Doctorow Suggests Simple EULA Solution

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)."

What's the point?

[iYk6]

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:Performs as advertised

[Hoplite3]

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.

Re:Agree

[tepples]

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?

bnetd

[tepples]

The EULA is not legal protection in the sense that the company will sue the end user for breach.

Citation needed [wikipedia.org].

Re:Agree

[Joe U]

"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:But it's already the law

[I cant believe its n]

Having a button labelled "I will obey the law" just makes it seem optional

It really is optional (but I agree with your statement).

On that same theme is the /. (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."

I realize that there could be legal ramifications for actual lawyers using their public identities where someone could have a case against them, but for non-lawyers to think/feel they have to state this is just strange.

Just for the record: I am not Mel Torme.

Remember Borlands "No Nonsense License Agreement"?

[pottsj]

Reminds me of Borland's old software license agreement [google.com] from the '80s.

"You must treat this software just like a book...

<snip/>

By saying "just like a book," Borland means, for example, that this
software may be used by any number of people, and may be freely moved
from one computer location to another, so long as there is no
possibility of it being used at one location while it's being used at
another or on a computer network by more than one user at one
location. Just like a book can't be read by two different people in
two different places at the same time, neither can the software be
used by two different people in two different places at the same time."