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
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.
Just sign the EULA, pussy
Tell me about it. EULAs are retarded.
Unless they practice law
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").
"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
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.
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.
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).
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
This is not news! I have a mouse that has been accepting EULAs for years!
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?
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 CAN HAS LAWSUIT?
A mandatory LOLCATization of a picture in the article - LOLCAT conversion complete
Face your daemons!
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
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!
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!
There are plenty of cases in which EULAs have been enforced so you should probably stop spreading this crap. The only portions of them that have been struck down are those provisions that wouldn't be allowed in any contract.
Contracts without signatures are commonplace and legally accepted as enforceable today - I haven't physically signed a contract or agreement for a mobile phone, bank loan, credit card or overdraft in 5 or 6 years, its all been 'I accept' on a web page. Tell the banks that those aren't legally enforcable and you will get laughed at.
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.
Only slightly better legal advice than "Don't like your girlfriend? Tie the knife to a dachshund and call it an animal attack."
"Anyone who attempts to generate random numbers by deterministic means is living in a state of sin." -- John von Neumann
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.
i'm in ur EULA remoovin' ur liability
You can fool some of the people all of the time
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
There are others but this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProCD_v._Zeidenberg is the landmark case. There is also a Gateway case that upheld the EULA.
Here you go:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=EULA+upheld+in+court
You can always get drunk...most contracts aren't enforceable if one party is incapacitated.
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
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?
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.
You mean you aren't already drunk before you get there? Ur doin' it wrong.
Rather than moderate, I'll point out that it was $50,000 rather than $100.
Res publica non dominetur
Ok, then it points out the absurdity of a contract that has no interactivity at all. It's less than oral, written, or even twittered. There isn't even a handshake, not even a metaphorical one. Zero communication occurs. The person offering the contract can't even informally attest that they received the slightest hint about whether the other party said Yes or No.
Accept the contract. Reject the contract. How does the other party know what you did?
How would that Texaco vs. Pennzoil case have gone, if instead of a handshake deal, Getty Oil had mailed their offer to Pennzoil, never got any reply at all, and then assumed that if they hadn't heard the offer was rejected, then it must have been accepted?
A shrinkwrap EULA is even less than what we normally think of as a take-it-or-leave-it contract of adhesion. It gets even more warped in the usual case where bought the software from a third party (retail store, Amazon, etc). You've never even accepted any goods from the publisher; your deal was with a reseller. Suppose your reply (uncommunicated, of course) to the take-it-or-leave-it offer is that you leave it. What happens? You still have the objectc that you bought from Amazon, and they're sure not asking for it back.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Erm ... that's not even close to what Lucy was about. Lucy had little to do with intoxication. Straight from the op. Ct., "In was in fact conceded by defendants' counsel in oral argument that under the evidence Zehmer was not too drunk to make a valid contract."
Lucy revolved around whether the contract was valid based on "outward expression" rather than secret intent. Zehmer claimed he was "joking", despite talking for months about it, despite writing it down, despite getting his wife to co-sign it. The Court found that Lucy entered into the contract in good faith. If this contract weren't valid, how could any reasonable person want to enter into a contract ever without mind-reading capabilities?
And that's why Lucy is taught in every contract law intro class.
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!