Shouldn't the EULA that I agreed to when I bought the hardware apply, not a revised one released after the fact? What are the consequences of refusing this firmware update?
I would think that neither one would be legal as you didn't sign on it when you purchased the unit. I don't remember a lawyer in the check out line with me when I bought mine.
I'd like to see an "unreasonable burden" approach to fighting certain EULAs. Anything beyond, let's say, two pages of 12 point text should fall into this category. Thirty pages of dense legalese inside an installer window will never be read by any consumer, and should be seen as negotiating in bad faith.
The worst part of these abusive EULAs is that they erode respect for the rule of law. You are consistently lying in a legal document every time you click the "I have read and agree" checkbox, and the presentation of the document does everything to promote this.
I'd like to see an "unreasonable burden" approach to fighting certain EULAs. Anything beyond, let's say, two pages of 12 point text should fall into this category. Thirty pages of dense legalese inside an installer window will never be read by any consumer, and should be seen as negotiating in bad faith.
If you don't understand an agreement, don't enter into the agreement. If you're not absolutely sure whether clause 14.1(a) requires you to give daily blood samples, why on earth would you agree to it?
Your approach is silly and untenable, and tech vendors bank on that fact.
Imagine how sales would soar if EB refused to sell you a product until you'd had the EULA explained to you in the store. If every customer actually practiced the "common sense" you're espousing, they would either spend all their time reading, or they would have to abstain from most of the tech market on principle.
Why not simply write a registered letter to Sony telling them you do not accept any of the EULA except for the original one supplied with the PS/3. Approval for any other EULA is hereby revoked. You want to give them 30 days to respond with a solution allowing your to continue using the PS/3 with all its features, including on-line content or to be reimbursed in full for the purchase price of the unit, including accessories, software and all games purchased. You may also throw in the replacement cost to swa
I'm one of the few people who actually does read EULAs (except in the case where I've seen the license agreement in question before, such as when someone decides to put the GPL up as an "EULA" when creating an installer), and have even refused to accept them on the basis of their contents before. (I remember before now asking my boss to accept an EULA rather than doing it myself; I didn't want liability for half the stuff in there.)
It's actually pretty interesting to see the contents of many EULAs; for i
What is research but a blind date with knowledge?
-- Will Harvey
Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:4, Interesting)
Is that legal?
Re: (Score:0)
I would think that neither one would be legal as you didn't sign on it when you purchased the unit. I don't remember a lawyer in the check out line with me when I bought mine.
Re: (Score:2)
Has this argument against a EULA really ever held up in a court of law?
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
The worst part of these abusive EULAs is that they erode respect for the rule of law. You are consistently lying in a legal document every time you click the "I have read and agree" checkbox, and the presentation of the document does everything to promote this.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd like to see an "unreasonable burden" approach to fighting certain EULAs. Anything beyond, let's say, two pages of 12 point text should fall into this category. Thirty pages of dense legalese inside an installer window will never be read by any consumer, and should be seen as negotiating in bad faith.
If you don't understand an agreement, don't enter into the agreement. If you're not absolutely sure whether clause 14.1(a) requires you to give daily blood samples, why on earth would you agree to it?
What
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Your approach is silly and untenable, and tech vendors bank on that fact.
Imagine how sales would soar if EB refused to sell you a product until you'd had the EULA explained to you in the store. If every customer actually practiced the "common sense" you're espousing, they would either spend all their time reading, or they would have to abstain from most of the tech market on principle.
Re: (Score:2)
Why not simply write a registered letter to Sony telling them you do not accept any of the EULA except for the original one supplied with the PS/3. Approval for any other EULA is hereby revoked. You want to give them 30 days to respond with a solution allowing your to continue using the PS/3 with all its features, including on-line content or to be reimbursed in full for the purchase price of the unit, including accessories, software and all games purchased. You may also throw in the replacement cost to swa
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm one of the few people who actually does read EULAs (except in the case where I've seen the license agreement in question before, such as when someone decides to put the GPL up as an "EULA" when creating an installer), and have even refused to accept them on the basis of their contents before. (I remember before now asking my boss to accept an EULA rather than doing it myself; I didn't want liability for half the stuff in there.)
It's actually pretty interesting to see the contents of many EULAs; for i