Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
News

FTC Will Study Software License Practices 98

Posted by timothy from the about-dang-time dept.
Markar writes: "An article on ComputerWorld states that the FTC is holding an educational forum next Thursday and Friday on software-licensing practices and UCITA laws. The FTC is requesting public comment. Here's your chance to tell the FTC what you think of UCITA (be nice :-)." (more below.)

This seems long-overdue -- if "licenses" are not comprehensible, what's the good in "agreeing" to their content? Though the deadline for comments is past, this page details the symposium, which will be open to the public. If you can get there, post your impressions here! The most important facts are these:

The Federal Trade Commission will hold a public forum on October 26 and 27, 2000 to examine warranty protection for software and other high-tech goods and services marketed to consumers.

The public forum will be held at the Federal Trade Commission headquarters, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. on October 26, 2000 from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. and on October 27, 2000 from 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.

What I'd like to do is get a few industry "autographs" on the back of a sheet of boilerplate (in the same font size as comes on typical EULA stickers and such) that begins: "By signing the reverse of this document, you agree to have irrevocably and with full knowledge waived the following rights and privileges ..." Sorry bub -- you signed the agreement, what can I tell ya?!
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FTC Will Study Software License Practices More

FTC Will Study Software License Practices

Comments Filter:
  • I have high hopes, but I don't expect the FTC to be enlightened enough to do whats right here :)

    But seriously, theres no way any of these licensces are legal anyways. As oft pointed out, these licensces are a legal agreement, legal agreements require contracts, signatures and notary publics. What about the "lack of communication" standard? What if a spanish speaker buys MS word? He can't read the document... what if I *PURPOSEFULLY* don't read it? (because thats exactly what I do;-) That legally constitutes "lack of communication"? I don't care what a little piece of paper says ... I bought the program, its mine :) ain't no one taking my monkey island :)

    We have something similiar at the library at my university, a sign on the wall says "by using these facilities you agree to be searched by security personel" (I'm paraphrasing) ... that can't be legal either.

  • Seriously. I give my son the money and he buys the software (his name on the receipt), then, since he's much better at this stuff than me, I have him install it. He clicks the license buttons, afterwhich the license never appears again.

    And since any legal contract is not binding on a minor.... tee hee!

  • IIRC, one of the main points of UCITA is that liability is the 'default' state of software license, and that a EULA is required to relieve the licensor of liability. Hence, Bill, with his EULA's, will be able to evade liability, while Linus, without a EULA, will be stuck and liable.
  • What if a spanish speaker buys MS word? He can't read the document... what if I *PURPOSEFULLY* don't read it?

    What if my Nephew (who is 12) comes over and installs software on my computer..

    He's a minor, so he can't legally enter a contract - I didn't install the software, so am I liable to uphold the EULA?

    Another example: what if my wife installs something on my system? Am I liable to uphold the EULA? Again, I didn't install it, I didn't agree to anything, so I can then reverse-engineer (or whatever) the software even though the EULA 'forbids' it
  • So, if you could get the "Critial Update" for a massive security vulnerability in your OS only by agreeing to the terms of a bundled EULA, would your decision to accept the terms of the Update be of your own free will?

    Win ME comes with a 90 day warranty (yes, that it way too short, but it is in big bold letters and I knew about it before agreeing). If it does not do what it claims to do in that 90 day period, I am entitled to repairs, a refund, or an exchange. Updates would seem to count as repairs; if they want to to agree to another contract, I should have the right to get a refund instead. If they refuse that, I will sue them because they broke their word and our contract.

    After 90 days, they could wrap the update with an agreement stating that I consent to be anally raped by Bill Gate's Saint Bernard. I would not agree to that contract, but I would not bitch and moan. I screwd myself over by agreeing, but I knew I might be screwed and I agreed anyway.

    I know the limitations of the warranty. I know that there is no realy guarrantee that Win ME will even boot after 90 days. I chose to gamble on it. If I chose wrong, I know that MS has no real obligation to protect me from my stupidity.

    To apply this little rant to your argument:

    It's not like the vendor is holding a gun to your head, but they are saying, in effect, "Somebody else could very well be pointing a gun at you, and you are vulnerable (owing to a hole in the armor we sold you earlier), but we have a repair kit for the armor, so everything is okay. Oh, but in order to get the repair kit, you will need to agree to these additional terms..."

    When I purchased the armor, I agreed that there was no guarantee of its effectiveness after 90 days. At that time, I chose to risk my life so that I could have armor that could play cool video games. I could have used Penguin Armor, but I chose not to because all the straps and buckles confused me.

    After 91 days, I'm in eminent danger because of a flaw in the armor I chose. MS can fix my armor.

    If, as in your argument, this is a life and death situation, MS has an moral obligation to patch my armor with no fuss. If they force me to sign away my left testicle, I will feel no obligation to give it to them because I had no other choice except death. A life-and-death situation would not be free choice.

    If, as in most real life situation, I am only exposed to financial loss, then it is free choice. I knew I was gambling by choosing armor which I was not allowed to check for holes. I knew the possible consequences of failure. I agreed anyway. I gambled and loss.

    MS has no obligation to save every e-commerce company's ass unless they formed a contract to do so.


    My mom is not a Karma whore!

  • I have yet to see this EULA. That page was always been blank and my VM is still broken.

    Can not agree to something that was never presented.

    Also remember for a contract to be valid BOTH sides must agree to it WITHOUT CORROSION. A criital update for broken software and they force you to accept new EULA is corrosion, in my option.

  • And the cool thing about the provisions is that most of them apply to the MPAA's arguments WRT DVDs, too. Things like "you don't really own a copy, you just own the media and you're licensing the movie!" The problem is that people are a lot more used to listening to the MPAA...


    -RickHunter
  • They refused to nullify the initial purchase contract (implied by you giving them money

    One minor problem with this theory. Every retail store has a sign posted that states that they will not give a refund for opened software. Stores have the right to set their return policy. You therefore waived your right to a refund when you purchased the software.

    MUCITA went into effect at the beginning of this month in Maryland. Staple's, Best Buy, WalMart, and OfficeMax still have signs saying that they will not give refunds on opened software.

    A question you do not address is why the stores have a no refund policy. According to a lawyer at Staple's headquarters, the reason is that the software companies will not reimburse the store for any returns. If the store gives you the refund, they have to eat the cost.

    This allows software companies to have it both ways. They can put the refund clause in the EULA so they can argue it is a contract while they know full well that the store can legally refuse to honor it. If the software comanies want the EULA to be a binding contract, they should include a clause in their reseller's license that says the retailer will honor the refund clause.

    stop whining and get a lawyer.

    Great idea! If you have been involved in a legal action, you would realize that it is not as simple as that.

    Hire a lawyer for $100/hour to get a refund for software that cost $80. No lawyer will touch the case.

    My girlfriend was involved in legal dispute over a $1650 claim. No lawyer would touch it or talk to her about it. One lawyer (who agreed that her case had merit) said that even if she won the lottery and was willing to pay his $200/hour fee, he would still decline the case. His reason was that he felt the judges and other lawyers, who he has to work with on a daily basis, would hold it against him for bringing such a trivial (the amount, not the merits) claim to court.

    She handled the case pro se. For seven years, the opposing side fought to keep her from having her day in court. Two weeks before it was to actually go to trial, the other side settled for twice the amount of the original claim. (She had an unfair advantage. She had both the law and the facts on her side and it still took seven years.)

    If you think it is so easy, why don't you try it and report back the results.

  • Copyright law was modified in 1978 to accomodate computer software. At that time Microsoft was a *VERY* small company and had no influence in the industry.

    I suspect IBM and the other computing giants at the time would claim that this wasn't Microsoft's innovation.

    Here's a clue for you: Microsoft isn't the embodiment of all evil. In fact most of the software license ideas that they consider weren't originally their own ideas.

    For example, the Mainframe and Unix markets have been leasing software for years. I used to have to pay something like a $5k/year license to use a popular Unix GIS package back in the early 90's.

    Don't believe me, go look up a product called 'flexlm'.
  • Seriously, it's getting to the point where I'm starting to wonder if Hanes will start putting an EULA in its underwear. Okay, maybe that's a little too drastic, but you see my point.
  • My latest software purchase was Norton Personal Firewall. The EULA is on the CD. The CD is in a sealed envelope with the following notice:
    The software on the enclosed CD-ROM is licensed to the user. Installing the software signals your unconditional agreement to the terms of the Symantec License Agreement included in the setup procedure.
    Therefore I must open the sealed CD package and put the CD into a computer to read and accept the EULA. The store I purchased it from will not accept returns of non-defective opened software. Symantec has a 60-day money-back guarantee, but they only refund the purchase price, not sales tax or shipping. So if I disagree with the EULA, it cost me a few bucks in sales tax and 4-6 weeks to wait for a refund check.
  • If you're like me, you recently installed something, and automatically clicked "ACCEPT" without reading the EULA.

    Now, what if you want to go back and read the terms of the contract you've already agreed to? I just tried this with Norton Personal Firewall. I inserted the CD, expecting to click throught the setup procedure to read the EULA, then cancel setup.

    Wrong-o! It detected that the software was already installed, and asked if I wanted to remove it! So the only way for me to review the contract I "signed" is to remove the software and reintall it. Is that going to mess up all the custom settings I've created? Who knows?

    Actually, in this case the printed documentation contains a license. Is this the same one as the EULA I agreed to when installing? The seal on the CD says I have to accept the one in the software, but the manual says I have to accept the one printed in the manual. If they disagree, which one takes precedence, the hardcopy or softcopy?

  • Seems to me like most of the people here would be mostly OK with the UCITA and EULAs as long as there were a procedure in place to get a refund if you don't agree with the EULA on the software.

    It is a major reason why I dislike EULAs, but not the only reason. The 'no refund' policy just aggrevates the situation.

    The software vendors are cherrypicking the parts of contract law and product law that favor them. They want the advantages of both while sidestepping the disadvantages.

    They want the benifits of mass markets (lower distribution costs, bigger markets, etc.) without any of the disadvantages that come with retail sales (implied warrenty, refunds, etc.) They want the benifits of contract law (waiver of rights) without the cost of actually getting a signed contract before collecting the money.

    Perhaps with a slight tweak so that it was required that either the place of purchase or the software manufacturer were required to give you a refund upon request, that might be enough.

    One provision of MUCITA is that the right to refund can not be waived. It went into effect the beginning of this month. However, I noticed that none of the retailers have changed their return policies.

  • hmm.. good idea.. should also work on a CD's jewelcase, although you will ofcourse need some spare cases to keep your new software in. the 'no criticism' clause smells like censorship to me.. that would mean an MCSE isn't allowed to give full advise on software. He cannot point out flaws or improvements. and he cannot compare features, since if another piece could do better in certain areas.. but he can't critisize the M$ product..

    //rdj
  • Has anyone noticed that comment submissions were due on 11 Sept, 2000??? A load of good that does us!
  • Here in Quebec a distinction is made between person-to-person contract and user-agreement.

    A large number of clauses are forbiden from the later. For example, if someone breaks into my box and cream my dsl-connexion, I don't have to pay for the over-limit megabytes of transfert. The law forbid to discard extra-contractual reponsability unless the contract is person-to-person.

    The principle is fairly ovious. Pretty much the same deal as for spam mail: during the discussion leading to the sale, the company has so little work to do in comparison with the user (they amortize the legal composition fee over all sales), it just doesn't serve the invible-hand properly.

    It seems so natural, I'm very puzzled it has not spread.



    -
  • abiding by Contracts is not a question of morality. It is a question of law

    Replace "contract" with "your word". Is it still strictly a legal issue, or a moral one also? Just because you can break your word without being punished by the law doesn't mean you should.

    However, I do agree that some contracts should be unenforceable, with no moral obligations.

    IIRC, Interest rates on credit cards are capped to protect consumers. If I sign an agreement stating that I will pay 75% interest on my card, it just doesn't count. I won't feel any moral obligation to pay that rate. Our society has a standing rule, indicated by law, that that clause just doesn't count.

    EULAs are currently ambiguous. There is not currently a standing rule that they don't count. Should we break our words based on the notion that maybe someday that rule will exist?


    My mom is not a Karma whore!

  • Exactly. An EULA for a piece of software is a unilaterally negotiated agreement that in most cases can't be even read before the purchase becomes irrevocable. The local Staples where I live has a piece of paper on the side of the software shelves that says that due to Canadian copyright laws, returns on opened software are impossible. What I'd like to see from this is that such EULAs at least ordered to be in plain sight on the outside of the box, but I'd mush prefer that software companies are told that they can't take such rights as reverse engineering away from us. Giving UCITA a big kick in the balls would be a great thing, too.

    Also on the subject of EULAs, there's a good article here [best.com].

    Damn subject line length limit.

  • It would be nice if you could... (Score:3)

    by NeuralNet ( 68582 ) <d_geron.yahoo@com> on Sunday October 22, 2000 @06:53AM (#685652)
    READ the EULA *before* you purchased the software.
    In my experience most shops won't allow software returns once the package has been opened. Fair enough, but you have to open the package, and often attempt to intall the software, to read the EULA, at which point - if you don't agree - you are still stuck with the software.
  • I would agree with this except for the fact that you typically can not read the EULA until after you have paid for the software and can not get a refund if you opened the software which is a necessary condition in order to read the EULA.

    My (crappy) understanding of contract law is that the store would be required to refund your money if you choose not to agree to the EULA after "purchasing" it. Judging by the mockery I've received, some people disagree with my interpretation. Anyway, I would support a law which would force stores or manufactures to (quickly and easily) refund money in that situation.

    Another problem with this is that there is no requirement for EULAs to be in plain english. Most are in legelese.

    If you don't understand it, don't agree to it.


    My mom is not a Karma whore!

  • what if my wife installs something on my system? Am I liable to uphold the EULA?


    An interesting question. No case has come up with those circumstances; however, I think that according to the current case law, the answer would be no.


    In a case that upheld a click-wrap license, the opinion said that it was treated as a license instead of a purchase because the buyer of the software was aware of the fact that their was a license included with the software. (It was printed on the box). The opinion did state that the court would not reach the same conclusion if a person found the software lying on the street.

  • I saw no license before I laid down the cash for a PC. No warning on the box nor from the store.

    They sold you something (Windows, not the physical PC) which was of no value unless you entered into another contract. They refused to nullify the initial purchase contract (implied by you giving them money). That is a bait and switch. Contact an attorney, contact the Better Business Bureau, and sue the store.

    If you encounter a license and you think it is unfair that you you have to agree to it, just don't agree to it. If you think it is illegal that you have to agree to it, stop whining and get a lawyer.


    My mom is not a Karma whore!

  • This 'Porsche' analogy is only correct if ALL the cars out there have the same price tag.

    All the software out there (with the notable exception of the relatively new OSS software) has similar ELUAs on it. Add to this the problem of compatibility. Say you try to buy an open source car to compete with this porsche... but you can only drive it on 15% of the roads out there. You can't visit your customers or suppliers by driving it.. Do you really have a choice to 'skip' software that doesn't have an ELUA?

    Maybe at home, but howabout the business network you run... can you skip it there?

    Not agreeing to any ELUA's is (with the current state of affairs) tantamount to agreeing not to use computers to run your business. 95% of our customers run Windows. I don't know how we can provide softare for them without agreeing to any ELUA's.. if you can help me out, I'd love it!
  • This is yet another way corporations and government are doing away with private ownership of anything.

    The cold war is over. Socialism won.
    That's a bit harsh, but I think you've got some kind of point in there. I have to wonder though ... do we not have ourselves to blame for this, at least in part?

    It seems to me that there are a lot of people out there who abuse their freedoms. If something in their life goes wrong, they immediately look to place the blame on someone. They don't seem to understand the term "accident", "act of god", or even "honest mistake". Sometimes the blame lands on a corporation. Now, I know that sometimes that's completely justified - there will always be a percentage of companies that really don't care what happens to their customer - "morality" and "fairness" are words they don't understand.

    But all these licensing developed to their ridiculous levels for a reason. Yes, I'm sure some of it has been due to advancement in their wars to protect their "intellectual property". But in the case you point out (about housing contracts), I can't help but wonder if at least some of this mess wasn't brought out by an evolution: customer A attacks company for reason N (which, if customer A had any kind of tolerance or backbone, could have been brushed off with a comment of "shit happens"), company enacts legal restrictions to make sure next time they're not liable for reason N, then customer B attacks company for reason M, and so on.

    I presume that legal agreements like the ones we see today are more restrictive than when the very first ones appeared 20, 30 years ago. So I figure it's had to have been an evolution of sorts. Maybe?

    If so, have we not brought some of this on ourselves? Are there not an increasing number of people out there who don't want to take responsibility for anything in their lives? Would this not explain why we seem to be heading towards, as you say, "corporations and government[s] ... doing away with private ownership of [everything]"? Is their response (whether it's the right one or not) not one we could have guessed at?
  • try IBM. they sell laptops with Corel Linux on em, or so their laptop page says (I was specifically looking at the T-series... may be different for other ones, and the IBM site gets pissy at Mozilla, so I can't give you a link). IBM should really be the first stop for anyone looking to install a non-MS OS on a laptop. I'm typing this on a Linux-running TP 570... it's beautiful. I don't even own any copies of windows anymore, besides the unused ones they won't give me a refund for!

    Lea
  • What about the cuecat???

    Mine sleeps with the fishes. Don't tell me somebody actually installed that software?

  • Minors CAN SO own property. I had a bank account in my name when I was a minor.

    And was the name of at least one of your parents on it? I bet it was. BTW, bank accounts opened in this way are partially the parent's property, because even though it is "your" account, the bank will give you a hard time about getting your parent's name off the account once you turn 18.

    =================================

  • Re:Microsoft innovation? Hardly (Score:5)

    by aufait ( 45237 ) on Sunday October 22, 2000 @11:37AM (#685661) Homepage
    For example, the Mainframe and Unix markets have been leasing software for years.

    True, but there were several differences between the mainframe licenses and the current EULAs.

    1. It was a signed before money changed hands.
    2. It was a negotiated contract. If a company did not like a particular term, they could pressure the software vendor to change the term. If you don't like a term of the EULA, tough! Your only choice is to accept it or throw out the software/ (see point 1)
    3. It was a negotiation between equals. The companies were large companies with their own stable of lawyers to check the contract for gotchyas A consumer would go broke if he took every EULA to a lawyer to see if there were any dangerous clauses.
    4. Service was part of the licenseing contract. If it didn't work as the software vendor stated, the software vendor would supply programmers to fix the problem. If they didn't, it was breach of contract. Almost every EULA I have read states that the software is sold AS-IS and they disavow any claims made by their advertisements or salesmen.
    5. The software vendors have the final word. Some go as far as reserving the right to unilaterally changing the license, e.g. McAfee. It is the consumer's responsibility to constinently check their web site to see if any terms have changed. Don't like the new terms, your only option is to stop using the software. Under normal contract law, any marterial changes to the terms must be explicitly agreeded to by both parties.

  • Re:The ethics involved... (Score:3)

    by aufait ( 45237 ) on Sunday October 22, 2000 @08:09AM (#685662) Homepage
    My (crappy) understanding of contract law is that the store would be required to refund your money if you choose not to agree to the EULA after "purchasing" it.

    This is the biggest problem with EULAs. It mixes several different areas of law together. You are correct in your understanding of contract law. And, it would be valid if you bought the software directly from the software company. However, most purchaes are made from retail stores which are covered under a different set of laws. The retail stores have the right to whatever conditions they want on refunds.

    The store's are covered under contract law because contracts can not bind third parties. The EULA states that it is a contract between the software manufacturer and you. The store is not a party to the contract.

    Personally, I think that this is a way to get an EULA declared null & void in non-UCITA states. Buy the software, disagree with the license, unsuccessfully attempt to obtain a refund, do whatever you want with the software (as long as it is legal under copyright laws.)

    IANAL and this has never been tested in court.

  • Someone should release a piece of software with "By clicking I Agree, you agree to send me $500,000" in the EULA. Then try and enforce the EULA in court. Maybe this would show the stupidity of EULA's to the judges (and general population if the case got any publicity).

    On a side note, because I'm under 18 and can't legally be held to a contract, can I break all the EULA's I want?
  • I know this guy that did a mcse course, at the end they gave him an envelope with his diploma, the envelope was sealed. There was an accompanying letter that said "by breaking the seal you agree to..." and then a whole bunch of things including something like: "not critize microsoft or it's products". the guy didn't feel comfortable about agreeing to that and breaking the seal so he cut open the bottom end of the envelope and took out his diploma ! never broke the seal, never agreed to any of their garbage and got his diploma anyway. i thought that was a pretty practical solution.

  • EULAs are currently ambiguous. There is not currently a standing rule that they don't count. Should we break our words based on the notion that maybe someday that rule will exist?

    Again, your question is missing the point. I don't care whether you keep your word or not. This is between you and your God/conscience. The policy question is whether the State should force you to keep your word or not.

    The argument for state enforcement of contracts/promises ( as opposed to the argument about what you ought to do) is not a moral argument but an economic one. The state enforces contracts because it reduces transaction costs for doing business in that state, spurring business activity and growth, not because it is right. But the state (we) descriminates between welcome and unwelcome business practices. e.g. Pyramide schemes contracts are not enforced because the State doesn't want to spur this kind of business activity. So the question remains, what kind of business practice enforcing 'click through' contracts would spur, and whether we want more or less of this kind of activity.

    The argument for is that reducing legal costs for software producers will increase the availability low-cost software. The argument against is that it would increase the volume of low-quality controlled software (no liability clauses) and stifle competition ( anti reverse engineering clauses) and reduce the effective flow of information beyond what is necessary to protect producers( limitations on fair use).

    A wise and publicly minded legislature could find ways to authorise these contracts under limitations that would address the concerns expressed above. Will such a miracle happen here these days?

  • Uhm... I've got a savings/checking bank account right now, opened it at age 16, and the only name on it is mine... IIRC when I went to the bank (no parents within 3 miles) to open the account they said as long as I was over 15 I didn't need any adult permission or cosign or etc. How that works I don't know (minors can't sign contracts without parental consent, right?)
    BRTB
  • UCITA is not a federal law. Blaming Clinton and Gore for that seems a bit much. As for the more people in prison, the vast majority of *those* are in state prisons; the number of federal prisoners is tiny compared to the number of state prisoners.

    (And note that Texas has one of the highest incarceration rates in the country.)
  • I want to hear about you trying to return software for a full refund. Go ahead, try it. After you've opened it and started install.
  • I would like to point people to the comments made by the American Association of Law Libraries and other library associations at http://www.ftc.g ov/ bcp/workshops/warranty/comments/alaetal.html [ftc.gov].

    These are well-thought-out and well-written comments on why UCITA is not so good....

  • Microsoft does, in a way, force people to buy their software. Ever go into a (mass market) store and find a PC(non-Apple) with an OS that didn't come from Redmond? Didn't think so.

    I get around this by buying spare parts, not complete machines. I know a guy who bought a complete machine without a disk drive - and a spare drive. No ms os!

  • Here's a clue for you: Microsoft isn't the embodiment of all evil. In fact most of the software license ideas that they consider weren't originally their own ideas.

    LOL! Why did this seem inevitable?

  • Good heaven No! not in a pluralistic society, where different people have different ideas of right and wrong. The whole point of the constitution is to protect us from such pious laws.

    The law is suppose to create a framework for living together. As for contract law, see my previous answear in this thread.

    >Quotes like yours ... are the surest way to the dismanteling of the constitution, and civil war. What should the law posititon should be on homesexuality, abortion, etc.?

    As for the spirit and the letter. Corporate America is bound by law to do just that, it is called fiduciary duty. A 'moral' CEO that forgoes revenues in the persuit of the spirit of the law is liable and can be sued by the shareholders.

    I don't always like it, but the difference between morality and law is real and is a deep aspect of societies like ours, you can't just shout it away.

    I can agree that our society has lost a great deal of respect for an idea of public commitment ( which is an aspect.ct of morality.) And that is a serious problem, but it is not something that tough laws can mend.

  • Nice, Nice ... UCITA ... Okay .... (Score:3)

    by resistant ( 221968 ) on Sunday October 22, 2000 @05:34AM (#685673) Homepage Journal

    "[...] Here's your chance to tell the FTC what you think of UCITA (be nice :-)."

    Hang the bastards!

    What? What? I am being nice! I really want to have them dropped into a real-life Quake Arena III and taken out with plasma guns!

    ... geez, don't look at me like that ....

  • My favorite license agreement (Score:4)

    by dodecahedron ( 231077 ) on Sunday October 22, 2000 @05:53AM (#685674)
    My favorite license agreement was that of Interactive Easyflow from Haventree Software (a company that is no more, alas). An excerpt from what they titled their "Bloodthirsty License Agreement":

    We don't claim Easyflow is good for anything. If you think it is: great, but it's up to you to decide.

    If Easyflow doesn't work: tough. If you lose millions because Easyflow messes up: it's you who's out the millions, not us. If you don't like this disclaimer: tough. We reserve the right to do the absolute minimum provided by law, up to and including nothing.

    [snip]

    The punishment for making copies other than as described above can be horrible. Sffice it to say that you should keep your doors locked and look out for the HavenTree attack shark.

    I still laugh when I read this.

  • are their eyes open? (Score:3)

    by cowscows ( 103644 ) on Sunday October 22, 2000 @05:41AM (#685675) Journal
    Honestly, how could they not see that the UCITA is not in the best interests of the people? If they need our thoughts on it all to understand that, then this country is in far worse trouble than I thought. That being said, it is important that people share their thoughts with them, if not to help them see the truth, but instead to tell them that we see the truth, and that we aren't about to take it quietly.
  • Can I hold Linus responsible if my kernel crashes, etc

    Don't worry, uncle Bill will never let this happen. Otherwise, he'll end up as the poorest man on earth within days!
  • "In my world, if I don't like an EULA, I don't use the software."

    I myself am not too fond of paying however much money for the privilege of reading the EULA only to determine that it was, in fact, written by cretinous baby-eaters, and that the now-opened product is completely unreturnable. UCITA - straight from the wrenching bowels of the law-talker industry to you.

  • I see a lot of people complaining that many (Microsoft's in particular) EULAs are unfair, too restrictive, etc. "Taking away the rights of the consumer." But no EULA that I'm aware of takes away the right of the consumer not to buy the product. In my world, if I don't like an EULA, I don't use the software. MS doesn't force their software down the throats of consumers any more than any other company does. The write it, they put it on the market, and people buy it - EULA and all.

    To me this seems like going out and buying a new Porsche and then complaining about how expensive they are.

  • FTC Comments Page (Score:4)

    by Markar ( 154019 ) on Sunday October 22, 2000 @06:07AM (#685679)
    You can read the comments here. [ftc.gov] Most of the comments are in PDF format, many of the comments reflect the Free/Open Source community view of UCITA, among them are, American Association of Law Libraries, Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, PHD professors, and of course Richard M Stallman. Perhaps things aren't so bleak after all! Perhaps the FTC will support consumer interest! There would be some embarassed politicians in two states if the FTC ruled against the major provisions of UCITA including the legality of shrink-wrap and click-through licenses, remote recall/disabling of software, liability for individual programeers, NO liability for commercial software developers, etc :-)

  • seem further and further apart each day. What - does anyone REALLY expect that the people who put this crap together don't know how it rips off and abuses users? C'mon nobody intelligent enough to think up a law and draft it could possibly miss the negative aspects - they simply don't care because it's a money maker..and the rest is just postering. The only way this stuff will change for the better is when business is held accountable in the same manner as individuals..
  • I get around this by buying spare parts, not complete machines. I know a guy who bought a complete machine without a disk drive - and a spare drive. No ms os!

    I guess I didn't make this clear enough originally. Most of the readers here are computer literate enough to build their own computers and not install a Microsoft OS. But, for John Q. Newbie who is buying a computer for the first time, their is no alternative. The readers here know about EULAs and that all commercial software has it but that same John Q. Newbie does not.

  • Jefferson rolls over in grave (Score:5)

    by twisty ( 179219 ) on Sunday October 22, 2000 @05:51AM (#685682) Homepage Journal
    Thomas Jefferson, a Lawyer during the founding of the United States, said 'Ignorance of the Law is no excuse.' Yet, that was back in the day when the Law was just a few sheets of paper. If he could see the superhuman monstrosity that is now the Litigation Industry, he'd roll in his grave.

    Agreement tends to mean that two or more parties are 'of like mind' in a certain issue. (i.e. Term of Use) How many humans do you know that can be of 'like mind' with a person who writes the typical click-through agreement or EULA?

    Microsoft real advancement to the industry has nothing to do with software innovation... but rather License innovation. In a recent article, some microsoft programmers were drawing strong analogies between conditional branchesw of program code and conditional terms of Microsoft's software licenses, with the sense that licenses should be programmed in the future. Remember, when Microsoft got started in the 70's, people actually owned the software they bought... Microsoft helped 'pioneer' the idea that its use is merely licensed through obfuscated conditions of agreement.

    Should we be thankful for this? I sure am not. Most lawyers have far more job security than I find comfortable. Why else would RMS be so nostalgic for the free software of old?

  • Unfortunately, those of us who would happily reject Microsoft's EULA have to deal with all the sheep who didn't in order to continue eating and living under a roof. Thus, the EULA is a Diktat, libertarian ranting about "free association" aside.
  • Most people don't actually read the EULA when installing software. There are 2 reasons for this.

    #1 - people just got some new software, and are excited to play with it. They don't want anything in the way of thier use of the new software. This leads people to just click on "I Agree" without reading the agreement.

    #2 - EULA's are usually pretty long. Do they really need to be this long? Some people will see a long document, and just skim it, or read the first paragraph then bypass the rest. Some programs (Napster comes to mind) make you read all the way to the bottom, but all you have to do to bypass this is just drag the scrollbar to the bottom, then you're free to go on.

    -

  • What about Open Source Software? (Score:3)

    by icqqm ( 132707 ) on Sunday October 22, 2000 @05:52AM (#685685) Homepage Journal
    Here's a question though: what about open source software? Would this also include the GPL and its non-warranty of OSS? Can I hold Linus responsible if my kernel crashes, etc? This has the potential of being very dangerous for OS developers.

    Secondly, what qualifies as software at all? Drivers? Libraries? Scripts? All of the above? These are questions that must be answered.

  • On the contrary, I install dozens of commercial packages. True, the licensing is not on the box itself, but on the inner packaging. It's still not necessary to break the disk seal before reading the license. If you open the box, you can still return it (at least at the stores I frequent, like Fry's).
  • If you agree to a contract, whether it be a written document or a clickthrough license, you are morally bound to abide by it. Most people would make an exception if you were coerced into agreeing, or had no other viable choice. If you were starving to death and someone offered you a loaf of bread in exchange for your firstborn, I don't think you should feel guilty about taking the food and keeping the child.

    With a few exceptions, no software is critical for anybody's survival. I didn't purchase Windows ME in order to prolong my life, I did it so I could play cool video games. And Bill Gates did not send large, burly goons to beat me up to get me to agree to the license.

    I agreed to the license of my own free will, knowing the terms of it (I read EULAs), so I am ethically bound to abide by the terms.


    My mom is not a Karma whore!

  • Wrong! You can't read the agreement until after you have opened the package and loaded the software. Just by breaking the shrinkwrap you agree to the terms of the software. They have your click to prove you've agreed to the terms...yhea right.

    If you have in fact actually read and understand the terms and decide NOT to load the software, just try to return it for a refund. You have already broken the seal and most places will refuse to accept the software back, you'll be stuck with software you don't want!

  • As far as making licenses comprehensible, why bother? Almost no one reads them anyway. I always blow by software license agreements (though I sometimes wonder whether someone has embedded some verbiage like "we reserve the right to send all of your system information back to our computers and sell it to the highest bidder.")
  • To me this seems like going out and buying a new Porsche and then complaining about how expensive they are.

    How would you like it if you were told that once you purchased your Porsche you were told that you may not drive it to work. That certain roads were off limits. Of course neither my response or your statements are really good examples.

    But here is an example that may work a bit better: I work as a network engineer and I produce documents which have to be in Microsoft word. Why because our customers use it and the company has standardized on it (with M$s' help). I could produce the documents in HTML but nobody will accept them. This is a standard and I think everyone has a browser, so why not? I don't know but I do know that when M$ changed from W3.11 to W95 we went nuts trying get get everyone who used W95 to send the documents in a compatible format.

    OK, so this is not a good example either and I'm afraid it will take many pages to straighten out all the little details. But I think it gives some idea of the problems, well maybe not the one where opening the package is an agreement to the licence found inside the package!
  • Seriously, dig up the deed to the house you think you "own". If it's a newer track home, it likely says you agree to some list of "Covenants, COnditions, and Restrictions" (CC&Rs) on file somewhere. You'll likely never see this document when you're signing papers to buy the house. You just agree to a document *linked to* in the contract you're signing.

    The CC&Rs among other things, prohibits you from doing things like, puting up TV antennas, restricting what colors you can paint your house, bars you from displaying signs on your property (forget campaigning), bans you from repairing your own car on your own land, says what kind and how many pets you may have, and so on.

    And these CC&Rs take precedence over what any local zoning or municipal laws allow you to do. And they typically last from 20-50 years. And they transfer to the new "owner" should you sell your home. And they automatically renew for another 20-50 year period unless all or at least a majority of the residents all cooperate to file a statement that they don't want them renewed. And of course, you yield things like water and mineral rights.

    Like software, you don't own your home. You are licensed a home, since the true owners (construction company or tract financing bank) control what you can do in your own home.

    This is yet another way corporations and government are doing away with private ownership of anything.

    The cold war is over. Socialism won.

  • if you are posting on slashdot i dont expect perfect grammar and spelling. if you are sending a letter to the ftc to point out the down side of utica:

    Please use a spell checker (ispell) and proof read it for grammar errors.

    examples:
    That is why a particular cannot license cannot be exempted without encouraging one over another.

    from RMS
    But they users were free to redistribute copies to others, and those others had no direct commercial relationship with Intel or with me.

    john
  • agreed to the license of my own free will, knowing the terms of it.

    I would agree with this except for the fact that you typically can not read the EULA until after you have paid for the software and can not get a refund if you opened the software which is a necessary condition in order to read the EULA.

    Because of this practice, your choices if you do not agree with the EULA is to accept the EULA or throw out the software.

    Another problem with this is that there is no requirement for EULAs to be in plain english. Most are in legelese. The typical consumer wouldn't understand the restrictions even if he read the EULA. If they have a question about the meaning of the term, who are they supposed to ask? Most contracts must be signed before you pay the money. This gives the signer a chance to clarify any ambiguous terms before signing. With EULAs, there is no one to ask. Are they supposed to take the EULA to a lawyer?

  • Unfortunately, minors also can't own property. Doesn't matter if he bought it, it's yours. It is also your responsibilty to know about that license agreement on your property whether you physicly clicked on the agreement or not. Nice try though.
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Let me suggest that all comments to the FTC be thoughtful, polite, and expressed in such a way that anyone who's IQ exceeds that of a trilobite can understand our positions on the matter. I suggest this for the following reasons: 1. Polite thoughtful and clear is the correct way to put forth ideas which are unfamiliar. 2. When what we have to say is completely ignored we will have irrefutable evidence that the FTC is not interested in doing what is right, but is only interested in appearing to do what is right.

    That way more and more people can become convinced that there is something rotten at the heart of the entire structure that we have been taught to believe in.

    This will leave the FTC in the uncomfortable position of having to come up with some truly innovative plausible lies to cover up what they are doing - or they will have to do the right thing. I'm betting on the innovative plausible lies approach - but they might be afraid of being too obvious if they take that course. Thus there is some possibility that they might wind up doing what is right - counting on the court system to 'require' them to do the wrong things as an over rule. Of course evil people are clever enough to realize that they can't win every fight, and that this might be one they allow us to win.

  • I wouldn't specify sex - but some long-winded technicalities of orifaces and who holds and indefinate lease.

    Or Anti-Orifaces, as the case may be.

  • I would assume that this would be handled in a similiar way to charities. A charity can't sue you if you promise to give them money and then don't.
  • Seems to me like most of the people here would be mostly OK with the UCITA and EULAs as long as there were a procedure in place to get a refund if you don't agree with the EULA on the software. Perhaps with a slight tweak so that it was required that either the place of purchase or the software manufacturer were required to give you a refund upon request, that might be enough.

    I'm really OK with UCITA myself. I seem to recall that the standard GPL has a disclaimer that no warranty is provided. If it doesn't, it's easy enough to add one.

    Since all the software I use these days is GPLed, I really don't run into any UCITA related problems. I think that once companies realize the implications of the UCITA, a mass exodus to GPLed products will occur. Though the law probably wouldn't stand for too long anyway; once software companies start losing customers, they'll lobby to have it removed.

  • what about small claims (Score:3)

    by red floyd ( 220712 ) on Sunday October 22, 2000 @09:38AM (#685700)
    people keep saying that no lawyer would touch a refund because of bad license case due to the small amounts involved... there is an alternative, specifically designed for this... why has nobody considered going to small claims court and obtaining a judgement. once you have received a judgement, you are entitled to use the resources of the state to collect.
  • Difficult when the damn EULA is printed on an insert INSIDE of the package (and in some cases, inside of the damn CD case which has its OWN seal...)
  • I see a lot of people complaining that many (Microsoft's in particular) EULAs are unfair, too restrictive, etc. "Taking away the rights of the consumer." But no EULA that I'm aware of takes away the right of the consumer not to buy the product. In my world, if I don't like an EULA, I don't use the software. MS doesn't force their software down the throats of consumers any more than any other company does. The write it, they put it on the market, and people buy it - EULA and all.

    Microsoft does, in a way, force people to buy their software. Ever go into a (mass market) store and find a PC (non-Apple) with an OS that didn't come from Redmond? Didn't think so.

    Anyway, I have never seen a software title that actually has the ELUA printed on the box. They do tell you that the software contained inside is licenced (how nice of them). I asked the sales drone at a CompUSA what the software license was and he looked at me and walked away.

    My point is that it is completely unfair to consumers that you must agree to a EULA but don't have access to that until after you've opened the package. Most stores will not take back opened software so you're stuck with it if you don't like the EULA. If consumers knew that the software they were shelling out $600 for (MS Office, anyone?) came "AS-IS WITH NO WARRANTEES, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED", they might think twice about opening their wallets.
  • Are you sure you've got a good set of backups? You may find that you need to do a system recovery. And that might be a bit difficult.

    Unfortunately, you basic point seems to be valid. But we need a better solution than has been offered. Unfortunately, the "powers that be" recognize that people aren't yet desperate enough to do anything extreme, so they keep pushing.

    P.S.: People don't "find" the loopholes in the laws. Not usually. Usually either the loophole was intentionally written in, or a lawyer somewhere manages to change what a word means. Sufficient power can work miracles, of a sort.


    Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
  • Read the EULA again. There are two particularly relevant bits. The first is at the very top, where is says "This End User License Agreement is a legally binding document between you, the Manufacturer, and Microsoft Corporation." Keep this in mind.

    The second part is normally partway through the first paragraph. It may be slightly different with different EULAs, but mine said: "If you do not agree to the terms and conditions of this EULA, then Manufacturer and Microsoft Corporation do not wish to license the Software Product to you. In this event, you may not use or copy the Software Product, and should promptly contact Manufacturer for instructions on return on the unused Software Product for a refund."

    So it's up to the OEM to issue your refund. Call them. Go through customer service and tech support. It will take a while, but you _will_ get your refund.

    I didn't get my Windows refund until after I sent an email to a VP at the OEM, politely stating that if they did not behave as the EULA required them to, I would take them to the local Small Claims Court for Breach of Contract.

    If you need help or moral support with your refund efforts, feel free to email me - I know a couple other things that might work as well.

  • I am going to send the presidents of IBM, NEC, and Microsoft that letter.

    I want the refund for the Win98 and Win95 that I NEVERuse.

  • Oh come on..
    The only ppl who the UCITA favors are the software and content companies.
    The UCITA makes a pay-per-use world more than possible, It makes it almost certain.
    -since when did 'MTV' stand for Real World Television instead of MUSIC television?
  • For every law that gets made, people will find a "loophole" way around it, causing more laws to get made.

    New technology can bring to light poorly written laws that were "good enough" when they had limited applicibility.

    All governments are like Windows. They start out running OK but grow increasingly unstable the longer they run. Eventually the end up as a big hairy mess that is impossible to fix while it's still running. The only solution is to reboot it every so often.

    The United States gov't has reached this point. Time to reboot the nation, wipe all laws save for a basic, rights granting constitution.

  • Ever use Windows Update to retrieve a "Critical Update" for a security vulnerability in Windows? Guess what? If you want to apply the update, you must agree to its bundled EULA. Seems to me that there's a bit of implicit coercion in that "choice" to accept or reject the bundled EULA.

    I guess you could choose not to accept the EULA, but that would mean running an OS with well-publicized and wide-open security holes. Again, that doesn't seem like much of a choice.

  • I don't know about you, but all of the software packages I can recall installing either have the license on a separate sheet of paper that's accessible without breaking a seal, or it's printed on the envelope that the software is sealed in.
  • >...I didn't purchase Windows ME in order to prolong my life, I did it so I could play cool video games. And Bill Gates did not send large, burly goons to beat me up to get me to agree to the license. I agreed to the license of my own free will, knowing the terms of it (I read EULAs), so I am ethically bound to abide by the terms.

    We will be praying for your soul :-)

  • Re:confounding...??? Have you tried?? (Score:3)

    by www.sorehands.com ( 142825 ) on Sunday October 22, 2000 @06:28AM (#685712) Homepage
    I tried getting a refund for the Windows that I didn't agree with the EULA. I called Microsoft and they sent me to the computer dealer, the computer dealer sent me to Microsoft.

    Please explain to me where to get the refund if I do not agree to the EULA?

  • ...sometimes wonder whether someone has embedded some verbiage like "we reserve the right to send all of your system information back to our computers and sell it to the highest bidder."

    From the EULA which accompanied Win ME:

    "SUPPORT SERVICES: Microsoft may provide you with support services related to the SOFTWARE PRODUCT ("Support Services")....With respect to technical information you provide to Microsoft as part of the Support Services, Microsoft may use such information for its business purposes, including for product support and development. Microsoft will not utilize such technical information in a form that personally identifies you."

    If MS considers their automated update system to be a Support Service, and they consider selling info to be a business purpose, then they could do exactly what you suggest.

    And Win ME always accesses the 'net when I install new hardware...hmmm....I better not install that penis measuring device.


    My mom is not a Karma whore!

  • Re:Quebec laws (Score:3)

    by CaptJay ( 126575 ) on Sunday October 22, 2000 @07:18AM (#685714) Homepage
    A very valid point. Besides most of these agreements violate the Consumer Protection Law (LPC) in several aspects, mainly:

    - Agreements signed under pressure (nowadays most stores will NOT take back an open package of software, since you may have well just copied the CD). So you don't have a choice to agree if you want to use the software. This no refund policy is also illegal under the Consumer Protection Law, since the law clearly states you can have full refund within 10 days of purchase.

    - They cannot be legally binding, since there is no way to prove that whoever clicked "Agree" is the same person that uses the software.

    - There is also a provision that states that you own any product you buy, and that this right cannot be removed.

    So we have pretty strong protections here, the only problem is, noone is acting to stop companies from using such agreements here, even though they are clearly illegal.

  • Unfortunately, minors also can't own property. Doesn't matter if he bought it, it's yours.

    Well, I'd say the mistake was the STORE selling it to a minor then. Car dealers won't sell cars to kids because they can't sign contracts. Why should CompUSA sell software to kids if kids can't own anything?

    The store just threw away a copy.

  • #3 - People realize that clicking a button on a computer screen legally means nothing. Any program can ask, In order to use this program you must agree to X. What if X = "Kill yourself after 100 uses" or anything else, reasonable or not. Sorry, but without a real signature on a real document that will hold up in court, there is no liability to agree to any EULA, GPL included.

    Button Click != Signature
    Never did, never will.

    My cat likes to lay on my keyboard, he must have hit the right combination of keys. I never saw an EULA.

  • If you owned the binary code. When you buy a car, you're not entitled to the blueprints, but you can do as you like with the car. You should be able to modify program code as much as you like. You're already banned from redistribution, so they can't legitimately say they're worried about the quality of the product.

    But as per the (arguably meaningless) licensing agreements, you're banned from even doing that...

  • Re:confounding... (Score:3)

    by mindstrm ( 20013 ) on Sunday October 22, 2000 @05:00PM (#685718)
    But that's the problem. THere is a missing step in the feedback loop here.

    You buy software, most people do anyway, thinking it's like 'buying' anything else.

    Then, there is this 'eula', which most people just click on. THey have not got a choice! if they opened the software and installed it, they already know they can't take it back and return it to the store; it's opened. THe courts say you can't use it without agreeing to the license...

    It's not that it's not logical, or doesn't make sense.. because it DOES.. the problem is it's not in the interests of the consumers to have things continue this way.

    At a certain level, in any economy, there is a point where a society as a whole (government) must step in and say 'look , this is how things are going to be, because this is unfair to the consumer on a grand scale'.

    As an example.. in the 60s and 70s, the consumer-rights stuff in Canada (yeah, nag all you want about socialisim). High-ranking members of even supermarkets were investigated and charged (just one example, it covered many busiensses) for something we see as normal today. Accepting schwag. Like 'Sure, I'll have my company pay a bit extra for 10,000 cases of Coke if you buy me a porsche'. It seems fair, right? BUT.... here's the thing.
    IN a smaller town, the people inherently assume that the cost they pay reflects the costs to get the product on the shelves, and to run the business (and to make a profit, of course). In this situation, the cost actually reflects the owner buying a porsche, and, in effect, as these are *necessary* goods, the public *IS* being ripped off. I'm not saying I agree with this, or that it should be done today.. things are different now.. but..

    Software is similar. There is an assumed 'contract' if you will, when you buy something in a store. You are exchanging ownership for cash. We also know this has nothign to do wiht 'intellectual property' rights of the product bing purchased; if I buy a car, ai *OWN* that car and can do what I want with it. I may still not be allowed to steal the design and start a car company.

    Software is the same thing.. Joe Farmer thinks he is BUYING something, when really he is LICENSING it.

    Hey... I can even show the RECEIPT, on the same receipt with all the stuff I bought, and it says *nothing* about licensing windows... it says I bought these goods at the store.

    So what's with the eula?
  • Ever played telephone tag? If there really were a requirement that the companies refund upon request, I bet telephone tag would be taken to brand new heights! And then when you got through you would find that they needed for you to apply in person at their office in North Dakota. Only open in late January through early February, sorry. And theres an airport only a few hundred miles away.
    Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
  • And in order to do that, you have to find out just exactly *what* version of M$ word your counterpart has, cuz they *aren't* interchangeable! (While WordPerfect has used the exact same file format since version 5.1 - many, many years ago . . . )

    -b
  • Actually, I believe that there was a totally independant law passed recently that called "electronic signatures" valid. And it didn't bother to define what was meant by "electronic signature". Slick, huh? That can be either a totally reasonable law, or a totally stupid law, and nobody will know which until some court decisions that hang on it are appealed. Whee!!


    Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
  • Well, the retailer is not part of the "contract" between you and the software producer. Does Microsoft still claim that you can get a refund from the retailer if you don't like the EULA?

    Of course they do! It says so right in the EULA.

    And that is why the software vendors like it. They have to have a refund clause in order to be considered a contract. However, they know that it is meaningless because no store will honor it.

    Even MS does not (yet) have a long enough arm to sweep unsuspecting third parties into forced participation in their "contracts".

    Actually, the retalor is not an unspecting third party. They have a contract with software vendors to resell the software. If the software vendors meant to be "honorable" about the refund clause, they would make it a condition that the reseller would have to give refunds if they wanted to sell the product.

  • I think the word you're looking for is "coercion", not "corrosion."

    Yes, "corrosion" refers to the actual software, rather than the license agreement.

  • Good idea, but I take this one step further. If I don't like the *PRICE* of a program, I don't buy it OR stick to the EULA:) Win2k? 280$ ? I can get it ALOT cheaper then that :) "Piracy" (a bullshit loaded term) is price competition in a monopoly market.
  • 6: Only be able to use Micro$oft certified petrol
    7: Force you to wind down all the windows and wind them up again to make the car go again after the radio randomly stops working on the motorway
    8: Convince all the petrol stations to change the design of the fuel pumps every year to be incompatible with your car forcing you to buy a new model
    9: Discontinue the supply of spare parts two years after the car was created
  • What about the cuecat???
  • Remember, when Microsoft got started in the 70's, people actually owned the software they bought... Microsoft helped 'pioneer' the idea that its use is merely licensed through obfuscated conditions of agreement.


    I can't believe that there are no laws against that, governments are so slow to realize the implications of seemingly benign developments in the technology world.

    Microsoft just 'innovates' new ways of use of their software and try to forbid them or 'tax' them.

    It's so stupid, I mean if I buy a Ferrari (or a Lada in Microsoft's case) I can do with it what I like, I can take it apart, paint it purple, kick a dent in the door, use it to tow a trailer and many other things that it's makers probably didn't have in mind. No-one thinks anything about it because after all it would be *my* car right ? If Microsoft were to make cars, people would (because of the eula):

    1. not be allowed to take them apart
    2. not be allowed to upgrade them in ways other than microsoft allowed
    3. not be allowed to fix them
    4. not be allowed to buy them second-hand
    5. not be allowed to drive them outside the city it was bought in

    nobody would accept this, the government would make laws against it and there would be no problems after that, why doesn't the government realize what the software industry is doing ?

    just think about how many legal problems jimi hendrix would have had if fender stratocasters would have come with eula's:
    "sorry sir, setting fire to your guitar is not permitted by the eula to which you agreed by plugging in your guitar" "I also see that you are playing a right handed stratocaster left handed, this constitutes another violation of the eula"

  • The problem with click-wrap license agreements is that they are written as contracts yet ignore the entire purpose of contracts. The purpose of a contract is so that two groups can prove an agreement was made, in the event a dispute arises and/or one side broke their side of the agreement. However, with click-wrap licenses, it's impossible to prove that the person didn't extract the files and install manually without clicking "agree", and even if they did click "agree" they are usually unaware of what they are agreeing to, and therefore not really agreeing to anything. Clauses which enable the developers/distributors to modify the agreements without notice make consumers even less aware of what they are agreeing to, since they can't even see the contract they are supposedly signing. Also, while the consumers may not hold up their side of the agreement (license agreements often include rediculous restrictions that could never be envorced), the developers/distributors rarely hold up their side either (such as the statement that software can be returned if you don't agree to the license).


    ------------------
    A picture is worth 500 DWORDS.
  • I agreed to the license of my own free will, knowing the terms of it (I read EULAs), so I am ethically bound to abide by the terms.
    So, if you could get the "Critial Update" for a massive security vulnerability in your OS only by agreeing to the terms of a bundled EULA, would your decision to accept the terms of the Update be of your own free will?

    It's not like the vendor is holding a gun to your head, but they are saying, in effect, "Somebody else could very well be pointing a gun at you, and you are vulnerable (owing to a hole in the armor we sold you earlier), but we have a repair kit for the armor, so everything is okay. Oh, but in order to get the repair kit, you will need to agree to these additional terms..."

    Is this a free-will choice?

  • Re:The ethics involved... (Score:3)

    by metis ( 181789 ) on Sunday October 22, 2000 @06:33AM (#685730) Homepage
    You get just a few things wrong.

    Lot's of things are immoral and perfectly legal. And lots things are moral or morally neutral and illegal.

    abiding by Contracts is not a question of morality. It is a question of law. If I contract to sell to you my kidney, I am not bound to follow through, why? Because the law says so. Some contracts are enforceable, some aren't. The readiness of the judicial system to enforce contracts make them binding. And this readiness is a) decided according to principles of public good. b) payed by tax money.

    So we have all the right in the world to make the claim that a certain kind of contracts should not be enforced by the government because a) we are or at least should be the government, b) we believe it is not in the best public interest that such contracts be enforced. If people still want to make and keep such contracts because of their personal moral beliefs, that is of course fine.

    So the question is not whether it is the right thing for you to abide by the contract you agreed to. The question is whether UCITA contracts are a particular kind of contract and whether this kind raise issues of public interest that favor or disfavor enforcement.

  • Be nice????
    Be NICE

    Putting them in a live Quake arena and railgunning them would be nice. Hanging them by their toenails, beating them with an organic carrot, and training my ex-girlfriend's psychotic kitty to flay them alive would be being nasty.

    Like the one rap song went:

    I hope you can't
    sleep and you dream about it
    and I hope when you dream you can't sleep and you scream about it
    I hope your conscience eats at you and you can't breathe 'cause of it.
    .....
    The people who drew up those laws knew that they were trashing consumer rights. If they wanted to preserve consumer rights, they would have either outlawed or severely limited what a click-through license could force a consumer to agree to.

    Instead, the're trying to lock down the rights of the company to put consumers into a straight-jacket, and possibly outlaw aspects of the GPL.

    Yeah, right. Something to be nice about!

    I hope you know, this means war.
    Bugs Bunny.

    Spleen vent complete. please return to your normal programming.
    `ø,,ø`ø,,ø!

Slashdot Top Deals

"Being against torture ought to be sort of a multipartisan thing." -- Karl Lehenbauer, as amended by Jeff Daiell, a Libertarian

Close