razorace Posted January 2, 2003 Share Posted January 2, 2003 This is a continuation of the licensing law discussion in the JKII LucasFiles Top Ten! Thread. I know this is pretty serious for the Swamp, but it's the only forum that's approprate. Originally posted by Emon 1. I'd like to see some real evidence as to why they are not enforceable, not why you think they shouldn't be enforceable. If you want real evidence I suggest you check google for "Adobe v. Softman", or "eula law unenforcable". From my searching, it appears that I was slightly incorrect. The federal courts have yet to rule on EULA agreements as they've always been resoluted at a state level. But court precendent points towards EULAs not being enforceable for a number of reasons. 2. It IS up front. It clearly says that by clicking "I Agree" and installing the software, you DO agree. It's right there IN FRONT of you. What more do you want? A big sign on the box with the entire EULA on it? Doesn't work that way pal. And your "You can only open this safe if you agree to the contract inside" thing is just... wrong. That isn't how it works. The whole EULA is shown to you BEFORE you install the software, not after. You've already done your part of the "deal" by buying/downloading the product. It's blatently changing the "contact" after you've already purchased the software. When I buy software, there's no reasonable effort to inform the customer of the EULA. Plus, almost all stores wouldn't let you return opened computer software anyway. The thing with the editing tools may show it to you after, but notice how the agreement doesn't state "By installing" the software, it's on the basis of actual mod creation. Companies aren't the government. They can't make you comply to something without your direct consent. Having a "next" button in your install program is very weak form of consent in the legal world (which normally goes....other<verbal<written (signature)). There's also an "attractive nucentence" factor to all this. Legally, you're still responsible for personal injure on your property EVEN IF you have posted No Trespassing Signs, barb wire, etc. It's been determined that the property can be considered an "attractive nucentence" to the public and that even if you don't consent to people being on our property, you're still responsible for reasonable injures. (Such as a booby trap going off on the mailman.) Releasing the source code to the public deeply implies that the public is allowed to edit/use your code (EULA or not). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCanr2d2 Posted January 2, 2003 Share Posted January 2, 2003 From my current understanding, the contract with the software company is complete when the software is purchased, not when it is installed. That is just a method of being able to use the software. To give extra contract details AFTER what in law is considered to be the completion of the contract is unenforcable. Then again that is me taking the most direct and straight interpretation of the law of contracts and torts... Whether or not you see the EULA in front of you, the contract is already done, can't add clauses AFTER Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Datheus Posted January 3, 2003 Share Posted January 3, 2003 Originally posted by razorace You've already done your part of the "deal" by buying/downloading the product. It's blatently changing the "contact" after you've already purchased the software. When I buy software, there's no reasonable effort to inform the customer of the EULA. Plus, almost all stores wouldn't let you return opened computer software anyway. I mean that makes sense... You really can't return software anymore... It just doesn't fly. So you get the software, and you do actually read th EULA... and you don't agree to it... well, then what? You've decided you don't want to agree to the said contract, but they already have your money... That'd be all good and well, but again, yea, you can't return software anymore... I personally think that this is something Congress needs to take a long, hard look at... It's not something that should be bouncing around at the state level, because it's gonna get ugly if something isn't done... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
razorace Posted January 3, 2003 Author Share Posted January 3, 2003 Congress won't act with a good political reason to. (sometimes not even then) Since there hasn't been a big fuss over EULAs, it wouldn't be messed with for a while. Heck, Congress has been voting for the computer companies instead of the public at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Datheus Posted January 3, 2003 Share Posted January 3, 2003 Yea, I know... That's why they should act now before there is a large political reason... But meh, it's the government, what can you expect? Hopefully it won't escalate to the point with this freaking Pallidium chip and crap like that... That's not even cool, I won't be able to play my MP3s on my computer... And to tell you the truth, I have more ripped MP3s from CDs that I legally bought then I do downloaded MP3s... I barely listen to downloaded music, I could do without it... I just like to have all my music in one place at accessible... but with this bull**** MSFT and Intel is working on... I won't be able to do it... *crosses fingers* Hopefully an outcry from the public will get Congress to wake up and stop these corporate jerks before they monopolize our fricking lives... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
razorace Posted January 3, 2003 Author Share Posted January 3, 2003 I wouldn't worry about it too much. If this hardware crap is implimented, noone will use it. If it's harder to develop for this new crap, no developer will use it. Sides, you know how it goes, most new "uncrackable" systems are cracked a week after release. The only reason why so much people want to pirate their music/software is because the prices are TOO high. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.