Will the FTC Target EULAs Next? 116
A few weeks ago, we discussed news that the Federal Trade Commission was planning to look into DRM and the way its characteristics are communicated to customers. Now, Joystiq's Law of the Game column speculates that EULAs could be on the FTC's list to review as well.
"I would be willing to guess that within the next few years, the often maligned End User License Agreement ('EULA') may fall into the realm of being regulated as further 'consumer protection.' Is it necessary? ... The first and most common method [of consumer protection] is what is known as a 'plain language requirement.' The idea is that contracts written by lawyers are full of legal terms and are written in such a way that it takes a lawyer to decipher the actual meaning of all of the clauses. ... on the complete opposite end of the spectrum, it could be required that companies abandon EULA contracts all together in favor of a collection of FTC approved bullet points. The development and legal communities would, I assume, vehemently oppose this idea, but it is possible. Basically, the FTC would come up with a list of things all EULAs include, then a list of optional provisions that the licensor (the game company) could include."
Legal? (Score:4, Informative)
I thought EULAs were by and large found to be toothless since the customer must open the package to agree to it. By which point the transaction is complete sans EULA.
EULAs are in my book stupid but mostly harmless. It makes the company feel like its ass is covered but you can't agree to sign away rights. You can't agree to be a slave regardless what you sign.
I suppose the FTC could make them officially impotent but it's not high on my list of priorities.
Re:Legal? (Score:3, Informative)
I thought EULAs were by and large found to be toothless since the customer must open the package to agree to it. By which point the transaction is complete sans EULA.
You are referring to 'shrink wrap licenses.' There is an online equivalent known as 'click wrap licenses.'
I haven't seen a recent example of either of these rather egregious license delivery mechanisms in quite a while.
Re:Legal? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:The opposite of what the EULA was invented for. (Score:3, Informative)
What would mandates inclusions to an EULA do to the GPL or BSD licenses[?]
Nothing. EULA means "end user license agreement." GPL and BSD are each "distribution licenses." By default, a person is allowed to do anything they want with things they purchase, and a EULA is designed to restrict that. By default, a person is never allowed to distribute someone else's copyrighted works (with some fair use exceptions), and a free distribution license is designed to be more permissible in that regard.
Re:The opposite of what the EULA was invented for. (Score:2, Informative)
A EULA and GPL/BSD license is completely different.
A GPL or BSD license comes into effect the minute you download the binary or code.
A EULA can only come into effect when you click I agree. Most free software projects stick the GPL or BSD in the license section of an installer however don't make the mistake of thinking the GPL or BSD is a EULA type license. Even if you click "refuse" on the installer you're still bound by the GPL or BSD licenses.
Re:Even that's too complicately put (Score:4, Informative)
EULAs are even older than that. Edison put a EULA on his phonograph records [alchemysite.com] all the way back in the 19th century.
Patented in Great Britain, Germany, France and other Countries. This record is sold upon the condition that it shall not be re-sold to or by any unauthorized dealer or used for duplication, and that it shall not be sold, or offered for sale, by the original, or any subsequent purchaser (except by authorized jobber or factor to an authorized retail dealer) for less than 35 cents in the United States, nor in other countries for less than the price given in the current Edison catalogues of the country in which it is sold. Upon any breach of this condition, the license to use and vend this record, implied from such sale, immediately terminates.
Edison was a freaking dick.
It's even funnier (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, it's even funnier. IIRC in India they actually tax licenses. So if you have an actual license, say, to make a movie based on someone's book, the government wants its share of that deal.
So they took this to the logical conclusion: if Microsoft's software is licensed, not sold, the license tax should apply.
Microsoft actually tried to prove to the court that it's a sale not a license.
Funny stuff.