming a contract, in particular both (actual) agreement and consideration, by holding the use of purchased software hostage until you indicate "agreement". Either the act of clicking "agree" means nothing, or various ways to use the software without clicking "agree" really do mean you aren't bound by the EULA.
I hold to the principle that the EULA is meaningless, and clicking on "Agree" signifies agreement to the EULA like clicking on "Yes" to the quit box in Wolfenstein 3D signifies you agree that you are a wimp. But if the courts want to pretend that clicking "Agree" actually is agreement, they can hardly complain about rules-lawyering if someone avoids clicking "Agree".
A contract doesn't need a signature, dumbass. It's just a convenient way to prove you agreed to the terms. An EULA does exactly the same thing.
Correct, it doesn't need a signature. However, some proof of a 'meeting of the minds' is required. A click-wrap agreement doesn't necessarily provide this.
My blog
If my kid installs it, the kid isn't of legal age to agree to any contract - what does $MEGACORP do in the face of that?
EULAs themselves are rather brittle and fragile anyway, even legally. I suspect that once challenged head-on in court (notice that no corporation is really willing to do that), it'll come apart like a house of tissue paper in hurricane-force winds.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Everyone keeps trying to "solve" the "problem" of ways to use software without agreeing to the terms. What happened to the simple expedient of using some alternative software? I know the Slashdot users feel entitled to do whatever they want with other people's work, but that's such a poor justification from so many perspectives. Can anyone solve this quandary for me without expressing it in terms of their own greed?
I'd argue that since you were the one that "coaxed" the cat onto the device, for the sole purpose have having an "I Agree" button pressed, that your will was done through the cat. I'm not sure why this is any different than pressing the button on a mouse. You're still deciding the outcome. You decided to either coax the cat onto the device... or not. It most likely was not the cat's idea to go through this exercise.
yvan eht nioj
If you care that much just use Free Software - no EULAs, no DRM and no restrictions. You can do what you want with your computer.
Actually, you and your cousin Vinny are an example I was going to make here.
If I "encourage" you two to shoot someone, regardless if I'm there or not, does that free me from any criminal responsibility? Nope. I'd be willing to bet that I'd be sitting in jail waiting for my conviction (bah, who needs a trial) on 1st degree murder.
Instead of using you and Vinny, what if I rigged up a shotgun (with a hair trigger, of course), through a pulley, to the cat's collar? At the time an intended victim was in front of the shotgun, I call the cat, and it shoots. I don't think there's a jury in the world that would go for the "Oh no, the cat did it." defense.
I know there's been at least one conviction where a guy set up an "anti-intruder" system at his house. He tied a string to the doorknob, which lead to a shotgun mounted in the hallway. Someone broke in, and was shot (surprise). Through his action or inaction, he caused the final result.
A shrinkwrap/clickthrough agreement is a joke at best. I would be more concerned about being hit by you or Vinny (since I haven't pissed off that many people, I doubt I'm a target yet), than I would be about even hear a word from a lawyer about some shrinkwrap agreement. But you never know, the economy is starting to really suck. Maybe big businesses will start trying to cash in on their shrinkwrap licenses.
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
One could say that the cat doesn't understand the contract, but I haven't read a EULA that most people understand anyway.
Does it make you happy you're so strange?
As I stated in another comment above, don't make it certain. Make two buttons, go into the other room, let the cat choose accept or deny.
You can't decide if a bear will maul you any more than you can decide if you cat selects accept over deny. Now, repeating the process until it accepts is another story. However, could they prove you did or not?
-SaNo
the cat here is just a tool for you to accept the agreement. If you set up a device to automatically agree to a license without you fully reading it, you've still manifested an intent to accept the terms, whatever they may be. I don't think a court would have anymore problem with holding you to the contract than if you used machine to automatically stamp a signature on a stack of paper contracts. It wouldn't matter if it worked on a timer, on a RNG, or on the fickle movements of a cat so long as you set it up to happen with certainty that it would eventually happen (because you can't proceed with the installation without it happening).
I agree. The best defense along these lines would be a system that randomly clicks your screen (in a random place, at a somewhat infrequent interval) all the time. When you have a license to bypass, leave it open and walk away (perhaps put another window over the "I disagree" button). It'll eventually get bypassed. Even this is stupid, and even this might not stand up in court.
More notably, the concept of EULA itself might not stand up in court. If you want a legal tact, I suggest that one. EULAs are unfair and should be attacked at the core (didn't an EU court recently rule that EULAs weren't binding?). You bought the thing, you're installing a copy of your own, and that's that. Done. There are already laws preventing you from redistributing it and the like. No EULA is needed. Does a movie or music album come with such a thing? No. Should software? No.
Use my userscript to add story images to Slashdot. There's no going back.
Correct, it doesn't need a signature. However, some proof of a 'meeting of the minds' is required. A click-wrap agreement doesn't necessarily provide this.
In which case the EULA was invalid regardless of whether you clicked it or you coerced the cat into clicking it.
However, assuming it was, if anyone seriously thinks that having the cat click the button would make a blind bit of difference in court, they're an idiot. The law for the most part doesn't operate remotely like a stupidly pedantic Slashdot argument (*), and this *is* the law we're discussing.
IANAL and I don't claim to know exactly why the alleged legal argument behind this device would be thrown out of course, but I'm pretty sure that it would- probably because (as others have suggested) you had deliberate intent to click the button and hence "agree" to the EULA.
(*) Yes, the law can be manipulated by stupid pedantry, but pedantry involving of laws and legal rulings, not stupid pseudo-logical bullshit up-their-own-arse arguments involving sub-intellectual drivel about the free will of animate and inanimate objects, etc.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
I give the lady an A for effort but it won't hold up in court. She will help to line some lawyer's wallet.
The only thing that lines lawyers wallets are bullshit laws. You know, like the ones EULAs are made of.
Um, did you even read the linked article, such as the bit about Texaco and Pennzoil?
Yes, and if there had been a PAPER contract, there wouldn't have needed to be a court case. The oral contract worked because there were witnesses - similar to having a recording.
Good luck taking an oral contract to court with no evidence that it took place.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
I am amazed by all the posts complaining that this is "retarded". Guess what, folks... she may not be completely serious.
The same woman also claims that, if you watch the three best Star Wars movies in order, they make a story arc different from what George Lucas had in mind overall.
http://www.ohesso.com/essays/essay004.htm
She also devotes a whole essay to explaining how her friends like to drink beer out of a prosthetic leg.
Next up: Slashdot analyzes the wisdom of Steven Wright to decide which of his suggestions are best not tried out in real life.
P.S. Her funniest essay is "I Like Babies". It's not what you expect... or, if it is, you are very strange.
http://www.ohesso.com/essays/essay002.htm
steveha
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
Good luck taking an oral contract to court with no evidence that it took place.
Good luck taking a written contract to court, with no evidence that it took place.
Seriously, if a signature was all it took to enforce a contract, we'd be overrun with forgers claiming to have lucrative contracts with Bill Gates. You need real evidence in any contract dispute, written or oral.
Your point is very clear - but I could leave my laptop to a shop, a handy cousin or anyone really and they could install and agree to things without my consent.
Not so clear now, I think.
Yes, I should not lend my computer. I should, I should. But when my TV breaks I bring it somewhere to fix. Same with the computer.
Really, it's not that clear-cat.
Dennis Onstenk
How? my pen doesnt work on the monitor.
If your cat agrees with the EULA, i guess then you cat may uns the service. No, honestly, this is bullshit. Your cat can not agree to EULAs, because she cant read or understand the contract.
It'll make them laugh at how naive you are... Now where was that link to the "You Are Not a Lawyer!" column?
Here you go:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=EULA+upheld+in+court
The answer is the same for children as it is for your cat -- you are still responsible for their actions.
Dog bites someone? You get sued.
Kid bites someone? You get sued.
Kid steals music? You get sued.
Cat steals Word? You get sued.
No. It doesn't fix that. You did the strategic placement of the food for the sole purpose of getting the cat to perform the action. It was still your will for the button to be pressed. Not the cats.
yvan eht nioj
Just have your underage kid click. They cant enter into a contract.
Of course if this happens too much, they will require you to produce a CC# and SSN for each EULA that gets sent back to the company. Or even force you get it at the store you bought the box from.
As for the last option, if they were required to provide you with the terms and conditions when you bought the product, I would consider that a small victory.
Of course, that may seem unreasonable, considering the complexity of the contract and that you are now requiring Walmart employees to handle hundreds of legal contracts...
But it's not my problem...The terms of the transaction should be negotiated (or dictated) before the sale is complete, not after.
If the terms are too numerous and complicated to discuss without legal council, then the companies need to agree on a simpler and more commonly used set of terms, rather than the current model which is "I can do whatever I want as long as it's in the fine print and nobody reads it".
IANAL and I don't claim to know exactly why the alleged legal argument behind this device would be thrown out of course, but I'm pretty sure that it would- probably because (as others have suggested) you had deliberate intent to click the button and hence "agree" to the EULA.
Specifically, the legal argument is that the cat is an "instrument" of your will, particularly if you direct and entice the cat to step on the lever. You are therefore responsible for the contract.
It would be an equally stupid argument to claim that you didn't sign the contract, your pen did.
It's absolutely idiotic to say "if you don't like the terms, return the software" but then make the manner of knowing what the terms are preclude returning the software.
That is what shouldn't be legal. All EULAs should be provided in outside-the-shrinkwrap envelopes for immediate, pre-purchase perusal.
This is different from service animals, how? I'm pretty sure the law would see it that way. If you train an animal to do something for you, it's actually proving intent. Not only did you intend to click that EULA, you spent hours figuring out a way for your cat to click the EULA.
So your cat agreed to the EULA, and by doing so, gained a license to use the software, for themselves.
So you still have no license to use it...
The fact that the software is now installed on your PC, does not mean it is yours. You might as well torrent it.
Where's the big news?
This is a bit of a double-edged sword. A EULA is a license (that's the L part). If you don't agree to it, then you don't have permission to use the software. So while you may not be subject to the terms of the agreement, the owner of the software can come after you for copyright infringement (i.e. using their work without permission).
Arguing that the cat did it will be about as valid a defense as saying, "My Bic ballpoint pen clicked the button."
The courts won't care what device actually depressed the key, especially since this device was designed specifically to let the cat take the bum rap.
I use irony whenever I can, but my shirts are still wrinkled...
>>>I know there's been at least one conviction where a guy set up an "anti-intruder" system at his house. He tied a string to the doorknob, which lead to a shotgun mounted in the hallway. Someone broke in, and was shot (surprise). Through his action or inaction, he caused the final result.
>>>
Yes. The Supreme Court decided that the Right to Life of the thieves was more important than the Right to Property of the victim trying to protect his stuff. I vehemently disagree. IMHO the thieves forfeit their right to life when they knowingly invade a private home with the intent to steal.
Also the SCOTUS ruling means that, if a thief breaks into my basement safe and accidentally locks himself inside (thereby suffocating), that is somehow my fault and I'm guilty of third-degree murder, because the thief's right to life overrules my attempt to protect my money/will/stocks. I swear the Supremes are out-of-touch with reality.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
if you could find a way to get them to actually do something to sign it that would be brilliant
Why do they have to sign it? If an EULA is valid without being signed, then this would be too.
Why the double standard?
They have money. You don't.
The law has a special rule for software that specifically permits installing it. That's why GPL programs can come without an EULA and you can reject the GPL without being unable to use the software.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
(under acceptable circumstances (see endless debate of acceptable above)) EULAS are contracts between you, and the company that makes the software. Therefore they have the software act as an agent on their behalf. I'd like to see someone modify the text that they see in the EULA and propose the modified contract to the company, by pressing "i agree". If the software, acting on the companies behalf, also agrees and continues the installation, does this mean that the company has agreed to the contract?
I'd like to see a case under these circumstances in court - either the EULA is a contract, with the software operating on the companies behalf, or it is not. If the software agrees to a modified eula, it should be just as binding to both parties as if both parties agree to a non-modified one.