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
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:2005-07-06
archiesteel: The point is moot, however, as it's not that EULAs are legally binding in the first place
Deletomn: I haven't read it myself. But from my understanding, it makes EULAs valid in certain areas of the world.
archiesteel: 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.
Yes, that is a most important distinction considering the states of the USA aren't in the world. What you stated is not a correction. What I stated was a correction. The fact is... In some places on the earth (I am not aware of how many) EULAs are legal despite what you say. I only need one example to prove that, which I provided.
archiesteel: And saying that other EULAs are "similar" has absolutely no legal meaning whatsoever.
My point is, you know what to expect to start with. You cannot say that for many laws which you are required to follow. Or contracts which you will be required to sign and follow. Or verbal agreements which you will be expected to follow. Etc... In other words... With most software packages, you already know what is expected of you, before you even pay for it. As long as the EULA does not deviate from the norm, you already should know the terms by heart. (And some do and some don't.)
As a result, claiming you "don't know what it says" isn't really much of an excuse for many programs. In fact, for some of them, it's down right nonsense.
archiesteel: 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)
Yes and no. As I already mentioned in one other post. Some EULAs give you the right to return the software to the store or to the manufacturer within a certain time frame, if you do not agree to the EULA.
As for stores frequently not accepting returns. This is definitely a valid concern. However, you can thank pirates for this, since a number of them have a tendency to buy a program, copy it, and then return it. I am not saying that this justifies not accepting returns, but it does happen (I personally know people who do this when given the opportunity) and this is the excuse a number of stores use.
Also... Even if the store itself does not accept returns, you can contact the manufacturer and see if they will. (And a number of them are supposed to.)
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.)