Adobe EULA Demands 7000 Years a Day From Humankind

Half the length of a novelette by mcgrew · 2012-12-04 03:04 · Score: 4, Interesting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_count#In_fiction

OK, so about ten years ago before my kids were old enough to enter into contracts, I simply had them install my software for me, meaning that no one read and understood the EULA. How are these abominations in any way enforceable??

--
Free Martian Whores!

Re:Half the length of a novelette by konohitowa · 2012-12-04 03:22 · Score: 1

I don't see that they could be. There's no way (AFAIK) for a company to prove who clicked the "OK" button. Certainly there are arguments that could be made about the likelihood that a certain individual did so within a given scenario (for example, Jane buys a new computer and is the only person with access to said computer; the likelihood is that Jane is the one that installed additional software on it and agreed to the EULA). That said, I don't see how they are realistically enforceable in many (most?) circumstances. Anyway, having someone that is completely anonymous to one of the parties of the contract bind the contract buy anonymously clicking a button seems to be a rather weak contract.
Additionally, the contract as it is submitted to me is inherently non-negotiable. So if I were to go into the EULA text and redline certain features that I don't agree to and then click OK, I've agreed to a different set of circumstances but Adobe (in this case) would then have to have the ability to confirm my agreement. That doesn't happen. So I would think the contract is still in limbo at that point. In the meantime, they've given me access to the software per my modified contract. That seems like implicit agreement. To be honest, I've never tried this so I'm unaware as to whether Adobe does an integrity check of the EULA during the process.
Any IAMA contract lawyers out there that could confiirm or tear apart any/all of my reasoning?
Re:Half the length of a novelette by interkin3tic · 2012-12-04 03:22 · Score: 4, Insightful

A few years ago, my iphone decided to update itunes. A new EULA was presented to me that I had to agree to in order to download any more music or apps. I started to skim it to see if I could spot anything that might explain why they were updating it. Then I saw that it was page one of sixty four on the iphone screen.

I think they've since fixed that with an "e-mail this to me" option, and I could have just not bought that Taylor Swift song right then and there (don't judge me.) Still, 64 pages? In a sane world (which the legal system is not), that massive shit of dense legalese would be clear proof that the EULA was never meant to be read or understood by the user. Just have me press a button agreeing to not sue Apple for anything. It's just as fair and makes just as much sense.
Re:Half the length of a novelette by v1 · 2012-12-04 03:28 · Score: 5, Insightful

They aren't enforceable.
Unfortunately, often they are. It's more a matter of "technically, the law can consider them a binding contract", and it often comes down to a judge to decide whether or not it's truly binding.
We've seen several cases here recently where a user clicked through a TOS and clicked "agree" which caused them to waive some rights, which ended up being relevant in court later.
So in cases like these where there's an obvious "bad law" (or precedence) on the books, it usually comes down to who can afford more justice (hire more lawyers) to get the legalities "interpreted" their way determine who wins.
It's a basic problem without a clear-cut solution. Companies need to be able to protect themselves from random people that will abuse the legal system. That's why boxes of q-tips have to say "don't put in your ear". But people need that same protection from companies that also abuse it with thinks like "agree to no class action lawsuit". TOS are double-edged swords, the problem is there's no balance. It's hard to codify "common sense", there's no easy way to draw a good line. It's both a way for people to protect themselves from being taken advantage of, AND a tool to use to take advantage of others.

--
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Re:Half the length of a novelette by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 03:34 · Score: 0

The GPL's pretty long, too.
Re:Half the length of a novelette by Maximum+Prophet · 2012-12-04 03:42 · Score: 1

In a sane world (which the legal system is not), that massive shit of dense legalese would be clear proof that the EULA was never meant to be read or understood by the user.
Hmm, how about a legal principle that correlates the value of an object with the size of the EULA. Companies would get 256 bytes to start with, then 1 byte per $10. Any part of the contract after the limit would be null and void.

Standard things like songs, cars, and houses could just provide a link to the relevant law and leave it at that.

I've also thought that a law that discourages companies from claiming rights they don't have would be a good idea.

--
All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
Re:Half the length of a novelette by hobarrera · 2012-12-04 03:43 · Score: 1

Indeed, it is. However, you only read the GPL, Apache license and BSD liceses ONCE, and use several dozen pieces of software that reuse those licenses.
Adobe's products may change their EULA on every version, so you'd need to re-read them over and over.
Re:Half the length of a novelette by bfandreas · 2012-12-04 03:56 · Score: 2, Insightful

I could be wrong(it has happened before) but EULAs have never been tested in court in the European Union. Typically you only get to see the EULA AFTER you have entered a binding contract. And naming the terms of a contract after you have entered it is simply bad faith. When was the last time you got automatically fully refunded when you clicked "I don't agree."
Also if you can demonstrate you didn't understand the terms of a contract it also gets voided. That shouldn't be too hard to accomplish.

Nobody seems too keen to test EULAs in court because they move on dodgy legal terrain.

--
20 minutes into the future
Re:Half the length of a novelette by AuMatar · 2012-12-04 03:58 · Score: 1, Interesting

As much as I hate EULAs and think they shouldn't exist, your reasoning is specious. Lets assume for a minute that a EULA is a valid contract. If so, they're offering you the software in exchange for agreeing to the contract. They have no legal obligation to allow you to negotiate on the contract. So you don't get to red line the contract and still use the software without their approval.
Imagine if you were at my store. I have a price tag on an item for $50. You don't get to yell $10, drop a 10 dollar bill, and run for the exit. Nor do I have to negotiate on price. I set out a deal, you can accept or try to get me to negotiate, but you can't take the goods on your terms and claim I implicitly agreed by not objecting.

--
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
Re:Half the length of a novelette by Big+Hairy+Ian · 2012-12-04 04:04 · Score: 4, Funny

I just remember once reading the EULA of a computer game which told me that the game wasn't licensed for running Nuclear Installations! What Zork really????

--
Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
Re:Half the length of a novelette by Nkwe · 2012-12-04 04:17 · Score: 1

As much as I hate EULAs and think they shouldn't exist, your reasoning is specious. Lets assume for a minute that a EULA is a valid contract. If so, they're offering you the software in exchange for agreeing to the contract. They have no legal obligation to allow you to negotiate on the contract. So you don't get to red line the contract and still use the software without their approval.
But if you do red line the contract and then click "ok" and subsequently the software operates, the vendor has agreed to your changes. The vendor is using the licensing screen as a legal proxy - they delegate authority to the software to sign and validate the contract. If you sign (click ok) the software works, if you don't sign the software doesn't. If the delegated legal proxy doesn't take into account that you red lined the contract it isn't a very good proxy, but it why would it make it any less legal? I would argue that if the proxy isn't strong enough to withstand changes, it isn't strong enough to enforce the agreement.
Re:Half the length of a novelette by konohitowa · 2012-12-04 04:34 · Score: 1

Don't you think your example is specious? In the case of the product, the exchange requires that I give them $50. If I do so, then they allow me to take the product out of the store. In the case of an EULA, the exchange requires that I a click on a button. If I do so, then they allow me to use the software.
Re:Half the length of a novelette by Charliemopps · 2012-12-04 04:42 · Score: 5, Insightful

No, it's like I walk into your store, pick up a box that says "Blue shirt" on it, pay you $50, walk out the door, open the box and find that the shirt that is locked inside a second box with a lock on it. That lock has a note that says "By opening this shirt you agree to allow our store to track your movements via GPS, take video with hidden cameras installed in this shirt and sell those videos to the Tosh.0 show if any of them are deemed funny"
If I don't agree, I don't get the shirt I just paid for... I take it back to you and you tell me "All sales are final!" So what the hell is the customer supposed to do? It'd be one thing if you had to agree to the EULA before you paid... but after the fact?
Re:Half the length of a novelette by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 04:46 · Score: 0

The European Union aside, many member states have even stricter rules in place when it gets to contracts.
Re:Half the length of a novelette by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 04:52 · Score: 0

And then there is the issue of the basis of the contract. All contracts require an exchange of value between the two parties. However, the EULA expressly disclaims any responsibility for any possible function, use, cause, incidental or intentional, or any work product derived from the use of the asset in question (the software _license_), or any other tangible asset ... in other words, the licensor expressly states in writing that their software provides NO VALUE.
If they expressly offer no value in exchange for my agreement, then, IANAL, but it would seem to me that they have not established any basis for the contract in the first place, despite all of the flowery complicated language that seems to imply otherwise.
Re:Half the length of a novelette by cdrguru · 2012-12-04 04:57 · Score: 1

The problem with a "reasonable" EULA is people keep coming up with new and interesting ways to cheat. A EULA that ignores known ways to cheat is then a haphazard document that courts will not look upon well. This then impacts exercising other rights that may be important.
It is like the class action lawsuit verbage that is being used today. If in a year or so your EULA does not include that then it will be viewed as an invitation to file class-action lawsuits against the company. And a court will clearly find that since the EULA did not exclude such a lawsuit and such exclusions are common then it must be OK. As about all class-action lawsuits against companies do today is make lawyers rich and tie companies up in knots, this sounds like the perfect way to put an inattentive company out of business - find a useful idiot of a lawyer that will put together multiple class-action lawsuits - sooner or later a court will certify the class and get the process rolling.
Sure, a button promising not to sue would seem reasonable, except what about Apple's responsibilities to the customer? If they are not detailed in complete detail how far is someone likely to go in expanding upon what Apple considers their responsibilities? Would it be reasonable to assume that a turn-by-turn navigation application will prevent you from having an accident - after all, why would it repeatedly say to turn if the road was blocked? Can you then go into court and say "but it told me to turn!" and call upon Apple or Garmin to come defend you? We have gotten into such a litigious mess that people have tried this.
Re:Half the length of a novelette by v1 · 2012-12-04 04:59 · Score: 3, Informative

There is one important variation you need to consider. Software EULA for physical purchases does indeed usually have the EULA in the box, out of sight, without anything on the outside saying "visit www.xxx to review terms of service before purchase". But software bought electronically, and most other EULA for online services such as paypal, facebook, etc, will have a "click-through" that gives you the opportunity to not agree, not receive the product, not make the payment, and not be bound by the terms.
I was addressing the latter in my previous post, which is a lot more common, although this thread did start out more discussing adobe software, which is often physically purchased. (although the last four customers I've helped install adobe software for have all downloaded digitally after clicking through the TOS)

--
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Re:Half the length of a novelette by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 05:01 · Score: 1

Maybe this is out of date but for the older EULA cases the argument that I heard that the judge accepted was that by and large the licensing agreements were just restatements of the software maker's rights under intellectual property law and more or less boilerplate liability disclaimers. Reading it doesn't really give you much new information about things you can't do, although it may inform you of things they explicitly allow.
Has there been a definitive case for things like arbitration clauses in EULAs? That seems more likely to be thrown out in court than the copyright stuff and liability disclaimer stuff.
Re:Half the length of a novelette by fredprado · 2012-12-04 05:03 · Score: 1

But more often than not you only read the EULA AFTER you paid for the product, when you are about to install it. That alone should make it null and void.
Re:Half the length of a novelette by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 05:04 · Score: 0

I think this is the crux of the matter, and until enough people start banding together to take some sort of legal action against the software's 3rd party vendor to recover the money they spent (most stores will not let you return software that is not in original packaging including shrink wrap from manufacturer) and the stores start demanded refunds from the software manufacturer for the software that was returned nothing will happen. Personally I would just make a practice of having some one besides me press the okay button and let it be well known. That way if they sue me, well, I never agreed.
AlphaA
Re:Half the length of a novelette by DM9290 · 2012-12-04 05:06 · Score: 2

Don't you think your example is specious? In the case of the product, the exchange requires that I give them $50. If I do so, then they allow me to take the product out of the store. In the case of an EULA, the exchange requires that I a click on a button. If I do so, then they allow me to use the software.
Under copyright law you don't need their permission to use the software, anymore than you need Stephen King's permission to read one of his books. To use software you need a computer and a legally obtained copy of the software. Copyright law takes care of the rest (by giving you the right to execute the software on a computer and even make modifications for the limited purpose of getting it to execute on the computer).

--
No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
Re:Half the length of a novelette by Eivind · 2012-12-04 05:06 · Score: 3, Insightful

It's a joke assertion that the average person should be able to read and understand 3500 words of dense legalese in 10 minutes too - infact I claim that *nobody* can do that, not even a crack lawyer with eulas as a speciality.
A qualified person might, in an hour or so, feel *reasonably* sure what the EULA says. An average person could likely spend a day analysing the text, and stil miss substantial points.
Re:Half the length of a novelette by Synerg1y · 2012-12-04 05:10 · Score: 1

Actually there's a pretty decent solution here: use foxit. That's for reader, I'm not familiar with an alternative for flash though that's yet to catch wind. The rest of their products have alternatives too.
Re:Half the length of a novelette by Altanar · 2012-12-04 05:28 · Score: 4, Insightful

Or use Google Chrome. It has an Google-built PDF reader and Google-managed Flash updates. You never have to touch an Adobe installer ever again.
But if you're anti-EULA, Foxit is no help. Point of comparison: The Foxit EULA is 3,683 words long. The Adobe section in Google Chrome's EULA (which covers Flash) is 2,476. Google Chrome's ToS in the EULA is 3,983 words.
Re:Half the length of a novelette by Synerg1y · 2012-12-04 05:39 · Score: 1

*Goes to install google chrome on non-stock OS alienware laptop where flash is completely broken for firefox.
Re:Half the length of a novelette by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 05:42 · Score: 0

In a contract between two parties if the issuer of a contract is unclear for the responsibilities of the other side the terms are interpret to the benefit of the side receiving the contract. Whether the "unclarity principle" is applied in the US, I'm not sure. Consumer related legislation often utilizes this principle, with direct consequences to EULAs.
Re:Half the length of a novelette by berashith · 2012-12-04 05:45 · Score: 1

I've also thought that a law that discourages companies from claiming rights they don't have would be a good idea.
the first line in the next EULA would be exchanging the rights for the company to be able to circumvent this law in order to use the product.
Re:Half the length of a novelette by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 06:16 · Score: 0

you agree to all terms at www.realeula.com
there only 49 characters
Re:Half the length of a novelette by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 06:18 · Score: 0

Sadly that will only be relevant for a while longer. Eventually digital distribution of software will mean that you will need to agree to the EULA upfront and before the purchase.
Re:Half the length of a novelette by History's+Coming+To · 2012-12-04 07:06 · Score: 2

Interesting idea - I just bought an eReader which comes with a (frankly ridiculous) EULA, I mean, seriously, an eReader? So if I root it, add "Company X agrees to pay £10,000 per annum to the purchaser", and then click "I agree" they then have to pay me as their software has agreed to the contract?

I may just try that, for entertainment value alone when they get the email.

--
Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
Re:Half the length of a novelette by Pope · 2012-12-04 07:22 · Score: 2

OK, so about ten years ago before my kids were old enough to enter into contracts, I simply had them install my software for me, meaning that no one read and understood the EULA. How are these abominations in any way enforceable??
Bullshit, You never did this.

--
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
Re:Half the length of a novelette by geminidomino · 2012-12-04 07:32 · Score: 1

Sumatra doesn't seem to have a EULA at all.
Re:Half the length of a novelette by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 07:47 · Score: 0

Under copyright law you don't need their permission to use the software, anymore than you need Stephen King's permission to read one of his books. To use software you need a computer and a legally obtained copy of the software. Copyright law takes care of the rest (by giving you the right to execute the software on a computer and even make modifications for the limited purpose of getting it to execute on the computer).
This is all true. However, the catch is in the "legally obtained copy" part.
Without agreeing to the license, you haven't legally obtained ownership of a copy. The copyright holder controls distribution, and are free to place whatever terms on that distribution that s/he sees fit, confined only by the limits of the law. Moreover, the copyright holder controls copying, which is an essential step in the utilization of software.
Purchasing a physical good does not confer upon a buyer any rights in and of itself, other than to the bits of plastic and paper themselves. It doesn't matter for the purposes of the law that you were able to leave a retail establishment with a box or that money was exchanged for the mere option of future use of software. There is a countless number of such situations in commerce. The fact that you are offered as a convenience an option to make the purchase up front and evaluate the terms later is not a loophole.
For a non-copyright analog, consider the purchase of a ticket to an amusement park or other venue. The ticket itself is your bit of paper to do with as you please, but when you get to the venue and you learn that you can't do x and you want to do x (be it flash photography, bringing in food, not wear a shirt, whatever), you can pass on it. The fact that you've already paid for the ticket does not excuse you from the rules and policies of the venue. The same applies here. You bought the package, yes, but that package isn't complete until you've been granted rights in the copyrighted work.
If you're not engaging in copying (i.e., installing) or participating in the act of distribution (e.g., purchasing software), then you're correct that you can just sit down at a computer, launch software that's already on it, and use it without a second thought. But the owner of that copy is responsible for anything you do that results in legal liability while you're acting as his or her agent. That's why your employer may have its own set of rules and agreements separate from those of the software vendor.
IAAL.
Re:Half the length of a novelette by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 07:48 · Score: 0

There is one important variation you need to consider. Software EULA for physical purchases does indeed usually have the EULA in the box, out of sight, without anything on the outside saying "visit www.xxx to review terms of service before purchase". But software bought electronically, and most other EULA for online services such as paypal, facebook, etc, will have a "click-through" that gives you the opportunity to not agree, not receive the product, not make the payment, and not be bound by the terms.
Regarding Facebook et all, you may be right - not having used these services I don't know. But I have never encountered a software download where the EULA for the actual software is available before paying for it - any EULAs that are available relate only to the purchase and download activities - it's until the installation or after that I will be able to see the EULA relating to the actual product*.
*Of course this is problem area - the redefinition of the term 'product' when it comes to software.
Re:Half the length of a novelette by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 08:19 · Score: 0

So I can give Google all my cookies and help them track my life, fuck no.
Re:Half the length of a novelette by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 08:21 · Score: 0

If I don't agree, I don't get the shirt I just paid for... I take it back to you and you tell me "All sales are final!" So what the hell is the customer supposed to do?
Like it's the only catch 22 in retail? What is the customer supposed to do when he buys anything that is marked "all sales final"? It's a risk. Some retailers just don't accept returns on some kinds of open products. That doesn't really have anything to do with the item or the license terms.
If it were impossible or even difficult to obtain or review a copy of the license any other way than paying for a box and then opening it, you'd have a legitimate point.

It'd be one thing if you had to agree to the EULA before you paid... but after the fact?
Doesn't have to be that way. You can find and read the license before you open the box and avoid the whole thing if that's your problem.
Re:Half the length of a novelette by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 08:28 · Score: 0

Yup, most of the Apple licenses say that as well as medical systems, they don't want to be liable for a death, thus you're not allowed to install it on a system that could cause that from a software bug.
Re:Half the length of a novelette by AmiMoJo · 2012-12-04 09:43 · Score: 2

There is only one solution to this. We need standard Terms of Service and license agreements. Defined in law, with a core agreement and maybe a couple of optional clauses when required. Companies must use those agreements, making it very easy for the consumer to know what they are signing up for and what their rights are.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:Half the length of a novelette by kimvette · 2012-12-04 09:49 · Score: 1

Just amend the "contract" as you would any other contract. Put a post-it note over the screen, with "I retain my first sale doctrine rights and in return will respect their copyright, with the exception of acceptable Fair Use." then click agree. It's akin to crossing out language you disagree with, and writing in your own. If you have any doubts about it, shoot a photo of it should you have to take a matter to court. It sounds ridiculous, but so is a EULA which is not presented to you until after you have purchased the commodity good, which upon opening, the reseller will refuse to accept as a return.
Or, avoid being fucked and go use pirated software, since lately it seems that "counterfeit" software is superior to the real thing since it is reportedly less annoying to install. Really though, you shouldn't do this. Although it is not "theft" it is wrong.
Best solution: choose F/OSS when possible, appropriate, and adequate.

--
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Re:Half the length of a novelette by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 09:58 · Score: 1

I just redlined a EULA and now I can't get the sharpie off the screen.
Re:Half the length of a novelette by DM9290 · 2012-12-04 10:33 · Score: 2

Under copyright law you don't need their permission to use the software, anymore than you need Stephen King's permission to read one of his books. To use software you need a computer and a legally obtained copy of the software. Copyright law takes care of the rest (by giving you the right to execute the software on a computer and even make modifications for the limited purpose of getting it to execute on the computer).
This is all true. However, the catch is in the "legally obtained copy" part.
Without agreeing to the license, you haven't legally obtained ownership of a copy.

if the copy was made by someone authorized to make the copy (for instance the copyright holder), and someone authorized by to sell the copy sold you the copy (for instance an authorized distributor) then the copy is an authorized copy - i.e. "legally obtained copy" to re-use the phrase we both agree on. There is no additional requirement in copyright law beyond possession of the authorized copy to execute software on the computer even though the computer makes its own internal copies as a result of execution.
At least - this is explicit in Canadian Copyright Law. I'm not going to argue about US law.
So in Canadian law, unless you agreed to some kind of restriction in connection to that act of Distribution then once the distribution is concluded you may rely on the full extent of copyright law and execute it on your computer. You can tear up that EULA because you don't NEED a license. You have the law.
your analogy of a ticket is invalid. You can be denied entry to the venue in accordance with terms because those terms are terms for entry into the venue. A venue which does not belong to you.
On the other hand, your copy DOES belong to you. so nobody can impose additional terms without your consent.
it would be more like if you buy a hair drier for $20 from an authorized distributor: Then it arrives at your house with a sticker on the "on" button, saying that "you must agree to the following EULA in exchange for the license to use the hair drier. pressing the ON button on the hair drier indicates that you agree."
Since you don't need permission to press the "on" button on your own property, you can freely ignore the sticker and use the hair drier. Further more since pressing the ON button does not communicate anything to anybody except yourself, it can't be said to signify an agreement. agreements require a meeting of the minds.
having sold you the hair drier, they can't hold YOUR "on" button hostage in order to compel you to agree to their additional terms.
This may almost all be moot as software has largely moved beyond consisting of merely a physical copy, but often now depends on access to online services. Access which in fact DOES require permission to access somebody elses computer system.

--
No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
Re:Half the length of a novelette by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 13:43 · Score: 1

The reason we don't have to agree to EULAs for every purchase made in the grocery store is because of the Uniform Commercial Code. It covers most normal retail purchases, and sets out the rights and responsibilities of the purchaser and the retailer. As long as the interaction is covered by the UCC, there is no need for a unique agreement. We need something similar for software licenses. There should be a basic, equitable agreement that we all get by default. Then, if someone presents you with a 44p agreement, you'll be able to tell right away that they're trying to screw you.
Re:Half the length of a novelette by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 13:43 · Score: 1

if the copy was made by someone authorized to make the copy (for instance the copyright holder), and someone authorized by to sell the copy sold you the copy (for instance an authorized distributor) then the copy is an authorized copy - i.e. "legally obtained copy"

Again, that is necessary but not sufficient. The retail transaction is not an unencumbered sale of a copy, because the transaction is not complete until the software is installed.

There is no additional requirement in copyright law beyond possession of the authorized copy to execute software on the computer even though the computer makes its own internal copies as a result of execution.
Again, that is true only of "ephemeral" copies of installed software (that is, the necessary copying to RAM/caches), but it is not true of installation. The move from the installation media to a permanent storage volume (hard drive, SSD) is a reproduction conditioned on acceptance with the terms of a license.

So in Canadian law, unless you agreed to some kind of restriction in connection to that act of Distribution then once the distribution is concluded you may rely on the full extent of copyright law and execute it on your computer. You can tear up that EULA because you don't NEED a license. You have the law.
That is simply not the case, even in Canada. The distribution is not perfected until the moment the copyright holder gives its consent. That does not occur with commercial software until the license is accepted. There is no caselaw in Canada categorically obviating a EULA.

your analogy of a ticket is invalid. You can be denied entry to the venue in accordance with terms because those terms are terms for entry into the venue. A venue which does not belong to you.
On the other hand, your copy DOES belong to you. so nobody can impose additional terms without your consent.
A disc itself does no good in and of itself if you cannot legally install the software, nor is it true that the terms no longer exist once you acquire the copy. You can't exercise rights you don't have in the first place. The disc and the box belongs to you, that's all. The software still belongs to the copyright holder. The copy of the software becomes yours when the copyright holder has perfected consent, not before.

it would be more like if you buy a hair drier for $20 from an authorized distributor: Then it arrives at your house with a sticker on the "on" button, saying that "you must agree to the following EULA in exchange for the license to use the hair drier. pressing the ON button on the hair drier indicates that you agree."
Since you don't need permission to press the "on" button on your own property, you can freely ignore the sticker and use the hair drier.
Uh, no. As a matter of law, that hair dryer does indeed come with its own version of a EULA that you do indeed agree to by proceeding to use the hair dryer. That's what warning labels, warranties, and disclaimers are all about. (Also, as a usage note, 'drier' is a quantitative comparison (vs. 'wetter'), while 'dryer' is an object to make things dry.)
It's not whether there's a set of terms in place, it's the content of those terms that's legally debatable. You can't categorically ignore a software license, nor do you perfect ownership of the copy by ignoring same. You may be able to ignore some of the more onerous and unenforceable provisions it contains, but that's a different conversation.
Re:Half the length of a novelette by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 18:16 · Score: 0

How true. You must be an attorney because I, a sane person, didn't even swe that coming ;-)
Re:Half the length of a novelette by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 18:27 · Score: 0

Software EULA for physical purchases does indeed usually have the EULA in the box, out of sight, without anything on the outside saying "visit www.xxx to review terms of service before purchase".
Bought shrinkwrap lately? I've even bought some that only includes a key and a URL in the box.
Re:Half the length of a novelette by Waccoon · 2012-12-04 20:01 · Score: 1

What I can't believe is that Adobe's EULAs are available only in PDF. So just to read a EULA, I have to read a EULA to read a EULA to read a...
Reminds me of those times I had to update the installer before I could install a program. What BS.
Re:Half the length of a novelette by GNious · 2012-12-04 20:34 · Score: 1

Better solution: Make EULAs void if presented after money (monies?) has been exchanged.
Works pretty well where I'm from.
Re:Half the length of a novelette by loneDreamer · 2012-12-05 01:43 · Score: 1

Plus, the usual legalese I've seen references plenty of other laws and documents, larger and more complicated. These reference other things too. Even worse, some words in a legal context have completely different meanings that the dictionary definition.

The crux of the matter is that every one of us is supposed to know and understand ALL law, and act accordingly. The reality is that no-one does, not completely. We all act on partial knowledge at best, use our own common sense and cross our fingers. Sometimes we can get unlucky and pay for that in time or money or both, heavily. But there is not much you can actually do about it without spending half your life becoming a law expert, which, IMHO, is a very steep overhead that I'm not willing to pay.
Re:Half the length of a novelette by mcgrew · 2012-12-05 02:18 · Score: 1

Or, avoid being fucked and go use pirated software
That's an invitation to be pwned.
Best solution: choose F/OSS when possible, appropriate, and adequate.
Indeed it is.

--
Free Martian Whores!
Re:Half the length of a novelette by kimvette · 2012-12-05 04:53 · Score: 1

> That's an invitation to be pwned.
Correct, plus as the adage goes, "Two wrongs don't make a right."

--
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Re:Half the length of a novelette by tekshogun · 2012-12-05 07:04 · Score: 1

so well stated. never thought of it like that
Re:Half the length of a novelette by redlemming · 2012-12-05 08:49 · Score: 1

You've pretty accurately characterized the single most important problem with the US legal system today.
Most legislators and top government executives (such as Governers of states, and the President) are legal professionals. Legal professonials write, prosecute, and judge the laws.
A legal system that is (or is merely perceived to be) scary, complex, confusing, or contradictory creates long term business for legal professionals as a class in society. These same people write the laws and create the precedents.
Hence, as a class within society, legal professionals are in a position of ethical conflict of interest with respect to the nature, scope, and form of the legal system.
I call this the single most important problem because it underlies or impacts the majority of issues with the legal system, such as abuse of the tort system, infringement of civil liberties, the broken patent and copyright systems, or abuses of contract law (such as represented by most or all "shrink-wrap" contracts).
While this ethics problem rarely results in lost lives, the consequences of legal practices and policies that involve conflict of interest on the part of legal professionals can be enormously expensive to companies, to society, and to individuals, which does in some cases result in destroyed lives.
The (many) court rulings I've read (including Supreme Court rulings) have not given me any real confidence that this issue will ever be addressed by legal professionals without some serious pushing from people outside the profession.

And this slashdot article... by jeffmeden · 2012-12-04 03:07 · Score: 4, Funny

If 1000 people each spend 5 minutes reading TFS, skimming the comments, and trolling a little here and there, that's 3.17 days *demanded* PER article! A dozen articles a day, and that's like a zillion DAYS A DAY!

Hyperbole much?

Re:And this slashdot article... by Antipater · 2012-12-04 03:17 · Score: 1

Hyperbole? Hey, man, he's just asking questions.

--
Everything is better with chainsaws.
Re:And this slashdot article... by mcgrew · 2012-12-04 03:18 · Score: 1

Except that slashdot is not a legal requirement for anything. EULAs purport to be.

--
Free Martian Whores!
Re:And this slashdot article... by Forty+Two+Tenfold · 2012-12-04 03:19 · Score: 1

In other immortal words, one EULA is a tragedy, a billion EULAs is statistics.

--
Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
Re:And this slashdot article... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 03:29 · Score: 0

Given that EULAs are a poor man's DRM (the means of discouraging the populace at large from doing Bad Things(TM) with the software in question) and given that those EULAs are ostensibly legally binding, and given that the verbiage within EULAs is legal-speak meant to be read and interpreted by another lawyer, not the average lay individual, no.
Not hyperbole, really. Blindly trusting *lawyers* to do the "right thing" and just write EULAs that don't abnormally abridge rights you expect to have is the height of stupidity. Yet we all do it, or at least most of all of us. OP's point is that if you write a novel of legalese and slap it in to the EULA, you're doing it knowing full-well no one has the time to read it or (generally) the knowledge to necessarily understand the legal ramifications of what might be read. OP is pushing for EULA reform, where plainly worded, short summaries of what is and isn't allowable are included with the legalese. That's reasonable.
Re:And this slashdot article... by fermion · 2012-12-04 04:49 · Score: 1

There is difference between reading for entertainment or information, and reading a retail agreement. The former is what one does in free time, and can increase retail sales, the later is what one does to complete a sale and can decrease retail sales. Take the magazine at the check out line. You may read it, in the free time while one waits in line, and then buy it, thus reveling in the wonderful superiority of the free market. OTOH, if one spent all you time reading lables and agreeing to license agreements, while you might be entertained or informed and your free time might be consumed, it would do little good for the retail outlet as the purpose of the such a place is to maximize the time you spend buying goods and services, not provide pass time in the store.
In fact pass time is so expensive for retail outlets we have seen malls, which at one time could provide profits, being tuning into very large 2 dimensional strip centers.
So, as I have argued before, the problem with things like this is that it reduces the efficiency of the retail process to such a point that it effects the ability to make a profit. Look at online advertising. The problem is not ad rates, the problem is that delivery and consumption of the products are inefficient due to all the layers that wastes the consumers time.

--
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Re:And this slashdot article... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 06:06 · Score: 0

I thought the point of the article was that not only is it absurd to assume that people actually read these things, but it would be a criminal waste of time if they did.
As long as both sides of the table have an implicit understanding that the purpose of an EULA is to CYA rather than being read by anyone, they shouldn't carry any legal significance.
We would all be better served by establishing a baseline for reasonable expectations on both sides that you can't weasel out of with legalese small print.
For instance, if you have a web store with a big "Buy" button, no amount of small print should be able to turn that into a revocable license. If you mean "rent", write "rent".
Re:And this slashdot article... by An+ominous+Cow+art · 2012-12-04 06:10 · Score: 1

And there's no need for all this fuss, anyway. If people weren't educated stupid evil, Time Cube's 4 simultaneous days per 24 hour rotation would save them from dumb evil stupid Word EULA.

and then again how long are US bills and laws? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 03:07 · Score: 3, Insightful

and then again how long are US bills and laws?

Re:and then again how long are US bills and laws? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 03:37 · Score: 0

Most? Much shorter than this. Seriously .
Giant bills passing a number/i> of different laws? Yeah, they tend to be longer.
Seriously,
Re:and then again how long are US bills and laws? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 03:40 · Score: 0

Because that's the exact same thing.
Re:and then again how long are US bills and laws? by Nick+Fel · 2012-12-04 03:44 · Score: 1

But you're not expected to read them all before becoming a citizen.
Re:and then again how long are US bills and laws? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 04:06 · Score: 0

but as a citizen you are expected to obeyed by them, with varying consequences
Re:and then again how long are US bills and laws? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 04:09 · Score: 0

exactly
Re:and then again how long are US bills and laws? by Beorytis · 2012-12-04 04:13 · Score: 4, Insightful

Ignorantia juris non excusat
Re:and then again how long are US bills and laws? by Beorytis · 2012-12-04 04:16 · Score: 1

I guess there is Cheek v. United states:

The Court held that an actual good-faith belief that one is not violating the tax law, based on a misunderstanding caused by the complexity of the tax law, negates willfulness, even if that belief is irrational or unreasonable.
Re:and then again how long are US bills and laws? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 04:16 · Score: 0

Most? Much shorter than this. Seriously.
And they're often not read entirely by the people voting on them. So what hope is there that anybody out there is actually reading a EULA?

Giant bills passing a number of different laws? Yeah, they tend to be longer.
Tangent: This nonsense needs to stop. If something is deserving of being a law/codified in legislation, it should stand on its own. None of this 'Let's tax the Internet, via a defense-centric bill!' bullshit. /rantoff.
Re:and then again how long are US bills and laws? by N0Man74 · 2012-12-04 04:19 · Score: 5, Interesting

My girlfriend showed me her divorce papers. The paperwork determining ownership of their house, belongings, financial obligations, and custody of their children was far shorter than what I was asked to read for an updated EULA on Netflix, so I could simply watch another episode of the IT Crowd...
Re:and then again how long are US bills and laws? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 05:22 · Score: 1

That's millennia old concept from times, when it was perfectly within human capacity to memorize the entire law. Now it just helps making bad, immoral laws.
Re:and then again how long are US bills and laws? by fran6gagne · 2012-12-04 05:34 · Score: 1

Think of citizenship like a license to live in a country and laws are the EULA you accept to get that "license".
Who read and understand all the laws of the country he reside in?
Re:and then again how long are US bills and laws? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 05:42 · Score: 0

Uhm.. sure, but your parent's point still stands: Laws are not the same things as EULAs or contracts.
Ignorance doesn't excuse judgment, because you HAVE to follow the laws regardless of whether you agree with them or not (i.e. they apply to you, whether you want it or not; no "agree" part required), unlike contracts.
In no civilized country can EULAs be considered valid contracts if actually reading through them does require such an unreasonable amount of overhead. YMMV, of course.
TL;DR: Unlike laws, a contract should be deemed invalid if it's not agreed explicitly and in conscience. Requiring someone to press a button saying "I agree" (or similar) does not demonstrate that you agree to anything: it just demonstrates that you (or someone), at some point, clicked that button.
Re:and then again how long are US bills and laws? by Bigby · 2012-12-04 06:26 · Score: 1

For a while there, I was wondering why your girlfriend was divorcing you. Then I thought she was divorcing you to become "just a girlfriend". Only then did I realize that your girlfriend has a husband that she is divorcing. Still not sure if you were a "significant other" in some love triangle or just another girlfriend yourself.
Oh the humanity....
Re:and then again how long are US bills and laws? by balbus000 · 2012-12-04 06:39 · Score: 2

Here, I think this is yours: <
Re:and then again how long are US bills and laws? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 07:03 · Score: 0

Ignorantia juris non excusat
Quid de ignorantia Latine?
Re:and then again how long are US bills and laws? by N0Man74 · 2012-12-04 07:38 · Score: 1

She had a husband. They divorced 2 years before I met her. Now you can sleep soundly without worry.
Re:and then again how long are US bills and laws? by GodInHell · 2012-12-04 08:04 · Score: 1

They're read by the staff of the people voting on them, who summarize the effect of the law for their congress-critter. Every day corporate officers make decisions on million dollar purchases without reading the text of every page of the purchase contract!! OUTRAGE, how could it happen? Because they have lawyers to do that and not enough time to do the grunt work for themselves. This is why people have employees.
Re:and then again how long are US bills and laws? by GodInHell · 2012-12-04 08:05 · Score: 3, Informative

Now you can sleep soundly without worry.
Not unless you've killed all the clowns and grounded the black helicopters he can't!!!
Re:and then again how long are US bills and laws? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 08:25 · Score: 0

Est aranea in vestri cilicium.
Re:and then again how long are US bills and laws? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 10:43 · Score: 1

Simple solution: have jury trials, with the jury (not the judge) deciding matters of law. If a jury of the defendant's peers doesn't know the law, they can't be expected to either.
Re:and then again how long are US bills and laws? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 18:31 · Score: 0

They count on you not reading them all or their reelection is in jeopardy.

EULA's by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 03:08 · Score: 0

...are complete bullshit and always will be.

Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 03:09 · Score: 0

Could not a EULA be gotten out of simply by presenting this fact? That companies literally expect you to perform the impossible in order to use their product, so anything listed would be null and void?

Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 03:13 · Score: 0

Or at the very least, they should force advertisers to list all limitations in their ads, in addition to benefits of their products.
Re:Hmm... by jeffb+(2.718) · 2012-12-04 03:25 · Score: 1

What's "impossible" about eight million people each spending ten minutes at a pointless exercise?
There are plenty of reasons to disregard EULAs. "It's literally impossible to read it" is not one of them.

Man-years or people-years, not just years by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 03:12 · Score: 1

Get your units right!

Worthless stats by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 03:15 · Score: 0

Stop acting like each person can't use the same minutes in a day.

Now consider the time wasted on... by 3seas · 2012-12-04 03:16 · Score: 1

.....updates, upgrades, caused to learn a different way to do what you already knew how to do, etc......and patches because of......why?

If we billed for the time, to those we buy from that cost us this additional time.... how long would they be in business?

Beginning Phase Two of Evil Plan by eldavojohn · 2012-12-04 03:17 · Score: 2

If 1000 people each spend 5 minutes reading TFS, skimming the comments, and trolling a little here and there, that's 3.17 days *demanded* PER article! A dozen articles a day, and that's like a zillion DAYS A DAY!

That's nothing! Have you seen any of my book reviews? Between Bennett Haselton and myself we're destroying English speaking civilization one inane wall of text at a time. Muahahahaha!

--
My work here is dung.

Get Over It by Jawnn · 2012-12-04 03:18 · Score: 2

" The more I think about it, Old Billy was right ...
-- The Eagles

People should start billing at Attorney rates for by Joe_Dragon · 2012-12-04 03:20 · Score: 1

People should start billing at Attorney rates for there time reading stuff like this.

Why click without reading? by Rob+the+Bold · 2012-12-04 03:23 · Score: 5, Insightful

Well, is there any point in reading a EULA or any other online agreement? Seems like every one I've even skimmed has a provision that the agreement can be unilaterally changed -- by the company, not the consumer -- at any time simply by posting a new version somewhere. It's the consumer's responsibility, according to the agreement, to periodically check back and diff the two versions to see if there's something added/deleted/changed. So you might as well click, because even if you are OK with the terms, they can change at any time. Read it or not, the agreement you virtually signed today can be something different tomorrow. The one you read is only valid for the time it takes you to read it.

--
I am not a crackpot.

Re:Why click without reading? by xtal · 2012-12-04 03:48 · Score: 1

Canadian law actually considers this. IANAL, but I think they use a "reasonable person" test, e.g., you are bound to what a "reasonable person" would.
Of course, the judge gets to decide what that means, but I think it's well established nobody reads the things.

--
..don't panic
Re:Why click without reading? by BoRegardless · 2012-12-04 03:51 · Score: 3, Informative

Microsoft convinced me they do NOT want me to read their EULA!
I was upgrading online and decided to read the EULA. I read and read and read and finally they disconnected me from the upgrade window for lack of activity.
Don't think I got half way through the EULA, let alone understanding what I read or its implications.
And Microsoft no doubt wonders why I distrust them. They certainly distrust me. This dooms companies
Re:Why click without reading? by SirGarlon · 2012-12-04 03:54 · Score: 1

True, but if the terms are unacceptable to you at the time you install the software, unchecking the "I agree" box is your last chance to bail. Some of these "agreements" are more odious than others.

--
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
Re:Why click without reading? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 04:27 · Score: 0

I have a Barnes & Noble Nook ebook reader. It came with a "Terms & Conditions" (EULA) file which you had to open before you could do anything else with it (at least, that's what it said).
It also came with a "Quick Start Guide" of 17 pages.
And a detailed guide of 101 pages.
The "Terms & Conditions" file is 140 pages.
I think that is a contender for a record length EULA. I only read the first page, and don't remember a word of it.
Re:Why click without reading? by alostpacket · 2012-12-04 04:40 · Score: 1

My favorite is clicking "agree" to the blank Steam agreement popup when installing a game. It takes a couple of seconds to load so I always "agree" to.... agree

--
PocketPermissions Android Permission Guide
Re:Why click without reading? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 05:51 · Score: 0

Irrelevant. Having the software installed doesn't prove you accepted the terms and checked "I agree" at any point in time. It just means someone did: not necessarily you. How is there any guarantee that the end user has read and accepted the EULA, when it's not guaranteed at all that the end user is the person who installed the software?
If my 10 year old kid (or my cat) decides to install MS Office, he cannot legally enter a contract with anyone, so whatever he agrees to is irrelevant and void. Or maybe it was a friend of mine... how can I be legally bound to a contract I didn't agree to at any point in time? Simple... I can't.
TL;DR: If I (me, personally) haven't accepted the EULA, then it's irrelevant what it says or claims anyway.
Re:Why click without reading? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 06:58 · Score: 0

Autocad 2004 also shows an empty licence when installed in Wine. (maybe Linux lacks the special "unreadable" fonts)
Re:Why click without reading? by nedlohs · 2012-12-04 09:53 · Score: 1

Sure and if push comes to shove you get to say you didn't click it under oath in court.. And since it'll be a civil court the judge or jury decides whether it's more likely you did or didn't.
Re:Why click without reading? by Rob+the+Bold · 2012-12-04 10:32 · Score: 1

Sure and if push comes to shove you get to say you didn't click it under oath in court.. And since it'll be a civil court the judge or jury decides whether it's more likely you did or didn't.
And if the guy's lucky, the judge won't remember the old "someone else was driving it" excuse from his days hearing parking ticket cases.

--
I am not a crackpot.
Re:Why click without reading? by scared+masked+man · 2012-12-04 11:45 · Score: 1

I think the licence is downloaded from their servers: I agreed to a error 500 page.

Maybe You Are Too Stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 03:24 · Score: 0

Perhaps you are too stupid. I'm no lawyer, but I have no problem reading 3,500 words(OMFG!) and understanding that the EULA contractually obligates me to take it in the ass.

For the record, you don't have to use the software.

There's no doubt EULAs and their excessively complex legalese SUCK! But, it seems like you are intentionally being stupid.

Fascinating by wonkey_monkey · 2012-12-04 03:25 · Score: 3, Interesting

So, a small number multiplied by a big number results in an even bigger number. Incredible!

that's 138 lifetimes a day!

Er, right. Is that a lot? It could have been anything and I would have failed to be surprised, since I had no prior impressions on the subject. Telling us that a human's blood vessels would stretch to the moon and back (or whatever it really is) is interesting and surprising because we know how big a space they're usually crammed into. This is just numbers.

--
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.

Re:Fascinating by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 03:49 · Score: 0

I heard a story, not sure if it is true, but Steve Job, a long time ago, once told an engineer if he improve the boot time of computer by 5 seconds he would save a life every year.
Re:Fascinating by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 10:33 · Score: 0

Here's a better comparison. 8 million downloads/day * 10 minutes / 7 billion people in the world = 8 * 10^-6. So 0.0008% of all human activity would be dedicated to reading Adobe EULAs, if people ever actually did that.

I think you are onto something here. by neoshroom · 2012-12-04 03:25 · Score: 5, Funny

I think you are onto something here. Clearly, we have to introduce gripping story-lines into EULAs to make them into a new art form worthy of taking the time to read:

"Adobe products are not sold; rather, copies of Adobe products, including Macromedia branded products, are licensed all the way through the distribution channel to the end user," Samantha said, stripping off her blouse. A voice echoed back to her through the open window on the street below, "UNLESS YOU HAVE ANOTHER AGREEMENT DIRECTLY WITH ADOBE THAT CONTROLS AND ALTERS YOUR USE OR DISTRIBUTION OF THE ADOBE PRODUCTS, THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE APPLICABLE LICENSE AGREEMENTS BELOW APPLY TO YOU." She gasped and lunged for the pistol.

___

--
Big apple, new Yorik, undig it, something's unrotting in Edenmark.

Re:I think you are onto something here. by vlm · 2012-12-04 03:30 · Score: 1

Better in video format.

--
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Re:I think you are onto something here. by vlm · 2012-12-04 03:35 · Score: 1

The problem with making video format EULAs is they would probably resemble 2G1C or goatse more so than any other video.

--
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Re:I think you are onto something here. by davidwr · 2012-12-04 03:39 · Score: 1

Imagine a goatse of a customer at the door of Adobe's head lawyer, bent over facing away from the door, with a pistol pointing out of ... well, if you've seen goatse you know what the pistol is pointing out of.

--
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Re:I think you are onto something here. by NatasRevol · 2012-12-04 04:11 · Score: 3, Informative

That's not a pistol!

--
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Re:I think you are onto something here. by Raumkraut · 2012-12-04 04:12 · Score: 1

Videodrome for the Internet generation?
Re:I think you are onto something here. by interval1066 · 2012-12-04 04:32 · Score: 1

Ok, now THAT was funny.

--
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
Re:I think you are onto something here. by greg1104 · 2012-12-04 06:06 · Score: 1

That already is the position people end up in after making a visit to the office of Adobe's head lawyer.
Re:I think you are onto something here. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 06:09 · Score: 0

True, but most don't come armed.
Re:I think you are onto something here. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-05 09:09 · Score: 0

That's not a pistol!
Wait! Wait! Forget this conversation! I want to hear the end of the EULA!

Statistics by Hentes · 2012-12-04 03:27 · Score: 2

It doesn't work the way you think it does.

Re:Statistics by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 06:04 · Score: 0

Uh... where exactly does "statistics" come into THIS issue anyway? Ok, sure, this is obviously some (possibly dubious, prone to error) extrapolated ballpark estimate, for the purpose of illustrating the magnitude of time Adobe expects people to spend reading the EULAs of their products (to show how unreasonable it is), assuming, of course, the implied expectation in EULAs that you are supposed to read them _every time you install a piece of software_ (among other assumptions, like the number of installs per day claimed by Adobe).
Again, what does that have to do with "statistics"? Where do you see any statistical claims? What is your point?
Words. They don't work the way you think they do.

The last time? Turbo Pascal for the Mac, 1986-ish by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 03:28 · Score: 0

OK, maybe not THAT far back, but the EULA was about 1 printed page in a manual the size of a modern several-hundred-page technical book.

The EULA's summary read something like this:

"Treat this software as you would a book, except oh by the way you can make backup copies."

The software was not copy-protected.

If I recall, this is what the manual's cover looked like:
http://www.amazon.com/Turbo-Pascal-Mac-reference-manual/dp/0875241549

It could be worse by Revotron · 2012-12-04 03:29 · Score: 3, Funny

Everybody could take the time to read all of the inane rambling bullshit that timothy clutters the front page with. Then we'd really be wasting time.

In other news, if you buy a $1 candy bar every Sunday, that's $52 a year! But wait, there's more. If everybody in Detroit, MI bought a candy bar every Sunday, that would be $36,742,420 a year! And if they bought THREE candy bars, then OMG! That's $110,227,260 per year! And OH EM GEE, IF THEY PAID 7% SALES TAX THAT WOULD BE $7,715,908.20 IN TAXES A YEAR FROM CANDY BARS!

ERMAHGERD, NERMBERS!

Re:It could be worse by sp332 · 2012-12-04 03:43 · Score: 2

But you're not legally liable to buy a Snickers bar, whereas you are legally bound to follow the terms of the EULA. It's not optional.
Re:It could be worse by Revotron · 2012-12-04 03:47 · Score: 1

You're not legally bound to follow the terms of the EULA unless you accept it and use the software, and by extension, the license it comes with. You can reject the EULA after reading it and uninstall the software, or just not download it in the first place, and that's that.
Re:It could be worse by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 04:11 · Score: 3, Insightful

Good luck getting your money back if you bought it. That is the real crime here.
Re:It could be worse by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 04:12 · Score: 0

...You know, if one person, just one person does it they may think he's really sick and they won't take him. And if two people, two people do it, in harmony, they may think they're both faggots and they won't take either of them. And three people do it, three, can you imagine, three people walking in singin a bar of Alice's Restaurant and walking out. They may think it's an organization. And can you, can you imagine fifty people a day, I said fifty people a day walking in singin a bar of Alice's Restaurant and walking out. And friends they may thinks it's a movement.
Re:It could be worse by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 04:18 · Score: 0

Yes,but the real question is, who pays for software anymore?
Re:It could be worse by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 06:18 · Score: 0

No.
I cannot be bound by a contract I didn't explicitly accept. The fact that I have some software installed in my computer and that I am the end user of that piece of software does not (i repeat, DOES NOT) prove I have, at any point in time, read and/or pressed any "accept" button (or similar).
The burden of proof is on Adobe to show that I have accepted the agreement, not on me. But I guess they probably can't afford to pay notary fees for each single EULA agreement event, right? Well, I'm pretty sure there wouldn't be enough notaries, even if they could afford.
Also, I don't need an explicit license from a copyright owner to RUN software; just to copy it. In fact, I am even legally allowed to download a pirated version of any software and run it without any type of explicit license.
Sucks for them.
YMMV.
Re:It could be worse by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 07:46 · Score: 0

I am even legally allowed to download a pirated version of any software and run it without any type of explicit license.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Re:It could be worse by Revotron · 2012-12-04 07:49 · Score: 1

I am even legally allowed to download a pirated version of any software and run it without any type of explicit license.
Let me guess - you live in China?
Re:It could be worse by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 07:52 · Score: 0

You can reject the EULA after reading it and uninstall the software, or just not download it in the first place, and that's that.
Cool - and you can wait for the cash from this purchase until after I've read and decided to accept the EULA.... right?
Re:It could be worse by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 08:02 · Score: 0

Try the Netherlands.

Insanity should not be respected... by PortHaven · 2012-12-04 03:32 · Score: 5, Funny

I click, because if I am ever sued over an EULA, I will demand a jury. And demand that the jury read the EULA. I will then provide them an updated EULA before the trial is over. And demand they read that as well. If I feel the jury is still, not convinced of the fact that EULAs should be non-enforceable. I will provide a third update.

If I lose my case, then I know this world is so utterly insane....that what I do doesn't really matter. And I will ensure the publisher of the EULA is eradicated from this insane holo-simulation.

Re:Insanity should not be respected... by Shagg · 2012-12-04 03:41 · Score: 1

Insanity has nothing to do with whether or not you will lose a case. The only thing that matters is if you can afford a better lawyer than the other guy.

--
Unix is user friendly, it's just selective about who its friends are.
Re:Insanity should not be respected... by PortHaven · 2012-12-04 03:43 · Score: 2

Likewise, another argument. I email every one who send me email, that in order to do so, they are subject to a license agreement in which their very souls become my possession, and all material possessions - and since companies are people too, they are subject as well.
Since Adobe sent me an email after I sent them the license notification. They are now subject to my license terms. Yes, it's stupid. But it's essentially what EULAs do.
Re:Insanity should not be respected... by hobarrera · 2012-12-04 03:45 · Score: 1

Indeed - I guess that if your "Jury of peers" have actually ever had to install any Adobe software, you've got a pretty good chance of being in the clear.
Re:Insanity should not be respected... by PortHaven · 2012-12-04 04:24 · Score: 1

Much agreed...
Insanity, factors into, what one does after one loses a crazy case. Do you take...or do you start singing "We're not going to take it!" and suddenly find yourself wearing a V for Vendetta mask.
Just remember, employees are normal people, often who dislike their companies' own policies but have need of a bread check. Don't take vengeance out upon innocents. ;-)
Re:Insanity should not be respected... by PortHaven · 2012-12-04 04:26 · Score: 1

Honestly, I think Apple's iTunes is FAR worse than Adobe.
Adobe downloads in seconds - iTunes downloads a 100 times the data. Plus always wants "new" versions of QuickTime and what not.
Re:Insanity should not be respected... by shentino · 2012-12-04 04:26 · Score: 1

We also learned from Dotcom that whether or not you can get the feds to bankrupt your opponent out of hiring a good lawyer also has a significant influence on who will win.
Re:Insanity should not be respected... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 04:39 · Score: 0

I click, because if I am ever sued over an EULA, I will demand a jury. And demand that the jury read the EULA. I will then provide them an updated EULA before the trial is over. And demand they read that as well.
Being a dick to the jury might not be as clever as you think.
Re:Insanity should not be respected... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 07:54 · Score: 0

If I lose my case, then I know this world is so utterly insane....that what I do doesn't really matter. And I will ensure the publisher of the EULA is eradicated from this insane holo-simulation.
Mm hmm, and whoever said THEY were the holo-simulation?
Re:Insanity should not be respected... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 18:15 · Score: 0

yer truth is my insanity, apparently.
Re:Insanity should not be respected... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 18:40 · Score: 0

Sorry to have to tell you this: Nobody reads your emails.
Re:Insanity should not be respected... by PortHaven · 2012-12-05 05:17 · Score: 1

Yes, but I thought no one read my Slashdot posts either....but you did.
I am now happy. :-)
Re:Insanity should not be respected... by PortHaven · 2012-12-05 05:19 · Score: 1

It's like the joke...
A Republican says that whenever he ate at a restaurant, he left a $20 tip and said "Vote Republican".
A Democrat responded that whenever he ate at a restaurant, he left no tip and said "Vote Republican".

or just assume every EULA contains: by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 03:33 · Score: 0

1) you have no rights to this software, we can revoke use at any time
2) software will compile usage data not only of this program but of anything else done while the program is running.
3) compiled data will contain unique identifiers which can be traced back to an individual user.
4) compiled data will be sent back to us to be analyzed and/or sold to third parties
5) We can modify this document at any time.
6) You have no rights to sue us for any reason. You must agree to the decision of our arbitrator.

Uh... no. by mark-t · 2012-12-04 03:34 · Score: 2

I don't doubt that a good majority of people do simply click the check-box, and ignore the EULA...

The article then goes to use some creative math to imply that it must be virtually impossible to accomplish by assuming it takes 10 minutes to read, multiplying that by 8 million downloads per day, and then converting that to years, saying that it works out to 1522 years

However... this is wrong.

It's bad math. Bad in the sense that it ignored significant figures, and bad as anyone who respects dimensional analysis can affirm.

10 minutes to read the EULA multiplied by 80 million users per day simply equals 80 million user-minutes per day.

The number of minutes per year can be easily calculated by multipying 60 times 24 times 365.25 = 525,960 minutes per year.

If we divide 80,000,000 user-minutes per day by 525,960 minutes per year, the result is in man-years per day, and is roughly 152.1. This figure is a full order of magnitude less than the figure they claimed. It's obvious that they slipped up on a decimal point somewhere.

However... 152.1 man-years is not the same thing as 152.1 years. And since that's still being split across 8 million people, it ends up still coming out to that same old 10 minutes per person. Many of them would simply have to be happening simultaneously, of course.

Again, however, I'm not suggesting that many people actually read the EULA or even that most people read it... only pointing out that the apparent absurdity that it could not reasonably happen is actually a deduction based on a fallacy. 80 million minutes works out to This sounds like a lot... but remember, again... that's split across 8 million people, so each one of them would still only take 10 minutes to read it.

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'

Re:Uh... no. by fatphil · 2012-12-04 04:00 · Score: 1

Are you sure you've never got any figures out by a factor of 10? Now give it a 20th read to be sure.

--
Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
Re:Uh... no. by mark-t · 2012-12-04 04:07 · Score: 1

It's possible I made a significant figure error myself, as I accused the article of doing, but I'm pretty sure I'm correct. I'm calling them more on the notion for ignoring the fact their long period should have actually been man-years, and not simply years, however... and when you divide that across 8 million people, it's still only 10 minutes per person, which is hardly the mathematical absurdity implied by the article.
Not that I believe that many people actually read the EULA.... I'm just pointing out the fallacy that the article seems to rest its premise on.

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Re:Uh... no. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 04:16 · Score: 0

This sounds like a lot... but remember, again... that's split across 8 million people, so each one of them would still only take 10 minutes to read it.
Yes, and what if all those 8 million users would use those 10 minutes to do something else, something productive and helpful to society? I think that's the main point of the story.
A car analogy:
You drive to work but are 10 minutes late due to traffic. No problem, all your colleges are 10 minutes late due to traffic. Still not that big of a deal, it's just 10 minutes for each of them.
Except your boss is just out 10 minutes * number of workers * wage/10 minutes. All those 10 minutes put together become a total that is meaningful and negative for said company.
Re:Uh... no. by mark-t · 2012-12-04 04:24 · Score: 1

I'm not suggesting that the cumulative figure isn't that large. I am merely pointing out that the article has ignored dimensional analysis, evidently equating man-years per day to actual years per day to suggest it's absurd to think it is even mathematically possible for that many people to read the EULA.
And again, I'm not suggesting that they do... only pointing out the flawed math, and showing that it's actually *highly* possible.

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Re:Uh... no. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 04:26 · Score: 1

10x80=80?
Re:Uh... no. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 04:48 · Score: 0

"10 minutes to read the EULA multiplied by 80 million users per day simply equals 80 million user-minutes per day."
'possible I made a significant figure error myself'?
Really, you can't see that you should have said 800 million user minutes per day?
Re:Uh... no. by mark-t · 2012-12-04 05:28 · Score: 1

Good catch.... I made a typo, above... I meant to type 8 million users, not 80 million. I was thinking of 80 million user-minutes when I typed that, which is the source of the typo.
Nonetheless, the reasoning above is still valid, and their ignoring of the fact that it is 80 million USER-minutes, not 80 million minutes, is still valid.

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Re:Uh... no. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 05:54 · Score: 0

In his article he stresses a working day as 8 hours. You are calculating a 24 hour day. He also uses a 240 day year since most people don't work weekends.
Factoring these changes in you get:
80million minutes per day spent reading/60 minutes per hour/8 hours per work day = 166,666.6 (6 repeats forever) work days spent per day reading the EULA
Extended out to the 240 day work week leave you with 694.44 (4 repeats forever) work years.
Then using his 50 year working life time you end up with 13.8 working life times. He was off by a factor of 10 true... but your attempt to disprove him didn't even utilize the same variables.
Re:Uh... no. by mark-t · 2012-12-04 07:37 · Score: 1

Actually, the article *DID* mention a working period of 24 hours a day... and mentioned a total of 1552 years as a result... a full order of magnitude different than my calculation. It then proceeded to factor that into a typical work day and gave a result based on that as well.
But the primary thrust of my comment was not so much on the significant figure error, as it was on the actually logical error of multiplying the number of downloads times the time spent reading and directly equating that to how long it would actually take to read. The article implies that it is mathematically absurd to spend that amount of time in one day and concludes that people do not read the EULA on that basis. This is a false premise, however, because it equates man-years to years, when the two are not the same. man-years can be divided across multiple people 8,000,000 per day, in this case... which means any one person still does not have to ever spend more than 10 minutes reading said EULA. Something that is easy to accomplish, contrary to the article's implication.
I'm not suggesting that people *DO* read EULA's... only that the premise on which the article appeared to rest was flawed.

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Re:Uh... no. by CCarrot · 2012-12-04 08:57 · Score: 1

... 152.1 man-years is not the same thing as 152.1 years. And since that's still being split across 8 million people, it ends up still coming out to that same old 10 minutes per person. Many of them would simply have to be happening simultaneously, of course.
Actually, whether it's in parallel or in series makes no difference to the bottom line cost.
Sure, if I am running a project and assign 10 resources to a task I can (theoretically*) complete the task ten times faster than I could if only one resource were assigned...but the cost remains the same. I still must pay for the hours worked on the project, whether it's all to one person, or multiple smaller amounts to many people.
IMHO, the one pertinent question this article fails to ask is: what is the collective benefit derived from using the software after the EULA has been processed? How much time is saved per user every day by using this software vs. other options? That savings *should* more than offset the 'cost' of reading through the EULA: if it doesn't, then they should seriously be exploring other options...
*Assuming spherical resources in a vacuum :o) by which I mean that adding people to a task causes no increase in overhead for that task (management, co-ordinationn, bathroom-break-time, electricity for those extra consoles, training time required, etc.). *sigh*, would be nice...

--
"I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
Re:Uh... no. by mark-t · 2012-12-04 10:53 · Score: 1

I wasn't questioning the net cost. However, the article appears to argue that the net cost somehow has a mathematical implication to reflect the likelihood that people are reading the EULA. Effectively, it appears to synonymize "man-years" with "years", and this results from failing to do dimensional analysis on the figures being worked with.
It is that flawed assumption I have been trying to point out.

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Re:Uh... no. by discord5 · 2012-12-04 12:30 · Score: 1
10 minutes to read the EULA multiplied by 80 million users per day simply equals 80 million user-minutes per day.
Sounds like every day project management, including the budgetted manhours. So... When the project goes over budget, and is only 1/10th finished, do you:
- Report to management you goofed?
- Break out the whip and start flogging developers while reading the Adobe EULA out loud?
Re:Uh... no. by mark-t · 2012-12-04 13:15 · Score: 1

Actually, no.... the 80 million user-minutes is correct. What I had typed incorrectly was the number of users, which was supposed to be 8 million. I inadvertently typed 80.
Nonetheless, the significant figure error was not my key objection... it was equating user-minutes to actual minutes as a means of ascertaining the implausibility for everybody to read the EULA that was my primary objection.

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Re:Uh... no. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 13:56 · Score: 0

10 minutes to read the EULA multiplied by 80 million users per day simply equals 80 million user-minutes per day.

try this paragraph in particular

EULA;DR by saibot834 · 2012-12-04 03:35 · Score: 1

There's a ToS;DR campaign to end unreadable ToS/Eulas or provide ways of getting useful summaries of them. Check out their List of ToS.

Re:EULA;DR by geminidomino · 2012-12-04 09:13 · Score: 1

Interesting site. I can't figure out how to get the Firefox extension to do anything useful, though.

Is such a contract enforceable? by davidwr · 2012-12-04 03:35 · Score: 1, Informative

An enforceable contract generally includes:
* an exchange
* a meeting of the minds

Is there really an enforceable "meeting of the minds" when you have a long, complex legal document, your buyer is not "sophisticated" enough to presumably know what is in the agreement without reading it, and you, the seller, do not make sure the buyer reads and at least appears to understand the legal document?

There is a reason closing a house or signing a lease on an apartment takes awhile: The buyer typically has to sign or at least initial every page. "Click though" agreements that don't make you "click through" each screen-ful of text (a scroll bar that can be quickly scrolled to the bottom doesn't count) is far, far, from making sure the buyer reads and appears to understand the agreement.

Adobe isn't the only company with long, complex licenses. Many open-source licenses have nuances that even lawyers argue about (particularly regarding the "viral" nature of some licenses).

--
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.

Re:Is such a contract enforceable? by u38cg · 2012-12-04 04:25 · Score: 1

EULAs are surprisingly untested in contract law. But in legal systems based on English law, including most of the US, they are probably worth very little - Denning's red hand and all that. It's strongly debateable whether they form part of a contract at all.

--
[FUCK BETA]
Re:Is such a contract enforceable? by aedil · 2012-12-04 04:36 · Score: 2

There is also the notion that an EULA bears only explicit agreement from one party, which generally isn't enough to call it a true contract in writing. A unilaterally binding agreement is not really a contract in the strictest sense. When combined with the actual act of purchasing, one could try to argue that the entire transaction (that concludes with the agreement to the EULA) constitutes some form of contract, but I doubt that in a legal sense that would be held up as a broad interpretation of the contract concept.
I know of at least one situation where a contractor had a customer sign his agreement that stated that the customer would pay a certain amount for work listed on the agreement. There was a dispute over the work, the agreement was brought into evidence, and rendered invalid as a contract because (1) the customer never got a copy of the agreement he signed, and (2) the agreement did not contain a signature of the contractor or representative.
Re:Is such a contract enforceable? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 07:13 · Score: 0

EULAs are surprisingly untested in contract law
No, they aren't. There are hundreds of cases. I don't know where people get this ridiculous ideas.
There's no open question on whether the method of licensing is acceptable. It is and this fact is not a new development in the law. What's untested is the content of many of those licenses.

Slow news day by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 03:35 · Score: 0

Move along, folks, nothing to see here.

Uh... by The+Grim+Reefer · 2012-12-04 03:37 · Score: 1

Adobe EULA Demands 7000 Years a Day From Humankind

No they don't. The last time I checked they didn't, nor has anyone, demanded that "humankind" use Flash to begin with. Even if they did, it's an EULA. You are not forced to read it in order to agree to it. Nor is it enforceable in most places even if you do check the agree button. Even if they did demand that we read it, it's irrelevant. This is less relevant than when a 2 YRO throws a tantrum demanding a new toy. Or me "demanding" everyone on /. must send me $5

Besides, if I want to operate my nuclear facility using Flash I will. And if Adobe comes after me, I will launch a first strike on their lawyers offices using my Flash controlled weapons system that is guided using Flash for aerial navigation.

8 million A DAY? by argStyopa · 2012-12-04 03:38 · Score: 2

8 million a day seems a little absurd.

There are only 7 billion people on the planet, and the vast majority of them don't dwell on the internet.

For those who do, I'd guess that they watch a youtube video once and voila, they don't need to install flash again*.

*Then again, it does seem like adobe patches air, pdf, and flash 600 times/day (for functionally the same bloody software that's been installed for 10 years...), so maybe the math DOES work out.

--
-Styopa

Re:8 million A DAY? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 03:54 · Score: 0

Not really. It's not just new installs, there are regular updates and you do have to click through the license crap each and every time.
It's like the "app" store junk games claiming to be downloaded a bazzilion times, when most of them are for each little update, bug fix and new level added they do.

i didn't know reading was additive by shadowrat · 2012-12-04 03:40 · Score: 1

I dislike EULAs as much as the next guy, but what kind of sensationalist metric is this? If it takes 1 person 10 minutes to read something, it takes a billion people 10 minutes to read it (assuming they all read the same language at the same pace). They can all read it at the same time. It's not like they are all in a line waiting for the previous reader to finish.

it would be far better to say that 1 person is presented with 20 EULAs on a daily basis. at 10 min a piece, what 1 person wants to read that much crap?

Re:i didn't know reading was additive by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 04:35 · Score: 0

I do agree the headline is sensationalistic - that tends to be the nature of headlines - they want to grab your attention. But it's quite common to measure total effort in terms of man-days, or some other appropriate figure.
For me at least, pointing out that the 10 minutes for everyone adds up to 7000 years a day made me think about the sheer waste to humankind that would be involved in the pointless activity of reading the EULA. Of course, hardly anyone actually does that...

wishes by spottedkangaroo · 2012-12-04 03:40 · Score: 2

I wish this would go ahead and get popular, work, or be useful: http://tos-dr.info/

--
Imagine if you weren't allowed to use roads because a bus company complained about your driving 3 times. --skunkpussy

The article. by Raven42rac · 2012-12-04 03:43 · Score: 1

I'm not sure I understand the purpose of this article.

--
I hate sigs.

Re:The article. by fatphil · 2012-12-04 04:02 · Score: 1

It's attempting to waste 10 minutes of 2000000 people's time.

--
Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863

Read 350 wpm of lawyer-speak with comperhension? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 03:49 · Score: 0

You've got to be kidding me.

Most people can't read 350wpm of fiction. Lawyer-speak is an order of magnitude more complicated.

Scraping the barrel today, aren't we? by gallondr00nk · 2012-12-04 03:53 · Score: 2

OMG! Imagine how many years have been wasted to like, fucking Atlas Shrugged man.. If everyone who read it took like, 30 hours to read it that'd be like, a million years in wasted man hours. Whaooo...

It reminds me of those anti piracy studies that take some figure out of their ass, multiply it by the number of downloads of Rihanna albums on a few BT trackers and then claims that's what they've lost in revenue this year.

Re:Scraping the barrel today, aren't we? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 04:00 · Score: 0

Well, there's been plenty of otherwise-good lives wasted after reading Atlas Shrugged, but not QUITE for those reasons.
Re:Scraping the barrel today, aren't we? by CCarrot · 2012-12-04 09:11 · Score: 1

OMG! Imagine how many years have been wasted to like, fucking Atlas Shrugged man.. If everyone who read it took like, 30 hours to read it that'd be like, a million years in wasted man hours. Whaooo...
That's nothing, I *weep* to think of the millions of man-years (not to mention IQ points) wasted by the Twilight series...
Those books are indeed full of vampires...time vampires!

--
"I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant

Summary by jones_supa · 2012-12-04 04:02 · Score: 2

Would it be possible to make a human-readable short summary of the core idea of the particular EULA, followed by the actual text?

For example: "By accepting these terms, you agree not to disassemble, modify or redistribute this software. It is provided to you as is, without any warranty. For details, the complete end user agreement follows."

Re:Summary by jackbird · 2012-12-04 05:44 · Score: 1

That's pretty much what the preamble to the GPL does.

Propose a word limit on EULAs by davydagger · 2012-12-04 04:04 · Score: 1

I propose a word limit on EULAs. Many many many online services have limits on message size, in various scopes.

I say we place one on EULAs and similar legal documents. Limit on total word count, and total time to read count. Since people read at diffrent speeds, I propose the following calculation.

15 min of reading time at 50% percentile reading speed, or no more than 30 min at one standard deviation below the mean.

Re:Propose a word limit on EULAs by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 05:38 · Score: 0

I think a mandate on any add telling us what the products can do have to also tell us what we can't do would be even better. If money will be spent on advertising, it should be fully truthful and honest. I mean don't all pharmaceuticals have to do that on TV now? Why not everyone else?
Re:Propose a word limit on EULAs by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 15:43 · Score: 0

I propose a word limit on EULAs.

Zero.

..."Warning: Do not insert in ear canal!..." by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 04:05 · Score: 0

Every package of Q-Tips contains a warning that, if followed, rendered the product useless for its primary use.

If they want me to read that... by canadiannomad · 2012-12-04 04:08 · Score: 1

I want a signing bonus!

--
Hmm, the humour and sarcasm seem to have been be lost on you.

Re:If they want me to read that... by canadiannomad · 2012-12-04 04:28 · Score: 1

I will also propose a new licence agreement:

We are God with regards to this product and anything you put into it or it does to or with your system or business. In exchange for this product merely existing, or having existed on your system you wave all rights past, present, and future. By agreeing to this, we own your ass and everything in it. If you sue us, that is fine, we own your bank accounts too.

--
Hmm, the humour and sarcasm seem to have been be lost on you.

Why are there so many comments here? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 04:09 · Score: 0

Did anybody actually RTFEULA?

"...the text that we all blindly agree to..." by John+Hasler · 2012-12-04 04:12 · Score: 1

Wrong. We do not "all blindly agree".

--
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.

I'M CLEARLY A N00B by aglider · 2012-12-04 04:57 · Score: 1

So I won't ever understand the fun with the GPS in a moving vehicle. Sorry.

--
Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.

But how long is that in.... by cyberfunkr · 2012-12-04 05:00 · Score: 1

But how long is that in parsecs?

Seriously. If it takes me 10 minutes to read and understand it, then it take me 10 minutes to read and understand it. The fact that millions of other people are doing the same thing holds no value other than Adobe is wasting our time.

To watch (and understand?) an episode of Seinfeld takes 22 minutes. There were 180 episodes. With a made up average of 50 million people watched those episodes. That means that I'm creating a really big number but with no actual value other than all of humanity wasted a lot of time watching "nothing" and as I type this you should be reading it in a louder and louder, more excited voice until I finally end the sentence where I'm practically yelling in an effort to make this seem important!

If it takes one woman 9 months to have a baby, it still doesn't take 1 month for 9 women to have a baby. Move along folks... Bad math in the house.

Skimming by HideyoshiJP · 2012-12-04 05:08 · Score: 1

These EULAs are quite long, but often times they can be skimmed. Generally, I look for any arbitration clauses, warranty disclaimers, use restrictions, claims of ownership, data collection policies, and any big scary sections in all caps. More often than not, the rest is pretty standard, such as sections about export controls, copyright notices, and notes regarding the TOS.

Here's how that works. by Medievalist · 2012-12-04 05:10 · Score: 1

OK, so about ten years ago before my kids were old enough to enter into contracts, I simply had them install my software for me, meaning that no one read and understood the EULA. How are these abominations in any way enforceable??

Well, I've been around the block a few times in the US legal system. Here's the heuristic:

1) Guilt, innocence, and laws don't really matter, because their interpretation is negotiable inside a courtroom

2) Whoever has the better legal team wins

3) In nearly all cases, the better legal team is the more more expensive legal team.

By using the power of this reasoning, you can predict the outcome of legal cases with close to 100% accuracy. Keep in mind that the rich don't always win, because they sometimes miscalculate how much to spend, and nearly all of the spending has to be budgeted up front.

Re:Here's how that works. by AvitarX · 2012-12-04 06:26 · Score: 1

This is just not true.
I've done graphics for dozens of trials, and the at least once it gets to that point things are pretty accurately resolved. You are correct that if you under-budget upfront you're screwed, but as long as both sides budget enough to review the universe of documents, and file things in time (a good defense team will file constantly requiring a plaintiff to do the same to oppose), the resolution is generally reasonable.
If both sides are decent, the difference between decent and great is tangible, but not overwhelming (based on experience of dozens of trials often outspent or outspending 10:1).

--
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
Re:Here's how that works. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-05 03:26 · Score: 0

I don't know what to tell you. I bought my way out of losing my license in the City of Wilmington, Delaware (yes, I know where Brandywine Hundred is) decades ago - I wasn't guilty of the crime, but that didn't matter, what mattered was I hired an excellent lawyer who was a friend of the judge. I bought my son's way out of trouble with the idiotic Delawarean "zero tolerance" school policy by hiring the most expensive lawyer in the state (I'm pretty sure you know who that is). Technically, by the letter of the law, the boy was both guilty and caught red-handed, although the law is stupid and morally wrong. I have been an "expert witness" in court cases in Virginia (that's not really a valid legal term in VA, but people use it anyway) and it worked that way there too - the better lawyer won, regardless of any other factor.
If you've had different experiences, then you should obviously judge based on that. But my experience tells me this: if someone takes you to court, sell off any assets you can live without and buy the best damn lawyer you can afford. You optimize your chances of success that way, in my personal experience, because the system is corrupt and money-fueled.
Re:Here's how that works. by AvitarX · 2012-12-05 04:46 · Score: 1

In Delaware it's relatively easy to keep your license with a DUI (though I can't speak to the regrettable zero tolerance policy for minors). They plea to Reckless Alcohol Related pretty regularly.
As for your experience in VA, I would suspect it was a matter of terrible lawyering on the other side (there's a lot of terrible lawyers). If you didn't have dueling experts that basically mooted each other, there was a serious issue with one side's case (essentially every exit interview I've been permitted to do the jurors essentially said, all the experts lie for money).
Money is more important before court where you can bury the other side with work.
To be fair, my experience is in trials with half million plus dollar budgets, the difference between half a million and 2 million may not be as big as between 150k and a half million.

--
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
Re:Here's how that works. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-05 07:37 · Score: 0

It may be different in the big leagues, where the corporations play, I suppose. I've never been in Chancery.
My case was driving the wrong way on a one-way street (which I did not actually do) and a cop with an attitude, who displayed a creative approach to filling out arrest forms. In court it was my word against his. So I hired a friend of the judge, which was expensive, and made sure the prosecution had no advance warning that I would be bringing a lawyer. And thus I was let off with a warning, and no fine or points on my license. I received justice, but this avenue of approach is not available to poor people or uneducated people.
My son's case was being a stupid pre-adolescent male and thinking he could bring Daddy's cool blade to school and show his friends, and nobody would know about it. He was nabbed in homeroom, and although he never threatened anyone, or brandished, or anything else, it was still illegal deadly weapons possession in a safe school zone and a violation of "zero tolerance". I hired an expensive lawyer, and he buried the prosecution with paperwork, and credibly threatened the school board in regards to their blatant mishandling of the case, and the school district caved and dropped most of the charges and readmitted him. My family did not have a vacation that year, and Christmas was a bit skimpy, but then again my son did not get sent to the "Special" school with the chronic public masturbators and children the state has placed on the school-to-jail track, so I consider it many thousands of dollars well spent. This approach is not available to poor people or uneducated people.
These experiences matched those of the many other court cases I sat and watched during the same time periods. Except for one case (where a judge directly intervened to rescue a homeless, mentally impaired man who was being harassed and persecuted by the Wilmington police) everyone got exactly the amount of justice they could afford to pay for.
Re:Here's how that works. by AvitarX · 2012-12-05 08:05 · Score: 1

Fair enough, I think the difference is I see decent (meaning quite good) vs excellent lawyers in work (and rarely actually in DE). In the corporate cases the bad attorneys don't even make it to trial (which is where I do most of my legal related work).
It's key to pay your way through the early stage (as you've noticed) to make a trial never happen. The problem you speak of with asymmetry in cases is really bad in criminal matters, as defending against a decent lawyer (the DA) is quite expensive in terms of personal money for the vast majority of people.
I wish people liked freedom in this country, because then those with political ambitions would become defenders, and even things out.
Also, Wilmington police are the worse. I was held as a POI for hours longer then allowed, but refused to be allowed to exit. My only choice was to ask for a lawyer, and risk being arrested and taken to jail over-night for bail (I was innocent, and contemplated uttering lawyer, but the situation had me in emotional distress, and I didn't want to be arrested and spend the night in jail alone and cut off from the world waiting for a bail hearing.
The only time they were helpful was when I called them, and they realized an upstandingish white person lived in the neighborhood and cared about the squat pad (they had blown off the far more upstanding black neighbors a half dozen times).

--
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
Re:Here's how that works. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-06 04:14 · Score: 0

...Wilmington police are the worst. I was held as a POI for hours longer than allowed, but refused to be allowed to exit. My only choice was to ask for a lawyer, and risk being arrested and taken to jail over-night...
Well, if you were an unarmed POI you actually risked being repeatedly tazed and then murdered in front of multiple witnesses, not just jail time. Remember Derek Hale? This is the Wilmington Police we're talking about - they are mostly above the law.
Although my neighbors and I recently got the best of a Wilmington police officer, so not all hope is lost. There was illegal dumping going on in the NC County public open space next to my property (the spot was chosen because periodic flooding washes the debris into the White Clay, cleverly removing the evidence by putting it directly into Newark's water supply). When I contacted DNREC, who often brag about the poor people of color they bust for illegal dumping, I found out that this activity was being orchestrated by a Wilmington Police officer related to a state political figure, and therefore there would be no prosecution. So I gathered the neighbors, and we formed a vigilante posse, and we confronted the next person who showed up (who was another Wilmington police officer, who was planning on illegally taking deer on the property - we caught him setting up his tree stand). What we said was "you seem to be mistaken about property lines" but the unsaid message was "you have to kill or intimidate an entire neighborhood full of white, taxpaying, property owning middle-class citizens, that don't live in Wilmington, if you are going to keep doing this" and the problem seems to be resolved now.
It's often impossible to counter their routine abuses of power as an individual, but a group of honest citizens can still make a difference. Despite the Delaware Republican party's stated platform espousing increased police forces, increasingly violent response to crime, and increased punishments (all of which are well proven to have no deterrent effect on crime) and despite the Wilmington Police Department's oft-stated opposition to community policing models that are proven effective (but which decrease opportunities for police brutality) a change seems to be in the wind. Basically, Delawareans are getting fed up with being more afraid of the Wilmington police than they are of criminals. So, maybe something will actually change, if enough people stand up in protest.

Re:People should start billing at Attorney rates f by Quakeulf · 2012-12-04 05:28 · Score: 1

*their

Judging by your reading comprehension it seems a bit more reading would be in order.

No hablo Inglés by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 05:33 · Score: 0

No leí Inglés

Re:Fuzzy math by Technician · 2012-12-04 05:40 · Score: 1

Fuzzy math is at play here. For example how long does it take to hard boil a 3 minute egg? How long does it take to hard boil a dozen 3 minute eggs in a large pan? Many IT guys for small businesses do the install. Do they read the EULA for each of the dozen machines? Nope. It's the same. Do they download the software for each? Yes if it is too small of an install batch to bother making it part of a Image install file.

In many places the end user never sees the EULA. This trims down some of the years in the fuzzy math.

--
The truth shall set you free!

Flash EULA in PDF on Windows by ColdCat · 2012-12-04 05:49 · Score: 1

Flash EULA is in PDF.
On windows if you can install flash before any PDF reader.

I don't care about your EULA bitches! by Nyder · 2012-12-04 06:08 · Score: 1

I do what I want. You don't know me. oh wait, wrong show.

I don't read EULA because I don't care what they say. I will do what I want, with the software on my computer, how I want. You want to stop me? Take me to court. Sure, I got better things to do, but court only will cost me time, it will cost you money. I'm poor, I'm disabled, so you can't garnish my wages (don't have any), you can't touch my SS (haha), and if you throw me in jail, I will become a poster boy (or older dude) for how fucked up the system is.

And as stated, you need to be a lawyer to understand and break most EULA's down. That will go against them. You can't convince a jury that everyone needs to higher a lawyer to break down what EULA's say before anyone installs anything. In fact, most everyone in the jury will be familiar with how stupid EULA's are, how annoying, and probably be against them.

And as I've said before, any contract that does NOT have my signature on it, isn't a valid contract between me and the other person/place.

--
Be seeing you...

Better question... by Nahor · 2012-12-04 06:17 · Score: 1

How much time would one person waste reading all the EULAs (s)he has to agree to?

8 Million? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 06:20 · Score: 0

8,000,000 times a day seems sort of unlikely. That means flash would be installed on 1 billion computers within 124 days, or every computer on earth within about 250 days (according to wikipedia figures about the number of PCs in the world). Surely at least some of those 2 billion machines have flash installed by now? Does everyone just reinstall it every 250 days?

it times out before you finish reading it by Dr.+Evil · 2012-12-04 06:30 · Score: 2

I read through the iTunes EULA and gave it a good think. Then when I returned to my computer to press "I agree" it told me my session timed out.

I could start again, but how can I be sure that the EULA didn't change?

I wrote Steve Jobs (when he was alive), asking how it could be legally binding if it was impossible to read and click on?

No response.

You're being set up to fail. by jimicus · 2012-12-04 06:53 · Score: 1

Doesn't surprise me. Things aren't much better with commercial software, where you may or may not be allowed to install multiple copies subject to various conditions, they provide you with a certificate of authenticity on the box but will only recognise an invoice if you get audited and while you probably throw out invoices after the statute of limitations for tax law has expired, you're a bit buggered if you do this for software you want to use longer than the statute of limitations.

But nobody told the accounts department that one.

I'm convinced the end user is being set up for failure. That may or may not be intentional, but it's certainly the upshot.

however, it doesn't apply. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 07:05 · Score: 1

GPL is required ONLY for making derived works, it doesn't apply to use. It isn't an END USER license agreement, it's a DEVELOPERS license agreement.

To use a GPL program you DO NOT have to agree to the GPL and it GRANTS EXTRA RIGHTS.

To use a commercial EULA'd software, you DO have to agree to it, and it REMOVES rights from you.

EULA in proprietary format. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 07:24 · Score: 0

What is really funny, is that you require Adobe's PDF Viewer to read the EULA in the first place.

Re:Fuzzy math by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 08:11 · Score: 0

Ehm... EULA means End User... point invalidated.

Flash EULA should simply (truthfully) be... by TheSkepticalOptimist · 2012-12-04 09:41 · Score: 1

This product will most likely cripple your device through countless security holes and performance robbing features. Nobody creates flash based websites anymore and desktop based flash applications were a pipe dream we once had before Apple destroyed them. In fact we are also not supporting older versions of this product and encourage people not to use any new versions of it. We are not responsible for anything that happens from using this POS, mostly because don't earn enough money to even be taken to small claims court. Lets put it this way, Flash is hated more then Oracle Java these days.

You really want to use this?

[If you must] [Hell's No]

--
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.

And just imagine by nedlohs · 2012-12-04 09:58 · Score: 1

how much time is spent doing a shit each and every day according to your pointless calculations.

Tried Reading It - Wasn't Allowed To Finish by sk999 · 2012-12-04 10:11 · Score: 1

I had one EULA that was displayed in a hard-to-read, tiny scrolling window, but since it was for a purchased product, I decided to read the thing anyway. Partway through, an error message popped up saying I had taken too long, so the transaction was cancelled.

Loop Hole by muphin · 2012-12-04 10:30 · Score: 1

if you get someone else to agree to the TOS, e.g get them to install the software, you arent liable :p

--
It's not a typo if you understood the meaning!

Re:Loop Hole by K10W · 2012-12-05 06:44 · Score: 1

I'd doubt, it if it came to the crunch you'd still take liability rather than the company. The business (in this case adobe but stands for all) would just shrug off whatever all the same and claim the fault lies with either you since someone representing you did it, even if it wasn't a direct order you still gave them available access and installation rights so you installed it by proxy of someone so it's still on you. The guy who said he got his young kids to do it would be held as legal guardian etc etc and responsible still, you'd have more chance taking your kids/person who clicked ok to court in private case to shift whatever onto them and no way to make it stick to corp.

There are strange lines in Apple's EULA by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 10:37 · Score: 0

"You must present to Jobs an offering of your first born, upon an altar made entirely of used iPods."

Who are you to say it's not in there? Have you read it?

So, what's your point? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 12:16 · Score: 0

To paraphrase: "If we take a number and multiply it by other numbers, and we keep multiplying, we eventually arrive at a very large number!"

EULAs are long, and most people choose not to read them. If they did, they would waste a lot of time. This is not news to anyone.

People still work 8-hour days? by engineerErrant · 2012-12-04 16:55 · Score: 1

I haven't seen one in a long time. My boss tells me that 7000 man-years isn't anything he shouldn't expect in a good, hard 3-day push.

Re:Fuzzy math by Patch86 · 2012-12-04 22:09 · Score: 1

If you look at it from an angle of "lost economic output" it has more relevance than the egg-boiling metaphor.

1,522 man years is a long time. Can you imagine how much work you could do with a team of 400 people working for almost 4 years flat out? And that's per day; 555,000 man years per year is something like the same amount of effort that was put into the Apollo programme.

Obviously people aren't really doing it because no-one reads the EULA. But Adobe obviously "wants" people to. Adobe is basically expecting the world to put the same amount of work into reading their EULAs as was put into the Apollo space programme.

I think that does demonstrate the absurdity of what they're expecting people to do in order to stay legal and kosher.

We really need ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-05 06:31 · Score: 0

a legal mandate to include a "I don't agree, but already paid my money so install anyway" button.

There is other software better than Adobe Free too by davidorourke · 2012-12-05 10:22 · Score: 1

There is a flash player called Gnash that does same thing as adobe. There are all sorts of similar programs that are free that does the exact thing adobe's greedy peoples software does and even as good if not better quality. Stop using adobe. Foxit reader is free and does same as adobe. Gimp is a graphics program does same as Photoshop. Linux has everything you need and more for free. Why is everyone still paying for stuff they can get for free? I don't understand.

Slashdot Mirror

Adobe EULA Demands 7000 Years a Day From Humankind

224 comments