Slashdot Mirror
Windows 8: More EULA, Fewer Rights.
sl4shd0rk writes "Microsoft has adopted a brand new licensing scheme for Windows 8 which effectively removes your right to file a class-action lawsuit against them should you feel the need. '...Many of our new user agreements will require that, if we can't informally resolve the dispute, the customer bring the claim in small claims court or arbitration, but not as part of a class action lawsuit.' Class-action lawsuits are intended to help individuals stand up to corporate law-breaking but this new EULA model simply nullifies that course of action for the consumer."
Not sure that that's even legal -- would be surprised if it held up in court.
Good - class action lawsuits are bad for the individual consumers anyway, only make money for the law firms. I'd rather 200 people file small claims suits than someone file a class action.
Just because something is in a EULA, it does not mean it's actually legal.
I hope to see a class action for allowing class actions.
There needs to be a better mechanism for keeping corporations in line, anyway.
I'm not endorsing MS's attempts to weasel out of liability here (although I guess once Sony took a bite of that particular poison apple, it's only a matter of time before the other tech giants decide that class action immunity is too awesome to pass up).
But class action lawsuits never deliver anything of real value to the people who actually suffered from whatever prompted the class action suit. They often hurt the target company, a lot, but that's vengeance & retribution rather than justice - the only people who actually benefit from the "restitution" and "settlement" are the lawyers.
Really, it would probably be better all round to just have regulators & ombudsmen with real teeth rather than relying on lawyer feeding frenzy class actions to provide a punishment system for corporations. The big problem with that is regulatory capture. I don't have a solution, but I wish I did. The present state of affairs isn't really satisfactory to anyone IMO.
Start a class action over the onerous EULA before agreeing to it.
How's that Microsoft?
Now all 3 of our branches of government have officially sold out
You say that as if there was ever a time when government was driven by anything but self interest.
Just when I thought I couldn't be less excited about Windows 8.
One more reason to skip it.
Even more unsettling, server 2012 (server "8") will have the same stupid-ass "Start Screen".
Blech.
Secondly, how the hell can this be allowed? AT&T did it, MS did it with the xbox.
How many more ways can they screw us out of our rights?
"Helping to keep you two steps ahead of the Thought Police!"
Now I can't join the class action against Microsoft where I'll win a 50 cent voucher in the Windows App Store and the law firm will win 700 billion dollars in cash.
Fark class action lawsuits.
but I'm not sure it matters. When was the last time you were part of a class-action suite against Microsoft? Moreover, this won't stand up in many other countries so it amounts to an attempt to minimize legal exposure in the USA. Given the increased availibility of Linux/Android/Web applications, we're all at a stage now where we can "vote with out feet" if Microsoft does something too buttheaded, and that's exactly what will happen if they overreach.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
Remember, you don't NEED to use Microsoft Windows. Linux is a viable option. Red Hat Linux works well on the desktop.
Is there anyone actually considering using Windows 8? Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?
I have a suspicion this might not be the only nasty thing to lurk in the small print.
...EULAs can't effectively hold up with something like this in court.
What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
If one man has a grievance and sues a company he's portrayed in the press as crackpot. A class action takes the same grievance and because numerous people are involved there's the appearance of wrongdoing, no matter if it's real or not. Lawyers representing the plaintiffs try the case in the court of public opinion until a settlement is forced because the defendant feels their reputation is becoming tarnished. A settlement will mean pennies on the dollar for the numerous plaintiffs, and that's after the attorneys take out their costs.
Microsoft thinks they are clever enough to circumvent this cycle. Does anyone think they class action lawsuit industry will let Microsoft's new license stand? Not without a fight.
Yes, class action lawsuits don't help the victims. Neither does putting murderers in jail. But the goal is to give people and businesses a reason to think twice before committing a despicable act. Thanks to SCOTUS's decision that companies can stick a "you can't sue us!" clause in any and all contracts, there is now no mechanism by which companies can be made to pay for abusing their customers. Day-dreaming about alternate mechanisms is pointless. This is the one that we have (or had, at any rate), and for all its flaws, it did work. Companies that abused people were made to pay. But no longer.
So does this mean I can put a sticker on my car that says:
"By Reading this Bumper Sticker you agree to the following Terms and Conditions:
In the event of an accident the operator of this vehicle shall be held harmless for any damage or personal injury incurred to any person involved. You agree to take full personal and financial responsibility for any damage incurred to this motor vehicle and belongings."
Apple is a even bigger money grubber than M$ is.
Because I haven't been able to find a pen computer system which works as nicely as Windows Tablet PC.
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
...EULAs can't effectively hold up with something like this in court.
Depends on the country. In EU it won't, not so sure about other 3rd world countries.
P.S: We also hate our politicians. :)
Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
Forget about class action. Go with crowd action. Let 100,000 people file in small claims court at the same time. Assuming the courts can handle the load, I'm guessing even MS doesn't have enough lawyers to appear personally in each suit.
They don't allow plaintiffs to pay out coupons in small claims court.
Elsewhere things are more sane. I believe in EU that enforced arbitration is not allowed, and in BC Canada you can't be forced to give up your rights to class action in this manner.
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/15/online-shoppers-unknowingly-sold-souls/
Companies can put whatever shit they want to in their EULAs but it won't hold in court.
There are numerous requirements for something to be a contract in US law and the EULA fails a number of them. The biggest is contracts have to happen before the exchange of goods/money. They can't be ex post facto. So if a company requires you to sign a contract before you buy the software, that's a real contract. An EULA that you are introduced to after the sale, not a contract.
Easy to see here at work too. I work for a state university so they are very big on the "only approved people can sign contracts for the university" thing. Any contract has to go through the contracts office and be approved by the lawyers. EULAs? They tell us don't worry just click through. In other words, they are confident the EULAs don't bind us to shit. If they though they did, we'd have to get them all approved.
"Windows 8 bit"
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Since you have to have Microsoft Office, businesses have to get it. If you're taking work home, you need it too.
If you connect to a video on demand service, you have to use an Approved And Blessed OS. Like Windows.
If you play games, you need Windows.
If you work for yourself, you need Windows to fill in your taxes.
ISPs often refuse to support your non-Windows/non-Mac computer connected to their internet.
But the short of it is: not buying windows means you cannot buy so many other things there's little reason to go to work: you can't, and aren't allowed, to use so many things you want to get paid money to get.
It's simple: Add rules to any position of public office restricting the revolving door of private industry. Make those in power commit to avoid working for those they are regulating or accepting "contributions" from them.
Of course, such rules would require those in power to sign off on them, which will never happen unless they're replaced.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
The specifics of that case seem somewhat applicable: The "you can't sue us, you have to use arbitration instead" type of clause was being prohibited by state law in certain states (California, in the specific case), but the Supremes held that Federal Arbitration Act of 1925 takes precedence and overrides state law. That federal law says that binding arbitration is valid if both parties agree, and the presumption seems to be that both parties agree if the user agrees to the EULA by using the product.
IANAL, but it sure looks that ruling supports MS's position on this. If there's some substantial reason why this case is any different than the AT&T Mobility v. Conception, I'd sure like someone to point it out.
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
Sure they do, they provide notification of a potential cause of action that they are quite likely to have overlooked on their own. Potential class members are provided notice and an opportunity to opt-out and preserve the right to file individual, direct-action lawsuits.
Class actions are far from perfect, but they exist to deal with an economy of justice problem with diffuse harms (cases where they are available overlap, to an extent, with cases where regulatory agencies and states attorneys-general have the right to file claims on behalf of the public or affected specific citizens, but regulatory capture and other effects of corporate influence on government make them necessary.)
The reason corporations want to foreclose them is because they are often the only effective method of addressing harms, especially where the harm to each individual is fairly small. Mass direct actions have a lot more overhead to coordinate than class actions, and individual direct actions require essentially each plaintiff to bear the full cost of an action to prove the same points. This makes direct action, particularly individual direct action, impractical where the individual harm isn't very large but lots of people are affected.
Attempts to use an EULA to foreclose class action lawsuits ought to be void as contrary to public policy, since class actions are provided as a mechanism for economy of justice.
Windows 9 will require you to hire an licensed operator to actually use Windows. You will not be allowed to actually interface with Windows without an operator. Hey, could happen!
Class-action lawsuits are intended to make lawyers rich while individuals get worthless token compensation
FTFY.
Given everything one has read about Windows 8, these disincentives not to buy it are even better. People can either just keep buying Windows 7, or try out other OSs.
More EULA, more TL;DR.
Tell me again why I'm even supposed to want a Windows 8. If I want an EloiOS touch-and-drool, I'll get a Droid (at least you can easily put a decent ui on it) or (shudder) an iPhone. Why would I want to shackle my computer with pictograms and ideography though? CP/M or even ITS would be more useful. What the hell is wrong with literacy, anyway?
As the title suggests, I've never accepted the EULA for my work PC. If I suffer a damage due to Windows 8 on my work PC, presumably I'd still have the right to sue in a class action.
Or, recognizing that my employment may cause legal complications for damages there, then I suggest that my wife (who didn't install Windows 8) could sue in a class action.
I suppose that for Windows 9, we'll have to accept a click-wrap license every time we log into our user account or open a new application.
--Jim (me)
Remember, you don't NEED to use Microsoft Windows.
You do if you are a gamer.
If you play indie games, a growing number of those are ported to Linux. If you play major-label games, there are plenty of those on consoles.
If the best paying positions by a wide margin for people with knowledge in the field are in private industry, then -- while this might have some effect on regulatory-capture-through-career-planning -- it would also assure that few competent people would ever enter the regulatory agency in the first place. The imbalance of resources and skill between private industry actors with lots of profit on the line is itself a source of effective regulatory capture, as regulators are dependent on information.
Equally importantly, ethics rules governing regulators don't address the problem of industry influence on the chief executives and legislators who define the boundaries of regulatory authority and the funding of regulators and control the composition of the courts to which regulatory decisions are appealed.
Is it legal to require giving up your rights in the US?
In many European countries it is illegal and will not have effect.
Since the supreme court can't do the will of the people, fix the damn law.
Oh wait, the law doesn't represent the people, it represents the corporations.
mwahahahahahahaha
But there it is anyhow.
When Vista came out I bought an iMac.
When Windows 8 comes out, I'm buying a Raspberry Pi.
I see no reason to continue feeding the troll. Goodbye MS.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
Answer: M$ being incompetent on so many levels (technology, marketing, Politics, legal etc.) and still we cannot loosen the grip they have over PC makers and the market as a whole.
Just today I had to explain to a friend how to move all icons from one place to another. You think I'm making that up? Well, tried to explain using real objects -- only to discover we cannot drag two real objects by picking just one of them... in reality, you can only drag two objects in most cases -- unless you tie them with a rope.
We should have a distro named Braindamaged Linux for such guys... oh, wait, there is one and it's called Gnome.
Just by not buying Windows, Microsoft won't see they lost a sale.
Everyone go out and buy a copy of Windows 8, open the box so it can't be resold, then return it for a full refund with the reason that the EULA you can't see until you try to install it was an unacceptable attack on basic civil rights.
This is about the only way Microsoft would get a clear message and see how much its costing them.
Signing away your right to a class-action suit should only be limited to settlements, not as entry agreements.
sign your rights away..any clauses will be promptly severed from any contract..
than again EULA's are NOT contract's and not binding under contractual law here.
They can write all they want in it, it is irrelevant here in the EU :)
Some kind of law needs to be passed that forbids EULAs from trumping law and civil rights. With EULAs the way they are, if some law is passed that is designed to help the consumer, give them more rights and balance the power between consumer and company, Microsoft (or any other software publisher) can simply modify their EULA and basically nullify that law.
Not Surprised
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
...don't buy MS products.
It is injust and wrong that this is the only option that remains. But it is still an option.
How about getting the class action lawsuit started now with Windows 7 for being insecure?
windows 8 what ?
sorry dont want it have a nice day and us hackers dont care neither cause no one else cares either...
put piece sin a cloud and your gonna get burned like blizzard
I can't imagine where that's going to go.
after all the other body parts are already used and sent to the govt here
If Scalia keels over of a heart attack, so would Thomas, just to loyally follow his leader.
I work with Win8 at an undisclosed large corporation doing driver testing. I won't be using Win8, not even if I can manage to get a copy for free. I'd sooner dump everything and jump to linux. Win8 is the "Playskool" OS, it holds your hand and hides important things from you more than any other version of Windows I've ever used (all the way back to v3.1) and I just can't stand that.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
This EULA isn't really targeting people that frequent these kinds of forum/news sites. It's a scare tactic to keep the average American from joining in, to minimize the payout in the end. Billy Joe Farmer "oh I can't sue, I clicked the OK box when I started up mah winderz." Internet Tech Nerd "YOU CAN'T BIND ME LEGALLY TO EULA. EXCELSIOR!!!" Big gap in understanding there.
Scalia, et al are the worst practioners of Salad Bar justice; ruling for something and acting like it was carved on Moses' third tablet and then totally ignoring precedent when it doesn't favor their glaringly obvious political (and social) ideology based on mysogyny and greed.
I'll say the truth again: worst Supreme Court since the Dred Scott decision.
Yet another reason for Metro to fail... No one in their right mind will buy it now.
Honestly, I see the consumer side of this, but I also see Microsoft's side. Tort reform needs to happen because of class action mayhem, and Microsoft is trying to protect itself from frivolous lawsuits. It's no surprise that most lawyers vote Democrat, considering Democrats don't care about tort reform. Imagine that! You all see the mesothelioma commercials on TV; these are designed by ambulance chasing lawyers to turn a quick buck. It's a big industry, and most companies find it cheaper to settle out of court, even if they could win the case. It's the same reason why many people don't take others to court: it's simply too expensive to bother even if you know you would win.
Well, of COURSE it will. Remember, Government is Grubberment; if you can't pay the politician more, you don't get the vote.
Cynical? Let's see. Class actions have been around a LONG while. The new rules protecting companies from class action litigation are not. Those rules are younger than I, and while a bit long in the tooth, I am not on my fifth decade yet.
How can this be? Money. The recipe is simple. Power Draws Money. Money Corrupts Power. Corrupted power with money corrupts State and federal representatives and congress persons. In toto, and short, Power corrupts, money+power corrupts absolutely. Sometimes, power alone corrupts. Any Questions? Look at the Congressional/Senate retirement package. Golden Parachute indeed.
This would be a bonanza for Ubuntu or any other linux distro. They could advertise something like:
Buying a new PC shouldn't mean having to automatically giving up your legal rights if something is wrong with it. At Ubuntu (or Redhat, or Suse, etc.) we believe in freedom. Freedom to use the software we provide however you want to use it. Freedom to build on the software we provide however you want to build on it. Freedom to keep using the software we provide regardless of what we or anyone else decide to do in the future. At Ubuntu we believe that when you buy a computer, it is yours to do with as you wish, not as we wish you would. Ubuntu Linux - Freedom
Again, you can pretty much put in what ever Linux distro you want, but since Ubuntu is pushing the desktop market, that is why I used them.
My eye doctor of several decades recently moved all his scheduling, billing, and insurance to a web site. Guess what the first thing that pops up when you access it?
A EULA.
Just a matter of time before all services from pet grooming to parking lots will require EULAs to forego lawsuits, responsibility for privacy, permission to sell information to 3rd party aggregators, responsibility for due care, automatic updating of contract terms and irrevocability..
When you are dying in an emergency room, I doubt you will carefully read the two hundred page document required before treatment, essentially affirming that you are a serf to the establishment forever: it could forbid discharge of medical debt in bankruptcy, automatic lien on all personal and real property, repudiation of your states exemption from execution of judgment, agreement to a particular venue, agreement that you are already deemed to be personally served in a future lawsuit for fees, automatic 50% per annum penalty added to the principal--you name it.
"Just click 'I agree' there."
It is easy to circumvent the EULA. Either have your minor child install the software, as minors cannot enter into a binding contract or have somebody else install/set the computer up. That way, you can honestly say that you never saw the EULA nor agreed to it.
Unbuntu 12.4 is out, and looking good. Oh, and Ubuntu is FREE, as in cookies, and toasters.
Never has more been said about "the law" by anonymous twits who know nothing of the law, than this article. Slashdot is just another conspiracy-theorist shithole at this point.
Most EU countries give a hefty penalty for using "forbidden clauses" like this in the contract... even if it is void.
That's pretty interesting, since Jefferson lived when IQ tests hadn't been invented. Furthermore, I have to wonder if this "estimate" (based on what, exactly?) takes things like the Flynn effect into account.
In point of fact, Nixon has a known IQ of 143 and therefore the highest IQ of all presidents who were actually tested. That is in no way an endorsement of Nixon as the smartest president.
Considering that many biographies of Jefferson place him as the most intelligent of any sitting US president, I have to ask who you think was the most intelligent president, someone who bests Jefferson with an IQ that you estimate at 160?
You also conveniently forget that Jefferson advocated periodic revolutions, whether bloody or bloodless, and by logical extension a new constitution would have to be ratified after each such revolution. (Think of the French, who routinely adopt new constitutions.) So while Jefferson may have been a strict Constitutionalist by our modern reckoning, he also likely did not expect our current constitution to last as long as it did.
On a different tack, it's pretty obvious that your response to smooth wombat was meant to be snarky. You haven't really addressed the fact that he raises a valid point: Laws must stay relevant to their times. If you're going to invoke Jefferson to advocate for a system of governance where nothing ever changes and technical progress is impeded for the sake of preserving an antiquated social and legal framework, well, I'm afraid I can't get on board with that simply because of Jefferson's cyclical view of governments and their founding documents.
Tell me again why I would want to use Windows anymore?
Wow, what do you know. We removed the check of the states over the feds and all power has gone to Washington, and our is as venal and oppressive (or worse) as the government from which we separated.
Here it is! Great! Thanks Microsoft! You are making my decision to abandon your software easier every single day!
When my state went up against Microsoft got hundreds back on the thousands spent - or roughly somewhere between 15 and 20% back.
I've also notified my state AG about this new development, might be interesting to see what "Comes" of it...
It was the the Arbitration Act of 1925 that allowed arbitration in contracts to be binding. Blame the politicians, not Scalia for reading the law as it is.
Instead of trying to get Scalia shot, try getting the current politicians to recognize the difference between negotiated contracts between equals with an arbitration clause, and adhesion contracts where the consumer has little or no power.
Liberal fucktards always think that nine people in black robes should be making the law, and blame them when the law sucks instead of blaming the people who actually wrote the law.
So what you're saying is that corporations must be people because winning a large monetary judgment is more important than justice? You recall that a real person decided to dump the waste in your yard, and a real person did the actual dumping, right? Don't you think that a real person should be punished? Or is it OK that the real people involved get away with it just so long as you get a large cash award?
This whole "I'm not guilty, I was only doing my job" thing is the entire problem with corporations being people. If people knew they'd go to jail for doing something illegal while at work, they'd do less illegal shit while at work. Instead, the guy who dumps the waste won't be responsible, nor will the guy who told him to do it. Instead some fictional person is held responsible. ...and that person can't go to jail.
So what happens? Our fictional person takes the probability of being caught, multiplies it by the cost of being caught, and compares it to the cost of properly disposing of the waste. If it's more expensive to dispose of it properly, then it gets dumped in your yard.
Except that the fictional person doesn't dump it because he doesn't exist. Real people make the decision to dump it, and real people do the actual dumping, and none of them are punished for it because "corporations are people" and so the corporation is held responsible.
"Why are corporations people? Because otherwise, they couldn't own property, and could not be sued."
Sure, because no partnership or sole proprietorship has ever controlled property or been sued... *eyeroll*
Snowgirl then goes on with a convoluted discussion of how the existence of corporations protects workers from illegal actions they undertake on behalf of their employers, while simultaneously ensuring company assets and directors are held responsible for their misdeeds.
The mind just reels...
OK, now for an update from the soft green fields of reality. Workers for corporations are held responsible for their misdeeds all the time -- in fact, they are scapegoated on a regular basis. The system is specifically set up to blame the workers and shield the corporation. See those Fedex Home Delivery trucks? The Drivers -- not FedEx -- carry the insurance and take the hit for accidents. Back when Domino's had their "30 Minutes or Less" suicide jockeys on the road, guess who paid for the accidents? The CEO of Dominos used to brag about how he had a fleet of vehicles he got other people to pay to insure and maintain.
Need another example? If you're an eighteen-year-old kid waiting tables for the "Tomato-Paste-R-Us" corporation, and you give someone a beer because your manager told you to, and that customer goes out, has an accident, kills someone and blows a 0.0800000001 BAC, YOU will be held criminally responsible while the company is specifically shielded from repercussions by the law.
Either Snowgirl is breathtakingly out of touch with reality, or she's unbelievably disingenuous...
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
They're called adhesion contracts. EULAs are the most common example, but so are the warranties that come with mass produced goods, the terms on your ticket stub at a ball game or a parking garage -- these things are contracts and they are enforceable. They're just held to a (very slightly) higher standard of fairness before being held unconscionable.
Theoretically you could break a contract of adhesion, hire a lawyer, and get away with it. But that lawyer will charge you more than you would have to pay for windows (unless he's a very cheap lawyer, or you get a really bad deal on windows). So, click accept little sheep, go down the ramp into the windowless room now please.
I used to be a Windows admin back with Windows NT 4.0. I got sick of being frequently asked if my copy was really, really properly licensed. Finally I migrated to Linux. There were some drawbacks reagarding availability of programs, far outplayed by the awkward need of others to discuss my usage of my computers.
cb
I've been trying to get the EULA for Expression Web Studio 4, but the site: http://www.microsoft.com/About/Legal/EN/US/IntellectualProperty/UseTerms/Default.aspx fails constantly, even if I use IE. MS "support" has sent me the same form letter three times, saying that if I haven't heard from them in three days, to email them back.
And when has a corporation EVER been fined out of existence? Go ahead. Feel free to Google. I'll wait.
A long, long time.
Your problem is that judges are specifically barred from fining a corporation into bancruptcy. Oddly enough, that prohibition doesn't exist for your average 18-year-old kid pulling an .mp3 off the net.
"But, but , but, fining the company just hurts the workers more than the executives in charge."
Hmm, I somehow doubt that the Court would take the welfare of my kids into account at my sentencing hearing, but OK, how about we just pierce the corporate veil and seize the assets of the directors?
Again, go ahead and find me an example of where this has ever happened to any company the size of say, Massey Energy, Morton Thiokol or British Petroleum?
Something tells me I'll be waiting a long, long time...
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
many aspects of the modern world that simply couldn't be done without the kind of resources that a Ford or a General Electric can bring to the table. The government could fill in somewhat
Hi. I'm a child of the 20th Century. You might remember us. We fixed a Depression, killed Adolf Hitler, held Stalin in check, invented the atom bomb, rebuilt Europe and Japan, built a national infrastructure of highways and electricity, got Jim Crow off the books at least, added a Moon rock to our mood ring collection and then watched Al Gore invent the internet -- all without a single corporation as the driving force.
Mozart wrote his operas, Shakespeare wrote his plays, Nobunaga conquered Japan, Genghis Kahn ruled an empire, Rome took Europe, the Mings handled China, and Ogg invented fire all without a single patent or copyright protection to their name.
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
"A growing number"?
The Humble Bundles, for example.
He[Justice Breyer] said he was puzzled by Justice Scalia’s assertion that there was tension between the goals of arbitrations and class treatment. “Where does the majority get its contrary idea — that individual, rather than class, arbitration is a fundamental attribute of arbitration?”
I am sure there are others who have already said this, and I must join them: Open Source FTW! Personally I use a combo of ArchLinux, wine, and virtualbox running windows 7 (for work, since I work for a company that uses .Net and Visual Studio)
Almost everything that anyone needs on a computer is available via open source.
Especially with a one-sided agreement like an EULA is. Perhaps a concrete signed contract, but even then it can only go so far.
Sounds more like a way for some attorneys to make some extra cash when they file a class action against them for the EULA its self.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Given how corporations tend to buy off government we can assume the legality of the EULA isn't a problem (to them). Therefore the only viable solution is: 1- extract the software without agreeing to the EULA, 2- reverse engineer the installer, 3- write our own installer that doesn't have an EULA. 4- profit.
It is late so bare with me if I make a reasoning/logic mistake..(probably a lot) It is the spirit of things that mater, the idea behind it!
Why can you not believe most people accidentally clicked on stuff? we do it all the time, I accidentally clicked on a piece of malware the other day. Windows allowed it, warned me not to do (but i DID NOT READ IT) it but let me run it anyway. Some goes for "terms" who reads them??? I think if you run a pole 90% of the people does not bother to read ANY line of the "terms" and does not: quote: "It's an action taken by conscious" consciously read or click on the checkbox and the ok button.
I read it the first time I ever encountered it, could not understand half what they where saying... but after that I didn't bother reading it anyhow. Just clicked it away. My mom learned being computer illiterate to just click on the checkbox and the ok button when installing software, she does not even know what an EULA is or is aware of "the terms" look at the people who are targeting by the eula and who are using windows, they just don't know what they are doing, it just "works"... Those are not the people that take an action by conscious though or are aware, that is learned behavior. No more or less then a machine executing code.
If I can not understand half what they are saying, is it really a conscious decision anyway? am I conscious aware I fully and willingly signed away all the rights I have? NO. Like a signature isn't your name same holds here, proof that I willingly "that's not my signature" take that action. You really can't. Or am I guilty until proven innocent??? An action is not taken by conscious though, it seems nullifies any terms to begin with... Whatever written down pieces of law there are that says it isn;t,... that is not justice... that exploitation..
Further...
Classifying software illegal or as malware: That does really depend on which country you are in isn't it, if "malware" is legal or not? And who is to judge which software is malware/illegal or not. It seems you "are the expert" and the big companies (especially the anti-virus companies) are the judge or "experts" on that... I am guessing the software per se is not illegal, but the intended usage is? So you can't sue the programmer but only the operator of the malicious software?
To give you some space,... In your context and reasoning any software with the intend to do harmful stuff is illegal from the beginning (unless it comes from a legitimate company?) Guilty until proves innocent except for the legitimate companies?
If not then with your reasoning I can qualify a remote desktop hole left behind by stressed out underpaid programmers as illegal software, because it is harmful? Thus I can easily not pay for that kind of software and the "terms" or the EULA is not binding. O but then it is bug...but bugs are harmful, I did not paid for those o wait something in the EULA about that..., because software is not well designed not coded probably and released before it was finished because of greedy managers? Covered by legal departments and a big wallet? That is no justice...
Still one can easily present a user any legal "terms" even for "malware"... They click on it anyway... o wait NO quote: and "I accidentally clicked them" isn't going to be believed any more than "that's not my signature", is". And "malware" when released it is innocent I think until some anti-virus company says it not... or you as an expert. But then again still it a binding agreement. With the same reasoning you love so much...
It seems your reasoning is like propaganda and not working for me... it reminds me in some degree of people who follow the ideology practiced by the Nazi Party.
Only repeating learned stuff without understanding the bigger picture... Or can look outside there box.
They are missing the whole point of what justice is, and that is really the point, not malware or pieces of virtual legal paper. If you make rules everybody should abide by those rules, equally without differentiat
An OS you don't like installed on your BIOS so there is no way to get rid of it.
And it is necessary for your computer to function at all.
A click-through EULA has no validity in a court of law.
AccountKiller
They have agreed to the contract changes.
Nixon has a known IQ of 143 and therefore the highest IQ of all presidents who were actually tested. That is in no way an endorsement of Nixon as the smartest president.
I have no problem believing Nixon was that smart. Unfortunately (for us, and for him), being smart and being wise are two different things.
Jefferson, on the other hand -- while his estimated IQ may be a historian's exercise in academic masturbation, I have no problem believing that he possessed a substantial amount of wisdom (thanks to the copious number of insights in his writings). It's also no surprise to me that ultraconservatives have been attempting to write Jefferson out of school textbooks.
Just because someone says something, doesn't make it so. Companies have been trying to put all sorts of stupid unenforceable things in EULA's for years. They know they will not work. However it does two things: One is that it may fool some people into not doing the said activity, even if they have a perfect right to, it costs them nothing to do so. Two is that while likely stuff like this will be thrown out, it strengthens some arguments, and starts building a history to call on later.
Basically stuff like this would be likely thrown out as a bad contract, and also as you cannot just supersede other rights/laws simply by "agreeing" to it.
I can make you sign a contract that if you don't pay me back my 20$ in 30 days I get to murder you without penalty. However after 30 days, you haven't paid, and I go murder you, well that contract is not going to protect me from the law. It may be considered in some way, but it does not supersede laws. Just like if you go sky diving, or white water rafting, you will sign all sorts of garbage saying under no circumstances are they liable for anything, and you will not sue no matter what. Those pieces of paper are mostly useless. If there has been negligence (which is really the only time a person is going to sue to begin with), those contracts/disclaimers do nothing. However they may still be considered, things like they were made aware of the risks involved, etc... which may give them some leverage or advantage in a case, but it is by no means a get out of jail free card.
This is why there are laws on the books in other places that specifically state you can't give up certain rights. That way the merchant can't make giving up your rights to a consumer protection law a term of the sale
I'm amazed that the right to form/join a class action suit hasn't been covered by such terms yet. Clearly merchants will take every opportunity possible to reduce or nullify any consumer protection laws they can, so there's really no reason any consumer protection right should be surrenderable.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
The lawyers that make their living off of class action lawsuits must be grinding their teeth over this. Remember, in most successful class action suits, the plantiffs get minimal awards, the lawyers collect millions. Ask John Edwards how this is done.
Does anyone have a copy of the actual EULA, one that you could read before buying a computer with Windows preinstalled?
....you pronounce that "win hate".
So what you're saying is that corporations must be people because winning a large monetary judgment is more important than justice?
Legal theory holds that "damages" are fundamentally monetary, and that a legal judgement can only grant monetary compensation in order to balance out the harm done. If you do $100 of property damage to my car, then you owe me $100. Fairly simple. ("Equity" was a distinctly different compensation that dealt with things that are non-monetary.)
But seriously. Yes, a real person dumped the toxic waste in my backyard, but the civil justice system doesn't generally care about punishing people for their actions, it's generally worried about returning the situation to the prior state before the damage. What good does it do for me to punish Charlie from the example, when he was operating under orders to dump the toxic waste there? I could not touch the people who were fundamentally responsible, unless I can prove that they were actually causally involved.
If people knew they'd go to jail for doing something illegal while at work, they'd do less illegal shit while at work.
People can still be held liable for criminal actions that they performed, even if those actions were done as an agent of a corporation. One does not gain immunity from criminal prosecution simply by being a corporate drone. Each person is responsible for their own actions.
However, considering that the criminal system is designed to punish people for their criminal actions, and not to compensate victims for the damages done, what you suggest would not be justice either. Sure, some people would go to jail, but what happens to me, now that my backyard is a toxic waste dump... do I have to spend money out of pocket in order to clean it up, with no compensation? Or should I be able to sue the corporation (and thusly, all of the collective persons owning the company, all together as one) in order to receive compensation for my loss?
WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS