end user agreements

[LCHIEN]

Registered for any websites or software recently?

Had to click that you agreed to the terms and conditions before you could proceed?

I registered for the Apple itunes store and the EULA was 92 pages long...

Does anybody read these all the way or do they just click on the "I have read the license and agree" check box and go on?

[sparkeyjames]

They can make any claims they want in those things. They really hold no teeth legally especially if there are things in it like keeping your firstborn or hiding permission to install potentially damaging software from 3rd parties.

[cgallery]

They can make any claims they want in those things. They really hold no teeth legally especially if there are things in it like keeping your firstborn or hiding permission to install potentially damaging software from 3rd parties.

+1. This is what I've read, anyhow.

[LinuxRandal]

They can make any claims they want in those things. They really hold no teeth legally especially if there are things in it like keeping your firstborn or hiding permission to install potentially damaging software from 3rd parties.

I don't know that I would agree with the second part of that statement. Both damaging and potentially damaging are terms that lawyers would debate about. (slows down the computer, root kits, etc)

[woodturner]

They really hold no teeth legally

It depends on exactly what they say and how they are written. A number of "shrink wrap" license agreements have been enforced, but some have been thrown out.

[Mr__Bill]

I have been thinking of posting a EULA in my front yard targeting those who let their dogs do their business in the flowers. Something along the lines of giving me permission to give it back to them, where and when I should so choose.

If I do I'll let you all know just how much trouble I get into with it.

As for software, I look for the 'we can install something we haven't told you about' line that is hidden somewhere way down the document, and the one that obligates you to things not yet thought up by them. The bottom line, however, is that you really have no choice if you wish to use the software. I think this lack of choice will eventually make many of them moot.

Bill

[twistsol]

They all pretty much say the same thing.

The software is not guaranteed to do anything
If it screws up your system or ends the world, its not our fault,
and if you give a copy to a friend, we'll sue you for everything you've ever thought about having.

[chopnhack]

I used to read the entire thing carefully, but I figured if this is the only route and this is the vendor I have chosen to use then I really have no choice as they dont allow you to disagree and use the software

[Bill in Buena Park]

Loring,
Does your poll have anything to do with this?

7,500 Online Shoppers Unknowingly Sold Their Souls
FOXNews.com

A computer game retailer revealed that it legally owns the souls of thousands of online shoppers, thanks to a clause in the terms and conditions agreed to by online shoppers.
The retailer, British firm GameStation, added the "immortal soul clause" to the contract signed before making any online purchases earlier this month. It states that customers grant the company the right to claim their soul.

"By placing an order via this Web site on the first day of the fourth month of the year 2010 Anno Domini, you agree to grant Us a non transferable option to claim, for now and for ever more, your immortal soul. Should We wish to exercise this option, you agree to surrender your immortal soul, and any claim you may have on it, within 5 (five) working days of receiving written notification from gamesation.co.uk or one of its duly authorised minions."

The license also points out that "we reserve the right to serve such notice in 6 (six) foot high letters of fire, however we can accept no liability for any loss or damage caused by such an act. If you a) do not believe you have an immortal soul, b) have already given it to another party, or c) do not wish to grant Us such a license, please click the link below to nullify this sub-clause and proceed with your transaction."

The terms of service were updated on April Fool's Day as a gag, but the retailer did so to make a very real point: No one reads the online terms and conditions of shopping, and companies are free to insert whatever language they want into the documents.*

While all shoppers during the test were given a simple tick box option to opt out, very few did this, which would have also rewarded them with a £5 voucher…. Due to the number of people who ticked the box, GameStation claims believes as many as 88 percent of people do not read the terms and conditions of a Web site before they make a purchase.

The company noted that it would not be enforcing the ownership rights, and planned to e-mail customers nullifying any claim on their soul.

[LCHIEN]

Loring,
Does your poll have anything to do with this?

7,500 Online Shoppers Unknowingly Sold Their Souls
FOXNews.com

...

actually I had not seen that but it makes sense based on the *early* poll results. It was the 92 page iTunes EULA from Apple that got me.

[Kristofor]

The poll results, and the immortal soul story both sound like good evidence for saying retailer/vendors/etc. "should reasonably have known that the average person would not read the details of such an agreement and thus could not give informed approval".

Normally the "average person" approach is one of my least favorite devices, as I hate to be lumpped in with people of "average" common sense... However, in this area perhaps the ends justifies the means... Once companies stopped having to pay for printing or postage on these agreements they seem to have ballooned from overly lengthy to absurdly long and convoluted.

[woodturner]

The poll results, and the immortal soul story both sound like good evidence for saying retailer/vendors/etc. "should reasonably have known that the average person would not read the details of such an agreement and thus could not give informed approval".

That generally would not be a good defense, though, unless there was a reason the buyer could not read the agreement. For example, in the early days of "shrink wrap" licenses, courts held that a user could not agree to a license they were unable to read before buying the product. The solution was that manufacturer's provide a means to return the software for refund if the buyer objects to the agreement.

If the buyer had the opportunity to read the agreement but chose not to read it, the buyer is generally still bound by the terms of the agreement. Failure to read a contract before signing it does not, in general, preclude enforcement of the terms of the contract.

[atgcpaul]

I generally don't read them if it's from a "trusted source" like Microsoft, Apple, Adobe, etc. For free utilities from small companies or individuals, I will read it. On one occassion I actually refused to install because I didn't agree with something it said

[LCHIEN]

one can reasonably assign a price to one's time value... for many of us working professionals it can be easily $20 to 50 per hour.

20 minutes spent reading and understanding a document could then conceivably cost us say $6 to 15...

I'm afraid we take an informed guess that something can hurt us more than $xx multilied by the likelihood that they would actually sue and we say the heck with it.

[HarmsWay]

It was the iTunes store EULA that got me seriously miffed. My sister had given me a e-book through iTunes. I'd been using iTunes for many years but never the store. It was looking like I'd have to provide them with a credit card to get my 'free' gift so I decided to read the full agreement. I don't recall how long it was (Loring's 92-page comment sounds about right) but I know that it cannot be read before the registration session times out. Right there that sounds like a legal out for consumers. If I have to start the registration process, read the EULA then restart the process to agree and finish then how do I know it's the same EULA the second time?

BTW, we need another poll answer. "I read all of the EULAs and agree to some of them".

Bob