Username or EmailPassword
I love my country but my gosh I freakin' hate this. I just don't see how anyone can justify and define licensing to this degree. I have a hard time understanding how goods of which I do not pay a monthly fee and/or do not sign\agree with any kind of time-conscience contract is still owned by the manufacturer of the good. How is me paying a one time fee for a good the same as me essentially renting the product from the manufacturer. If I pay a one time fee for something, then it should be mine just like any other sale. And if I purchase a product from someone else who paid a one time fee for something, then that sale should be legit and have no connection with the manufacturer, developer, etc.
I feel if AutoDesk wants to play this game then their software needs to be moved to a subscription based model.
All this plus the fact that if you buy software, open it, attempt to install it only to come to the conclusion that you don't agree with the EULA is hard as heck to return, if possible at all, really sucks.
"EULAs, and whatever nonsense they may contain, are legally binding in the US. Have a great weekend!"
Thanks, Thom, for that. I haven't laughed like that on osnews for a while!!!
Replying to your article, Thom: EULAs are as binding as every other legal agreement one enters into. If publishers were forbidden from creating EULAs, nobody could create a legal agreement; if you were not allowed to agree to a EULA, you would not be allowed to agree to any sort of legal agreement.
Also, something in your article: Here in The Netherlands we have a traffic rule which states that in case of an accident between a motorised vehicle and a non-motorised participant... [the driver is always at fault]. In the US, although it varies from state to state, a driver is not at fault if someone steps into a road and is struck. Motorists are not responsible for people who willingly and knowingly step into oncoming traffic; there is no presumption that the most 'powerful' party is automatically guilty.
Responding to Runjorel:
Replying to your article, Thom: EULAs are as binding as every other legal agreement one enters into.
EULAs and contracts are two completely different kinds of beasts.
A contract is a legal agreement agreed by all related parties and a contract is placed _before_ any sale or transferral of goods. A contract also defines what service(s) the other party/parties provide, at what cost and with what kinds of limitations.
An EULA is an agreement that takes place _after_ sale or tranfessar of goods and there is no one to agree or disagree with, nor anyone overseeing the process. EULAs almost always try to limit the rights given to the buyer by other laws and tries to impose limits on you, not the service.
The after-sale limitations on rights given by existing laws is already enough for EULAs to be invalid in most European countries, but if it's a not service but instead bought goods, like f.ex. a software package sold at any computing-related store, there is even less for EULAs to stand on; it simply isn't allowed for manufacturer to place limitations on a copy of software they don't anymore own. If manufacturer wants something to be defined as a service then it needs to advertise it as such and create a proper contract when signing someone up, buying something from a store with no kind of agreement whatsoever doesn't constitute a contract.
I am quite sad and very much irritated by the US legal system, it seems you can do more-or-less anything whatsoever if you just have deep enough pockets, and the rights of regular consumers are constantly being trampled. I hope they will some day in the future wisen up and revise the whole system, from top to bottom. Until then I will not land my foot on American soil, even if I was paid for it