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:2005-07-06
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:2005-07-02
Yes, that is a most important distinction considering the states of the USA aren't in the world.
Usually when one says "in the world", one means "throughout the world," otherwise it's pretty meaningless. Anyway, that's the general opinion in the world, and by that I mean in front of my computer. :-)
The fact is... In some places on the earth (I am not aware of how many) EULAs are legal despite what you say.
All that I say is that in most places of the world, i.e. the vast majority of it, the legality of EULAs is dubious at best. Even in those few places where they are apparently backed by UCITA, they've never been tested in court, and I wouldn't bet money on them holding up.
The rest of your posts doesn't contain arguments, but restates that one should be expected to know what's in a EULA because there's so many of them, which I already indicated means absolutely nothing in a court of law. Nothing. It's not a real argument, it's a bad analogy between real laws (to which you're subject even if you don't know about them) and contracts (to which you can't be bound if you can't have the terms).
As for stores refusing to refund you, many of them will refuse to refund you if the package is opened and not defective. It has nothing to do with piracy, because the same rule apples to non-software items.
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.