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."
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.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Just ask some neighbor kid to install your software for you, one that's too young to enter a legal agreement. Seems much more simple, and unlike this cat device, gives you plausible deniability to claim "I didn't even realize there was a EULA, let alone agree to it."
I went to eat some animal crackers and the box said, "Do not eat if seal is broken." I opened the box and sure enough..
Can a cat make a legal agreement?
A cat is property, not an individual. Animal law has been quite unsuccessful in breaking out of that mold. So, no, a cat can't make a legal agreement anymore than your keyboard and mouse can.
However, 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).
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
What if someone bypassed the EULA entirely (e.g. hacking the installer so that "I Decline" still continues).
Since you've never agreed to the EULA in the first place, you're not disallowed from hacking it (consumer-unfriendly millennial laws not withstanding).
Well, actually- it points out the absurdity of a contract without a signature.
Ever heard of an oral contract?
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
I didn't do it.
Nobody saw me do it.
You can't prove anything.
IANAL, but there has been trials (incidentally also featuring a Simpson) where the defendant said he didn't do it, and wasn't required to say who did. Prosecution was required to show he did. You don't really have to frame your cat, but if you're a dog-person it's understandable.
I have an SPLA posted on the front of my computer, very clearly labelled, and in big bold print.
It basically states that by allowing your software to be installed on this hardware, you (the software provider) agree to the following.
1) Your EULA is null and void.
2) Your software cannot make any changes unless I agree to them beforehand.
3) Your software cannot call home unless I authorize it, every time (this is enforced via firewall rules outside the box).
4) Your software cannot interfere with the operation of any other software on the hardware installed to. (prohibits viruses, malware, adware and automatic disabling software)
5) Any violation of the above terms can constitute a cyber attack against the hosting hardware, and treated as such, and dealt with using the strongest legal measures available at the time of attack.
Granted, my SPLA will hold up in court as well as their EULA, but it is posted, and yet their software installs - so they are as bound by my terms, as I am by their terms.
Who is general failure, and why is he reading my hard drive?
I just asked my father, who is a lawyer, a few questions about it. Note that he is primarily what I like to refer to as a financial lawyer (bankruptcies, IRS/tax problems, certain real estate things, wills, and a few others), so this is outside of his normal repertoire. Here was his answers (paraphrased):
Q: Do you know what an EULA is?
A: No
Q: You know, those end user license agreements you have to accept when you buy or download certain software?
A: Oh ok yes what about them
Q: If you built a device that would allow a cat to accept an EULA, would you be legally bound by the EULA?
A: Well it depends on the intent. If you specifically built the device and coerced the cat your intent is obvious and you would probably be held to the agreement in court. If the cat was just dancing around on your computer and accepted it though you probably wouldn't be bound.
Q: What if you got a small child to accept the agreement, would they not be bound because of their age?
A: It depends on your jurisdiction and the law of that area, but here in Illinois it probably wouldn't be binding in court and would be tossed out.
Q: Do EULA's violate any sort of doctrine of first sale since they require you to agree to the license after you've bought the product and limit what you've gotten if you don't agree to it?
A: I'm not exactly sure, but its defiantly a good question. They could get around that pretty easily by making you agree to the EULA before you purchase the computer, but I'm not familiar with the law so its just an educated guess.
There you have it.
A EULA governs the sale of software, which is considered a "good" under UCC Article 2 (Uniform Commercial Code). The UCC has been adopted in every state, in slightly modified forms. The UCC allows an authorized agent to contract on behalf of the principle, and in fact allows "electronic agents" to bind the principle. If a computer can act as your authorized agent, surely an animal can.
This does not pose significant difficulties for contract law. It's just stupid. But don't bother with the legal answer - considering idle speculation. It's more fun anyway. I'm sure the guy who developed this device didn't bother to research the law first (clearly).
Posted while waiting for my prof to arrive in Commercial Transactions. :)
But, no, it CHOSE to walk over it. Without understanding that this would be agreeing to an EULA.
Just like you agreed to the EULA despite not knowing what the fuck it means.
Well, if your cat agrees to a contract, it doesn't mean you have agreed to it, hence you are not authorized to use the software. The pen on the other hand, has no free will (try disproving that in court),
The court would probably (in more legalistic language) tell you to **** off and stop wasting their time with pseudo-legalistic intellectual wankery that had nothing to do with the case anyway.
so it acts as a medium through which your will is enforced. Please go back to taking a class in critical thinking.
Good luck using that as the basis of a legal argument in court. You're seriously saying that *legally* having the cat click the button instead of the pen would made a difference because the cat had "free will" (despite the fact it doesn't- and never could- understand contracts and arguably has no free will in that respect, and also that the *intent* to get it to do that was yours)?
In fact, it's not just that this is a stupid legal argument. It's that it's a stupid argument full stop for the exact same reasons. "Critical thinking", my arse.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
You don't need to be 'authorized' to use software you bought anymore than you need authorization to eat a pizza you bought.
No, copyright law doesn't stop you. If you have software, you are allowed under the law to make an installed copy of it, and make incidental copies into memory and swap.
EULA originate from before the law allowed that, under the theory that they could impose rules on you in exchange for 'letting' you install and use it. Which shouldn't have been legal, they can't sell you something that's manifestly unsuited for the purposes they sold you it for, and if you refuse to agree to the contract it's completely unsuitable as it deliberately doesn't work at all. If the box says you can use it in a certain way, the software has to be able to do that, or they are in violation of consumer protection laws.
But regardless of whether that logic used to work, it doesn't now, as the law says if I'm have a piece of copyrighted software, I have the right to copy it onto the disk, into memory, into swap, wherever I need to copy it to use the damn thing.
As I don't need their fucking permission to install and use the software, I don't need to agree to the EULA. I can, if I'm stupid, or I can get a cat or minor child to do it. (Or some random person off the street...they are rather unlikely to violate the EULA if they aren't using my computer.) Or edit the installer to not display that box.
And, on top of all that, I have the right to make backup copies, too. (Not 'one' copy, that's a misreading of the law. Any copy I make is legal if it's 'a' backup copy, but that simply means 'a' copy I just made is legal if made for backup purposes, not that I can only make one of them. Each and every copy is legal if it is for the purposes of backup, there's no requirement there be only one.)
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
This is just begging to be discussed by the article series featured on Slashdot last week, "You Are Not A Lawyer", which had the stated purpose to "try to disabuse computer scientists and other technically minded people of some commonly held misconceptions about the law (and the legal system).":
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/02/10/1749208&from=rss
At the time, the comments were filled with snark about how it is an unfair stereotype that geeks don't understand the law and try to "hack" the law with overly cute tricks. This article is the stereotype.
I think you're probably right. Still, before stating a legal opinion, you really should state your legal training or (I assume) lack thereof.
Fair enough. I am not a lawyer, but I am a law student who has had Contracts (a did decently in the class). I've never seen case law on the matter, but I remember asking a similar question to my professor about machine-assisted acceptance, and it's really about manifesting the intent to accept the agreement.
Most EULAs start off with language like the following:
YOU AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS EULA BY INSTALLING, COPYING, OR OTHERWISE USING THE SOFTWARE. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE, DO NOT INSTALL, COPY, OR USE THE SOFTWARE; YOU MAY RETURN IT TO YOUR PLACE OF PURCHASE FOR A FULL REFUND, IF APPLICABLE.
(Text copied from the Windows XP Home Edition EULA.)
Thus the contract has set forth the method of acceptance. If you perform actions that a rational, objective third-party would assume manifests agreement to these terms, then you have accepted the contract. If your cat-based device -- that you set up -- installs the software for you, that alone probably manifests acceptance (if by a strange, Rube Goldberg-esque manner), because most people, when presented with the facts of cat as property, would say that you "installed" the software.
(Aside: If you use the software after installation, that definitely manifests acceptance, rendering the entire matter moot.)
This is pretty much basic offer and acceptance material.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
You don't know what you are talking about. Numerous EULAs have been brought to court and the majority of them have survived just fine.
So the concept of the EULA (exactly as it exists nowadays) has been challenged and carried through? Where? I'd genuinely like to see it.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Simple solution: For every piece of software you own, buy the software, then download a copy off the Pirate Bay. Claim you "just like to keep things in their boxes, like comics & stuff".
Now you never read, or agree to any EULA, and since you own the software I'd love to see the look on their lawyers faces if presented with this case :-D
It's stupidity at it's height. Not agreeing to the EULA doesn't put you in a stronger position. Without agreeing to it, you have no right to copy the software, and they'll just sue your ass for copyright infringement.
Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.
http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1117229&cid=26739771
Bullshit. Nobody has tested the basic assumptions of a EULA, that a contract requires you to know about it before it you can be bound by it.
There's a big difference between a retarded judge who doesn't understand how contracts work and someone actually upholding post-sale contracts. We'll never be free of idiotic rulings, and never be safe from unfair charges, but there's a big difference between that and actual law.
In fact, many of the pro-EULA rulings don't actually hinge on a EULA as many proponents say. MAI corp for instance, is based on a signed agreement to respect any EULAs, not just a EULA. Total difference.
Lawyers just masturbate to the idea of EULAs and other abusive laws.
You can always get drunk...most contracts aren't enforceable if one party is incapacitated.
If you voluntarily incapacitate yourself by getting drunk, you're responsible for any and all contracts you enter into while impaired. See Lucy v. Zehmer, the "heh, sure, I'll sell you my house for $100. I'll even sign a contract. I know you don't have a hundred dollars on you- oh, crap" case.
It's stupidity at it's height. Not agreeing to the EULA doesn't put you in a stronger position. Without agreeing to it, you have no right to copy the software, and they'll just sue your ass for copyright infringement.
Wrong.
The law was changed/amended a while back to allow "incidental" copies to be made that would occur in normal use without needing any extra permission from the copyright holder, other than legitimate purchase. This was mentioned in a post above.
The company in question could attempt to sue for breach of contract or similar civil tort, but not under copyright law under the notion that not agreeing to the EULA makes any copy of data into RAM etc a copyright violation.
Of course, that may have changed as I'm not sure anyone has yet determined what all was slipped into the stimulus package at the last minute. Seeing as how the Democrats are famously in the bag for Hollywood & the RIAA/MPAA, it wouldn't surprise me if they added some kind of last-minute paybacks to these folks. As I understand, the text of the stimulus package was initially placed online in a searchable format and then, realizing their mistake, was quickly format-shifted to a non-searchable text. (.pdf? Not sure.)
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
I put a text file at the root directory, reading more or less :
"By actually completing the install process on this computer, you accept to deliver a bug-free software, that will not nag me every 5 minutes with internet connection requests, not hog the cpu and memory and actually provide me with all the benefits you promised in your marketing brochure. This Eula allows you to install ONE (1) copy of your software and supercedes all preceding agreements that might exist between us. Ignorance of the existence of this Eula cannot be used as an argument not to deliver your promised benefits. If you do not accept those conditions, your software must fail to install. Otherwise, you recognize that you accept all those conditions and must perform as promised"
Now I'm covered... 8)
It takes 40+ muscles to frown, but only four to extend your arm and bitchslap the motherfucker
Like I say about EULAs:
Well, I don't remember signing any contract, and I don't seem to have a copy anywhere, but if I've signed a contract with the company, that company should be able to produce a signed copy of said contract, so we'll work off that. I must have lost my copy, but I trust them not to forge it.
Oh, they can't produce the signed contract, just an unsigned copy. Well, okay, we'll talk to the company representative who signed it with me and try to figure out if that's exactly what I signed?
Oh, he didn't sign it at the same time as me. Okay, well, who else was there?
Oh, they don't have any witnesses at all. Do they have any evidence I worked out a contract with them at all and came in and signed it?
Oh, I didn't come in and sign it. I signed it at home, apparently. And what, just called them up and told them I signed it?
Oh, I didn't notify them I signed it. But how do they know my name?
Oh, they don't know that I signed it, just that someone did. They didn't bother to collect the name. Okay, well, when was that?
Oh, they don't know when. Odd. But then how do they know that someone did signed it at all?
Because it's installed on my computer? What? That's it?
So, um, to recap: They don't actually know I, or anyone else, signed anything whatsoever. They not only have no evidence that I did so, but admit they actually don't know that I, or anyone else, was even presented with such a contract, or any contract at all, much less agreed to it before the supposed violation.
Their entire evidence that someone signed it, and when, is based on entirely alterable evidence like file timestamps and supposed behaviors of installers, and even if it's a 100% accurate and correct they have no evidence it was actually me doing the agreeing?
Ah. Yeah, nice strong case they have.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
If you voluntarily incapacitate yourself by getting drunk, you're responsible for any and all contracts you enter into while impaired. See Lucy v. Zehmer, the "heh, sure, I'll sell you my house for $100. I'll even sign a contract. I know you don't have a hundred dollars on you- oh, crap" case.
Intoxication was not a significant factor in Lucy v Zehmer. The court did not believe he was actually drunk at the time. The real issue was whether he was actually joking about the intent to sell. They found that he was not joking, and even if he were, his manifest intention was serious and thus his hidden inner motive was irrelevant.
I am a geek attorney, but not your geek attorney unless you've already retained me. This is not legal advice.
"Encouraging" someone to murder is called conspiracy to murder and it's a different crime from murder.
The other example you give is called manslaughter.
Yes, these are all crimes, but they're all different crimes and are all tried differently!
Click-throughs have little or no legal basis, let alone the ability to hold a conspirator to clicking "OK" accountable.
In the UK, you absolutely cannot enter a contract without it being a fair contract. A fair contract is where both parties have equal opportunity to amend the contract and both have to agree the final terms before jointly signing it. If it's one-sided, "take it or leave it", then it is simply not a contract and has no legal strength.
Does my bum look big in this?
I vaugly recall a story about a EULA, which in the middle said something like "The first 10 people to actually read this EULA, and send an e-mail to freemoney@example.com before (a few months after the release) will receive $20."... and noone ever claimed it.
Anyone recall it better than me?
Further, the remedy of return is nothing but an attempt to conceal odious terms. The contract is already struck and monies paid. Why should a refuser be required to do certain things? They didn't agree to do anything. The return may be inconvenient, and might not be accepted by the store. Many have "no open software" return policies.
It is not as if obtaining proper EULA agreement is difficult or impractical -- just put a tear-off on the product. But publishers are afraid those will reduce sales. Well, they would know. So they sneak around. This should not be rewarded with any kind of legal recognition. IANAL
I think this is an incredibly great idea in terms of concept. its time we started managing back and not accepting everything... but collectively counter them..
obv there are large reasons why yours is funny and not valueable. They have no way of knowing whether or not the file is there much less whether they agreed to it. Further if they were able to read it you'd probably have a seperate case on your hands against them for 'hacking/snooping' on your computer.
Now if you could find a way to get them to actually do something to sign it that would be brilliant.. perhaps a call in to their techline / conveniant use of their automated responses. this would be quite interesting if there was someway in which you could get them to actually 'accept' it.
problem is getting them to 'do' that. when I install the program the license etc pops up and asks me. While not realistic, i have the opportunity to decline the license and not install. At which point you would try to return the software; likely be told they don't accept returned opened software, and if my understanding is correct you would have to contact the producer to receive a refund.. which is quite obsurd.
"Jazz isn't dead, it just smells funny" ~Frank Zappa
EdelFactor
With a EULA you gain the right to run the software.
According to law, I gain that right when I pay them for it in good faith. A EULA then removes my rights and gives me nothing in return.
Learn to love Alaska