So because somebody wrote a EULA, everybody stopped downloading software from Teh Web? I fail to see what your statement has to do with mine.
Please stop being obtuse.
I'm just saying EULA's are ridiculous...since they're ridiculous, we might as well not follow abide by them. So I say we steal software and install as many copies as we want on every computer that we can...because EULA's have little legal enforcability we're not going to get in trouble, right?
"Steal' software? What, did you just come fron an *AA meeting or something?
Please educate yourself on the subject before going on on another failed attempt at sarcasm.
Here's something to begin:
Quote:
The forceability of an EULA depends on several factors, one of them being the court that the case is heard in. Most courts that have addressed the validity of the shrinkwrap license have found them to be invalid, characterizing them as contracts of adhesion, unconscionable, and/or unacceptable pursuant to the U.C.C. ?see, for instance, Step-Saver Data Systems, Inc. v. Wyse Technology (939 F.2d 91), Vault Corp. v. Quaid Software Ltd. (at harvard.edu) and Rich, Mass Market Software and the Shrinkwrap License (23 Colo. Law 1321.17). A minority of courts have determined that the shrinkwrap license is valid and enforceable: see ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg (at findlaw.com), Microsoft v. Harmony Computers (846 F. Supp. 208, 212, E.D.N.Y. 1994), Novell v. Network Trade Center (at harvard.edu), and Arizona Cartridge Remanufacturers Association Inc. v. Lexmark International Inc. may have some bearing as well.
The 7th Circuit and 8th Circuit subscribe to the "license" and "not sold" arguments, while most other circuits do not. In addition, the contracts' enforceability depends on whether the state has passed Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act (UCITA) or Anti-UCITA (UCITA Bomb Shelter) laws. In Anti-UCITA states, the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) has been amended to either specifically define software as a good (thus making it fall under the UCC), or to disallow contracts which specify that the terms of contract are subject to the laws of a state that's passed UCITA.
Recently, publishers have begun to encrypt their software packages to make it impossible for a user to install the software without agreeing to the license or violating the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and foreign counterparts.
The DMCA specifically provides for reverse engineering of software for interoperability purposes, so there was some controversy as to whether software license clauses which restrict this are enforceable. The case of Blizzard v. BnetD (at eff.org) is an illustration of this controversy.
Comments
Originally posted by Gene Clean
The legal enforcability of EULAs is dubious at best.
That's why we should all download our software via the web and not pay a dime to the devs.
Originally posted by kim kap sol
That's why we should all download our software via the web and not pay a dime to the devs.
So because somebody wrote a EULA, everybody stopped downloading software from Teh Web? I fail to see what your statement has to do with mine.
Please stop being obtuse.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
So because somebody wrote a EULA, everybody stopped downloading software from Teh Web? I fail to see what your statement has to do with mine.
Please stop being obtuse.
I'm just saying EULA's are ridiculous...since they're ridiculous, we might as well not follow abide by them. So I say we steal software and install as many copies as we want on every computer that we can...because EULA's have little legal enforcability we're not going to get in trouble, right?
Please educate yourself on the subject before going on on another failed attempt at sarcasm.
Here's something to begin:
The forceability of an EULA depends on several factors, one of them being the court that the case is heard in. Most courts that have addressed the validity of the shrinkwrap license have found them to be invalid, characterizing them as contracts of adhesion, unconscionable, and/or unacceptable pursuant to the U.C.C. ?see, for instance, Step-Saver Data Systems, Inc. v. Wyse Technology (939 F.2d 91), Vault Corp. v. Quaid Software Ltd. (at harvard.edu) and Rich, Mass Market Software and the Shrinkwrap License (23 Colo. Law 1321.17). A minority of courts have determined that the shrinkwrap license is valid and enforceable: see ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg (at findlaw.com), Microsoft v. Harmony Computers (846 F. Supp. 208, 212, E.D.N.Y. 1994), Novell v. Network Trade Center (at harvard.edu), and Arizona Cartridge Remanufacturers Association Inc. v. Lexmark International Inc. may have some bearing as well.
The 7th Circuit and 8th Circuit subscribe to the "license" and "not sold" arguments, while most other circuits do not. In addition, the contracts' enforceability depends on whether the state has passed Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act (UCITA) or Anti-UCITA (UCITA Bomb Shelter) laws. In Anti-UCITA states, the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) has been amended to either specifically define software as a good (thus making it fall under the UCC), or to disallow contracts which specify that the terms of contract are subject to the laws of a state that's passed UCITA.
Recently, publishers have begun to encrypt their software packages to make it impossible for a user to install the software without agreeing to the license or violating the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and foreign counterparts.
The DMCA specifically provides for reverse engineering of software for interoperability purposes, so there was some controversy as to whether software license clauses which restrict this are enforceable. The case of Blizzard v. BnetD (at eff.org) is an illustration of this controversy.
source