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: Usually when one says "in the world", one means "throughout the world," otherwise it's pretty meaningless.
Indeed. If you just say "in the world". However, I EXPLICITLY stated "certain areas of the world". Usually when one says "certain areas" it is interpretted as subparts of the larger thing. Meaning in this discussion some "countries", some "states", some "cities", or what have you.
Or in other words it could have simply been my house and it would still be literally "certain areas", because you could consider each floor (or room or what have you) to be a different "area". But this would violate what people would generally expect, since this would encompass just me.
archiesteel: 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.
I wouldn't know. I would have to trust you on that.
If I did more research, I could discover this one is not correct. However, I'm not going to "hunt down" the laws for other countries like Cuba, Iran, etc. (I don't mean to say that they're unimportant, but there would be alot to go through) Or individual states, terrorties, or even cities. (I'm not sure if there are any which are different, but I do know that cities pass their own laws, sometimes even in contradiction to the normal laws of that country or state or what have you, which makes things interesting.)
I will simply grant that what you stated is (hopefully) correct. Because I believe most examples indicate that EULAs are not valid and because I don't want them to be.
archiesteel: 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).
They are more valid than what you state. My point is that simply not being aware of the terms because you did not read them or what have you does not make them not apply to you. PERIOD. That was all. And it's true. "I never read it, so it doesn't apply to me,but I signed it anyway" doesn't work with contracts either.
Other variables affect it and in combinaton potentially make them invalid. However, for that I mention two different things:
1) I have been "asked" to accept contracts at times when it would be rather... "Inconvenient"... To not sign and I didn't know at all what it would say up until that point. Yet, as far as I know those were all legally valid. I would call the issue of "not knowing the terms" (despite the fact that many say basicly the same thing) of the software and having to return the software should you not accept it to generally be more of an in inconvenience than anything else. So yes... I consider the two to basicly be the same thing.
2) There is also an area that I have no experience with whatsoever (and I admit this up front) that I think this MIGHT fall under. Contracts which are never verbalized or signed. (And yes, they exist, but I know nothing about them to speak of. I would have to talk to talk to a friend of mine who would know more about this.) However, as I said... I know nothing about those. So I can't elaborate, but perhaps someone else here knows something more? It would be interesting to know.
archiesteel: 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.
While what you say may be true for a number of stores. I have returned numerous items for various reasons. Including nondefective items at times.
I'd imagine some stores have their reasons for not accepting returns. But I do know the reason why a number of software stores don't. You don't have to like that reason or agree with it.
The key thing I think is to check the stores return policy. I am aware of one store I associate with being fairly harsh with its policy. And so, I wouldn't buy anything from them if there is any question as to whether I will keep the item or not.
However, that just moves to another area of essentially "buyer beware". Some stores don't guarantee you squat about an item. (Well... As you say they do allow defective returns. However, I do deal with one such store that I can think of right off hand.) Not even whether it is suitable for what you wanted to use it for. For such stores, not being able to use an item for some reason (including software) would not be an excuse to return it unless it is defective. These stores would have no impact on the discussion. Because it wouldn't be "unusual" to not be able to make use of something like you wanted to.
Member since:2005-07-06
Oh... I forgot to mention...
The discussion of not being able to return something to the store would also generally not have an impact on the following types of software (some were mentioned previously, but I mention them again to make sure nobody who replies happens to forget about it)
1) When the manufacturer will accept a return of the software should you not accept the EULA. (This does occur) Because you can return it.
2) Software which comes in inner sealed packages with the EULA. The reason being simply that the software was not opened. (Though the outer box was. Granted some stores may not accept a return of such items. But they're supposed to since it's not considered "open". This however, would be the most "iffy" one of the 4 I list here.) Because once again you can return it. (Or are supposed to be able to. As I said.)
3) Software which come in book format (not mentioned previously), these programs tend to have the EULA in the book, with the software somewhere inside (generally in back). Because you can actually read the EULA before you buy the software. Hence, the inability to return the software is no excuse.
4) Software which you were otherwise able to read the EULA before hand, expected to, and had it presented to you. (As is the case with a number of downloadable programs. This was also not mentioned previously.) Because you can actually read the EULA before you buy.
Anyway... My point being... That saying "I couldn't read it until I bought it and then I couldn't return it" applies to some EULAs, but not all. Hence, that argument wouldn't render all EULAs invalid, whether the argument itself is valid or not. Like it or not. It does not render them as a whole invalid. Just some them. Like with contracts and laws. Meaning some are valid and some are not. Just because some are, you can't say all of them are.
(I will also note that my post just prior to this one mentioned some other things in regards to this.)
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.