The problem with EULAs today

[Tinybear]

First off for those who don't know:
EULA is an End User License Agreement, basically what you agree to whenever you install something.

What I feel is the problem today is two things: First, there seems to be no standard template which contains the usual "don't use this for illegal activities", which would make them a whole lot shorter.

But mostly, it's the fact that WE NEED TO READ A FRIGGIN NEW EULA FOR EVERY DAMN PATCH!
What happened to changelogs? Am I the only one who feels that the politicians should be harassed into making some laws demanding changelogs and general forward compatibility on EULAs? Imagine if we only have to see a little window saying "The terms of using this version is exactly the same as since patch 1.2, do you (still) accept these terms?".

With the EULA system as it is today, a company could change the contents of the agreement drastically without people noticing it before it's either too late, or some GNU/Linux people notice and try to spread the word about it. Why do people not notice it? Because to notice it, they would for every damn patch need to read 20 pages of legal info. Who has the energy to do that? I don't.

So, maybe it's time that we mail some politicians?

 

[thahat]

i actualy quite like this idea. just give a popup saying 'we want to change this and this to the eula, agree y/n' and let it have a button to the then current one just so you can look at the context if you want or need to.

problem being, eula's arent just for software. i think? so problems might arise if this would be implemented globally across all products it influences.

 

[Danceofmasks]

EULAs need a tl;dr line.
That is all.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

The problem with EULAs today is that they exist. They exist to scare customers into giving up their rights as consumers, and are unnecessary beyond that. While there are people on this site who will swear that the whole license thing is needed to keep people from making copies, the truth is that copyright law already prevents that from being done; EULAs are really about making a rental out of a sale, which is definitely a bad thing for consumers. As for getting a law passed, good luck, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

 

[Booze Zombie]

Most EULAs aren't worth the bits they're made from and that's saying something, because those bits don't even exist!

Just don't worry about them, law of the land overrides EULAs!

 

[gbemery]

EULAs need a tl;dr line.
That is all.

those words are just packed full of wisdom...so much so I don't have anything at all to add to it other than that I agree wholeheartedly. If I were wearing a hat it would be off to you.

 

[Canid117]

EULAs need a tl;dr line.
That is all.

Aww someone shot up the thread using giant canon loaded with smart.

 

[Heathrow]

EULAs shouldn't count as informed consent since they seem to be purposely crafted to obfuscate.

I suppose the real solution would be to give all lawyers a crash course in literary aesthetics.

 

[Ninjat_126]

The Newgrounds.com EULA has a tl;dr. Basically saying that they're hosting your content and getting ad revenue from the page it's on, but the content is yours.

 

[Asehujiko]

EULAs need a tl;dr line.
That is all.

tl;dr - "This shit belongs to us and you are criminal scum and will be sued the moment it suits us"

That's seriously what it says if translated from lawyer speak, that the publisher reserves the right to litigate against you if they feel you having their product is no longer advantageous to them.

 

[manythings]

Insanely long, incredibly dry, confusing EULA's are preferable for them. I imagine the whole thing being presented is probably the law as it is and that presenting an "Abridged" form is probably seen as trying to dupe the consumer.

 

[Dogstile]

EULA's don't count anyway.

You've already brought the item, you did not sign it before you brought it. The EULA is null and void because of this.

Hell, you can't even say with PC games that you can just take it back, because stores don't accept used PC games because of CD keys

 

[thegrimfandango]

EULAs for the most part with games are a load of horseshit to prevent you from in any way modifiying something you bought, meaning you don't actually own it. It's interesting that companies never respond when you point out that if you can't own their bug-ridden piece of shit outright as a product (meaning you can mod it to your hearts content to get something out of it), then what they are providing must be a service, but there seems to be no obligation on their end that the 'service' actually be working well or working for any guaranteed length of time (with online servers and such).
I don't know another industry off the top of my head that would get away with that.

 

[allinwonder]

No offense, but those who say EULAs are always enforceable are legally illiterate.

EULAs in legal terms are "standard form contract", which by definition means, it is a contract between two parties that does not allow for negotiation, i.e. take it or leave it, and it is often a contract that is entered into between unequal bargaining partners. There exists a very real possibility for unconscionability (a term used in contract law to describe a defense against the enforcement of a contract based on the presence of terms that are excessively unfair to one party).

In the particular case of video games and video game consoles, this standard form contracts are also "shrink wrap contract", whose definition: license agreements or other terms and conditions of a (putatively) contractual nature which can only be read and accepted by the consumer after opening the product. Therefore their legal status is even more ambiguous.