Slashdot Log In
Doctorow Suggests Simple EULA Solution
Posted by
Soulskill
on Fri Feb 27, 2009 04:42 AM
from the ideas-that-would-fit-in-dept-lines dept.
from the ideas-that-would-fit-in-dept-lines dept.
Cory Doctorow, writing for the Guardian, has suggested an easy way for EULAs to become more user-friendly and less of a legal quagmire. He recommends reducing agreements for games, music, and ebooks to simply: "Don't violate copyright law." Quoting:
"'Don't violate copyright law' has a lot going for it, but the best thing about it is what it signals to the purchaser, namely: 'You are not about to get screwed.' The copyright wars have produced some odd and funny outcomes, but I think the oddest was when the record industry began to campaign for more copyright education on the grounds that young people were growing up without the moral sensibility that they need to become functional members of society. ... it's not the entertainment industry's job to tell me what are and are not fair terms of sale for my downloads. If loaning an MP3 should be illegal, let them get a law passed (they're apparently good at that — the fact that they haven't managed it to date should tell you something about the reasonableness of the proposition)."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Agree (Score:5, Insightful)
There are two main problems with EULAs.
1. You need a lawyer to interpret them correctly.
2. They generally have over-reaching and sometimes illegal demands.
Cory's idea would go a long way towards making these problems go away.
Re:Agree (Score:5, Insightful)
I really do believe, if you can't read the conditions before a purchase you shouldn't have to adhere to them (even if the program/item forces you to before use).
I can't believe eula's are even legal (at all).
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That is why in the Netherlands you are not legally bound by EULA's you cannot read beforehand. Also, the law takes precedence over any EULA you might have agreed to. You cannot take away privileges or grant privileges by EULA that are or are not granted to you by the law.
Re:Agree (Score:5, Interesting)
That is why in the Netherlands you are not legally bound by EULA's you cannot read beforehand.
"By opening this box, you accept a contract. Its terms are posted on the World Wide Web at <http://www.example.com/eula/0019>." Would that fly?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"By opening this box, you accept a contract. Its terms are posted on the World Wide Web at ." Would that fly?
Not unless you're providing access to the web in the checkout line at the store. Also, there's nothing stopping the online EULA from being changed between the time you read the EULA, the time you buy the item and the time you open it.
Re: (Score:2)
I find that extremely hard to believe. If a publisher wants to grant you privileges beyond the law, surely they must be allowed to do so?
By reading this comment, you are hereby granted permission, without restriction, to download any and all music, no matter the license, or lack of license, for free. You can also own the entire world.
Still think they can't grant privilages beyond the law?
Re: (Score:2)
Still think they can grant privilages beyond the law?
There, fixed that for me.
Re: (Score:2)
By agreeing to this license, you are allowed to make up to 10 copies of the licensed software and distribute them to friends and family.
Just granted privileges beyond the law.
Re: (Score:2)
As a lawyer I think many are not for exactly your reason. But can you afford to litigate to find out?
Re:Agree (Score:4, Insightful)
I can't believe eula's are even legal (at all).
Then you obviously don't understand the purpose of the EULA [what-is-what.com]. The EULA is not legal protection in the sense that the company will sue the end user for breach. It is for legal protection in case one makes a claim against the company that they took no measures to protect A, B, and C. In other words, it is a defensive measure, not an offensive measure. It just reads as offensive because, well, we all know what the best defense is...
Parent
Re:Agree (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
bnetd (Score:3, Interesting)
The EULA is not legal protection in the sense that the company will sue the end user for breach.
Citation needed [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
"regardless if you accept the eula or not, you generally can't return software"
Many software companies (including MS) will refund the purchase price of stuff that's been actually been bought (i.e. there's entry on an invoice for that specific item together with how much was paid for it, or some other evidence of purchase) if it's returned within a specific time frame, usually between one and two months, depending on the company. This includes software that's been opened and installed as long as all the orig
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty much only in the US and then only in some states.
In Europe EULAs are considered an attempt at changing the terms of the implicit sales contract after the sale and are thus not valid. Any attempt at trying to enforce an EULA around here would result in the plaintiff being laughed out of the court and having to pay the defendant's legal costs.
Re: (Score:2)
B*t*h.
Look, you can either swear, or not. Either one is just fine, this is the grown-up internet. But that kind of weasling where you want to swear but don't really dare to is just pathetic.
Re: (Score:2)
You are assuming they can be interpreted correctly. Most of law and lawyering is made up due to wrangling and disputes over interpreting.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You see them as problems, because you are the person that the EULA is designed to hurt.
What's the point? (Score:2, Interesting)
Exactly how is this different from not having a EULA at all? The whole point of a EULA is an attempt to restrict what the user can do with their software. This is like saying that L.A. can solve it's murder problems by simply having murderers not murder people any more.
Re:What's the point? (Score:5, Informative)
EULAs tell gamers what they can and cannot do. If gamers violate the EULA, companies sue them. LA tells to people what they can and cannot do. If people break the law, LA jails them. As you know, neither the EULA or the law can prevent misconduct.
So "Don't violate copyright law" would work as well as EULAs and the law, if all companies want is copyright protection.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So "Don't violate copyright law" would work as well as EULAs and the law, if all companies want is copyright protection.
I think Mr. Doctorow's point is that anything beyond copyright protection shouldn't be needed.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In short, move along, nothing to see here.
And what about the other side of it? (Score:2)
Surely any content I create with an application belongs to me, so what about all those programs and websites that claim it belongs to them in their own EULAs?
"Don't break Copyright Law. That's our job"?
Re: (Score:2)
Surely any content I create with an application belongs to me, so what about all those programs and websites that claim it belongs to them in their own EULAs?
Programs? If you create a work that is derivative of the bundled clip art, it isn't entirely "content you create". Web sites? You are submitting the work to be published on the web site, so the web site needs at least permission to do what is necessary to implement your click on "Submit".
Re: (Score:2)
And when I use Photoshop to create art or upload my collection of family pictures to Facebook, who decides what happens to that content?
Is it a bad thing... (Score:3, Funny)
for your doctor to be named "Ow"?
Sort of like the iPod's (Score:3)
"Don't steal music"
It's subtle, but it gets the word out. Whether people grasp to it or not is their own business. Stop treating us all like criminals.
Re: (Score:2)
I like big butts and I cannot lie.
Then I hope you can refrain from speaking the truth. It would be socially awkward, I think.
Re: (Score:2)
What does 'theft' have to do with copyright infringement?
I answered that in a journal entry [slashdot.org].
Re: (Score:2)
I get that you referring to the copying and use of unlicensed material...
Oh, I didn't.
So, What does 'theft' have to do with copyright infringement?
But it's already the law (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Having a button labelled "I will obey the law" just makes it seem optional
It really is optional (but I agree with your statement).
/. (american) "I am not a lawyer" statement, disconnected from the realities of this site. "Well, I did realize someone was Goatse-linking above and some other poster was called Adolph Hitroll, but this other user gave some advice and did not claim NOT to be a lawyer, so I just assumed he was."
On that same theme is the
I realize that there could be legal ramifications for actual lawyers using their public identities where someone could have a cas
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Ah... the velvet fog...
I guess your truncated nick is supposed to be "I cant believe its n<ot Mel Torme> (1103137)." And I was so hoping that you were. /me crawls back to listen to Frank one more time.
Whoa, whoa (Score:2, Insightful)
Let's not get too radical here. Such an overly simple EULA would require corporate legal departments to acknowledge that the corporations are actually selling copies to customers, instead of merely licensing content. And that would surely lead to anarchy, what with customers thinking that they can use that copy for entertaining themselves, loan it to a friend or even sell it on as used. Surely the corporations are paying top bucks to their copyright lawyers for a reason!
You ARE about to get screwed. LEARN to enjoy it. (Score:2)
'Don't violate copyright law' has a lot going for it, but the best thing about it is what it signals to the purchaser, namely: 'You are not about to get screwed.'
But then how will they screw us?
Frankly, this sounds like it could be bad for the industry.
Too one-sided (Score:3)
Surely it would be better stated as:
"I'll respect your copyright rights as long as you respect mine"
So, you stop extending copyrights to ridiculous lengths and stop using DRM to restrict my fair use rights, and I won't pass copies to my friends or buy bootlegs from dodgy street vendors.
Re: (Score:2)
Performs as advertised (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Performs as advertised (Score:4, Interesting)
This sets software apart from many other industries that have "satisfaction guaranteed" with some suitable asterisk. I just bought a new backpack and it came with a lifetime guarantee. I know software can't expect to match that, but the difference between "satisfaction guaranteed" and "you agree to let us make flames shoot out your computer" is really extreme.
Parent
Reverse Engineering (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
DMCA & Patents & Copyrights (The Three Evils of /.) take care of that. On the other hand, we have first-sale doctrine and similar.
Still in bounds of "Obeying the Law" EULA.
Really, businesses have tools other than EULA, which is there to mostly just scare people with legaleese.
Loaning an mp3 ?? (Score:5, Insightful)
Right. When people transfer MP3, it's definitely like "loaning". Because when someone else gets a copy of my MP3s, I don't have it and can't listen to it for the duration they have it. And when they've finished checking it out, they delete it, naturally, since a "loan" is distinct from a "gift" in that it's temporary. Riiiight.
I'm sorry, but this is just disingenuous bullshit and really does you no favours. (You = the collective group of people trying to reform copyright.) How come every time the RIAA/MPAA/MSM/etc use the word "steal", people fall over themselves to split semantic hairs and insist that it can't be stealing because nobody is deprived of the original - and yet when it's convenient for their cause, they happily play the same linguistic tricks and talk of "loan", again implying the loaner is deprived of the original, when they're not?
Don't get me wrong - I have some issues with excessive copyright too. That whole "it's supposed to be for the encouragement of artists to create and the advancement of culture and society as a whole, not for endless profit generation for huge multinational corps trading off the past" is entirely up my street. I think life+70 is way too long. I think the DMCA and similar laws elsewhere are a bunch of crap. I hate DRM and as such have never purchased DRM'd music. So it's not like I'm trying to be an RIAA shill here.
But all that said, I find there is a frequent lack of honesty from the "copyright reformists", too. If it's not "loan", it's "share", another word that has warm and fuzzy implications and somewhat masks the reality of it. Let's be honest, when you put your MP3s on p2p it is nothing like sharing a toy with your little bro. You don't know the people leeching it, let alone like or respect them; you won't ever sit in the same room and share the experience of listening to it; above all, you aren't sacrificing any use of the MP3 yourself in order for them to have it - all of which are implied by warm and fuzzy words like "share".
Be honest. What you're actually doing is distributing a complete, perfect lossless copy, despite the fact the entire central notion of copyright is restricting who is allowed to distribute complete, perfect lossless copies.
If you honestly believe you should be allowed to do that, have the balls to stand up and actually say so and frame your argument as such. But don't come with these woolly words and metaphors of sharing (see above), home taping (not perfect copies), fair use (about excerpts, academic criticism, parody etc, none of which relate to Kazaa'ing your mp3s). It's just dishonest and undermines your entire position.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
if it's so simple, have you ever tried to obtain a replacement copy of the software media (that is, the actual setup files) in case you lose the CD ?
heck, they will charge you for a full licence again !!
This sort of thing is definitely bullshit and really winds me up. If your original payment was for the license, that should be valid forever, and if you lose the CD, you should pay (at most) for the media and postage to replace it.
But you're almost making my point for me here. That sort of thing is bullshit, so attack that directly. Say, "I am downloading this software 'illegally' because as per the company's EULA I have already paid not for my original media but for a (lifetime) license to the IP there
Pointless (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
And would also give the end-user no rights to the product, or at the very least would muddle the issue far more than any complex EULA would. You'd have to go to court in every case to figure out what the understanding of the parties was.
It still perplexes me how most Slashbots, many who come from engineering and science backgrounds and should therefore be somewhat inquisitive, can't be bothered to think legal issues through in any sort of intelligent manner. Being dismissive of the whole thing accomplishe
I suggest Final EULA Solution (Score:2)
Copyright powers are very limited (Score:2)
The problem for some vendors is that their powers strictly under the law of copyright are very limited. You cannot simply by copyright limit what hardware someone installs software on. So Apple could say goodbye to its prohibition on installing OSX on only Apple hardware. MS could say goodbye to its prohibition on installing Office on any OS other than Windows.
The reason vendors need click through EULAs is that they consititue a different contract from the contract of purchase of a copy of the software,
don't be a dick, in other words (Score:3, Insightful)
This is why my motto (and fundamental rule for life) is Don't be a dick: it's simple to understand, and reasonable people can agree on what it means.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't buy programs with overbearing EULAs.
If that were to happen we'd need a consumer watchdog (e.g. Money Saving Expert) keeping an eye on which software does have these EULAs, as it's beyond the ability of most people to tell, and you normally have to hand over your cash before they tell you the EULA.
Re: (Score:2)
Make all forms of EULAs, DRM, invasive copy protection etc illegal. It's gotten to the point where I want to pirate to avoid that kind of crap that is invasive to my privacy.
Take heart, I believe Obama will finally aid the little guy in his fight against corporatism.