General Public Realizes KaZaa is Spyware 411
blankmange writes "CNet is reporting the slow dawning of the general public to KaZaa and spyware. "Virginia Watson unwittingly authorized a company she'd never heard of to install software that would help turn her computer into part of a brand-new network. The software, from Brilliant Digital Entertainment, came with the popular Kazaa file-swapping program. But the 65-year-old Massachusetts resident--who has a law degree--didn't read Kazaa's 2,644-word "terms of service" contract, which stated that Brilliant might tap the "unused computing power and storage space" of Watson's computer. " " Fortunately the helpful
graph in the article compares the complexity of IRS tax forms with Brilliant's
terms of use... guess which one is harder to read?
service agreements? (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm wondering if anyone DOES know the legal implications of those service agreements. When those long agreements pop-up before installation, not only does no one read them, but you agree to the thing by clicking on either 'yes' or 'no' buttons....is a yes/no button a legally binding clause? They do not, at any point, get your signature nor is the agree monitored by anything other than the installation program itself (i'm assuming, anyway).
I don't know...I'm curious..thoughts?
Re:service agreements? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:service agreements? (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, it might be enforcable (Score:5, Informative)
From http://www.techlawonline.com/internet.htm#about3:
The Internet variant of "shrinkwrap" licenses are "clickwrap" licenses which are standard-form contracts entered into online; for example, Terms of Service posted on a web site, under which the purchaser signifies his assent to the terms simply by clicking on a box marked "I Agree." Like shrinkwrap licenses, the terms are non-negotiable. Unlike post-payment shrinkwrap licenses, however, the purchaser's consent to the posted terms is usually obtained before the exchange of funds.
While the courts have not explicitly upheld the enforceability of clickwrap licenses, in at least one recent decision, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California implicitly ruled that such an agreement was enforceable. Hotmail Corporation v. Van$ Money Pie Inc., 47 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1020, 1998 WL 388389 (April 1998, N.D.Cal.). It remains to be seen whether other courts will similarly find these types of agreements enforceable.
The court's decision in the Hotmail case above can be found here:
http://eon.law.harvard.edu/h2o/property/alterna
Re:service agreements? (Score:4, Informative)
If the parent's authorizing it, though (by giving the disk to install, and using the software), they're probably going to be bound (as much as anyone else, anyway) even if they get their 10-year-old to click on the agreement.
(As usual, not legal advice or a recommended course of action.)
Agreements (Score:2, Interesting)
Only 22% admitted to reading it! gee I wonder why.. that 10 page terms of use policy in windows 2000 was so frickng long and complicated that once you get past the 2nd page you just hit the pg-down button and hit the F8 to confirm afterwards after taking advil to try to forget that you even read it in the first place!
Maybe they should do what newspapers do and dumb it down a bit so that it'd be shorter and a easier read then more people would be better informed..
Re:Agreements (Score:2)
In our society, it is traditional to use spirits for this purpose. Advil is normally utilized as a pain reliever, though alcohol functions quite well in this role as well.
Re:Agreements (Score:3, Insightful)
Let the buyer beware. If you sign on the dotted line or click on the flashing button, you are assumed to have done your damn homework. If you haven't, you and only you are responsible for the problems it causes. It's common sense, people.
Oh wait, I forgot. Common sense is stuff that everyone says, but no one actually believes. I forgot.
Re:Agreements (Score:2)
No.. there would be a rise in the suicide rate after people realized they couldnt get hte damn paperclip to shut up while installing
Those Poor Normal Users (Score:3, Flamebait)
I am no troll. This is the truth. It's not very nice, but look at how much a body shop charges. Or a plumber. People don't want to be protected. They do not want knowledge. They want to make mistakes, and they want to pay to have them fixed.
God Bless America.
Cheers.
Re:Those Poor Normal Users (Score:2)
I bet you don't get too many call backs with your arrogant attitude. People can tell when you hold them in low regard, and they usually return the favor.
Most of these people you're helping are not idiots, just beginners. Unscrupulous companies are taking advantage of them. Your bad ethics aren't making things any better.
When I gave my wife her first computer she was on a web site and called me to ask for help. A banner ad designed to look like a Windows alert message was telling her that her Internet connection was "too slow, do you want to upgrade?" I told her that was an ad and to ignore it. She then asked how she was supposed to know that and I couldn't give her a simple answer. She was right, it was a trick. In the end, I told her that some things just come with experience.
The general public is going to slowly wake up to punitive and immoral EULA over the next few years. In the meantime, you might try behaving like a professional. The world has enough self-important experts. Wanna be a good American? Try helping someone for a change.
Re:Those Poor Normal Users (Score:3, Insightful)
In this case, you are correct, and I showed her how to slide the scollbar and watch the ad fall out of frame.
But it is very simple to pop a real alert, a new window, or any multitude of other ways to trick an inexperienced user into installing software, joining a service, or disclosing personal information.
I think it's important to keep the right attitude toward users who are learning to use computers. If we make people afraid to seek our help, we only have more work to do later when we need to re-build a system.
The first message in this thread had a mocking undertone that I think is one of the reasons people have difficulty learning to use computers.
I hate that type of elitism. It's one of the things that hold back Linux.
Re:Those Poor Normal Users (Score:3, Insightful)
Hey, I just like the BMW. A LOT. I could be coding device drivers, but I prefer to have sex with girls. Being a computer "doctor" lets me work doctor's hours. And I can take a vacation whenever I want.
Personally, if you're not happy, then what the fuck is the point of existing? Coding device drivers does not make me happy. It can be interesting, but for about 24 hours straight only. I prefer to keep my sanity. So I fix stupid Windows problems? Does that make me not "l33t"? FUCK YES. Do have have an easy job? FUCK YES. Do I love my life? FUCK YES. You may answer these questions differently for yourself, but I am happy where I'm at and no ANONYMOUS COWARD can knock me off my pedestal.
BTW, got my +1 bonus today, so I'm just abusing it a bit to get my voice heard just this once.
Cheers.
See, not l33t (Score:2)
Making lawyers look good (Score:2)
I can't believe, for instance, people get paid 65k a year to write "Visual Basic" "code". But someone has to I guess. I guess.
Kazaa Lite (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.kazaalite.com [kazaalite.com]
It replaces one of the spyware DLLs Kazaa requires with a do-nothing version.
Dan East
Re:Kazaa Lite (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Kazaa Lite (Score:2, Insightful)
You are aware that the number of people that could tell ANYTHING from the source code is extremely small, right?
That's always been one of the things that's bothered me - "Where's the source?!" I don't care, I couldn't do anything with it anyway. Neither could 99% of the people looking to use something like Kazaa.
"But there are people that can!", you cry. Great. What makes THEM any more trustworthy?
-l
Re:Kazaa Lite (Score:2)
It's been going on for ages (Score:2, Interesting)
It happens in the real world too. When you buy something at Circuit City, they'll ask you if you want this 'cover plan' or that 'insurance' blah blah.. and after standing in a lot of lines, I've noticed that people generally agree to these things without understanding what they are!
Once I stook behind a guy who agreed to everything, signed all the papers, and then the sales guy said.. okay, that's an extra $45 please. The customer didn't realize what was going on and said 'No thanks' and left.. after holding everyone up in the line for 5 minutes filling all the forms out!
So I don't really see a problem here. It's a form of idiot tax. It's harder to avoid all of the pitfalls today, but hey.. you gotta remain vigilent at all times.
Re:It's been going on for ages (Score:2)
*I* know how to protect my computer. The last thing *I* need is more laws telling me what I can and can't do. That just makes more jobs for lawyers. I'd rather the money goes into my home computer consulting pocket.
That's why we have Kazaa Lite! (Score:3, Redundant)
Get it here [kazaalite.tk] or here [kazaalite.com]
---
Extra Features compared to original KaZaA
- No Adware
- No Spyware
- No banners
- No bitratelimit for mp3 files
- No irritating websites loaded into KaZaA
- No crappy BDE Viewer
- No f*cking Bonzi Buddy
- Set up multiple users with the included PseudoTrack tool
Re:That's why we have Kazaa Lite! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:That's why we have Kazaa Lite! (Score:2, Informative)
What ever happened to file sharing? (Score:4, Interesting)
The problem with this embedded spyware is that is ultimately serves the RIAA's purpose of shutting these networks down. I simply refuse to use any variant of KaZaa or other file sharing software until I know someone who has installed it, used it for some time, and has had no instance of spy/piggy back ware.
Ultimately I see this nonsense and the flood of bad press which will inevitably surround it making people wary of the use of any such software (as I am now).
Pity really.
---
Jedimom.com [jedimom.com], the not-so-fresh feeling.
An app to remove most spyware (Score:5, Informative)
You should also download their reference file update utility too. This lets you keep up to date with the latest spyware programs out there.
Znet Instructions (Score:2, Informative)
Re:An app to remove most spyware (Score:2)
My favorite quote from the article: (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, I'm glad we got that taken care of back in the 90s...
Just enlightened my neighboor (Score:5, Interesting)
As I explained some of the functionality surplus to him, you could see his jaw just dropping and dropping.
But I betcha he'll still install it - cause he loves the CD burner he has and how easy it is to burn MP3's-> CDDA.
Audiogalaxy!! (Score:2, Informative)
don't care about the 'hidden network'.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Ad-aware is getting used more and more in my toolkit. I sure wish Norton/Macafee/whoever would just go ahead and add crap like this into their AV software. This garbage is a "virus" in my book.
Re:don't care about the 'hidden network'.... (Score:2)
Amen to that, I run Ad-Aware once a week on the lab I administer, spyware bogs down those PC's like nothing else.
Re:don't care about the 'hidden network'.... (Score:2)
Why is this so difficult? (Score:5, Interesting)
I really don't have a problem with companies adding extra programs into their software. The problem I have is 1) Not being told about it and 2) Not being given the option of opting out or not installing it.
As far as I'm concerned, a license is not an appropriate place to inform the user of third party software coming along for the ride. Software should be very explicit during install exactly what's happening. That way, the user can either not install the program, or if allowed, not install that component. What's so hard about that?
The fact that these companies try to hide this stuff shows they know the systems are a bit shady.
Strangely enough, this happens with big-time commercial software as well. I was pretty p*ssed when Intuit's TurboTax installed Internet Explorer on my laptop without asking. It just told me, "Installing IE 5.5 now" with no cancel button. I had 5.0 installed and it was there for a reason. Oh, well.
Hopefully, awareness of these practices will hurt companies who will entually find it beneficial to be up front with their customers!
Re:Why is this so difficult? (Score:2, Insightful)
If you are smart enough, you'd buy your own car parts and assemble your own car. But if you're too lazy, then you can't complain when a car company tries to make an extra buck or two from the government...
Moron. I don't build cars for a living and neither do I code.
This sounds like a great article. (Score:5, Funny)
The correct term is THIEFWARE (Score:2, Insightful)
Of course "it's their own fault" but that does not take away the unprecedented lack of morality of the companies involved.
It should be considered virii and nothing else.
One interesting point.... (Score:4, Insightful)
How come not one person out of these millions noticed that line about tapping your computers unused cycles and wrote to a news site pr here about it?
Why did this come out only when brilliant filed with the SEC?
Surely at least one person must have read the damn eula? Somehow i don't feel to bad for everyone..
A very happy furthernet[furthernet.com] user
burn my karma if ya like i don't care i think i have a good point
There should be a law... (Score:5, Insightful)
Because of the size, complexity and volume of these things (and the need to usually get past them quickly), I would argue that they amount to coercion (which would invalidate them). The same is true of shrink-wrap software licenses (which you are rarely able to examine until well after you've unwittingly agreed to them). Of course, I doubt a court of law would agree with me. However, I think it would make sense to have a consumer protection law that requires that these sorts of things have a short, concise, easy to read summary at the beginning that gives the user an idea of what they're getting in to (with all the legalese below for completeness). That would prevent companies from creating scumware like this then hiding behind their user-auto-agreements.
Re:There should be a law... (Score:2, Insightful)
GREAT! MORE LAWS! (Score:3, Redundant)
If you are too LAZY to learn the facts, to learn how to compile your own open source software, to learn how to fix your own plumbing, YOU ARE GOING TO BE GETTING SCREWED BY SOMEONE WHO DOES KNOW.
So please. Don't ask for new laws. Learn the facts. And then make money off the people who don't know them.
Re:GREAT! MORE LAWS! (Score:5, Insightful)
Simply outlawing them, or offering a basic "If someone pays you for the right to use the software, you MUST offer them the ability to install and use the software without agreeing to any conditions beyond those implied by copyright law and first-use/right of first sale doctrines." is not going to help the lawyers. It removes them from the process, and a good thing too.
No new laws (Score:2)
Yes, this sounds like a good idea on the surface, yes? But it is just asking for trouble. The laws as they are can be screwed up. And sure, some change might be due. But who are you asking to institute this change? CONGRESS?! heh, I think not.
Perhaps this is a good idea: State laws, a proposition or referendum proposing to void EULA validity? Then at least the PEOPLE get to write the law, etc.
Because you know congress will sneak in some backdoor that just makes us all worse off than we were before.
Re:There should be a law... (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course I realize that unlike my hypothetical hair dryer, a piece of software can be copied and distributed using little or no personal resources. It isn't exactly a commodity, so it can't be treated as such. Nevertheless, I'm still opposed to EULAs in their current forms, so perhaps a compromise is in order.
Generally speaking, the GPL and its close relatives don't get much flack from the SlashDot crowd. In essence they are EULAs, using the same legalistic and hard-to-understand languages as their distant proprietary cousins, but they are accepted, tolerated--even welcome in our community. They are maintained by standards organizations, publicly reviewed, and well understood.
Can this be done in the commercial world? Like, such-and-such has a EULA that is approved by the [insert standards body here]? But then again, even if it did help identify these issues sooner, my guess is that no one would even bother to look for that seal ("Kazaa isn't using an approved EULA? Oh no! Oh well.").
And then, no one could force a company (*cough*Kazaa*cough*) to get their EULAs approved. I'm not sure if I'd want that anyway.
Re:There should be a law... (Score:2)
You don't have to sign a licence agreement when you buy and read a book, borrow a book, watch TV, watch a movie at a theatre or on a VHS tape or on a DVD, listen to a music CD, listen to a radio station, etc, etc. To varying degrees, all of these are comparable to the use and flexibility of software.
So I agree: screw 'em. At the very least, it should be possible for every user to use a piece of software without agreeing to an EULA, to the extent that a buyer can claim money back, time and effort recouped, and extra damages if they are not given the option. If a software company wants to offer an alternative, then that's fine, as long as it's an alternative, and not a replacement.
Re:There should be a law... (Score:4, Insightful)
GPL is a *voluntary* offer. In return for consideration of using other people's GPL code, you agree to behavior restrictirs (not obscuring source). EULA offer zero warranties and impose so many conditions and disclaims and exclusions clauses it wouldn't surprise me if it violated a dozen statutes. Because so many technical people have tested GPL (not to mention argued it up and down the valley) hackers have a fair understanding of the implications, even if they disagree with it, can can even come up with their own counter-offers (MPL, etc).
With the commercial world, pre-defined contracts basically weight themselves against the user, there is no negotiation, and courses for remedy are virtually non-existant. The doctrine of equity is seriously eroded here. Until companies come up with a way of justifying their service (as encoded in software) is legally binding and balanced as to benefit/obligations, I think the public is right to be sceptical of any claims. Would you trust an email that offered you $xxxx by doing your taxes in a certain way? Or would you ask your accountant who can at least be charged with professional negligence.
LL
OB AdAware Link (Score:2)
AdAware (.de) [lavasoft.de]
Unexpected (unintended?) bit of honesty (Score:3, Insightful)
Personally, I wish that is exactly what would happen. Popups dialogs and confirmation boxes should only appear when there is something you need to think about. If you're not supposed to think about it, then why are they bothering you with the popup in the first place?
jeebus! (Score:4, Insightful)
"Brilliant, whose Altnet peer-to-peer software piqued consumer fears, says it is committed to telling people exactly how their computers will be used via new agreements and pop-up boxes as it loads more software and starts using consumers' computer resources."
If they were so committed to telling people, why the hell didn't they? All of these companies set out to decieve, then lie and manipulate to cover their asses. I can't even imagine the discussions that these people had to plan such an underhanded ploy.
You can't even hum two bars of a song without someone looking for royalties. Do you think these companies intent to pay up when they use your computer to solve a million dollar math problem? hell no! damn the man..haha
Hillarious (Score:4, Funny)
Oh yeah, wouldn't want that...
TextArc Revelation? (Score:2, Funny)
msconfig (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:msconfig (Score:2)
How exactly do you do when you "rebuild the TCP/IP stack"? Does Gator and it's ilk tip the stack over or something?
Re:msconfig (Score:3, Interesting)
We're supposed to trust them (Score:5, Funny)
So we're supposed to trust them. These spyware folks are just a few bad apples among the wonderful adware crowd. Damn you, Brilliant, you're keeping me from all this good adware software.
It could be a valid business model... (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, KaZaa wants to do it *without* telling you. That's just unacceptable...
Re:It could be a valid business model... (Score:3, Insightful)
This entire attitude is bordering on hypocrisy. The common reaction, of techies, to RL law being applied unchanged to the digital world usually erupts into cries of "The internet is not the real world, the existising laws don't fit". But your attitude is just the opposite. A contract is binding in RL, we'll assume a click thorugh is a real contract (regardless of the absurdness of this assumption) and apply RL laws to it.
Too much backlash (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Morpheus just gateway drug? (Score:2)
So KaZaa (which still sounds like 'l337 Skr1pt k1dd13' speak) lets Morpheus use their network, since it'll pull in those people who want to use peer-to-peer and also know enough that spyware is out there and it's bad, mm'kay? One day, when Morpheus has something like a few million users, they pull the plug. Question: Where will these newly-deprived users go? For the most part, KaZaa. Now how many 'new things' are suddenly added to KaZaa and not mentioned? Seems to me like the main purpose of Morpheus in the beginning was more of a "gateway drug" to get otherwise intelligent people to use KaZaa. I think if the management at our favorite spyware-headquarters didn't know that they were using it to drag people in when they would eventually shut it down, they would have never let it run at all.
One giant user grab? I think so.
Open source scanning solution ? (Score:3, Interesting)
I think the general concensus amonst us all is that spyware is bad, yet the only reliable (and free) solution seems to of been delegated to our friends at Lavasoft [lavasoft.de], while they are doing a *great* job, their project is unfortunatly closed source and therefore people/programmers cannot really contribute to its success (other than donate cash which is reccomended but not convienent to everyone)
if people feel so strongly on this issue why hasen't anyone started an open source solution to this scurge so the talented programmers amongs us can improve the scanning and detection techniques ?
at the moment the spyware companies only really have to make their product beat lavasofts Adaware and they are in business (at least til/if Adaware picks it up)
sure spyware seems to be only targeted to Windows users but as other operating systems become more widespread it is only a matter of time before they spread to these alternative platforms too
while closed source could be argued as a good thing (stop spycompanies seeing how it works) could they beat 100's of programmers all working to make the scanning engine more robust and secure, this obviously works in regards to computer security on *nix platforms as viruses are not more prominent than closed source platforms
so would beating spyware benefit from these same techniques ?
While i agree that these spyware programs should be regarded as viruses/trojans i think once you bring a commercial element into the equation you open yourselves up to attacks of perpetuating the products life/success (ie: rumours that virus detection companies create viruses)
so would an open source spyware detection solution work ?
A legal virus? (Score:5, Insightful)
What Kazaa has done is no different from what the Mellissa virus did: It presented people with a choice (install this software for Kazaa, open this document for Mellissa) that appeared to most to be benign. The means of knowing the choice was not benign were available (the license agreement for Kazaa, the actual contents of the document for Mellissa), but were obfuscated (in complex and opaque legal language, in obfuscated macros in an opaque document format) and chaffed (in one small part of a very large file/document in both cases).
Perhaps, then, we need to look upon trojans written in legal "code" the same way we look at trojans in software: As malicious and probably illegal. It is no more sensible to expect people to be able to fully comprehend a complex (and deliberately obfuscated) legal document than it is to expect people to read the binary code of every program they run. Yet our legal system presumes that you are responsible for your agreement to "run" the legal code but that you are the victim when you run the binary.
We need to treat contracts and licenses written in legal language the same way that we treat compiled code: as opaque and, when they are harmful, as malicious "exploits" of user vulnerabilities.
--G
Understandable EULA (Score:3, Funny)
2. You agree to binding arbitration, which means our representitve "Bubba" will tie you up and have his way with you until you stop whining.
3. You agree to purchase additional hardware as we deem necessary to run our software.
4. Your rights: NONE
Accept Yes/NO
SD
Why's Kazaa getting hammered for this? (Score:2)
If you disagree, reply.
for the same reason we have clear lang laws (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why's Kazaa getting hammered for this? (Score:2)
A legal rule for voiding contracts based on
- (computer) illiteracy
- (program) radically different from what it is
- failure to understand due to complexity (not carelessness)
The key item is #2, that the program is in fact radically different in intent to what the person downloading it believes it to be (file fetching v P2P node). Fact is that computer literacy is so absymally low that items 1) and 3) would apply to 99.9% of the population.
This is the same reason why we retain accountants. The complexity of the legal code is such that we trust professionals to interpret it for us. Perhaps in some far off day, we ask open source advocates to help audit/secure software instead of picking up viruses and trojan horses willy-nilly.
LL
Re:Why's Kazaa getting hammered for this? (Score:3, Insightful)
My initial comment was originally posted a bit tongue in cheek, but if you hit "I Agree" and you don't agree nor make any attempt to understand what you agree, that's not the fault of the company. If you hit "I Agree," you'd better agree.
Why aren't you thinking? Any lawyer worth his or her salt would look at any EULA, and tell you not to install the software.
Lawyers provide legal advice and break down the legal process for the average person. If I wanted to incorporate a business or get married, the lawyer would look at the forms I have to sign, and tell me what it is I'm signing. They don't say, "This form's too hard. Why are you wasting your time getting married anyway?" Lawyers are not just binary evaluators that say Do this/Don't do this and stop at that.
>I know what I have installed on my computer, I know what it does, and I don't get surprised when I do (pkg_info|dpkg -l).
Do you seriously expect anyone to believe you when you say this? I can guarantee that you do NOT know exactly what you have on your computer.
Uhh, I would say a lot of people who have been running BSD/Linux for a while could agree with this statement.
Your pkg_info paragraph is way off-base. I didn't say I know exactly what I have installed, but I have a fair understanding of what each program does based on what the author of the program has written about it. This is reinforced because a) I can trust the author as he or she is most likely not part of some greedy business and don't stoop to unethical behavior to match a profit margin, b) a vast majority of the software I have is open-sourced, and especially that which is in the FreeBSD base has gone through a fair amount of auditing, whereas Kazaa is a closed-source app that has probably not recieved any comprehensive security analysis, and c) if there were issues, I'd be alerted about them immediately as I'm seeing more 3rd-party auditors more interested in keeping whatever UNIX software secure rather than some silly windows utility.
If the trojans of which you speak are delivered by some cracker, than it's my fault for not keeping up to date on patches. If the trojans are delivered by the author, a highly unlikely event especially with a commonplace app like ftp, that author would essentially be commiting developmental suicide as I and many others wouldn't use software from this author anymore. I do not expect this level of quality in Windows.
Wouldn't you be pissed if it did? But, as you suggest, you only have yourself to blame.
I sure would be, and yup, I'd blame myself. I'm glad that we see eye to eye on this issue, and it's settled.
Besides, Kazaa alerted its users to some extent, and that's the whole point of this damn thread. Your questions of my knowledge of trojanned software is wholly irrelevant as trojans by definition are totally silent about their duality. And no 'Well, the obfuscation of the EULA sections on spyware is analogous to a trojanned program' because I don't see rootkits coming with click-through agreements that the legitimate sysadmin has to click "I Agree." to step through the installation process.
Gee, you can dog me on my misuse of the word altruism but when it comes to trojan, you're the one in the dark
If you disagree, reply.
If you need help convincing people... (Score:3, Informative)
Pointing people there could save hours of explanation...
Software licenses and FAQs (Score:3, Interesting)
Other ideas that come to mind are standardized liability levels to which you can associate a logo. Something like 'MC' = Mission Critical, we pay if it breaks, 'NL' = No liability, you assume all the risks, and probably other more fine grained categories? The idea is that a software purchaser should know where they stand when buying a piece of software, rather than having to resort to hiring a lawyer or screwing themselves royally because they don't have the time for the fine print.
Just imagine having a license written on the wrapping paper of every present you get at christmas. I am not sure anyone would check what it had to say, since they just want to get to the goody inside - software is the same.
Pinnochio flashback (Score:2, Insightful)
Pree Installed Software (Score:2)
However what I'am wondering is, am I bound by any licencing aggrement on any software that comes pre-installed on my PC.
I never signed or clicked an agrement, nor did I openn a package, so do I have to abide by any licence agrement I find with the Machine.
Just get drunk (Score:3, Insightful)
Thieves and Eavesdroppers can't complain (Score:5, Interesting)
I wonder if anyone has reverse-engineered BDE's protocols yet? It would be a damn shame, wouldn't it, if their surreptiously installed thiefware should inadvertantly retrieve data containing a destructive worm as a payload, or if their computations were all skewed just enough to still be plausible, but uselessly wrong, or if the client on some computer that their server connected to wasn't quite the client they originally installed, and had unfortunate effects on said server....
Eavesdroppers can't complain if what they hear is unflattering, and thieves can't complain if the stuff they stole is dangerous to them.
65-year-old Kazaa user? (Score:4, Interesting)
Retaliate? (Score:4, Funny)
Upshift
Define "unused" (Score:3)
Not, I don't know how brilliant's distributed system works, but if it's like any others it will do the same thing as my Dnet client and put itself in the lowest priority group, right next to my Dnet client which means that they will be splitting the remaining cycles -- yet these are not cycles that were unused, they are cycles one client too from another I had previously installed!
Re:And the public cried... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:And the public cried... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:And the public cried... (Score:3, Insightful)
No, you'll find a bunch of words saying that the publisher claims that to be the case, but that doesn't make it so. Using software you have legally obtained is not a violation of copyright law [cornell.edu], so you don't need to agree to a EULA. In fact, since a EULA (usually) gives you no rights that you didn't already have, it should be invalid on its face for lack of consideration. (IANAL, yada yada yada).
Re:And the public cried... (Score:5, Funny)
That's fine, but here is my issue.
So you say "that would never happen", and I say take another look at the lows that internet companies will go to to turn a buck. especially companies that will use a another program to slip your install script onto users programs.
Oh wait... I'll have to wait until "Brilliant Digital Entertainment" is done with my CPU to finnish this post....
Re:And the public cried... (Score:5, Informative)
Of course, the whole point of the article (if you've read it, though I'll guess that you haven't) is that the complexity of most EULAs are absurdly difficult : The type of convoluted, circular, impossible to read verbage that virtually no one could read through and understand even if they were truly committed to reading the EULA for every single piece of software that they installed.
Personally, I think that there should be basic laws governing software just as there are in the rest of society (i.e. There is a 20 page EULA every time I go to a variety store and buy a can of coke, because there are certain expectations and societal and legal standards that govern the experience : i.e. Drinking a coke doesn't make them own my liver) : For instance, no software can communicate over the internet without explaining, in simple English (not intentionally vague legalize) why it is doing it, and who it's really benefitting.
Re:And the public cried... (Score:3, Funny)
There is not a box on the front page of the New York Times that says "Certain stuff written in this paper is false." Normal people assume everthing in there is true, and smart people know to take it with a rock of salt.
The same with computers. People SHOULD just assume the software works and is safe, and if you're smart, you won't and you will read the EULA.
Then, when the conseqences occur, hire a professional to fix it. If people shouldn't be expected to learn, why should we be expected to protect them out of the goodness of our hearts? I am a home computer "consultant" and I make good money fixing people's computers. People who don't give a flying F what's running on it, so long as they can look at their porn and write their emails and print their Word docs. People who screw up their computers and are totally fine with paying someone to fix it. Real consumers. Realists. Not cheapskate wannabe good citizens who like to spout off about "protecting the consumer". You've obviously never had a real job or you'd know there are no friends in business.
So, I'm glad companies take advantage of consumers, and I'm glad computers screw themselves up. Because it gives me a job. Don't try to take it away from me.
Cheers.
Re:And the public cried... (Score:2, Insightful)
If reading Slashdot, surfing the web, and thinking newspapers are nothing more than corporate whores makes you a demi-god, then you take the cake!
I wonder if these poor fucks to which you're referring bring any value into the world at all? After all, the internet, computers, software, etc all have intrinsic value, right? All other focus is folly.
Sanitation engineers (that's right, garbagemen) probably exploit me in some way too...but I don't have a way to get that garbage away from my house (in the city) without their help. If I see my friend downloading and 'agreeing' to an obviously sketchy program, I'll probably tell him to think twice--cause I can help him out with places that I know a thing or two about.
It's called 'learning'
Re:And the public cried... (Score:2)
Re:And the public cried... (Score:2)
But that just doesn't work
NoBODY gets filthy rich being honest. I AM honest about my work. I tell people what their problem is because I'd rather not come back to fix a little thing 10 times, even if I'm making 75 bucks to do it. There's just no CHALLENGE to it.
So maybe it's all a question of honor. I mean, without problems, I wouldn't have a job, so I like problems. But you can't take TOO much advantage of people. Then you start being evil.
I've got my Karma to worry about
Re:And the public cried... (Score:2, Insightful)
Not "everything should be spelled out in 20 different languages to be fair" "we should all get everything for free." "I'm a worthless communist" as you intended to say.
I'm sorry to be acidic, but I never said I don't support consumer advocacy. I said I don't support LAWS governing what software CAN and CANNOT do. There are ALREADY laws prohibiting viruses and malicious, destructive software. Most people don't care if their spare computer cycles are used by some company if, in return, they get a good piece of software. And if it screws up their computer, they are happy to have it fixed.
There does not need to be LEGISLATION in this matter. There needs to be education. People should not just download and run software from untrusted sites. EVERYONE knows that. So in this case, I do not shed a tear.
No pity for the majority.
Cheers.
Re:And the public cried... (Score:5, Insightful)
Most people don't care if their spare computer cycles are used by some company if, in return, they get a good piece of software.
Then how about distributing the software with "price: The Idle time of your PC"? Why are these "ways you pay for the software" always hidden away, usually installed silently in the background, and controlled via a checkbox that was careful placed outside of the visible range on one part of a 30 part install wizard? The reality is that most of this insidious software doesn't state its true intentions, because they know if they did many people would forgo using it, but instead they put "FREE!" all over the product.
There does not need to be LEGISLATION in this matter. There needs to be education. People should not just download and run software from untrusted sites. EVERYONE knows that. So in this case, I do not shed a tear.
Uh, we're talking about mainstream, very popular software : Not software from warez sites. So if Netscape 8.2 read your financial information and sent it on to banks, that's ay okay?
No pity for the majority.
And you work in computer configuration and repair? I feel pity for your customers. I'll guess that you're the type of guy that always has the raised eyebrow, exclaiming about how dumb the average Joe is, while at the same time wallowing in your own ignorance.
Re:And the public cried... (Score:3, Insightful)
First, unused cycles are ordinarily "optimized out" by my CPU. In other words, it runs slower and consumes less electricity when not being used. Most modern CPUs go into a low-power-consumption mode when not actively performing real processing. (If you doubt this, check your CPU temperature while it's been sitting idle with a blank screen for an hour or two. Compare that to the temperature after playing an hour of Quake III or even just running a graphics intensive screen saver for an hour. I know I could certainly feel the difference when I was running the distributed.net client at home. I just wish I had metered it.) So, I "hereby grant BDE the right to access and use the unused computing power" is another way of saying I will freely donate my electricity. Let's find out just how "free" that is.
First, let's assume that I pay $.0816/kWh for electricity (the 1999 national consumer average (page 14) [doe.gov].) Let's also assume that I leave the computer powered on constantly (because I do.) Finally, let's assume that my computer consumes 60W when idle, but 120W when actively crunching numbers (because it's an Athlon.) So that's an extra 60W/hr I would unknowningly consume on behalf of Kazaa.
Look at it a different way: Assume there are 2,000,000 KaZaa users.
- 60W/hr * 2,000,000 = 120,000,000 watt-hours.
Thats 120 megawatts per hour. We're talking California-rolling-blackout-sized consumption of energy here. It's Environmental Impact Statement time.Is it still so unreasonable to ask them to say "Click here to agree with the above and oh, by the way, we're going to use about $40 worth of your electricity per year", or does something a bit more drastic have to happen?
A little more like Snowcrash (Score:2, Interesting)
If the company failed to take these actions and allowed the user to click through anyway, they could rest assured that their EULA would be unenforceable. That would certainly shorten EULAs fast.
Re:And the public cried... (Score:2)
Besides, shouldn't some warning bell be going off in your head if the legalese in the EULA is overly obfuscated?
Ask yourself: What else could this incoherent block of text mean other than what am I inferring it to be? What are the Company's interests in my installing the Software? What is the ulterior motive? What did I just read? What is the point of each and every single section of text?
Re:And the public cried... (Score:2)
If you don't understand the EULA of the software, don't install it. Who's forcing you to put this software on your computer?
Because extensive EULAs have become the norm, and even minimal freeware apps have 40 page licenses. If one local store started making you sign a EULA to shop there, I'd stop shopping there, but if they ALL started doing it then what choice do you have? It's at that point that legal protections are the balancing factor.
Besides, shouldn't some warning bell be going off in your head if the legalese in the EULA is overly obfuscated?
Ambiguity that is a fundamental aspect of language led to the creation of "legal-speak": A barely comprehensible, but understandable by lawyers, babbletalk that holds up in court, but has little meaning to the Average Joe that doesn't deal with it day in and day out. Obscurity is the norm in EULAs. The GPL states in 3000 words what I could easily reduce down to 3 sentences.
Re:And the public cried... (Score:5, Interesting)
I've always wondered if the "click if you agree" thing is enough. I remember learning once in my highschool law class that when it came to contracts etc, both parties had to fully understand the extent of the wording - in order to protect people from "fine print" trickery.
It would seem to me that these over-complicated EULAs are an attempt to either confuse users, or get them to click "Agree" without understanding the terms.
If I "trick" you into signing something, you should still be legally protected. Granted of course that you can afford to take it to court.
But that's what class action suits are for right?
IADNAL (D==Definitely)
Re:And the public cried... (Score:2, Interesting)
This raises an interesting question in my mind. My mother tongue is french, I have enough technical knowledge of english to figure out what the menus of a program are and what the use of the program is. But I don't understand english legalese (nor french, for that matter). So would a court consider that they tricked me into clicking the I agree button by intentionaly obfuscating the agreement?
You could of course complain that I should have clicked the "I don't agree" button then. But what in the case I give this software to my mother (who has no knowledge whatsoever of english), she tries installing the software and by trial and error, finds that the "I agree" button is the only one that installs the program. Can she still be considered tied by the "contract"?
Re:And the public cried... (Score:5, Funny)
IANAL, BMWISTBO!?!? (Score:5, Funny)
While she was taking her contracts class, she pored over EVERY single contract (Wedding coordinator, photographer, hotel where the wedding was held, DJ, etc.) with a fine tooth comb. That is the lawyer in training method.
But when I speak with friends of the family who are lawyers, many simply sign every document thrust in front of their face becuase they know that no matter how you phrased it, they can wiggle out if need be!
That explains why I sign legally binding documents as I. P. Freely
Re:And the public cried... (Score:2)
Wonder if anyone has tried an "envelope contract" on a software company and got it enforced..
Re:MS (Score:3, Insightful)
So until you back up your claim with some credible links I am skeptical.
Re:What do you expect when its free? (Score:2)
Re:Eugh (Score:3, Insightful)
You, you, you, you, you, you, and only you.
I install stuff from the internet all the damn time. I click through just like everyone else, but I don't complain that the devil made me do it. If its yours, take some responsibility for it. If you refuse to, then deal with it pal, 'cause only you are to blame. People don't say "read the fine print" because it's something nice to say. People say it because it's good advice.