Hmmm... EULA's are NOT legally binding contracts at all anyway, lol. (Well, apart from a few). The more shit that gets put into them that piss people off the better, just so we can get rid of (most of them) once and for all.
The reason WHY they are not legally binding is simple - there is NO record, (and no way of proving - (unless it involves personal/identifying information, such as some online stuff asks for)), of who actually agreed to the 'license' in the first place - proof of purchase is NOT the same thing... The problem with this - is that the companies like to use them as 'scare tactics', since they know they are not legally binding and therefore put everything under the sun in them... And if it was an official license agreement, then it would help if it was to be agreed upon at point of purchase - since that is what you are buying...
The reason why they have come about - is that although Copyright Law gives the companies a lot of 'protection' over the software - they want MORE control, which is why the EULA came about - they wanted all the power that licensing gives them, but without the administrative overhead.
It's about time that the two - buying (copyright), and licensing, were seperated a lot more, since they should be completely exclusive - Either we buy a product OR we buy a license to use it, not both - (which is what they want).
Though, TBH - a 'proper' licensing system for software wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. (Unless your a pirate). Since they'd know who all the licensee's are, and which copy is licensed to which person - they'd be no need for any stupid copy protection or even non-full-installs. And back-ups would be perfectly legal too. And if anyone pirates the software - they'd know who's copy it was and who to punish... Like I said though - the Administration cost would be a lot higher...:-/
Slashdot Mirror
Hmmm... EULA's are NOT legally binding contracts at all anyway, lol. (Well, apart from a few). The more shit that gets put into them that piss people off the better, just so we can get rid of (most of them) once and for all. The reason WHY they are not legally binding is simple - there is NO record, (and no way of proving - (unless it involves personal/identifying information, such as some online stuff asks for)), of who actually agreed to the 'license' in the first place - proof of purchase is NOT the same thing... The problem with this - is that the companies like to use them as 'scare tactics', since they know they are not legally binding and therefore put everything under the sun in them... And if it was an official license agreement, then it would help if it was to be agreed upon at point of purchase - since that is what you are buying... The reason why they have come about - is that although Copyright Law gives the companies a lot of 'protection' over the software - they want MORE control, which is why the EULA came about - they wanted all the power that licensing gives them, but without the administrative overhead. It's about time that the two - buying (copyright), and licensing, were seperated a lot more, since they should be completely exclusive - Either we buy a product OR we buy a license to use it, not both - (which is what they want). Though, TBH - a 'proper' licensing system for software wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. (Unless your a pirate). Since they'd know who all the licensee's are, and which copy is licensed to which person - they'd be no need for any stupid copy protection or even non-full-installs. And back-ups would be perfectly legal too. And if anyone pirates the software - they'd know who's copy it was and who to punish... Like I said though - the Administration cost would be a lot higher...:-/