Click Here to Agree?

[Jonathon Watkins]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4347325.stm' target='_blank'>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4347325.stm</a><br /><br /></div><i>"If cars were sold under the same terms as software, the chances are we would all be walking to work. This is because almost every computer program is installed on condition that you accept onerous terms that you would reject if they were applied to anything else. For instance, if your car was sold to you under similar terms you would not be able to talk about its poor mileage down the pub with your mates, and would have to get the permission of the car maker every time you changed radio station or another member of your family drove it. And don't even think about putting car seats in the back for your kids or adding a roof rack - if you don't want to void the warranty that is."</i><br /><br />This BBC news article about impenetrable End User Licence Agreements (Eulas), points out that it's an issue that's now really starting to get public attention. Various campaigns are ongoing to draw the people's attention to the problems inherent to agreeing to terms before you can install software. US politicians have also threatened to draw up laws that make software developers liable for shoddy programs. It's a very complex area and I'm sure we hear a lot more about this sort of thing in the future. How many of you guys actually read the Eula before installing new programs?

[Darius Wey]

This post reminds me of the poll (http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=37911) Ed had conducted last month. It's great seeing the results. There aren't many that actually do read the EULA.

[Spenser]

That's easy to answer: Never. :D

[wocket]

I find reading the EULA is usually so long winded and complicated that you need a lawyer sitting with you when you are trying to decipher it.

Plus the reason you want to install the software in the first place is becaue you need to use it so you end up clicking agree anyway.

[Jonathon Watkins]

Plus the reason you want to install the software in the first place is becaue you need to use it so you end up clicking agree anyway.

Yes, which is the whole point. You want the software, so it would have to be something extremely bad to stop you installing it. However, it's inevitably only after you install it that you find the problems. :?

[dMores]

i've only read the EULA once: when i installed a p2p program. i wanted to make sure there's no "i agree to have my computer infested with spyware/adware".

when it's from a "respectable" software house, i usually trust them to do things right !

[Jason Dunn]

I read the EULAs for all software that I know I'll want to have on multiple computers: I look for what the developer says about having it installed on more than one computer. I always laugh at developers who think people are going to buy one copy of the software for every computer they own - I'm all for supporting developers, but there's no way I'm going to buy a copy of the same software three times to get it on my PC and two laptops... :roll:

[Jonathon Watkins]

I'm all for supporting developers, but there's no way I'm going to buy a copy of the same software three times to get it on my PC and two laptops... :roll:

Agreed, though I do think it is good that Apple are offering the X 'Tiger' upgrade for £100 for a single license, or £169 for a 5 pack 'Family license'.

Some companies like Adobe allow you to install e.g. Photoshop on a desktop and laptop, as long as you only use one copy at a time. That seems fair.

[Ken Mattern]

when it's from a "respectable" software house, i usually trust them to do things right !

Ah, but there's the rub. Have you seen some of the stuff they actually put in EULAs, such the Microsoft death clause?

10. NOTE ON JAVA SUPPORT. THE SOFTWARE PRODUCT MAY CONTAIN SUPPORT FOR PROGRAMS WRITTEN IN JAVA. JAVA TECHNOLOGY IS NOT FAULT TOLERANT AND IS NOT DESIGNED, MANUFACTURED, OR INTENDED FOR USE OR RESALE AS ON-LINE CONTROL EQUIPMENT IN HAZARDOUS ENVIRONMENTS REQUIRING FAIL-SAFE PERFORMANCE, SUCH AS IN THE OPERATION OF NUCLEAR FACILITIES, AIRCRAFT NAVIGATION OR COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL, DIRECT LIFE SUPPORT MACHINES, OR WEAPONS SYSTEMS, IN WHICH THE FAILURE OF JAVA TECHNOLOGY COULD LEAD DIRECTLY TO DEATH, PERSONAL INJURY, OR SEVERE PHYSICAL OR ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE.

Not only that but most of the time you don't see the EULA until after you have removed the shrink wrap.

Do you know that by simply turning on your new preloaded Windows based computer you are automatically accepting the EULA?

Read the EULA, you may be surprised at what you are agreeing to. Then, if you have the money, hire a lawyer and save us all! 8O

&lt;edit> Oh crap, now I need a lawyer because I discussed Microsoft's EULA without permission. Thankfully I'm a member of EFF.&lt;/edit>

[mr_Ray]

This is a topic that really does need serious investigation.

IMO though it should be expanded to all computer related software and data that have a cruddy EULA - including "we will kill your firstborn if you let anyone else hear this" music EULAs.

What's wrong with:
1) Products must be fit for the purpose they're sold for
2) As long as you don't distribute it, you can do what the hell you want with it.
Neither of which tend to apply in these crooked EULAs

You know, the same sort of rules that apply to physical goods...

[Rob Alexander]

I read the EULAs for all software that I know I'll want to have on multiple computers: I look for what the developer says about having it installed on more than one computer. I always laugh at developers who think people are going to buy one copy of the software for every computer they own - I'm all for supporting developers, but there's no way I'm going to buy a copy of the same software three times to get it on my PC and two laptops... :roll:

I tend to approach this like the old Borland no-nonsense license agreements. For applications, I don't see the problem with my putting them on both my desktop and laptop. I'm the only person who ever uses either one and I can't (usually) be using them at the same time. Luckily, most companies allow that. If I want to put it on my wife's computer too, though, then I think I should buy another license because we're two separate users potentially using it at the same time. Sometimes it doesn't seem fair, though, when the software is particularly expensive to make us pay full price for the second copy.

Luckily, some of the big companies are starting to see how onerous this can be in a single household and are starting to address it. MS, for example, has released an educational version of Office with three licenses for a very reasonable price. I also just ordered a 3-license version of Norton Internet Security from buy.com. It costs $107 for the three licenses while a single copy usually runs around $70. That seems like a reasonable compromise for a home that may have two or three computers.

&lt;off-topic>
Buy.com currently (until Mar 19) has a pair of rebates on this NIS 3-pack that can potentially take $70 off, giving you three licenses for $37. If anyone is in need of firewall/anti-virus software, this is a bargain. http://www.buy.com/retail/product.asp?sku=20362728&amp;adid=17070&amp;dcaid=17070
&lt;/off-topic>

On the EULA thing, I used to check to see if the laptop/desktop thing was allowed, but it's really just too hard to find it any more. Who can understand them anyway? I tend to just click accept, do what seems honest to me, and buy from people I trust. I figure if there's something really outrageous in one, I'll hear about it on the Net.

[Rob Alexander]

when it's from a "respectable" software house, i usually trust them to do things right !

Ah, but there's the rub. Have you seen some of the stuff they actually put in EULAs, such the Microsoft death clause?...

...Do you know that by simply turning on your new preloaded Windows based computer you are automatically accepting the EULA?

Read the EULA, you may be surprised at what you are agreeing to. Then, if you have the money, hire a lawyer and save us all! 8O

&lt;edit> Oh crap, now I need a lawyer because I discussed Microsoft's EULA without permission. Thankfully I'm a member of EFF.&lt;/edit>

Of course, we shouldn't forget that this is the company's position and that doesn't automatically make it enforceable. I'm certainly no lawyer, but I suspect that there is potential to challenge some of the EULA terms if the person hasn't read them. That's been an issue in other industries, and it's why your mortgage company goes through your mortgage contract in detail and explains each provision. A contract requires a 'meeting of the minds' and they don't want you to be able to say that you didn't understand since some courts apparently held that to be an issue.

I believe that software has gotten to that point. In earlier times, when a normal educated person could actually read and understand a EULA, not reading it wouldn't have been much of a defense. But these days, I think the software industry has crossed the line. If anyone actually challenged the validity of the license agreement on basic contractual grounds that it cannot be an 'agreement' if you don't understand what you're agreeing to, they might have a valid argument. Of course something like that wouldn't excuse piracy since it would be hard to argue you didn't understand you can't sell bootleg copies, but it might prevail against certain more invasive provisions of some agreements, such as those that allow them to install spyware or collect personal information.

[Mark Kenepp]

I work in a real estate development company and I see complicated contracts all the time. Some of them are far more cryptic than any EULA that I have read. It is understandable, when dealing with a transaction that will cost one party millions of dollars (feel free to substitute your currency of choice but be sure to take into account current exchange rates ;) ) and earn another millions that this kind of detail needs to be put into an agreement.

The problem with software EULAs is that the party selling the product is, hopefully, looking at a transaction of several million dollars (more accurately, many smaller transactions which add up to several million dollars) so the agreement is written with that in mind. The consumer, as an individual, is not making such a large transaction and therefore such a detailed agreement is not necessary.

It was probably started by some lawyers who if they weren’t able to convince software makers that complex EULAs were necessary they would be convincing the consumers that the same software maker was negligent in producing software that does not perform as advertised.

[Jonathan1]

Don't really care about EULA's on my software. Microsoft and the like can bite me for all I care. As long as:

1. I paid for it.
2. I'm not distributing it to the world

I'll use the software any way I see fit.

[The Yaz]

Recently I purchased an ATI TV Wonder Pro PCI card for my desktop. It clearly shows on the box that you can do PVR through the internet tv guide service for free.

I went home and installed it with no problems. When I went to familiarize myself with the schedule program, I could not find it in catalyst (ATI's interface). I checked the install disc thinking that it was another program to install with no luck.

I went to ATI's website to see if the program was another utility. All I could find on the search was the product features page for my card stating it can do scheduling in certain areas.

I called ATI for support. They informed me that the package I bought (from Best Buy in the USA) was an international copy and did not include the guide because its not available in all countries. I asked that since I live in North America and can use the feature, would they send me the disc with the scheduler.

That's when they informed me that by agreeing to the eula, I agreed that the software enclosed in the box would be satisfactory and cannot be exchanged. Only web-based updates through their website would be available.

:!: :!: You've got to be kidding me :!: :!:

Now I'll have to remove the card, pack it up and hope I do not get too much grief from Best Buy for returning it.

Back to the PVR drawing board.

Steve 8)

[Jason Dunn]

Agreed, though I do think it is good that Apple are offering the X 'Tiger' upgrade for £100 for a single license, or £169 for a 5 pack 'Family license'.

Yes, Apple is very progressive in that way - I wish Microsoft would pay attention.

Some companies like Adobe allow you to install e.g. Photoshop on a desktop and laptop, as long as you only use one copy at a time. That seems fair.

Indeed, I quite like companies that do that - I'm seeing it more now, but still many companies aren't doing it. Microsoft Office is the same way, which is great.

[Jason Dunn]

Don't really care about EULA's on my software. Microsoft and the like can bite me for all I care...I'll use the software any way I see fit.

I personally agree with you, but with more and more companies moving to online activation schemes, this won't be an option for long. :?

[LarDude]

Why should "clicking" on a EULA even be considered legally binding? You have not actually signed anything.

Consider a slightly different example: when you purchase a ski-lift ticket, there are all sorts of fine print absolving the ski resort of liability should you hurt yourself. Yet I recall instances where people successfully sued the ski resorts when they hurt themselves *because* the courts decided that the injuries resulted from specific negligence on the part of the ski resort (e.g. broken chair lift, failure to mark dangerous areas, etc...).

It would seem to me that, if the courts were to make a policy of "throwing out" or "not generally ruling in favour" of frivolous lawsuits based on obscure software bugs, then something like a EULA would be unnecessary and all could agree that it would *not* be legally binding. (Of course, seriously negligent software bugs that result in loss of lives or something equally serious, would be treated differently, but it would be up to the plaintiff to show this). Without the EULA to lean on, privacy laws could then be used to attack the spyware.

[Warwick]

That's when they informed me that by agreeing to the eula, I agreed that the software enclosed in the box would be satisfactory and cannot be exchanged.

Thats like buying a new toaster, but when you got home and plugged it in it didnt work. Ringing them up and asking for a new one, but they tell you that opening the box means you agree that its working.

How can you tell if its satisfactory before you have used it? How can that be legal, and Im sure if that case went to court then the EULA would be rolled up and used to beat the lawyers around the head with.

The only way that could stand up was if you have been given a fully working trial version first. I hope this whole thing gets a revamp soon.

[Damion Chaplin]

I called ATI for support. They informed me that the package I bought (from Best Buy in the USA) was an international copy and did not include the guide because its not available in all countries.

If a Best Buy in the US sold you a copy that will not operate entirely as advertised, then they must take it back as 'defective'. If it says it will do it on the box, and the product inside does not do it, that's unlawful. Like buying a toaster that doesn't toast because we use different current here in the US. If it doesn't work, it doesn't work, regardless of the reason. Best Buy will get their money back from ATI. Best Buy should not have been selling that copy in the first place.

As for the TV Guide-type program you're referring to, I have responded with a PM.

OK, back on topic. :roll:

[Ken Mattern]

[If a Best Buy in the US sold you a copy that will not operate entirely as advertised, then they must take it back as 'defective'.

Once again the rub!

Best Buy and many other merchants of software will refuse refunds on opened software. After all you could have copied or installed it without their knowledge. (Just like RAM that you may have purchased that was bad. It does happen) That makes you a thief in their eyes. Guilty until proven innocent. Their company policy goes directly against the EULA. Who wins? Everybody but the consumer. Until we make a concerted effort to bring the software companies into line by not purchasing software with unreasonable EULAs nothing will change.