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."
What the fuck is this shit? Seriously.
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
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 ----
Hey it could be worse. It could have been bears and we all know we can trust those godless killing machines.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
You don't want catbert, the evil HR cat from dilbert to agree anything for you on your behalf. NOT. EVER!
Just sign the EULA, pussy
Unless they practice law
We know them as rules lawyers: the people who try and find convoluted, novel ways to evade the rules without exactly breaking them. Courts are real familiar with them, and over the centuries have developed lots of ways to deal with them. The easiest response to this I see is "Since the cat's acting at your behest, you've authorized them to agree to the contract for you. Since you authorized them, you don't get to argue whether or not they're capable of doing what you authorized.".
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").
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.
Virginia is for lovers. EVE is for griefers.
"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
It's smarter and doesn't claw me.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
This may be an amusing piece, but having the cat do your bidding is really no different from having the mechanics of a keyboard and GUI software cause the "I Agree" button to be activated, particularly if you're coaxing the cat and adding the device solely for the purpose of circumventing agreement to the EULA.
...pushing the button with a stick. Most of the EULAs and TOS that she has used her cat to click are probably unenforceable but for other reasons, not this.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
i think this lady was on my phone once
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
I have a box in which I seal a cat along with my computer and a radioactive isotope. I connect an electronic monitor to the cat, and it is rigged up to click the "Agree" button if the cat dies.
If you cause the "I Agree" button to be clicked, even indirectly by a cat, you are just as bound as if you had clicked it by hand yourself. There are a variety of possible ways to get out of a EULA; this isn't one of them.
(To my knowledge, nobody has been foolish enough to actually try this sort of defense, so it's *conceivable* that I'm wrong. But, I would be very surprised.)
Funny, this doesn't LOOK like Idle...
I tend to edit the EULA before I click "I agree". Usually, I just clear the box to which I'm ageeing.
That won't take you off the hook. By luring the beast onto the device and having it agree to the EULA, you're employing the it as your proxy or agent, your utensil or tool, your...um, what's the word...your cat's-paw.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
A CAT IS FINE TOO
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).
What is this shit doing outside of Idle?
So an old cat lady thinks she's clever by making a fucking cardboard for her cat?
How the fuck does this change anything?
She's the admin and owner of the pc, she's responsible for what's being installed.
She still agrees to the EULA.
My cat successfully changed my email password when I was out. I still don't know how that furry demon could have pulled it off as my email wasn't even open at the time.
Oh yes, she also wrote a fairly extensive message using notepad as well that same session, but I couldn't read it. Guess xer wewnunpoxcwerwbwyty is only understandable to cats.
Then you can claim that either Schroedinger accepted the agreement, or the software company killed your cat.
When will malware authors make a virus that automatically accepts EULAs. They'd be doing us a favor.
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!)?
The EULA was invented by Microsoft, making new ground in the world of contracts.
It is a unilateral agreement, just like the "if you open this, you agree to our terms" mentality.
It is NOT a binding contract, since until you open, install and read, you cannot have a meeting of the minds necessary to a valid contract. Wishful thinking to many. NOT a binding Contract.
I am not a lawyer, but I was not born yesterday either. Five elements of a contract are :
The contract must be for legal purposes
The partied must be of sound mind and able to enter into the agreement
The terms must be available before the contract can be entered into.
There has to be an understanding BEFORE the contract can become "real"
There has to be consideration for both parties
EULA's and shrink-wrapped contracts fail on two of these points.
The 'Catch 22' effect is in full force. You cannot know exactly what you
are agreeing to unless you open the package. I say shoot anyone who tried
to enforce this stuff, and the lawyers who believe this crap.
Plus many KIDS click YES
Personally, I'm disappointed that companies keep calling me and treating me like just a "user".
More of them would get my business if they actually treated me like a member.
Here is an excellent talk from TED making the same point about the rules and the humanity of business:
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/barry_schwartz_on_our_loss_of_wisdom.html
...but this is simply asinine.
If you make your cat click an agreement, you are clicking the agreement. It's no different than putting on a pair of gloves and clicking the agreement. Do you honestly believe that the "It wasn't me, it was the gloves" defense would hold up in court?!
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
Does anyone know of a case where a company has successfully enforced a EULA?
Think Deeply.
...followed by "Delete."
Does anyone remember the cartoon "Freakazoid"?
If it hadn't been for the cat..
Copy the CD, usually the file with EULA is in EULA.TXT or similar in a directory. Change it. Reburn. Install. IF the CD/DVD is required in the drive, put the original when needed. All my EULA says something like "AEPERVIUS RULEZ" when i agree on them.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
This is not news! I have a mouse that has been accepting EULAs for years!
I've been doing that for years...Yeah, that's it...I've been doing it ever since the first click-through EULA. Yeah, and I carry my cat with me everywhere just in case I ever need to download software.
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 can haz EULA?
I wouldn't want my cat being petted by those gigantic, thick hands.
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.
...she doesn't have to use force.
...the argument which is stated in above comments frequently, is that since the device was created to allow the cat to accept the EULA, that it's giving the cat permission to act in your behalf (or however you want to state "allowing it to be tracked back to you").
This may be true. However, what if the cat just randomly walks across your keyboard and hits the correct button without any direct help? It seems to me that the above situation would discount that argument (even though I'm sure lawyers could find something else, obviously).
"Intelligence has nothing to do with politics!"
-Londo Mollari
If only there was some way to mould the contents of a cat box into the words "I Agree" or "I Don't Agree" and mail them to the company behind a particular EULA. Probably illegal to ship through the mail, however.
Legally cats are objects, under your same responsibility as other objects. You might as well build a machine to automatically agree to EULAs, that would be just as if you agreed yourself. When's the last time blaming the dog (or the cat) worked for you anyways?
You just got troll'd!
Just say it was the cat, who'll ever know you just committed perjury? Besides, my cat just tacitly agrees with everything I say.
My cat can refuse the Vista EULA, format the hard drive, install debian, and launch a lawsuit to get the money back for the useless OEM-Vista sticker. Not yours.
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?
... THEIR cat typed @[=g3,8d]\&fbb=-q]/hk%fg followed by DELETE...
Awwwww... FREAK OUT!
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?
Do they have your signature, do they have a spoken contract, do they even have any communication of acceptance? No, but they don't seem think a judge will require any evidence of agreement before holding you to page after page of "boilerplate" mixed with "gotcha" legalese.
Did they already take your money and give you your product before even showing you a EULA? Yes, but they don't seem think a judge will care about "first sale" doctrine when deciding how valid that EULA is.
Does the EULA offer you any new rights beyond what copyright already allows you to do? Does it offer anything of value in exchange for what they claim you're voluntarily giving away? Usually no, but they don't think judges will bother worrying about "consideration" anyway.
Are they trying to disable the advertised features of their product until and unless you agree to additional terms made after the sale? Yes, but they seem confident that a judge won't invalidate terms agreed to under duress.
And up until now, legal challenges looked like they could go either way. But what if we used a cat? That's foolproof! Surely if a cat clicked the button, no judge would possibly enforce that EULA! That's been clear since Plessy v. Whiskers! Case dismissed!
If you've seen the movie Untracable, this rings a bell. This seems to be working on the idea that the "bad guy" in the movie is infact innocent. Now, I don't know about you, but that's not personally how I feel.
If I manufactured a way to get a cat to fire a gun, aimed the gun at someone (Tab to the ok button), and got the cat to fire the gun, I can't see me being considered innocent, and I certainly don't think I should be considered innocent.
Although, where you draw the line is certainly iffy. I'm not quite sure where I stand on this. The way I see it, either a) People are responsible for what they agree to but don't read. They are lazy, and so get shafted b) Some sort of regulation in what rights people can sign away.
No matter how difficult you make it to accept a EULA, you can't force people to read it, and it's always going to be possible for people to accept without reading. But you can't really ban contracts... Maybe some sort of iffy misinterpretable law about obscuvation of contracts?
-- All your booze are belong to us.
Get a bottle of tequila. Drink at least a quarter of the bottle. Take pictures or a BAC test or get witnesses or something so you can later prove you were hammered. Click "I agree." You can't be bound by a contract you sign while inebriated, so you didn't really agree. Much cheaper than cats in the long run; no need to worry about feeding and cleaning litter boxes and cuddling and such. Plus getting drunk is fun!
Since he seems to want to own everything that ever was, and ever will be, in the Internet, he might as well have your bloody EULA as well.
It's real easy, just set a fake email account with one of the many aliases that Mark Zuckerberg is known to use, and sign it with that. Note, this list is not exhaustive:
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
I'm no lawyer, but if you do find you need to defend yourself in court becuase of a broken eula situation and you used your cat, seems like it would be a simple matter for the other side to argue that the cat acted as your agent, making you fully responsible for breaking the thing. So when your cat acts on your behalf heed the James Bond music in the background of your head, laugh, and prepare for the suite, I guess.
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
That if you use the software, you're agreeing to the terms of the EULA. So your cat can click all it wants to during the install process, but if you ever use the program, you're agreeing to the terms. It just doesn't prompt you every time you fire it up.
The Cat WILL tread on it at some point.
No need for coercion. Just time.
A cat is property, not an individual. Animal law has been quite unsuccessful in breaking out of that mold.
Really? That's funny, because the proliferation of bullshit services like doggie spas, animal medical insurance(take your "property" for shots lately? shit ain't cheap), and FULL burial services (to include certain not-so-bright individuals willing all their monetary possessions to Fluffy), all kind of make me think otherwise.
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.
Looks more to me like you've manifested an intent to defraud, obtaining the use of the software and its benefits without holding up your end of the ELUA's alleged bargain.
Courts have methods for dealing with THAT, too. Starting with holding you to your end of the contract and escalating drastically from there.
Tell them that your cat clicked the agreement on a device you built for the purpose and you're convicted from your own mouth.
(Of course IANAL and the legal system is FULL of surprises, even for people who AAL.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
What's this, the "Cat ate my homework" defense?
My school teachers didn't accept that one, and I'd bet the judge won't, either...
Still, pretty funny.
There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
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.
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.
The cat does not take action without the human intervention. It does not matter the process it still comes down to if the human makes a specific action and it guarantees one particular response than the human made the decision. If the cat has the ability to click no and the same action or sets of action can lead to the cat taking either option then I would say it was not the human's will.
Click enter with your penis or, so I'm not accused of being an insensitive clod, a stylus gripped betwixt the vulva. Be sure to photograph the event and keep this evidence with your important papers. If your face isn't in the picture be prepared to sign an affidavit that those are your genitalia.
... with your junk. Be sure to bring the matter of how you signed the EULA up at every opportunity. At some point everyone involved is going to want to stop the proceedings out of a desire to be far, far away from you.
If the EULA becomes a problem so that the courts become involved just the submit this evidence during discovery as proof that you did agree to the EULA
The idea is to disgust the opposition until they give up whatever compensation they were looking to get. You might make it not worth it to sue you (and your goodies).
Can I use a robot cat?
As has been discussed here very recently, this is yet another case of poorly socialized nerds fantasizing that there is some kind of perfect "legal hack" that will instantaneously invalidate decades of case law. It ain't so.
The "unsecured wireless AP" defense won't work. The "I just put software that I own on a server, I never made copies" defense won't work. The "I didn't do what I was required to do so the EULA doesn't apply to me" defense won't work.
Similarly, the "that bag of cocaine isn't mine, I've never seen it before" defense is continually tested and honed in thousands of jurisdictions around America, but it still doesn't work.
Breakfast served all day!
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
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.
Experiment:
1. A second cat button is added to allow one to reject the EULA.
2. The cat and the buttons are in a box where no one can see.
3. The monitor is shut off when the EULA is displayed.
4. Box is shaken or otherwise agitated for about a minute.
5. Your monitor is turn on and the software may or may not work. (repeat from step 3 if EULA still displays)
6. Use the software or dont, but we will never know whether the EULA was ever agreed to or not.
Note: this provides working software about half the time. I can show you a complex formula that statistically matches this probability perfectly, but a working model for the underlying reality is out of reach using current scientific understanding.
Usage of the software constitutes acceptance of the EULA. Displaying it during install is a formality. Have your cat, drunk underage neighbor, automated device or whatever click "I Agree" all day long. But as whenever you're using the software, you're agreeing to the terms.
Fuck the system !
Do you honestly believe that the "It wasn't me, it was the gloves" defense would hold up in court?!
"If the glove doesn't fit you must acquit"?
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
My cat watched those FBI warnings at the beginning of movies as well.
Posted anonymously of course...
Why is it I have mod points when everything good is already at +5, and everything stupid is already at -1, but when something good is at 1 or 2, I don't have mod points? Damn moderation system, why aren't you reading my mind? Slashdot has been around for how long now, and it still doesn't do that one little thing?
Step 1: Build Mind reader
Step 2: Profit!
See how easy that was?
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").
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
I thought that if you allowed the software to be installed on your machine, you were supposedly responsible for the EULA (whether or not you had actually read the thing).
Which is why, in my early training, I was encouraged to actually let the end user read the license when I installed the software.
Also, if programming a button that your cat can step on to click accept would absolve you of responsibility, then why not just write a randomized script that clicks yes or doesn't?
(Oh, but you'd have to run it until it clicked yes in order to install the software. Just like you'd have to coax the cat to step on the button. So you'd still be responsible for that "random" action, wouldn't you?)
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
and it holds up in court. Then they are going to go after you for piracy, because the cat didn't give you permission to use the software.
I'd be willing to bet this article is a joke. Taco, kdawson, timothy and the rest of them had a bet, to see if we'd actually read and discuss the article.
Now they're all sitting around, smoking cigars and belly laughing, contemplating when the circle jerk is going to begin. 'Cos it turns out they win, and we lose.
Shit, I'm embarrased I even clicked on the article. 200 Comments? Christ, we should collectively have a word with ourselves, cos this is ridiculous.
This isn't a story, it's not news, it fuckin retarded, end of...
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.
Then only your cat can use the software. You are welcome to use it when YOU accept the EULA, too.
It'll make them laugh at how naive you are... Now where was that link to the "You Are Not a Lawyer!" column?
... there was comp.unix.shell usenet group. And there was weekly award for "most useless use of cat(1)". Although it is about unix cat command, not about real furry creatures, this article deserves such award.
IANAL, but I am a law student. The standard isn't a signature, it's an objectively interpreted manifestation of assent. So yes, by getting your cat to step on the mouse button, you are (yourself) manifesting agreement.
This is not to say that I don't think EULAs suck etc...
IANAL
YANAL
GTFO
If a minor or invalid accepts a EULA doesn't the legal responsibility fall to the legal guardian? Thus applies to pets?
After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
An anonymous peer-to-peer EULA-accepting client! Maybe it could make screencap vids and records your specifically stating that you DO NOT ACCEPT THE EULA.
"You know you're narcissistic when you quote yourself in your sigs." -- PRoPAiN!
There is no way to prove who hit the OK button or how they did it. If you show a judge that your cat is capable of hitting the button that does not prove that your cat actually did it. This development, unfortunately, changes nothing.
If you are the legal guardian of your kid, you can be held legally responsible for his/her actions.
Same with the cat, presumably.
> What if someone bypassed the EULA entirely (e.g. hacking the installer so that "I Decline" still continues).
The court simply decides on a common-sense basis whether or not you accepted the law. The crazier the scheme you set up for the sole purpose of avoiding the EULA, the more likely they are to bind you to its terms (even if those terms are absurd). I believe there has already been one case not unlike this where someone was bound to the terms because they should've known about them.
If you really want out of a EULA, at least make your scheme simple and believable. "The kid installed it, and I never saw that EULA!" is probably one of the better ones (contracts by minors are voidable [but not void] unless they're contracting for "essentials" like rent or food or something). But even with that, you're better off to make sure that the kid bought it with his own money, or if it's a computer, that he/she set it up for you.
If you knew or should've known about the EULA, they'll probably enforce it. If it's obvious to them that you're trying to avoid the EULA, they're more likely to punish you by making you abide by it.
This is what puts "tard" in the "freetard".
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
31578.^,opmo,piuhyrsqwz#
(cat walks on keyboard)
Having users sign on the dotted line before they fork over their money is great in theory. Now all you have to do is make sure the language of the contract is something an ordinary adult would understand.
Practically speaking, it's only useful for high-end/high-dollar contracts. Nobody is going to spend the time in the store reading through - or not reading through - and signing a separate agreement for every piece of software they buy. Online users aren't going to put up with that before checkout. Some will say "forget this, I don't need this software" and others will turn to piracy just to save the aggravation.
What America needs are some standardized, common-sense "don't copy this" rules that basically say "treat this like a book, only 1 installed use at a time, and don't share the media or copies of the media with people outside your household/family/business" or something similar that fits in 2 or 3 lines of normal-sized type.
Similar, short-enough-to-understand, clauses should be written for things like "not liable for lost data," "we store information on our servers, and here's how we protect it," etc. for those applications which need them.
Business- and organization-level licenses can be more complicated.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
A third party may not convey a covered work if you are in an arrangement with said third party to receive stroking, food, or other incentives in exchange for undertaking the activity of conveying.
Definitions:
To "convey" a work means any kind of propagation that enables other parties to make or receive copies. Propagations includes copying, distribution, making available to the public, or building an input device to invoke the help of one or several members of another species to do so.
It runs Linux!
So if I hooked up a large pad that was effectively a clicker, and laid it out on my grass. Later when J. Random Dogwalker went by and stopped to let his dog take a dump on my lawn again..
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?
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.
That argument might be tough depending on where you are in light of ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg , 86 F.ed 1447 (7th Cir., 1996). That court upheld a "shrinkwrap license" (aka EULA), on the grounds that the box notified the user that there was a license which must be agreed to before the product could be used. In other words, it was part of the terms of sale that you would have to accept the license.
The court also noted that warranties shipped in a box, sight unseen, are honored by every state (as opposed to the default UCC warranty when none is expressed), notes that the UCC allows sellers to come up with other terms of contract acceptance other than just buying the box (citing UCC 2-204(1)), and notes that a customer is free to return a product whose terms are unacceptable (with the kind of funny scenario of a box that has a surprise message saying "you now owe us an extra $10,000" which a customer can refuse by returning the product).
Full text of the decision, if you're interested. Courts are very split on whether to follow this decision or not.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Cue the resurrection of the fabled "skill testing question" to determine competence to understand a legal agreement.
Parity: What to do when the weekend comes.
Now *that* would be news.
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.
Agree to these terms?
[No. Take me away.]
[Yes, absolutely.]
[I have no choice but to agree to these draconian terms, so yes.]
I worked for an IT department for a while and was often installing software on the employees machine. Installing usually occurred when the employee wasn't working so they were never physically there to agree to the EULA. I mean who then would be responsible. Its my job to install the software so I could be viewed as being forced to agree to the EULA and the person using the computer never sees the EULA. The current contract method shouldn't even stand up in court since no one witnessed you signing it. Maybe they will start forcing you agree to it while send them a record over the internet of you doing it. Making you do it every time the program starts would also help...
This thought has crossed my mind in the past.
A simpler solution would be to just close your eyes and look away and click like a mad man. "Hey... I didn't knowingly click the accept button on the end-user no rights agreement!"
she snarled, hissed, then peed on it
if it's through a hole in a sheet.
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...
Fully 75% of all comments in this thread make a very, very loud "whooshing" sound. People take themselves WAY too seriously.
I only post comments when someone on the internet is wrong.
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
Comment removed based on user account deletion
My cat's name is Eula, so now I'm really confused. This cat and mouse game must stop!
Say hello to my little sig.
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
Reading a public web posting and running somebody's code are different things entirely.
If 1/4 of a standard 750 ml bottle of tequila gets you drunk, you're featherweight.
The court, in addition, noted the ability to and "the opportunity to return goods can be important" under the UCC.
So what if there is no means to reasonably return the product? Online downloads, and companies that won't refund your money for purchased software that's been opened.
That case appears to have dealt with some very specific issues, not the idea of the EULA in and of it's self.
Mostly dealing with reselling someone data.
In fact, it hinged on UCC 2-606; which is about inspection, not EULA's.
Wikipedia says this:
The issue presented to the court was whether a shrink wrap license was valid and enforceable.
that's not really correct, it should say:
The issue presented to the court was whether this shrink wrap license was valid and enforceable under these specifications.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I don't have to entice my cat to click anything. She does it all the time on her own.
Damn annoying cats.
I believe in the UK you cannot be held legally responsible for anything your cat does. Cats, unlike dogs, are officially considered to be quite beyond the control of a mere human. How would that place this lady legally?
PS : I did enjoy her essay about liking babies.
The phrase "I Accept" has become the internationally recognized slang for "GET LOST YOU SLIMY CREEP".
Tell me honestly, have you _ever_ clicked on an "I Accept" button with the intent in your mind to be bound to every term (of which you are lucidly aware) of an EULA?
No. You didn't.
The thought uppermost in you mind at the time of going "Click" was one of...
So that's it. Somebody create an web site explaining what the phrase "I Accept" means. (You can reference several of my posts on slashdot and the like).
Then somebody else can create a Wikipedia entry referencing the other web site.
Wait a few months until it makes it's way into the latest dictionaries and the like.
And there you have it. In court you say, "But didn't you know, the commonly accepted meaning of "I Accept" is "GET LOST", see here in this dictionary of common usage, and I really really did mean that when I clicked on that button.
So, I should get my cat drunk before getting it to click on the EULA?
It might get me out of the EULA, but then PETA will be all over my ass.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Why cant I just click next when I put a DVD in to watch in stead of having to sit on the "do not pirate" screen. I'd love to have my cat hit next.
The publisher doesn't know whether the cat clicked agree or disagree. They don't even know if the cat clicked anything at all, or was ever inside the box in the first place.
Even quantum physics is less messy and more intuitive, than the pro-EULA faction's arguments.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
I think that's called the Reiser defense.
(sorry, it had to be said)
Seriously, a 2 year old could come up with a better argument.
I think this is the definiton of a slashtard lawyer.
They why do we have gun laws? Guns don't kill people, just like pens don't sign contracts. People kill people, like people sign contracts. Maybe we need more laws against people and less laws against guns. And nuclear weapons don't kill people either... Only people can kill people.
So why can't I have a nuclear weapon?
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
If you don't agree to the EULA, you don't have a license. Without a license, you are just infringing. This is just stupid.
Mumumu MMMONSTER KILL!
How much is your data worth? Back it up now.
Using the cat is way too complicated. By purchasing the software you have the right to use it. Which includes the right to install it on your own c computer. So just read the license, so "no fraking way I agree to that crap!" and click okay.
A click-thru license is a barrier to your existing right of use, and so is invalid. Clicking through is not assent. Ditto for shrink-wrap. Any license that does not present its terms to me BEFORE the sale is bogus. The claim that "you're only buying the right to agree to a license" is bullshit.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
I'm cat, and I'm fouranahalf
I regularly use software with EULAs to which somebody else has agreed.
Does that mean I would be eligable to sue the company for something which the EULA-clicker supposedly no longer has the right to do?
And does it make a difference as to who owns the hardware? (i.e. sysadmin agreeing on a university computer, compared to a cat agreeing to something running on my hardware).
Everybody here, EVERYBODY, has done something 'illegal' with their computer at some point. Chances are, everybody in the West with a computer is a criminal.
It might even be safe to say that everybody in the West is a criminal, computer or no.
When a society gets to that point, certain events are generally predicted.
And hey, we're seeing them.
But that's okay. When the smoke fades and the dust settles, I believe we're due for the invention of warp drive.
-FL
I guess it's better to get your cat drunk and then make it use the device - let the lawyers earn their money
If you have no cat, I would recommend creating a contraption involving Lego Mindstorms and a Camera. You press a button, and the contraption rolls a pair of dice five times. If it ever rolls an even number, it presses the "accept" button. (Statistical probability is in your favor.) Furthermore, program it to recognize a EULA window so it starts automatically when one comes up.
I'd love to see the case of "Sony Corp. vs FATE".
Just sprinkle catnip on the input device.
I bet she's disabling the device at other times making it not-so-random.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
now they will start to put captchas on EULA to make sure a cat or robot (I am sure some Slashdot readers know how to build a robot to push the OK button) doesn't just press the button and a person able to type the captcha and then press the OK button.
I am sure that parents will ask their child to come over and click the "OK" or "I AGREE" button because a contract is not valid if a minor signs it.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
If you configured it to never send any completed file (although file fragments would work), did you actually upload a copyrighted work?
Not that I'd care to try it myself, but it's something I've wondered.
I suppose it's still "contributing" one way or the other?
Well, my religion (Kilgore Troutism) specifically prohibits me from entering into agreements, and Bingo Himself tells us (in the marvelous Sermon From The Bar At The End Of The Universe) that "whosever entereth into one, yea, it shall be as if a sword were held to his child's head". So I'm pretty sure that I can get away with it. And, if I can't, I can always go into a deranged religious kill-frenzy. So using a cat would be overkill.
(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.
sgm,jty?_+;'pusy6a1
( My cat )
pusy? hmmmmm
Bitcoin pyramid: Join here: http://www.bitcoinpyramid.com/r/1427 it's FREE!
Um, no. In all of these cases, you've created a situation where you intend that an on-screen button will be pressed on your behalf. And, you've gone to extremely elaborate lengths to do so. The more elaborate and carefully reasoned the setup, the clearer it becomes that you are deliberately causing the button to be pressed.
And all of this for nothing. Because, suppose if we granted your argument that you did not agree to the terms of the EULA, but rather, it was a random accident, causally unrelated to anything you did, that the "Accept" button got clicked. Well, in that case, you don't have permission to use that copy of the software. So if your argument was right, you'd have gone to extreme lengths to achieve exactly nothing.
Are you adequate?
Well since EULAs have no legal standing whatsoever within the realm of my own property, I don't really need to buy a cat for software I install on my own machine.
Hack the installer such that you do not need to agree to the EULA to install the software. There is no license agreement to run the installer, so you have not violated any EULAs. Also, as your hacking did not remove any device (or code) which prevents illegal distribution, you have not violated the DMCA.
it is only after a long journey that you know the strength of the horse.
It's instructive to pause and think a bit about why those defenses don't work. It largely comes down to the following: the legal system is designed to deal with unforeseen circumstances in a case-by-case manner as they arise, and adjudicate them according to some good general rules of thumb that have been passed down from previous cases that are analogous to the present one. This is very much unlike software, where the machine, confronted with a circumstance the programmer did not anticipate, will blindly and unreflectively apply the rules it's been given, in a completely literal fashion.
Are you adequate?
but I haven't got a cat.
Let's grant that this works, for the sake of argument. The company is taking action against you in a court, you argue that you did not agree to the EULA on these grounds, and your argument is accepted. What comes next?
Well, this case is analogous to you taking some goods or service from somebody on the mistaken belief that they were giving it away for free. If all parties agree that you mistakenly and reasonably believed the goods or servie was being given away, all that shows is that you didn't steal (since you had no mens rea). You still did take something from them without their permission, and may still be liable for that. Probable outcome: you return the goods, or pay them for the service, and the matter is dropped.
So in the case where your EULA argument somehow worked, the best you could get away with is the vendor agreeing to drop the matter if you surrender all of your copies of their software.
Are you adequate?
Regardless of who or what clicks "I Agree", the first paragraph of most EULA's happen to state that by using the software you agree to the EULA. I would be willing to bet courts would find you have agreed to the EULA by using the software when the EULA says you agree to it by using the software.
not rational autonomy
Otherwise, if you're willing to click through it (or get your cat to click through it on your behalf) then it doesn't bother you all that much.
The big advantage of a dial-up connection is the agree button lights up before the contract text is displayed.
My cat just upchucked a hairball on the keyboard and walked away.
Have gnu, will travel.
This is kind of cute, but not really...
The person shows the elaborate process they go through to get the key pressed. I mean, if you were a paraplegic typing with a pencil stuck up your nose - you're still hitting the key. Or is the pen hitting the key? What if you white out just the key you need to hit so you can claim you knowingly hit it, but it wasn't marked.
I mean, cummon. This isn't worthy of slashdot. This is really lame.
Ace
I'm not trying to be tricky, but if someone asks a legal question on Slashdot about some true-to-life situation, people offer advice, but it generally comes down to "We are not lawyers, so don't try to act like one".
I find that sound advice.
And then, people are expected to react to EULAs and understand the legal ramifications (which they cannot possibly do) and a simple clicking of "I AGREE" is a commonplace thing to do, and I've never heard anyone seriously suggest that you should take the EULA to a lawyer to fully understand it.
Something strikes me as wrong about that those situations, but I can't articulate exactly what.
DEFIANTLY
I used to do sysadmin work for a law firm, some of it when I was a minor. Out of an abundance of caution, I asked about accepting EULAs when prompted by patches and service packs, and was told not to worry about it, since there was no way they could enforce additional terms beyond the original EULA as a condition of fixing a defective product.
A contract requires a meeting of the minds. A signature on paper or a click on a form might be an indicator of this, but it's pretty obvious when someone's installing a security patch during a massive worm outbreak that license terms are the furthest thing from their mind.
(This is, of course, not legal advice.)
Real genius ...
... Buying the media consitutes a transfer of ownership: which is to say that whoemever publishes media x upon transfer of ownership through selling it to you no longer has say over them.
Now I'm not a lawyer, but to me it would seem that this implies you can do with the media whatever your want as long as you remain within copyright law.
I'm on your keyboard agreein' to yer yoolas.
I had this idea years ago. Cats so want to walk on your keyboard anyway.
You all sound like a room full of nerds.
Since I dunno if you are sarcastic: To do an Own copy is fair use and authorized, even in the US, as long as you don't redistribute the original without destroying the copy, and as long as you don't redistribute the copy. Naturally content holder want YOU to think this is not authorized to do *any* copy. Not so. Anyway in the case above, there would be a good argument to be done that it is simply a contract renegotiation, and since the install software accepted the modified EULA, the negoziation was sucessfuly accepted on the software maker side :).
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
I mean, seriously. Why?
I have a typical Desktop setup, and the roll-out keyboard drawer is at about lap level. I have a cat, who likes to lay on my lap, even while I'm on the computer. Usually he manages to hit the space bar, due to its size and location on the keyboard, getting on my nerves. If I really wanted to do something as stupid as have my cat "agree" for me, all I'd have to do is enter the screen where you have to hit "I Agree" when he gets up on my lap (since almost every time he does hit the key).
Really though, I don't see what the point would be in doing that. I used to click "Agree," not just because I agreed with it (if I could even understand it), but because I never gave a damn what they were going on and on about in the license. You have to "agree," whether you actually do or not, just to be able to *use* something you just paid money for at the store. Yeah, so I lie (or at least go arish), just to be able to use something that I paid for. So what. Like they're going to go through all their "agreed" customers and make sure they were really sincere.
These days, I use open source operating systems and software, and thankfully don't have to put up with "Agree or Cancel" all the time. It's a nice change, and when on Windows installing the programs I used to use, I constantly am reminded at how stupid it is to have to click "agree" to install just about anything, all the way down to the OS itself (which, quite frankly, is disgusting on its own).
The correct answer is that the enforceability of a EULA depends on the Sale of Goods Act (or its equivalent) of your state/country.
In Germany and Alberta (dunno about other places), a EULA is not worth the paper it isn't printed on. You bought it, so it is yours.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
There must be life on Mars.
Because no one on this world is going to believe that little Molly installed the $2500 retail-boxed CS4 Newegg delivered to your door last week.
God help you if you try to get her testimony on record.
She will in absolute innocence sink your case in an instant with an inconvenient and embarrassing truth.
The kid was simply your tool -
and what that says about you isn't very pretty.
The geek concocts ridiculous - and self-destructive - schemes that fail the simplest tests of logic and experience.
"Silly computer nerds, they think they can circumvent a legal issue with a techical approach."
*snigger* *snigger*
Im going to get my cat to click that I agree to the GPL when I install GPL software.
Oh crap, not so funny when YOUR license is being ignored is it?
If the patent application says anything other than "Contempt of Court Generator," there was a mistake.
And should be.
If it had been a stun gun or foghorn to disable, then that is OK.
But what if a mate comes home drunk and uses the wrong door?
"Reckless endangerment" I think it is called in the US.
That would account for some anomalous recent election results. We've been asking ourselves, "What kind of electorate would choose XXXX to run their affairs?" If you postulate that the decision was actually made by the nation's pets, the outcome suddenly makes more sense.
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
Say it belongs to the pirate (just like this DVD is licensed not sold...) and that you have a license since you agreed to the EULA to use it. You do not attempt to say you *own* it.
"Anne Loucks built a device which, when her cat steps on it, they 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? Do they need to be of legal age? She lures them onto the device, and they step on it of their own free will. Anyway, folks who hate EULAs now have another tool to make the lawyers freak out."
Promote true freedom - support standards and interoperability.
Why not modify the installer to install even if you click Decline (maybe even get it to say "OK, we changed our minds, your licence is unconditional."). Or perhaps get the installer to display a different agreement.
Excuse for why is your room always messy?
A person who buys some software usually has to install it. Installing software is a complicated process, where you have to click various boxes, sometimes type things into a window, etc. Sometimes this is straightforward, sometimes it is somewhat complicated and requires several tries. However, there is no actual need to read any of the installation guidance that is presented to you while you install the software, just click on the correct buttons.
I wouldn't know if there was any sort of license agreement presented to me; I just click buttons until the software is installed. It's a process with no agreement to anything to get to the end, just telling the computer how to install the software.
/beats a dead horse...
The main point I keep seeing echoed over and over again in these comments:
Cat is an instrument and, by coercing said instrument into accepting the ToS you are not bound by them. That's like saying if someone opens the door to the car for me when I get in and/or starts the car for me, I'm not responsible for driving recklessly and crashing it into the bank.
If you continue to use the service while fully aware of its terms of usage, you should be bound by it.
My sister found that her cat likes the iPhone touch screen. She saw the phone was calling a friend, and when she touched the cancel button, the cat knocked her hand away with its paw. It seems the cast noticed that when he touches the screen, the colors change, and it is his new toy. This explains some of those midnight calls from 'sis
what about sealing the whole setup (includinng cat) in a box. And ensure that there's an exactly 50% chance of the button being pressed. That way the EULA has been accepted and not accepted at the same time until you open the box.
Here's another area where geeks have a basic misunderstanding of the law, which reminds me of that vapid and stupid article recently posted to slashdot that didn't contain much useful info.
In any event, most of the posts here about EULA's not presenting a "meeting of the minds" is nonsense. If you're even a moderately sophisticated computer user, you should be familiar with software licensing. The fundamental misunderstanding that geeks (and many non-geeks) have is what they are actually buying when they buy software. You're not buying a disk, or code, or even software, in most cases. You're buying a license to use someone else's intellectual property. The license agreement, unsurprisingly, is documented in the EULA.
The click-through isn't looking for your agreement, really (even though that's what it says), what it is really doing is making sure you know about the license agreement. You agree to it just by using the software, so long as you know the EULA exists. And if you're a moderately sophisticated computer user, you likely know one exists even if you haven't seen the click-through. This set-up makes a lot of sense, too, because you've got a choice here: either use the software under the terms offered by the seller, or return it for a refund.
Now you don't get to modify a EULA, or impose one on the seller. That's not how it works because it's their property you're using. If you don't agree to the EULA, you can't use the software, but you've got a right to get your money back. You don't have a right to use the software and disgregard what the property owner wants, nor do you have a right to impose your will in some retarded manner on the owner of the software. So sorry, this cat trick isn't going work, and no lawyer is going to sweat over it. Nor is your silly text file left in the root directory.
A more justified case of "OMG user rights being violated!" would be if someone tried to get a refund after refusing to accept the license, and not getting one. But that's a lot more boring, I suppose, than cats accepting EULA's.
and btw, IAAL
What if you used Schrödinger's lolcat?
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
My cat used to have a Hotmail account (and even though it no longer works, she still sits on my computer chair at night hoping to read her email.) However, when she applied for it, she put in her correct birthdate and species. A few years later, due to some child-protection laws, Hotmail put in a policy about "No children under 13 can have accounts", and since they weren't adjusting ages for Cat Years, they closed her account. I could have gotten it reinstated, but I'd have had to give them a credit card number, and she'd have just gone wild on eBay ordering fish by mail order, so that wasn't going to happen.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
... still had vacuum tubes and punchcards. (Actually, I was probably 15 by then.) We were allowed to do anything we wanted with the punchcards and the paper drive tape, but only a couple of adults were allowed to rewire the plugboard on the side that had the core program installed on it.
It was an IBM 403 printer system, plus we could program drum cards for the Model 026 keypunch and do anything we wanted on the card sorter...
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
I know I'll get modded down for this, but yes but no but yes but no but corporations are bad and illegal anyway!
And it's not fair! And I dont care what the law says, it doesn't agree with me, and (I know I'll get modded down for this ) but anyway my idea to click the button is actually 100% watertight because I took law 101 three times so I should know.
I know I'll get modded down for this, but from my parent's basement in Wisconsin, I stab at thee!
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
What if I used Schroedinger's cat? Then it would be unknown whether the EULA was accepted or not, right?
In case it isn't clear in context, steps 1-4 are the premise (explanatory background information) and steps 5-7 are the actual actions among the three parties (execution).
And so might you. The point of EULA's isn't only to bind you to their terms, it is also to inform you about the bad things they will do to you such as abusing your personal information, stealing your PC's CPU cycles and bandwidth, bombarding you with advertisements, etc.
Disney got out of paying something like $8 million to the cat who starred in THE CAT FROM OUTER SPACE. Because a cat can't sign a contract, lol.