Wrong. Having to check the "I agree" box before clicking next (indeed, be required to do so before software will allow you to continue), will easily hold up in court. In fact, it has numerous times. I am not sure why so many people on/. believe EULAs are invalid but it's an argument that just won't die around here.
nah. Hardly any software is "bought" these days. It is all licensed. You have the option to return the software if you don't agree to the license. The store may not take it back but you could request a refund from the maker of the software.
Think about it. I'm a user, and I'm telling you that I never intend to agree to a contract when I bypass a EULA.
Then you are technically committing copyright infringement when you use the software.
Of course a contract is not enforceable against you if you didn't agree to the terms. That is the case with ANY contract, not just EULAs. So no, ProCD is not a bad example.
And what you claim to be the usual case is actually not. When you install software you ALWAYS have to check the I AGREE box. You should read the Netscape case where the users didn't have to agree before installing. The defendants won that one. And if you want to claim something about the terms not being on the outside of the box, well then I suggest you read the ProCD case in its entirety and not just the wikipedia summary.
Your original post said a click wrap agreement doesn't provide a meeting of the minds. Then you just said clicking "I agree" has been held to be a valid consent. Those two statements contradict each other. And just so you know, "meeting of the minds" is a different issue than a provision that waives a right that cannot be waived.
Correct, it doesn't need a signature. However, some proof of a 'meeting of the minds' is required. A click-wrap agreement doesn't necessarily provide this.
Too bad courts disagree with you. And this includes the 7th Circuit, which is one of the most influential courts on economics in the nation.
There are plenty of cases in which EULAs have been enforced so you should probably stop spreading this crap. The only portions of them that have been struck down are those provisions that wouldn't be allowed in any contract.
Most casinos have 1 or 2 deck games but those usually come with high minimums and are in the "high roller" rooms off to the side. The minimums are usually in the $50-$100 range.
What part of "illegal immigrant" implies a certain race? I think you are the racist one for suggesting that only certain races come here illegally. They come from all countries/backgrounds/races btw.
Don't new yorkers already pay "use" tax and "download" tax on their monthly internet bill already? I live in GA and I can tell you that my internet bill is not tax free. Thus, this "download" tax would be double taxation to them.
Please point me to the source that told you that copyright law only restricts distribution because it is spreading false information. Writing in the margins of a book or highlighting things in it is covered by fair use. Furthermore, copyright does not restrict someone from buying a work and defacing it or writing on it or destroying it. That is what is called a "moral right" and we in the U.S. don't have that. (We actually have a very limited version of it that isn't even worth addressing. See 15 USC 106A).
Read 106(2) again. It says "to prepare derivative works;" not "to distribute." Distribution is an entirely different right. For example, I can license you a piece of software and within the license you could have the right to make derivatives but no right to distribute. Without this grant in the license, you would be infringing on my right to create derivatives if you did create derivatives and I could sue you. By making your derivatives without my consent, you would be encroaching on my economical rights that copyright law grants me. After all, it is called COPYright law, not DISTRIBUTIONright law. A derivative IS a copy.
Slashdot Mirror
Wrong. Having to check the "I agree" box before clicking next (indeed, be required to do so before software will allow you to continue), will easily hold up in court. In fact, it has numerous times. I am not sure why so many people on /. believe EULAs are invalid but it's an argument that just won't die around here.
You don't live in the U.S. then.
The issue is that the validity of a EULA has never been tested in court.
I guess this lie is never going to die around here.
Have you actually read the ProCD case?
Sorry but I have courts backing up my argument and you don't. Are you a lawyer? I sure hope not because you clearly haven't done the research.
Think about it. I'm a user, and I'm telling you that I never intend to agree to a contract when I bypass a EULA.
Then you are technically committing copyright infringement when you use the software.
Of course a contract is not enforceable against you if you didn't agree to the terms. That is the case with ANY contract, not just EULAs. So no, ProCD is not a bad example.
And what you claim to be the usual case is actually not. When you install software you ALWAYS have to check the I AGREE box. You should read the Netscape case where the users didn't have to agree before installing. The defendants won that one. And if you want to claim something about the terms not being on the outside of the box, well then I suggest you read the ProCD case in its entirety and not just the wikipedia summary.
Read the ProCD case I cited above.
See my above comment and the one below mine and there's more if you scroll down. I'll add this one too: http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/felten/dmca-ruling-bnetd-case
Sorry but you are wrong. I don't have much else to add. Investigate it on your own.
There are others but this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProCD_v._Zeidenberg is the landmark case. There is also a Gateway case that upheld the EULA.
Your original post said a click wrap agreement doesn't provide a meeting of the minds. Then you just said clicking "I agree" has been held to be a valid consent. Those two statements contradict each other. And just so you know, "meeting of the minds" is a different issue than a provision that waives a right that cannot be waived.
And by the way, if you are referring to waiving your right to fair use/reverse engineer, well good luck getting that part thrown out. IAALStudent
You don't know what you are talking about. Numerous EULAs have been brought to court and the majority of them have survived just fine.
Correct, it doesn't need a signature. However, some proof of a 'meeting of the minds' is required. A click-wrap agreement doesn't necessarily provide this.
Too bad courts disagree with you. And this includes the 7th Circuit, which is one of the most influential courts on economics in the nation.
There are plenty of cases in which EULAs have been enforced so you should probably stop spreading this crap. The only portions of them that have been struck down are those provisions that wouldn't be allowed in any contract.
Most casinos have 1 or 2 deck games but those usually come with high minimums and are in the "high roller" rooms off to the side. The minimums are usually in the $50-$100 range.
I agree with you.
It'll be interesting to see how that chart changes after the spendulous package.
Census is only done every 10 years and I highly doubt it could accurately count illegal immigrants.
What part of "illegal immigrant" implies a certain race? I think you are the racist one for suggesting that only certain races come here illegally. They come from all countries/backgrounds/races btw.
Don't new yorkers already pay "use" tax and "download" tax on their monthly internet bill already? I live in GA and I can tell you that my internet bill is not tax free. Thus, this "download" tax would be double taxation to them.
Can you back this statement up with legal precedent?
Please point me to the source that told you that copyright law only restricts distribution because it is spreading false information. Writing in the margins of a book or highlighting things in it is covered by fair use. Furthermore, copyright does not restrict someone from buying a work and defacing it or writing on it or destroying it. That is what is called a "moral right" and we in the U.S. don't have that. (We actually have a very limited version of it that isn't even worth addressing. See 15 USC 106A).
Read 106(2) again. It says "to prepare derivative works;" not "to distribute." Distribution is an entirely different right. For example, I can license you a piece of software and within the license you could have the right to make derivatives but no right to distribute. Without this grant in the license, you would be infringing on my right to create derivatives if you did create derivatives and I could sue you. By making your derivatives without my consent, you would be encroaching on my economical rights that copyright law grants me. After all, it is called COPYright law, not DISTRIBUTIONright law. A derivative IS a copy.
What is the point you are trying to make here?
A work that consists only of materials that aren't original to the first author is not a derivative work.