Slashdot Mirror
Doctorow Suggests Simple EULA Solution
Cory Doctorow, writing for the Guardian, has suggested an easy way for EULAs to become more user-friendly and less of a legal quagmire. He recommends reducing agreements for games, music, and ebooks to simply: "Don't violate copyright law." Quoting:
"'Don't violate copyright law' has a lot going for it, but the best thing about it is what it signals to the purchaser, namely: 'You are not about to get screwed.' The copyright wars have produced some odd and funny outcomes, but I think the oddest was when the record industry began to campaign for more copyright education on the grounds that young people were growing up without the moral sensibility that they need to become functional members of society. ... it's not the entertainment industry's job to tell me what are and are not fair terms of sale for my downloads. If loaning an MP3 should be illegal, let them get a law passed (they're apparently good at that — the fact that they haven't managed it to date should tell you something about the reasonableness of the proposition)."
There are two main problems with EULAs.
1. You need a lawyer to interpret them correctly.
2. They generally have over-reaching and sometimes illegal demands.
Cory's idea would go a long way towards making these problems go away.
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
Exactly how is this different from not having a EULA at all? The whole point of a EULA is an attempt to restrict what the user can do with their software. This is like saying that L.A. can solve it's murder problems by simply having murderers not murder people any more.
Surely any content I create with an application belongs to me, so what about all those programs and websites that claim it belongs to them in their own EULAs?
"Don't break Copyright Law. That's our job"?
+1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
Make all forms of EULAs, DRM, invasive copy protection etc illegal. It's gotten to the point where I want to pirate to avoid that kind of crap that is invasive to my privacy. Unless they stop treating me like a criminal, stop treating all who wants to legally buy their wares as criminals, I don't want to hear them whine about piracy. They are the bigger of two problems for sure!
That being said, the DRM and hassle free services out there that do exist I like and applaud. I am going to refrain from naming any of them, you know who they are. And the final twist? I buy media and software from them but noone else!
for your doctor to be named "Ow"?
"Don't steal music"
It's subtle, but it gets the word out. Whether people grasp to it or not is their own business. Stop treating us all like criminals.
I like big butts and I cannot lie.
You're already subject to copyright law... it's the law. Having a button labelled "I will obey the law" just makes it seem optional
Let's not get too radical here. Such an overly simple EULA would require corporate legal departments to acknowledge that the corporations are actually selling copies to customers, instead of merely licensing content. And that would surely lead to anarchy, what with customers thinking that they can use that copy for entertaining themselves, loan it to a friend or even sell it on as used. Surely the corporations are paying top bucks to their copyright lawyers for a reason!
'Don't violate copyright law' has a lot going for it, but the best thing about it is what it signals to the purchaser, namely: 'You are not about to get screwed.'
But then how will they screw us?
Frankly, this sounds like it could be bad for the industry.
mod article up +5 awesometastic!!!
http://www.object404.com
Surely it would be better stated as:
"I'll respect your copyright rights as long as you respect mine"
So, you stop extending copyrights to ridiculous lengths and stop using DRM to restrict my fair use rights, and I won't pass copies to my friends or buy bootlegs from dodgy street vendors.
----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
Don't buy programs with overbearing EULAs.
Better yet. If it doesn't show the EULA till you stick it in your computer, then buy it, open it, stick it in, and return it. If they don't take it back sue them for selling a good without first disclosing the terms of the good(thus misleading you into believing you had further usage rights then the EULA stated...)
I don't know -- to me Cory's idea misses the point that copyright law is actually flexible enough to allow for different options. An EULA that says "Obey Copyright Law" is sort of like a paper contract that says "obey contract law": it's vague to the point of meaningless.
Actually, I sort of like the Creative Commons' approach to "simplifying" license terms: easy to understand categories with pretty common-sense icons, along with a marketing push to apply these standardized licenses across content types and an appeal to authors to adopt these packaged licenses.
Perhaps the content industries could follow that lead with a simple "All Rights Reserved" or "For Your Private Enjoyment" logo(?) -- something which boils down to the same idea Cory is getting at, but doesn't leave any question of which rights the owner wants to retain.
for more details please visit http://www.mastersmindtechnologies.com/advancebpo
They'll still need the EULA to say that you have no right to expect the software to do anything but trash your system -- not even to perform as advertised.
Isn't Reverse Engineering the real thing that EULAs don't protect against? In any case, people really do buy software outright, and the fact that we have EULAs is a pretty good indication that without the agreement, outright purchase is implied. So if you leave out the EULA, maybe you are implicitly giving permission to copy.
Don't violate me would have a better ring to it. Especially if you get it tattooed on you and end up going to prison. After all, we know how people will obey EULAs out of the goodness of their heart.
Right. When people transfer MP3, it's definitely like "loaning". Because when someone else gets a copy of my MP3s, I don't have it and can't listen to it for the duration they have it. And when they've finished checking it out, they delete it, naturally, since a "loan" is distinct from a "gift" in that it's temporary. Riiiight.
I'm sorry, but this is just disingenuous bullshit and really does you no favours. (You = the collective group of people trying to reform copyright.) How come every time the RIAA/MPAA/MSM/etc use the word "steal", people fall over themselves to split semantic hairs and insist that it can't be stealing because nobody is deprived of the original - and yet when it's convenient for their cause, they happily play the same linguistic tricks and talk of "loan", again implying the loaner is deprived of the original, when they're not?
Don't get me wrong - I have some issues with excessive copyright too. That whole "it's supposed to be for the encouragement of artists to create and the advancement of culture and society as a whole, not for endless profit generation for huge multinational corps trading off the past" is entirely up my street. I think life+70 is way too long. I think the DMCA and similar laws elsewhere are a bunch of crap. I hate DRM and as such have never purchased DRM'd music. So it's not like I'm trying to be an RIAA shill here.
But all that said, I find there is a frequent lack of honesty from the "copyright reformists", too. If it's not "loan", it's "share", another word that has warm and fuzzy implications and somewhat masks the reality of it. Let's be honest, when you put your MP3s on p2p it is nothing like sharing a toy with your little bro. You don't know the people leeching it, let alone like or respect them; you won't ever sit in the same room and share the experience of listening to it; above all, you aren't sacrificing any use of the MP3 yourself in order for them to have it - all of which are implied by warm and fuzzy words like "share".
Be honest. What you're actually doing is distributing a complete, perfect lossless copy, despite the fact the entire central notion of copyright is restricting who is allowed to distribute complete, perfect lossless copies.
If you honestly believe you should be allowed to do that, have the balls to stand up and actually say so and frame your argument as such. But don't come with these woolly words and metaphors of sharing (see above), home taping (not perfect copies), fair use (about excerpts, academic criticism, parody etc, none of which relate to Kazaa'ing your mp3s). It's just dishonest and undermines your entire position.
The EULA is not legal protection in the sense that the company will sue the end user for breach.
Citation needed.
I know I'm offtopic and I'll get modded as such I'm sure, but I find the name "Doctor Ow" to be funny every time I see it.
It's like "Dentist Ache" or "Surgeon Holycrapthathurts"
A EULA that said "Don't violate copyright law" is not a EULA at all... so why bother? I see no motivation to do this. Having no EULA would accomplish the same thing.
Dear Slashbots,
An EULA will only ever give you more rights than you started off with. It may limit those rights, but you will end up with more "sticks" from the "bundle of sticks" than when you started by virtue of your purchase. Period. No one is taking your rights away, they may just be giving you fewer rights than another.
Why would you read and agree to anything to install software? Installing software consists of clicking some boxes, and picking which directory to install it in. There was no signature, no contract documents. Just some clicking in boxes that weren't read in order to get the software to install.
Random clicking in boxes does not a contract make.
nt
The problem for some vendors is that their powers strictly under the law of copyright are very limited. You cannot simply by copyright limit what hardware someone installs software on. So Apple could say goodbye to its prohibition on installing OSX on only Apple hardware. MS could say goodbye to its prohibition on installing Office on any OS other than Windows.
The reason vendors need click through EULAs is that they consititue a different contract from the contract of purchase of a copy of the software, they are independent of copyright rights, and they permit civil suits for breach of contract if some or all of the terms are broken.
Apple, for instance, sells you a copy at retail. The only thing you are now forbidden to do by copyright is make unauthorized copies - and the copies you make in the course of installation are specifically authorized in the legislation. So if Apple wants to restrict what you install on, it must persuade you to enter into a separate contract where you agree to be so restricted. This it does by click-through. It has every right to do that of course - it is selling you a copy under certain conditions which you agree to. In the same way, a company could sell you a book and as a condition, ask you to consent to not taking it to the park to read. You do not have to buy it, but if you buy it, and if you sign up to that agreement, you really have agreed not to read it in the park. The contractual clause may not be enforceable, but that's a different issue.
Copyright alone will not give them any rights to stop you reading it wherever you want. It just prohibits unauthorized copying.
This click through contract still may not be enforceable, but it is at least a contract which you have signed up to by the click through, and it does actually prohibit what Apple is seeking to stop.
So, we are not going to see software companies give up EULAs. And if they should be legislated against, you can be sure that Apple among others will be up there lobbying. The argument will be, that the power to restrict what brand of hardware people install stuff on is vital to the future of the software industry. You do want a software industry, don't you? I thought so. Oh, while we are talking, do you need any help with re-election?
Minor points.
When people transfer MP3, it's definitely like "loaning". Because when someone else gets a copy of my MP3s, I don't have it and can't listen to it for the duration they have it. And when they've finished checking it out, they delete it, naturally, since a "loan" is distinct from a "gift" in that it's temporary.
Kind of like how the Zune works. More companies (apple) should use a similar system.
Be honest. What you're actually doing is distributing a complete, perfect lossless copy, despite the fact the entire central notion of copyright is restricting who is allowed to distribute complete, perfect lossless copies.
MP3 is lossy. What they're distributing are lossy copies of CD's, they just don't degrade any further. Most people do distrubute MP3's of CD rips, they don't distribute ISO's of their audio. Perfect lossy copies would be more accurate.
Again, this is a minor point, I think that randomly distributing MP3s is on par with randomly distributing tape copies.
I don't put my mp3s on Kazaa or Bittorrent or whatever the new distribution networks are. I'm not distributing perfect lossless copies. You don't have to be in favor of copyright violations to believe that the current legal environment for digital media is insane. So before you start painting the opponents of DRM as pirates, remember that there's a lot of us out there who think it makes you look like an astroturfer.
What is he prattling on about now?
I think there's a reason to elaborate on every single point in the EULA. And the reason is -
They don't want you to read it. By making the EULA 50 pages long, it makes it very easy to hide something ridiculous in it. Just look back and Sony and their rootkit. And countless others. Plus, if they decide to take you to court, they want to play on their field, by their rules. And by making rules that don't quite go together with copyright law, the jurisdiction becomes the contract law. And in that contract they have covered their ass in so many different ways, it's almost impossible to do anything. Look at the EULA for your cellular plan. You aren't even allowed to sue them, participate in class-action, or make any sort of claims against them.
There is of course a way to get around that, but it will take a very strong Supreme Court judge to do so.
"Do what thou willt"
First off, most of the text in a EULA is some defense against liability claims, or at least letting the user know that they are disclaiming any liability. Have you heard of large companies suing each other because of defective products? Absolutely. Does it go anywhere? No, but it is very expensive.
I don't want to get sued because a user believes their computer was destroyed by a software bug. Sure, more technically oriented folks "know" that it is difficult, if not impossible to cause physical damage to a computer through software errors. However, lawyers aren't always that clever and anyone can sue anyone for anything. A well-crafted EULA can get things like this nonsense thrown out of court the first day.
The second problem is simple - we in the Western world have been training a new crop of humans that copyright law is meaningless and is unenforcible. So people download all the music they can. And all the movies, books, software and whatever. If it is physically possible to violate copyright law, it will be done and will be done on a massive scale. Saying "please don't" is the same as saying we would like it if you didn't but have no options if you do. True? I suppose, but shouting it out doesn't help.
We are clearly at the cusp with copyright law. We can choose to allow it to continue to be meaningless and train schoolchildren that it is OK to copy software, download music in violation of copyright, whatever. The rewards to the end users will be considerable, as would the utter waste of time some folks are attempting by suing offenders under the current scheme. Of course, there is no compensation for "creative" people other than a good hearty pat on the back. Hard to pay rent with that, so most people will be forced to be "creative" in their spare time, if any.
The other option is we stop pretending we live in a universe where everything digital should be free. Sure, it costs nothing to copy it. It costs almost nothing to print a book, so why are they so expensive? It costs almost nothing to make many things today, so why are we paying lots of money for them? Could it be the cost of copying isn't the only cost?
Either we stand by the idea of copyright or we discard it - and this decision needs to be made with full disclosure. And we start enforcing international agreements to keep pirate, counterfit and unlicensed products out of Western countries.
I used to have a simple EULA for my games, the readme just said
"I'm a small one man company, don't rip me off ok?"
Over the years I've had a number of assholes lecture me that they pirated my games and as there was no legally binding agreement saying they couldn't share them, it was fine and they were in the right.
There is always some jerk out there who will abuse any gap in a reasonable EULA, forcing you to explicitly state the fucking obvious for the benefit of assholes who want to exploit the wording.
No company WANTS to employ expensive lawyers to draft legal shit. They end up doing it because another group of lawyers on behalf of people pulling crazy stunts force them to be more and more literal and explicit.
I'm 100% behind the idea of a simple "obey copyright law" EULA. The thing is, some slimey swine in a courtroom will argue that its too vague, and thus there was no breach.
Lawyers on BOTH sides are to blame.
DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
they don't distribute ISO's of their audio. Perfect lossy copies would be more accurate.
CD audio is lossy to begin with, just not to the point that any human (who isn't lying) can tell
Why even say that much? Is there a EULA for a knife that says "Don't kill anybody"? Is there a EULA for a car that says "Don't break traffic laws"?
We are all required to obey the laws of the land. A EULA doesn't affect that one way or the other. A EULA's sole purpose is to attempt to enforce contractual requirements BEYOND the law. And there shouldn't BE any requirements beyond the law.
There should be no such thing as a EULA, no matter how few words it contains. Period.
It's just like a game of Calvinball. Except too many people take it way too seriously.
;) ).
If you reply or mod this post, you agree that I own 2% of your income and 2% of your assets (and none of your debts and liabilities
What next, being required to stand on one foot and howl at the moon once a month?
EULAs are ridiculous.
Reminds me of Borland's old software license agreement from the '80s.
"You must treat this software just like a book...
<snip/>
By saying "just like a book," Borland means, for example, that this
software may be used by any number of people, and may be freely moved
from one computer location to another, so long as there is no
possibility of it being used at one location while it's being used at
another or on a computer network by more than one user at one
location. Just like a book can't be read by two different people in
two different places at the same time, neither can the software be
used by two different people in two different places at the same time."
I know he means well, but a license agreement grants rights. Copyright law does not. "Don't violate copyright law" doesn't grant you the right to use the software at all, so you need additional language that says you CAN use the software. Oh, wait, what does use mean? Can I use it on one computer or a billion? Need to specify that.
EULAs can certainly be simplified a lot, but not to four words. You need to clearly spell out what the user IS allowed to do that goes BEYOND their rights under law.
I stand corrected by your pedantical hairsplitting.
What you appear to call "pedantical hairsplitting" I just call avoiding the no true Scotsman fallacy. You didn't use "typical" in your first post, only in later posts.
If you consider reverse engineering to be end-user behaviour, then I am wrong. Of course, I will not even try to convince a /. autistic what an end-user is.
Contract law typically uses "end user" to refer to one who purchases a product or service other than to resell it. So "end user behavior" is the union of what all end users do, including research into what would be needed to develop interoperable software.
That's odd. I don't remember including "redistribution for profit" in my statement.
"Profit" is roughly synonymous with "financial gain", and 17 USC 101 provides that in the context of copyright law: "The term 'financial gain' includes receipt, or expectation of receipt, of anything of value, including the receipt of other copyrighted works." In this case, I find "expectation of receipt [...] of other copyrighted works" an apt description of the share ratio system on several private BitTorrent trackers, or even the exchange of pieces of a torrent that contains more than one work.
Not unless you're providing access to the web in the checkout line at the store.
They do. Lately, Best Buy and Office Depot stores in Fort Wayne, Indiana, have been offering access to the Web on at least one demonstration PC in the store.
Also, there's nothing stopping the online EULA from being changed between the time you read the EULA, the time you buy the item and the time you open it.
Nothing stops it from being changed, but Wayback Machine stops the changes from going unnoticed. If a seller's standard terms of sale change during the hour that you are in the store, I don't know. I'm not a lawyer nor even formally a law student, so I wouldn't know about the case law in such a corner case.
People have always been able to make mixtapes and it was never considered a crime, the RIAA are trying to criminalize such things.
Sorry, but I disagree, and for very good reasons. You are assuming FAR too much if you think I did not "think this through". I have been involved with this issue for many years, and in fact I am a Software Engineer -- and commercial software author. So obviously I have motivation to think about this topic.
The idea that this would give the end-user no rights to the product is simply false. When someone buys a software product with no EULA, then it is government by copyright law, which does in fact bestow a great many specific rights to the product, which you now own, just as you own a book you have purchased at the bookstore.
Specifically, you have the right to do darned near anything you want with the product in the privacy of your own home. Of course, you may not copy and distribute the product... that is still illegal.
I have researched this subject for years. Were you aware that just about every major manufacturing under the sun -- other than software, that is -- has tried the EULA concept at one time or another in history? Including book publishers. And in EVERY case -- except the software industry so far, the courts have shot down the idea. In every case they have stated that if you walk into a retail store and plunk down your money, you have purchased the product, not licensed it, no matter what the package may say either on the inside or outside. The sole exception is if you have made a prior agreement with the manufacturer or seller. Shrink-wrapped EULAs do not qualify as prior agreement!
My question is: by what logic should software be an exception? Copyright laws still give both the maker and the buyer certain specific rights. And there is a lot of very solid argument to say that software should properly be governed by Copyright law, not patents or some other body of law that makes software an exception from every other kind of product in existence. And there is also a lot of legal precedent to that effect, some of it 150 years old.
This is why my motto (and fundamental rule for life) is Don't be a dick: it's simple to understand, and reasonable people can agree on what it means.