Re: Oops, Is That Your EULA?

[Kevin McLauchlan <kmclauchlan -at- chrysalis-its -dot- com>]

On Friday 08 November 2002 13:45, Hart, Geoff wrote:
> I think the time will soon arrive when consumers,
> fed up with incomprehensible, restrictive, verbose
> end-user licenses, will revolt and institute a
> class-action lawsuit against some major manufacturer
> to set a legal precedent.  I've certainly seen EULAs
> that seem to contradict the "fitness for purpose"
> provisions of the consumer-protection laws, and ones
> that I (despite my expertise with the English
> language) was wholly unable to parse.

As always, I prefer *not* to see legislation and 
regulation, because it *invariably* does at least 
as much harm as good, and locks bureau'rats 
and cops and officers of the court into enforcing 
wrong-headed provisions that were not necessarily 
the original intent.

Better to set some precedents in civil suits, such 
as the class actions or even actions by some 
brave or principled individuals.  Precedent-based 
law has some flexibility, where legislative "solutions" 
............. don't.

> I can imagine that less-skilled readers than we are
> would have even more difficulty. The U.S. SEC has
> already imposed plain-English rules for the
> purveyors of mutual funds, and I think it's long
> past time that the department of Commerce (or some
> other appropriate legal authority) did the same with
> EULAs. Such agreements should be clear enough for
> the average reader to understand, short enough that
> these people are willing to try, and in better
> conformity with consumer protection legislation*.
> Ralph Nader, you listening?
>
> * For example, I'll bet you that if you polled
> purchasers of software, not 1 in 100 will be able to
> tell you whether they've purchased the software
> (just like they'd purchase a book) or licensed it
> (like renting a car), and what the difference
> between these terms happens to be. This strikes me
> as a communications failure at best, and deceptive
> advertising at worst.

I ignore them to the extent that:

When I put down my hard-earned money and get 
a box, I've bought that box and EVERYTHING 
that's in it. I will confine my exploitation of it 
to obey copyright, but not to the extent of 
honoring "you've only bought the media, we 
own the bits."

I recall that there were once little businesses that 
would let you "rent" software, and they were pursued 
in courts and other enforcement venues and rather 
thoroughly put out of business. Therefore, when I 
get a software package and pay for it,  the 
transaction is PURCHASE, and I will ACT as if 
that is so... any EULA weasel-words notwithstanding.

Furthermore, if the EULA writers can make all kinds 
of other flagrantly distancing claims, that we are 
INTENDED TO IGNORE (sorry for shouting, but 
this really gripes me...), then I refuse to go out of 
my way to make any distinctions between the 
weasel words that I'm supposed to ignore and those 
that they wish I would not ignore.  Pfooie!

Oops! Was that a rant?

/kevin (feeling that righteous glow)


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Check out SnagIt - The Screen Capture Standard!
Download a free 30-day trial from http://www.techsmith.com/rdr/txt/twr
Find out what all the other tech writers, including Dan, already know!

Order RoboHelp X3 in November and receive $100 mail in rebate, FREE WebHelp
Merge Module and the new RoboPDF - add powerful PDF output functionality
to RoboHelp X3. Order online today at http://www.ehelp.com/techwr-l

---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as:
archive -at- raycomm -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot-  Visit
http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.