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)."

16 of 158 comments (clear)

  1. Agree by Renraku · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?
    1. Re:Agree by powerspike · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The other thing is, regardless if you accept the eula or not, you generally can't return software, so you "own" the software that you can't use. that's the B*t*h.

      I really do believe, if you can't read the conditions before a purchase you shouldn't have to adhere to them (even if the program/item forces you to before use).

      I can't believe eula's are even legal (at all).

    2. Re:Agree by CRCulver · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That reminds me of the label on the sealed box for a laptop I bought some years ago. It said something along the lines of "By opening this package, you agree to the terms of the EULA inside". This was so that you could not just install Linux and ask the company for a refund for the Windows license. Ridiculous that you're a position where you have to agree to something you can't even read yet.

    3. Re:Agree by Zsub · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That is why in the Netherlands you are not legally bound by EULA's you cannot read beforehand. Also, the law takes precedence over any EULA you might have agreed to. You cannot take away privileges or grant privileges by EULA that are or are not granted to you by the law.

    4. Re:Agree by dotancohen · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I can't believe eula's are even legal (at all).

      Then you obviously don't understand the purpose of the EULA. The EULA is not legal protection in the sense that the company will sue the end user for breach. It is for legal protection in case one makes a claim against the company that they took no measures to protect A, B, and C. In other words, it is a defensive measure, not an offensive measure. It just reads as offensive because, well, we all know what the best defense is...

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    5. Re:Agree by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Unfortunately, for the people writing and using them, those are features.

      You see them as problems, because you are the person that the EULA is designed to hurt.

  2. But it's already the law by duffel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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

  3. Whoa, whoa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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!

  4. Re:What's the point? by ZombieWomble · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Actually, I think that this is the point. Reading the article, there is no argument beyond the shallow "EULAs are bad, they should be disposed of" that anyone who's been on a site like /. is probably deeply familiar with already.

    In short, move along, nothing to see here.

  5. Performs as advertised by oheso · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  6. Loaning an mp3 ?? by soliptic · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Loaning an mp3 ?? by soliptic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      if it's so simple, have you ever tried to obtain a replacement copy of the software media (that is, the actual setup files) in case you lose the CD ?
      heck, they will charge you for a full licence again !!

      This sort of thing is definitely bullshit and really winds me up. If your original payment was for the license, that should be valid forever, and if you lose the CD, you should pay (at most) for the media and postage to replace it.

      But you're almost making my point for me here. That sort of thing is bullshit, so attack that directly. Say, "I am downloading this software 'illegally' because as per the company's EULA I have already paid not for my original media but for a (lifetime) license to the IP therein, yet the company is abusing the spirit of copyright by not honouring that purchase...". Don't say "Oh, I'm just sharing some software between friends, it's no different to borrowing my mate's lawnmower".

      Copyright isn't going to be reformed unless the problems with it are attacked with intellectual consistency and honesty.

  7. Pointless by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  8. Re:What's the point? by tepples · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So "Don't violate copyright law" would work as well as EULAs and the law, if all companies want is copyright protection.

    I think Mr. Doctorow's point is that anything beyond copyright protection shouldn't be needed.

  9. There's a reason by comrade.putin · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  10. don't be a dick, in other words by CleverNickName · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.