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 440435
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: A few points
by Thom_Holwerda on Sat 11th Sep 2010 06:39 UTC in reply to "A few points"
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

I'm not against the concept of licensing software.

I'm against the shady business practice of masquerading the licensing of software as a sale. Luckily, I live in a sane world, and this shit won't fly in Europe, because it's a post-sale restriction.

If software "vendors" (LOL) want to do this right, then they ought to present the license as part of the "sale" (LOL), both on their website, as well as through their re"sellers" (LOL).

But they don't. As such, EULAs can suck my big fat popcicle. I just can't understand people supporting these shady business practices. You're basically shooting yourself in your own foot!

Also, I'm 100% certain even these judges broke an EULA at least once.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: A few points
by google_ninja on Sat 11th Sep 2010 07:46 in reply to "RE: A few points"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

So basically, youre saying that putting up a bajillion pages of legalese with an ok button isn't enough to indicate that this is different then buying a sandwich.

How about more "intangible" software? Like paying for rememberthemilk.com or something like that. There is no physical anything changing hands, but you are still going to get that gigantic license agreement you have to agree with.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, just sort of curious where you draw the line.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: A few points
by Thom_Holwerda on Sat 11th Sep 2010 08:16 in reply to "RE[2]: A few points"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

So basically, youre saying that putting up a bajillion pages of legalese with an ok button isn't enough to indicate that this is different then buying a sandwich.


Except... Said legalese and okay button are only presented AFTER the sale has already concluded, and as such, FAIL.

They claim they're selling a service - then be a man and act like you're selling a service. When I want a mobile phone contract - a service - I'm offered a contract to properly sign, including all the terms and conditions to look over.

When I take up an insurance - a service - I'm offered a contract to properly sign, including all the terms and conditions to look over.

When I rent a car - a service - I'm offered a contract to properly sign, including all the terms and conditions to look over.

And so on. And so forth. There is no reason why software licensers (I'm banning the term vendors) can't do the same. Sure, it would be problematic for online sales, but that's not my problem. Entering into a mobile phone contract online in The Netherlands requires you to print out the contract and send it in, signed and well. Software licensers should do the same.

Why do people want to create special exemptions for software licensors? Why are they held to different standards?

Edited 2010-09-11 08:17 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: A few points
by Soulbender on Sat 11th Sep 2010 09:15 in reply to "RE[2]: A few points"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

So basically, youre saying that putting up a bajillion pages of legalese with an ok button isn't enough to indicate that this is different then buying a sandwich.


Because it's not. There's no reason software need to be different. We already have copyright protection and existing laws that protect software as much as any other consumer product. The fact that the industry is doing their best to convince you and everyone else otherwise doesn't mean they're right.
And I dont for a moment buy the bullshit that "it's easier to copy". It's not like it's hard to copy CD's or videos or books etc these days but you don't see EULA's on those.

No, this is the industry trying to exploiting the lawmakers ignorance to further it's own agenda.

Like paying for rememberthemilk.com or something like that.


it's a membership. There are existing laws governing that too and it's entirely different from purchasing software.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: A few points
by Soulbender on Sat 11th Sep 2010 09:00 in reply to "RE: A few points"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Hmmm...I'm pretty sure you have previously stated that you had been told by a law professor in NL that EULA's are legal there too. It would seems that at least one part of Europe is as fucked as the U.S.
Of course, EULA's can't over-ride your local consumer laws anyway so it's not a disaster.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: A few points
by dmantione on Sat 11th Sep 2010 14:50 in reply to "RE[2]: A few points"
dmantione Member since:
2005-07-06

Let me comfort you: We have a good law system that does not allow post sale restrictions.

An EULA can be legal in .nl, like it can be legal in most of the world, since it is a contract. Christiaan Alberdingk Thijm is am intellectual property lawyer that always a bit pro-industry, but in principle what he explained to Thom was correct: If a software comes with an EULA, you should not assume it is void.

Now the other part of the story.

In The Netherlands, like in the rest of the world that has a law system based on Roman law, the sales agreement is considered very important. If there exists a sales agreement (which can be proven by an invoice), the software is sold.

Therefore a Shrink-Wrap/Click-Wrap EULA stating "licensed, not sold" writes nonsense under Dutch law, and therefore looses its power to enforce restrictions.

There are a few other ways to attack EULA's, namely:
* Consumer protection laws
* Laws on Terms & Conditions

If EULA is agreed on as part of the sales agreement, is not contrary to consumer laws, and not contrary to laws on terms & conditions, then it is legally binding.

However, I haven't seen many EULA's that pass this.

Edited 2010-09-11 14:52 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3