Selling software is the same as selling access to it. This has been through the courts when a company was giving away software and charging for the access codes. (Dunno the references)
But really, anything you charge for should come with a warranty of fitness. If you give it away for free, it comes with no warranty.
If MS really makes MS Money available for free on the web, and it's not perfect, you shouldn't be able to bitch. If they control access and only let in people who have paid in one way or another though, you have the right to expect a decent product.
(However, if free software was deliberately malicious, the writer could be held liable basically as if they'd written a virus or trojan.)
UPNP would be just as usefull if the user had to click a button called "Find Devices". Seriously, if you suggest users can't do that then you should support locking them up for their own good.
Users would also benefit from having all their files easily accessible from anywhere by simply typing their SSN, without one of those hard-to-remember passwords. But the drawbacks of that far outweigh the benefits, so we call it a bug, not a feature.
Ditto with the UPNP. Not having to click a button to turn it on might save a few seconds, but that's a small price to pay for some semblance of security.
I think you meant to say that the Japanese language become obsolete when computers were introduced. Seriously, after the typewriter they had plenty of warning...
Having any exceptions is unnecessary. Just disallow any claim against free (as in cost) software.
If MS wants to release a free beta of XP, they shouldn't be liable for bugs in it. Ditto if you download Redhat 7.2 and install it.
This is consistent with current law. If you don't pay for something it's a gift. If you pay, it's a sale which means there're implied warranties of fitness, etc.
Just make sure you catch the obvious abuses of this, such giving the software away and charging for the serial number, etc.
Unless you've seen "the father" doing something personally, and have pictures to back it up, you're just another raving delusional. I'll thank you to keep that tripe to yourself and your fellow crackpots.
Well, using Mozilla as an example isn't the greatest idea. The support for the project (internally) was spotty originally and the managing was haphazard (switching code-bases part way through.)
But once Mozilla is done, however long it ends up taking, it can end up in many other projects for a much lower cost. Already Galleon and K-meleon are built around it. Many applications could replace all their interface design with one made in Gecko at a fraction of the cost, and gain much portability...
Even if it cost more to develop (which might be reasonable, considering the goals) it benefits a lot more people than IE does, and saves a lot more dev time in the long run.
Heh. If you can't compete with a standardized free package made by volunteers living in their parents basements, maybe you don't belong in the business.
Really though, when businesses get used to the idea of open source software they'll want to customize it. Move into this niche.
How many MCSEs are comfortable in a dos prompt? How many have any programming skill?
You can find them, but they tend to charge about as much as Linux qualified people with the same skills.
The cheap web monkeys people hire to admin IIS (thus claiming a lower TCO) aren't trained in anything that's not point and click. Not that this is bad, if you're a small non-profit or something, but start doing serious work and it'll bite you.
Office comes free on OEM PCs, the kind marketted to people who don't know hardware from software and to whom an OS is a "start button".
Office PCs come bare and the IT department installs everything the employee is going to need.
Usually when installing a PC the software costs are more than the hardware.
Most companies do IT in an ad-hoc way, buying a new computer (whatever is cheapest) to replace a dead one, or for a new employee. These companies are hopeless, but they'll likely die because they do this half-assed stuff in other areas too.
Companies that are on the ball upgrade all PCs every few years, buy some spares, and do it from a dealer who will guarantee being able to sell them identical hardware until their next upgrade point. They decide on a software package, do one perfect install, and ghost all the rest in machine that support hot-swap IDE drive bays. I've been there, working on that kind of thing.
The company was willing to spend a few dollars for quality parts, and was willing to trim in other areas because every dollar saved on a PC was $100k+ when spread across every PC worldwide.
If they could save $200 on Office XP ($600 new, assume 1/3 of list, for a large site-license) times 100k PCs it's going to be worth some training and getting used to a slightly different interface.
Actually, the funny thing is that MS's anti-piracy measures have caused more demand for non-MS products than anything else recently. I've had clients ask for non-MS (free specifically) internet terminals, for free office suites, etc. All because they either fear the BSA, or actually purchased a computer themselves and noticed the huge cost of the software.
Had MS kept their mouth shut they wouldn't have lost these people. It might not be much, but when people realise you can live without MS software it'll just get easier.
TCO is hard to calculate. I'm sure you can hire someone with IIS experience fairly easily, but you can't compare that to someone who puts "Apache administration" on their resume.
The Apache admin is likely to be a lot closer to a full system admin. Someone who can bang together perl scripts to automate problems, configure a firewall to drop code-red packets that are DoSing the web server, and more.
If all you want is someone to upload the output of dreamweaver, you don't need to go with IIS though. You can do a default install of Redhat, be just as secure as XP (wow, what a claim) and use any of the web-based Apache admin tools that provide as much of a GUI as you could want. And they're easily understood by someone who wants basic functionality and no hassles.
But it's unfair to confuse a real admin skilled in a system, with a fresh MCSE who "knows" IIS because he's taken a test about it.
Factor in functionality of the systems, and I think your little TCO argument falls flat.
Besides, if you really want a cheap system that a junior employee could run you might as well outsource it or buy co-lo space for a box provided by your ISP. It's simpler, often cheaper, and provides for much things like the ability to use as much bandwidth as needed without having to have new lines installed. Makes it much easier to cope with a suprise Slashdotting - just the thing that can make (or break) a new business.
EULAs are absolute evil. Completely. They're an attempt to force someone into a at-sale contract after they've bought the product.
Copyright though, does serve a purpose. But perpetual copyrights are quite harmful. Does it really serve to create more art that an artist's estate holds the copyright to their works for fifty or more years after their death? I'd like to provide for my wife if I died, but I think it'd be a little moot fifty years later.
I'd support a 15-20 year copyright, with another 10-15 year extension, if the living author (or corporation if it was a work for hire) applies.
If I have a wonderful idea (to sell Weasel ice-cream for instance), I don't have any government protection on it. I have to get out there and create the market right away, before my competitors start copying me.
Why do we seem to think that copyrightable works deserve so much more protection?
How about if it giving any money to a politician, for any reason, was declared to be bribery, like we all know it is.
Then the state funds everyone who gets a certain number of signatures at exactly the same level.
Toss any politician who accepts bribes, and the heads of any company that offers them, into jail for a while.
That'd really straighten things out.
Re:Pay-per-view, pay-per-use, micropayments, etc.
on
More on MPEG4
·
· Score: 2
I think the problem with micro payments is that the implementors want to charge for every action you take. Every page view costs $.02, for example.
If you're being billed like this you're a lot less likely to view much, because at every click you know you're being charged. It might not be a lot, but it cuts into the feeling of free usage.
However, if Slashdot used micropayments you could pay a subscription fee that was smaller and more suited to the time you wanted. If I wanted to try a one-day subscription I could pay them $.10 and not waste $.40 on CC charges to do it.
Micropayments based on charging for every click will never take off. But a usable micro-payments system designed to allow tipping and small payments might really go somewhere.
www.fileplanet.com has a subscription service where you can pay money to have access to special download servers, where the unwashed masses have to wait in queue for their downloads. Bleh, I'd never subscribe, if I did and didn't download anything from them I'd feel it was wasted.
But, if they had a "skip to the head of the line for $.10" button I'd pay most of the time.
Payments need to be applied in a user-friendly way, not in the way that'll generate the most revenue. Otherwise you won't have any customers and you'll make nothing. Enlightened self interest.
I'm actually not jabbing at modern judges. I'm saying that they don't have the freedom to hand down the "right" judgement in many cases. I doubt many judges like finding for some jerk over the person they screwed around, just because the jerk had an expensive lawyer draft up a misleading contract.
And as for congress. If I didn't vote for the winner in my riding, do I get to disclaim all responsibility?
To answer your other post...
Both of the lawyers agreed that because preferred form is fairly easy to establish. Much like people on here were saying, set one of the developers down and make them develop with the mangled source.
The GPL does require all build-related scripts and the preferred from of source code. If the preferred form requires manipulation, it should be in those scripts. If not, they'd better be able to develop with that source.
As to no other lawyers agreeing... Sure, others do, the greedy ones working for the company mentioned, as an example. But you're the only one I've seen on Slashdot, or talked to in person, who seems to think that "preferred form" isn't fairly obvious.
Re:You are not anal enough either. (IAAL)
on
Abusing the GPL?
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
You may be a lawyer, but no other lawyers seem to agree with you.
I went across the hall at work yesterday and asked two lawyers who I often see over lunch about this. They said that while "preferred" and such terms are often fairly vague and cases hinge on those, in this case, where you can simply show the inability of the company to use the obfuscated code, and the obfuscating programs used, that it's dead simple.
Too bad modern judges can't hand down rulings that really cut to the heart of the problem...
Ruling that the company must delete all other source code and forever maintain the project using only this source code and other code in this form would quickly show if this was the preferred method.:) When the company goes out of business it'll show they were lying.
(With creative and honest judges we could get by with a lot less of your type.)
Making a feature film isn't trivial, but the name "Aladin" wasn't worth anything, Disney wouldn't have bothered using it (they certainly didn't use the story).
But the ammount of work you put into something is irrelevant in considering if it's a copyright violation. If I did a total-conversion (all graphics, sounds, monsters, weapons, levels, etc) in quake3, then resold it (plus the Quake3 executable, etc) it would have been a ton of work, yet it would still be a derivative work.
If Disney gets to use Aladin and other well-known stories I think people should be free to use Mickey Mouse and all other Disney characters of a certain age.
(I'd even agree to a BSD-like clause requiring the original artists to be credited.)
I did a quick search on Google and came up with two names of clients that (I think) support MSN. GAIM and EveryBuddy.
No idea on the details.
You could always get your girlfriend using Trillian in Windows, then she could be on multiple networks at once and you could use ICQ to talk to her...
You might want to suggest that she use Trillian regardless, it's a pretty cool client and it doesn't have ads or anything. Not only does it let you be on multiple networks at once, but it lets you be signed onto each network multiple times and you pick which name to use when you open a chat window. (Lets me talk to people using either my gaming ID, or my real-name work ID.)
Redhat sells Linux with a service contract, but it also gives away Linux and sells the service contracts for essentially the same price (minus the boxes and manuals basically). As such, how is it linked? You can download a free copy and it contains all the functionality of the copy you could buy.
That "the software is free, the code is not" has specifically been ruled to be the same as selling the software.
There's no (reasonable) law that would allow me to sell open source software and not be liable, but not to avoid liability while selling closed source software.
Where the lack of liability comes in is that open source software is rarely sold, and when it is the cost is just to cover the packaging.
When open source software is given away like this it's not a sale so it's silly to think that implied contracts of sale would apply. (If for no other reason than that the author doesn't get anything, and a contract involves consideration for both parties.)
I can give you a book as a gift, and you can do with the book as you wish, except copy it. Ditto with GPLed software.
The license quote you posted seems to support this "The act of running the Program is not restricted".
I think that means you have the right to use the software, regardless of the GPL. (Which makes sense, because if you find a book in the street you have the right to read it, without needing a license of any sort.)
And that agrees with you, where you say "The contract states that running of the program is not the subject of the contract".
In what cases can I buy a copy (or be given) of a piece of IP, and not be able to use it?
Copyright law doesn't support that at all.
I think the GPL is right. The act of running the program is not restricted [because they couldn't if they wanted to] but the copying is, which is why you can choose to accept the GPL at that point.
The GPL only comes into play when you try to do things copyright law wouldn't allow.
Being that using the copy you already hold isn't prohibited by contract law, the GPL doesn't offer (and couldn't withhold) the right to use the software.
GPLed software truly is a gift, unless you try to modify it (or distribute it in otherwise forbidden ways.)
Linking in that fashion wouldn't work. If you paid $50 for a box containing Windows the courts would see it as if you paid $50 for Windows.
The idea of giving it away free but charging for support would work. The problem is that you'd have a sudden supply of 3rd-party consultants who'd do it for whatever you would, minus 20%.
If they advertised Battle.net usage as a feature of the product then the EULA for that is unenforceable too because it's an integral feature of the product.
That's so that you can't get around first-sale restrictions by selling a book which turns out to be a blank coupon which you redeem for the real thing (even instantly at the counter) after signing a contract... You could do that, but the contract would be unenforceable because you were essentially selling the book, not the coupon.
Ditto with Battle.net and Diablo2.
That said though, there was no sale with Warcraft 3 betas and the contracts were agreed to beforehand. In that case, EULAs probably are binding.
Slashdot Mirror
Selling software is the same as selling access to it. This has been through the courts when a company was giving away software and charging for the access codes. (Dunno the references)
But really, anything you charge for should come with a warranty of fitness. If you give it away for free, it comes with no warranty.
If MS really makes MS Money available for free on the web, and it's not perfect, you shouldn't be able to bitch. If they control access and only let in people who have paid in one way or another though, you have the right to expect a decent product.
(However, if free software was deliberately malicious, the writer could be held liable basically as if they'd written a virus or trojan.)
UPNP would be just as usefull if the user had to click a button called "Find Devices". Seriously, if you suggest users can't do that then you should support locking them up for their own good.
Users would also benefit from having all their files easily accessible from anywhere by simply typing their SSN, without one of those hard-to-remember passwords. But the drawbacks of that far outweigh the benefits, so we call it a bug, not a feature.
Ditto with the UPNP. Not having to click a button to turn it on might save a few seconds, but that's a small price to pay for some semblance of security.
I think you meant to say that the Japanese language become obsolete when computers were introduced. Seriously, after the typewriter they had plenty of warning...
Having any exceptions is unnecessary. Just disallow any claim against free (as in cost) software.
If MS wants to release a free beta of XP, they shouldn't be liable for bugs in it. Ditto if you download Redhat 7.2 and install it.
This is consistent with current law. If you don't pay for something it's a gift. If you pay, it's a sale which means there're implied warranties of fitness, etc.
Just make sure you catch the obvious abuses of this, such giving the software away and charging for the serial number, etc.
>[sig] 1 John 4:14
Unless you've seen "the father" doing something personally, and have pictures to back it up, you're just another raving delusional. I'll thank you to keep that tripe to yourself and your fellow crackpots.
Well, using Mozilla as an example isn't the greatest idea. The support for the project (internally) was spotty originally and the managing was haphazard (switching code-bases part way through.)
But once Mozilla is done, however long it ends up taking, it can end up in many other projects for a much lower cost. Already Galleon and K-meleon are built around it. Many applications could replace all their interface design with one made in Gecko at a fraction of the cost, and gain much portability...
Even if it cost more to develop (which might be reasonable, considering the goals) it benefits a lot more people than IE does, and saves a lot more dev time in the long run.
Heh. If you can't compete with a standardized free package made by volunteers living in their parents basements, maybe you don't belong in the business.
Really though, when businesses get used to the idea of open source software they'll want to customize it. Move into this niche.
Chuckle.
How many MCSEs are comfortable in a dos prompt? How many have any programming skill?
You can find them, but they tend to charge about as much as Linux qualified people with the same skills.
The cheap web monkeys people hire to admin IIS (thus claiming a lower TCO) aren't trained in anything that's not point and click. Not that this is bad, if you're a small non-profit or something, but start doing serious work and it'll bite you.
Cost.
Office comes free on OEM PCs, the kind marketted to people who don't know hardware from software and to whom an OS is a "start button".
Office PCs come bare and the IT department installs everything the employee is going to need.
Usually when installing a PC the software costs are more than the hardware.
Most companies do IT in an ad-hoc way, buying a new computer (whatever is cheapest) to replace a dead one, or for a new employee. These companies are hopeless, but they'll likely die because they do this half-assed stuff in other areas too.
Companies that are on the ball upgrade all PCs every few years, buy some spares, and do it from a dealer who will guarantee being able to sell them identical hardware until their next upgrade point. They decide on a software package, do one perfect install, and ghost all the rest in machine that support hot-swap IDE drive bays. I've been there, working on that kind of thing.
The company was willing to spend a few dollars for quality parts, and was willing to trim in other areas because every dollar saved on a PC was $100k+ when spread across every PC worldwide.
If they could save $200 on Office XP ($600 new, assume 1/3 of list, for a large site-license) times 100k PCs it's going to be worth some training and getting used to a slightly different interface.
Actually, the funny thing is that MS's anti-piracy measures have caused more demand for non-MS products than anything else recently. I've had clients ask for non-MS (free specifically) internet terminals, for free office suites, etc. All because they either fear the BSA, or actually purchased a computer themselves and noticed the huge cost of the software.
Had MS kept their mouth shut they wouldn't have lost these people. It might not be much, but when people realise you can live without MS software it'll just get easier.
TCO is hard to calculate. I'm sure you can hire someone with IIS experience fairly easily, but you can't compare that to someone who puts "Apache administration" on their resume.
The Apache admin is likely to be a lot closer to a full system admin. Someone who can bang together perl scripts to automate problems, configure a firewall to drop code-red packets that are DoSing the web server, and more.
If all you want is someone to upload the output of dreamweaver, you don't need to go with IIS though. You can do a default install of Redhat, be just as secure as XP (wow, what a claim) and use any of the web-based Apache admin tools that provide as much of a GUI as you could want. And they're easily understood by someone who wants basic functionality and no hassles.
But it's unfair to confuse a real admin skilled in a system, with a fresh MCSE who "knows" IIS because he's taken a test about it.
Factor in functionality of the systems, and I think your little TCO argument falls flat.
Besides, if you really want a cheap system that a junior employee could run you might as well outsource it or buy co-lo space for a box provided by your ISP. It's simpler, often cheaper, and provides for much things like the ability to use as much bandwidth as needed without having to have new lines installed. Makes it much easier to cope with a suprise Slashdotting - just the thing that can make (or break) a new business.
Which is a good reason to use a set period of time, instead of life + x...
Really, twenty five years should be enough time to profit on something. (My view is 15+10 if requested).
EULAs are absolute evil. Completely. They're an attempt to force someone into a at-sale contract after they've bought the product.
Copyright though, does serve a purpose. But perpetual copyrights are quite harmful. Does it really serve to create more art that an artist's estate holds the copyright to their works for fifty or more years after their death? I'd like to provide for my wife if I died, but I think it'd be a little moot fifty years later.
I'd support a 15-20 year copyright, with another 10-15 year extension, if the living author (or corporation if it was a work for hire) applies.
If I have a wonderful idea (to sell Weasel ice-cream for instance), I don't have any government protection on it. I have to get out there and create the market right away, before my competitors start copying me.
Why do we seem to think that copyrightable works deserve so much more protection?
You shouldn't need a lot of votes. Just enough to show you're serious.
In fact, maybe it could be 5k votes to enter, 10k at a later date, and 20k to be in the finals.
Scaled by state population, etc, of course. Someone in Alaska or RI might have a tougher time than someone in Calif, or NY.
It'll always be a little hard to get rid of the incumbents. But perhaps term limits should be used in all branches of government.
How about if it giving any money to a politician, for any reason, was declared to be bribery, like we all know it is.
Then the state funds everyone who gets a certain number of signatures at exactly the same level.
Toss any politician who accepts bribes, and the heads of any company that offers them, into jail for a while.
That'd really straighten things out.
I think the problem with micro payments is that the implementors want to charge for every action you take. Every page view costs $.02, for example.
If you're being billed like this you're a lot less likely to view much, because at every click you know you're being charged. It might not be a lot, but it cuts into the feeling of free usage.
However, if Slashdot used micropayments you could pay a subscription fee that was smaller and more suited to the time you wanted. If I wanted to try a one-day subscription I could pay them $.10 and not waste $.40 on CC charges to do it.
Micropayments based on charging for every click will never take off. But a usable micro-payments system designed to allow tipping and small payments might really go somewhere.
www.fileplanet.com has a subscription service where you can pay money to have access to special download servers, where the unwashed masses have to wait in queue for their downloads. Bleh, I'd never subscribe, if I did and didn't download anything from them I'd feel it was wasted.
But, if they had a "skip to the head of the line for $.10" button I'd pay most of the time.
Payments need to be applied in a user-friendly way, not in the way that'll generate the most revenue. Otherwise you won't have any customers and you'll make nothing. Enlightened self interest.
I'm actually not jabbing at modern judges. I'm saying that they don't have the freedom to hand down the "right" judgement in many cases. I doubt many judges like finding for some jerk over the person they screwed around, just because the jerk had an expensive lawyer draft up a misleading contract.
And as for congress. If I didn't vote for the winner in my riding, do I get to disclaim all responsibility?
To answer your other post...
Both of the lawyers agreed that because preferred form is fairly easy to establish. Much like people on here were saying, set one of the developers down and make them develop with the mangled source.
The GPL does require all build-related scripts and the preferred from of source code. If the preferred form requires manipulation, it should be in those scripts. If not, they'd better be able to develop with that source.
As to no other lawyers agreeing... Sure, others do, the greedy ones working for the company mentioned, as an example. But you're the only one I've seen on Slashdot, or talked to in person, who seems to think that "preferred form" isn't fairly obvious.
You may be a lawyer, but no other lawyers seem to agree with you.
:) When the company goes out of business it'll show they were lying.
I went across the hall at work yesterday and asked two lawyers who I often see over lunch about this. They said that while "preferred" and such terms are often fairly vague and cases hinge on those, in this case, where you can simply show the inability of the company to use the obfuscated code, and the obfuscating programs used, that it's dead simple.
Too bad modern judges can't hand down rulings that really cut to the heart of the problem...
Ruling that the company must delete all other source code and forever maintain the project using only this source code and other code in this form would quickly show if this was the preferred method.
(With creative and honest judges we could get by with a lot less of your type.)
Making a feature film isn't trivial, but the name "Aladin" wasn't worth anything, Disney wouldn't have bothered using it (they certainly didn't use the story).
But the ammount of work you put into something is irrelevant in considering if it's a copyright violation. If I did a total-conversion (all graphics, sounds, monsters, weapons, levels, etc) in quake3, then resold it (plus the Quake3 executable, etc) it would have been a ton of work, yet it would still be a derivative work.
If Disney gets to use Aladin and other well-known stories I think people should be free to use Mickey Mouse and all other Disney characters of a certain age.
(I'd even agree to a BSD-like clause requiring the original artists to be credited.)
What does that service do? And what is it called? The closest to that I could see was "IP Sec policy".
Just wondering if there was an easy way around the 10-connection limit in 2k pro. LAN partys would be nicer that way.
I did a quick search on Google and came up with two names of clients that (I think) support MSN. GAIM and EveryBuddy.
No idea on the details.
You could always get your girlfriend using Trillian in Windows, then she could be on multiple networks at once and you could use ICQ to talk to her...
You might want to suggest that she use Trillian regardless, it's a pretty cool client and it doesn't have ads or anything. Not only does it let you be on multiple networks at once, but it lets you be signed onto each network multiple times and you pick which name to use when you open a chat window. (Lets me talk to people using either my gaming ID, or my real-name work ID.)
Redhat sells Linux with a service contract, but it also gives away Linux and sells the service contracts for essentially the same price (minus the boxes and manuals basically). As such, how is it linked? You can download a free copy and it contains all the functionality of the copy you could buy.
That "the software is free, the code is not" has specifically been ruled to be the same as selling the software.
There's no (reasonable) law that would allow me to sell open source software and not be liable, but not to avoid liability while selling closed source software.
Where the lack of liability comes in is that open source software is rarely sold, and when it is the cost is just to cover the packaging.
When open source software is given away like this it's not a sale so it's silly to think that implied contracts of sale would apply. (If for no other reason than that the author doesn't get anything, and a contract involves consideration for both parties.)
I can give you a book as a gift, and you can do with the book as you wish, except copy it. Ditto with GPLed software.
The license quote you posted seems to support this "The act of running the Program is not restricted".
I think that means you have the right to use the software, regardless of the GPL. (Which makes sense, because if you find a book in the street you have the right to read it, without needing a license of any sort.)
And that agrees with you, where you say "The contract states that running of the program is not the subject of the contract".
In what cases can I buy a copy (or be given) of a piece of IP, and not be able to use it?
Copyright law doesn't support that at all.
I think the GPL is right. The act of running the program is not restricted [because they couldn't if they wanted to] but the copying is, which is why you can choose to accept the GPL at that point.
The GPL only comes into play when you try to do things copyright law wouldn't allow.
Being that using the copy you already hold isn't prohibited by contract law, the GPL doesn't offer (and couldn't withhold) the right to use the software.
GPLed software truly is a gift, unless you try to modify it (or distribute it in otherwise forbidden ways.)
Linking in that fashion wouldn't work. If you paid $50 for a box containing Windows the courts would see it as if you paid $50 for Windows.
The idea of giving it away free but charging for support would work. The problem is that you'd have a sudden supply of 3rd-party consultants who'd do it for whatever you would, minus 20%.
If they advertised Battle.net usage as a feature of the product then the EULA for that is unenforceable too because it's an integral feature of the product.
That's so that you can't get around first-sale restrictions by selling a book which turns out to be a blank coupon which you redeem for the real thing (even instantly at the counter) after signing a contract... You could do that, but the contract would be unenforceable because you were essentially selling the book, not the coupon.
Ditto with Battle.net and Diablo2.
That said though, there was no sale with Warcraft 3 betas and the contracts were agreed to beforehand. In that case, EULAs probably are binding.