This week, one of the most-commented stories on OSNews was the story about how 'Maxxus' cracked/hacked (take your pick) the Intel version of Apple's OSX once again. This sparked a lively debate over whether we should encourage Maxxus, or condemn his actions. I made myself clear from the get-go: I condemn his actions. Note: This is the Sunday Eve Column of the week.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-02
You are actually given more opportunity to read, accept, or reject many EULAs than you are to read, accept, or reject laws and yes sometimes even contracts.
So there's a way to read a EULA without opening the shrink-wrapped package?
The point is moot, however, as it's not that EULAs are legally binding in the first place (and may be illegal in certain countries, such as the UK).
Member since:2005-07-06
archiesteel: So there's a way to read a EULA without opening the shrink-wrapped package?
No... But before you use the program for the first time the EULA comes up. In addition, a number of programs come in a "sealed" package along side the EULA. This provides you with an opportunity to read the EULA before opening the sealed package.
A copy of the EULA is also frequently always available and often times either sitting right in the manual or on your harddrive or what have you. Generally, it is right there practically in your face. The same can not be said for many laws. For example, laws that involve walking or ownership of dogs. You can rest assured, that there will generally not be a copy of said laws waiting for you on your doorstep, when you take your dog out for a walk. In addition verbal agreements between people often times don't have a recording which you can reference, and so on...
You actually have more chances to read, review, be reminded of, etc... EULAs than many other legally binding things. Simple as that.
In addition many EULAs basicly say the same thing. (As protagonist said) so you can guess the terms for many programs before you even look at the EULA.
archiesteel: The point is moot, however, as it's not that EULAs are legally binding in the first place
Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act
I haven't read it myself. But from my understanding, it makes EULAs valid in certain areas of the world.
(As a side note... I am not saying that I feel they should or shouldn't be legal. That I approve of them or disapprove. Nor am I saying that they are legal or illegal everywhere.)
Member since:2005-07-02
No... But before you use the program for the first time the EULA comes up. In addition, a number of programs come in a "sealed" package along side the EULA.
But if it doesn't, then what are you to do? And saying that other EULAs are "similar" has absolutely no legal meaning whatsoever. The only EULA that counts is the one for the software I just bought, and if I can't get a refund ater reading the EULA (which is usually the case with opened boxes) then there's good legal precedent to consider the EULA null and void.
I also don't subscribe to your "dog law" analogy, since we're talking about two very different things. The fact that a EULA might be more prevalent that signs saying "Dogs Forbidden" is irrelevant. (And, as a side note, you can often fight back - and nullify - parking tickets if the parking sign isn't clearly visible from where you parked.)
I haven't read it myself. But from my understanding, it makes EULAs valid in certain areas of the world.
Correction: it means that EULAs would be considered valid in certain American states. UCITA laws are american laws, and most state have not adopted them.
Member since:2006-02-21
Generally, in the contract between people and the government, the people give the government the right to establish laws, basically through the contract that is negotiated between the people, called the constitution. At least that's how it works in democracies. Every other contract between people, whether it be verbal or written, for getting a job for example, both participants are up front with their demands and requests,thus you can agree of disagree to the contract before entering into it. Software is the only place where a contract is both set in stone, and largely hidden from view at the very time where it should be visible (which is before purchase). That is why software is different from government laws or other contracts.
Member since:
2005-07-06
Kroc: Whilst it may be a contract you wish to abide to, what of all the people who never read it?
What about people who never read actual contracts? What about people who don't read the laws? What about people who aren't paying attention when they get into verbal contracts? Etc... Should they be bound by these things?
A common statement made about this is "ignorance is no excuse." In addition, with EULAs, these are often BOLD (not the typeface) and IN YOUR FACE, at the very beginning. So its obvious that they are there. That's more than can be said for a number of laws that bind us.
For example, when you go for a walk with your dog, do you see a big printed sign that tells you what you are allowed to do and not do while you are out on a walk? What about what dogs you are allowed to have or not have in the local area? Etc... Yet, if there is any laws about this in your local area, chances are you do not see such a sign. Yet you'll definitely be held to those laws if they exist.
Kroc: If the EULA says that the person has to jump off of a cliff, should they be sued for not jumping, having not read the EULA?
What if an actual contract says a person has to jump off a cliff? What if there is a law that says that? What if there's a verbal agreement to do so? Etc...
Kroc: A Contract you agree to long before you use the product.
Did you explicitly agree to be bound by said laws to walk your dog? Doubtful. Yet, they will bind you.
You are actually given more opportunity to read, accept, or reject many EULAs than you are to read, accept, or reject laws and yes sometimes even contracts. As a result using these things as a reason for them to not be legal doesn't seem valid to me in the least.