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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.

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

Get your units right!

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 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 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.

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: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.

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.

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

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

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 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?

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 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".

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 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 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 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'

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.

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

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?

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

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 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.

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.

"...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 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 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: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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

148 of 224 comments (clear)