Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 10th Sep 2010 23:38 UTC
Legal EULAs, and whatever nonsense they may contain, are legally binding in the US. Have a great weekend!
Thread beginning with comment 440429
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Almafeta
Member since:
2007-02-22

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 appear before installation (the actual transfer). That's why you have to offer refunds to those to disagree with EULAs.

it simply isn't allowed for manufacturer to place limitations on a copy of software they don't anymore own.

Ownership of a piece of software is no more transferred than ownership of a song or a story is transferred when you buy a CD or a book. (It's the only reason copyleft licenses have any power to restrict free usage, f'rex.)

the rights of regular consumers are constantly being trampled.

What rights have been lost? As far as I know, selling things you don't legally own is a crime, not a right.

Also, you speak in terms of 'the rich' versus 'the consumers', as if the only people who have copyrighted content are those who work for large corporations. That's a false distinctions, because virtually everyone can produce something of value. Taking away the ability of Joe Q. Programmer to use an EULA to protect himself would be an injustice, and really would make it so only rich corporations could afford to protect themselves.

I hope they will some day in the future wisen up and revise the whole system, from top to bottom.

Don't worry; people who create things over there will get their rights back soon enough. ;)

Edited 2010-09-11 05:38 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

EULAs appear before installation (the actual transfer). That's why you have to offer refunds to those to disagree with EULAs.

Transferal of goods or valuables, ie. money, happens already at the store.

Ownership of a piece of software is no more transferred than ownership of a song or a story is transferred when you buy a CD or a book.

You are mixing up concepts of ownership and copyright. They are not the same thing and should not be mixed; you own the copy of the book if you buy it and may do with it as you please, but the original author still holds copyrights to it and thus you are not allowed to break copyright law. Do NOT confuse these things.

What rights have been lost? As far as I know, selling things you don't legally own is a crime, not a right.

See previous answer.

Reply Parent Score: 6

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

That's why you have to offer refunds to those to disagree with EULAs.


I'm really interesting to know if this actually works.

Taking away the ability of Joe Q. Programmer to use an EULA to protect himself would be an injusticep


What injustice would that be that isn't already covered by existing regulations?

Ownership of a piece of software is no more transferred than ownership of a song or a story is transferred when you buy a CD or a boo


If I buy a CD I can later sell it if I don't want it anymore. I can sell my old car when I want to buy a new one. What the ninth circle has essentially said here is that I can not sell software that I am no longer using.
What "injustice" is this supposed to protect against?

Reply Parent Score: 4

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

What "injustice" is this supposed to protect against?


Obviously the injustice is that the copyright holder isn't paid when the sold physical software container is resold by the new owner of said physical software container... and again and again and again. It is obvious that american megacorporations are treated unjustly when they can't force you to surrender your property and your rights to them.

Or something...

Reply Parent Score: 5