Firefox: Help → About → Licensing Information
don’t have AIM.
again, however, when you temporarily use a computer you are not the “you” in the license agreement. in a hyper-technical sense, Microsoft’s EULA probably attempts to prohibit usage of that computer software by anyone other than the owner of the license (subject to laws prohibiting such a restriction on licensing rights).
Oh, sweet. I found it on AIM under “About.” I guess I was looking for a more direct path.
So can you skirt EULA terms by using someone else’s computer temporarily?
no, probably not.
think about a license in a more physical form, it may help your understanding. If I own a big chunk of land, I can license Ahab to come onto my land and perform an act on it (let’s say hunting). Let’s also assume that this license doesn’t wind up becoming an easement (just roll with this assumption).
Now, let’s further assume that this license is freely assignable to another party (meaning that I have allowed you to transfer this license to another person) but only once every 7 days for 12 hours a time.
So Ahab wants Bob to come and hunt on my property. There are two ways to do this: Bob trespasses, or Bob becomes the assignee of Ahab’s right to use the property. If Bob trespasses, then Bob trespasses - that’s simple, right? If Ahab assigns Bob the right to hunt, then you have some questions:
For 1) typically the answer is no, but it depends on the exact specifics of the licsense agreement. You can partly assign your rights, or you can wholly assign them. Typically, with land, it’s total. So in that case, Ahab cannot also hunt on the land. Think about it this way: if the two of them are on the land, then the two of them are hunting and shooting double - I as the land owner probably wouldn’t like that very much.
Does that make it a bit clearer?
Don’t see how this would be enforceable. Do end users have an obligation to seek out any appropriate licenses to ensure that they are abiding by them, once the software has been installed? I don’t see this as being as a reasonable duty the user of the software bearer.
Why do you feel the need to make an ad hominem attack against **Balthisar **? I could make a comment about “you lawyer folk”, what bearing does it have on this discussion?
How does one accept terms of an agreement they are not presented with?
Again, we go back to the example of a 12 year old initially accepting the license. It is established that this agreement between the software vendor and the 12 year old will not be enforceable, since throughout the Union common law states minors cannot enter into contracts (except in very limited and specific instances, none of which apply here).
Someone of majority then uses the software thereafter. Without their knowledge, and without being advised of the terms of the agreement, they have somehow managed to enter into that agreement? And you think this would be enforceable? Really?
That’s a little weird, because one of the basic components of a contract is a meeting of the minds. If there is no meeting of the minds, how exactly is the contract enforceable?
I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what a software license agreement does, and how it does it. It generally does not operate in a positive fashion (i.e. it does not list a bunch of things that you are allowed to do with the software, and if you do anything outside of those things, you violate the license) rather they operate in a negative fashion (i.e. you aren’t allowed to do certain things) and those negative things typically involve activities that can be fairly characterized as activities which would degrade the economic value of the software to the author.
So, there’s not really any duties imparted onto a temporary user of the software that would act as some big burden.
But yes, to answer your question, typically the law imposes duties upon people using private property to adhere to the rules and regulations of said property.
My earlier reply was not accounting for how truly enforcable EULA’s are.
To my knowlege the only time a EULA has been enforced (beyond copyright laws which would exist with or without the EULA) is in the case of MMOGs where the user had their access to the game servers revoked for EULA violations.
I’d like to know if anyone has ever been succesfully sued for breach of contract for a EULA violation other than those that are normally covered by existing laws such as copyright.
I would look up “unilateral contract” because your idea of a meeting of the mind is a little bit off.
I looked it up, and I still don’t see how a contract that someone was never presented with could be enforceable? A unilateral contract constitutes an offer made, and acceptance by the offeree. The offeror never offered the contract, how can one accept a contract they were never presented with?
So again, where is there meeting of the minds, when the purported offeree was not made aware of the terms prior to their alleged acceptance?
So, by extension, if me and you go to a sporting event, I buy the tickets, take you with me, give both of our tickets to the attendant, she rips off the stubs, I keep both stubs and you and I go sit down so that you’ve never touched the ticket or read the license on the back of it, you don’t think you’re bound by the license granted to you by the stadium?
It’s enforceable by virtue of you using the product and/or receiving the benefit of the bargain.
I bring up unilateral contracts because there’s no meeting of the minds that takes place in the sense of your use of the term, namely some theoretical pre-contract agreement to agree. meeting of the mind involves a mutual assent on both sides that there exists a contractual relationship. and you’re demonstrating your meeting of the mind by using proprietary software.
here, maybe this will help you:
It’s irrelevant, because the stadium is private property, and they have the legal right to eject someone at any time for any reason. The legal right for them to serve who they please existed before the contract was performed (and existed after it as well) so it’s not a contractual issue-- it’s a trespass issue.
Is this a factual assertion, or an opinion. If factual, do you have a citation?
No, they don’t have the legal right to eject someone at any time for any reason if you have purchased a seat to the game. They only have a right to eject you for your violation of the license they granted to you (which may or may not include an additional set of policies and procedures referenced, but not included, in your ticket license).
Microsoft Word is private property.
it’s a fact, and the quoted part of B&O v. U.S. is an appropriate citation.
Again, the 12 year old is acting as an Agent for the adult - hired by the adult. The adult is responsible for all of the 12 year old’s actions related to the task during his period of work. This means that the adult accepts the terms of the agreement by proxy - even if the minor is not legally able to accept the agreement himself. If the adult does not want to accept responsibility for any contract entered by the minor, the minor should not be hired for the task.
Child Labor laws might apply, but using a minor to intentionally avoid a contract won’t work. Also, fraud may apply if the contract requires the acceptor to be a person over 13. The adult is then either forcing the minor to commit fraud or allowing an employee to commit fraud. In either case, the adult employer is at fault.
If the kid sneaks in and install software on the adults computer without the adults knowlege, the adult may avoid any legal responsibility - but he must uninstall the software if asked and he should press charges of trespass, etc. against the minor. If the kid is a child of the adult, the adult, being a parent is responsible.
EULA agreements are pretty much meaningless. Courts have long ruled that 1). Contracts must grant benefits to both parties in order to be valid, and 2). You cannot enforce an agreement that you must approve after a sale takes place.
What the EULA can do is spell out the seller’s position and hope the courts think its fair. Gator Corporation had gotten in a lot of trouble with its EULAs because their EULAs gave them permission to install other software on your computer, interfere with the running of other software, change your host file, so you can’t get to Google anymore to do searches. They also had a provision that you couldn’t sue them. Instead, you had to go to a private arbitration hearing in Aruba and pay all expenses even if you won. The courts said “No way”.
So, even if you don’t read the EULA, pretend your trained gerbil must have clicked the “Agree” button, it doesn’t make a whole lot of difference.
No. What you’ve said makes fine sense, but it doesn’t clarify. This would mean Bob needs to ask what Ahab’s rights are when hunting on your property then, no? Basically this:
“Do end users have an obligation to seek out any appropriate licenses to ensure that they are abiding by them, once the software has been installed? I don’t see this as being as a reasonable duty the user of the software bearer”
I understand that EULAs are typically in place to enforce what you can’t do, and in most cases, what you’re not allowed to do with software is pretty much the same thing. Don’t look at child porn, don’t look for ways to assassinate the president, don’t do anything otherwise illegal, bla bla bla, typical common-sense stuff. It is reasonable to assume when I use IE6 at my friend’s house that it would violate their EULA to look up how to blow up the mayor’s office while looking at naked kiddies. But what if there is a specification within the EULA that is not necessarily something that a reasonable person would assume? I understand that terms like “reasonable” are what attorneys jerk off to, but here we are. What if the agreement forbade the end-user to, say, view material even vaguely or tangentially related to something illegal, or something of the sort. Not the best example in the world, so I hope my example isn’t scrutinized to death, but I’m asking about something (if you have a better example, use that instead of mine) that is not completely off-the-wall insane, but not something a reasonable (there goes that word again) person would expect to be explicitly prohibited by a EULA.
Would the response be, “Well, whenever using software that you did not personally download, it is your responsibility seek and understand the EULA, and if you don’t, tough shit”?
Yes, he would. Why shouldn’t he? To elaborate on the hunting license. It’s not my fault if i licensed Ahab to shoot 1 deer every 24 hours on my property, and Bob walked off after his 12 hours with 10 deer. Depending on the specifics of the assignment and the license agreement I have with Ahab, both of them are on the hook for the 9 deer Bob shouldn’t have killed. (fwiw, the land example starts breaking down when directly translating it into an intangible property like software, but the concepts of privity and assignment are close enough so as to make the analogy at least illustrative).
To the extent that EULAs prohibit reasonable activity then yes, it’s your problem to inform yourself of those prohibitions. But they don’t prohibit reasonable activity, probably because a court would find that license term unconscionable.