The mind can also be an erogenous zone - Raquel Welch
|
|
|
Software licences are misleading, unfair, burdensome and unbalanced
THE NATIONAL Consumer Council has gone after the big boys Microsoft, Adobe, and Symantec over licences.
The NCC says there is little clear upfront information about software licences.
NCC Senior Policy Advocate Carl Belgrove said: "Consumers can’t have a clue what they’re signing up to when some terms and conditions run to 10 or more pages. There’s a significant imbalance between the rights of the consumer and the rights of the holder."
The 17 companies NCC has referred to the Office of Fair Trading for investigation are: Adobe, Microsoft, Apple, Chief Architect, Symantec, Magix, Nero, Corel, Sega, Nova Development, Britannica, Sonic Solutions, Twelve Tone Systems, THQ, GSP, McAfee and Kaspersky.
It wants the European Commission to fill the gaps in the consumer rights and protection framework and put digital contracts and licence agreements into consumer law and wants the Office of Fair Trading to examine potentially unfair contract terms identified in NCC’s study Whose licence is it anyway? which is here. µ
Tags: Microsoft
Share this:
Share
I asked my uncle (a senior copyright lawyer for Hallmark) about the EULA when he was installing the latest iTunes. He said that they were legally binding. They can probably argue that the transaction has not taken place because you have to agree to the EULA before installing, which would be their final step in completing the transaction.

However, I don't think a company would be too interested in pressing them very hard in court. It would probably make them lose more power than they currently have with just being able to wave such a broad threat.

Just look at what happened with the DVD Jon case. He was prosecuted and declared guilty for watching the movie he bought in ways that I think are even protected by the law they were using to condemn him. Then the prosecutors dropped the charges before there was a full appeal. Now they call it illegal to decrypt DVD's and do nothing about it.

I'm thinking the US is becoming an oligarchy. I've stopped buying software because I've found that stuff they want you to pay for is generally junk and/or extremely overpriced.
A contract is only binding if it is signed by both parties PRIOR to completing the transaction.
In addition, a contract cannot be changed by one party without the explicit and written consent of the other party.
Therefore, given that there is never any software sold with the EULA displayed on the box, that means that I fork over the money first, and read the "license" terms after. And given the dismal state of the return policy on software, that means that once I've opened it, I cannot return it.
Therefore, the transaction has taken place BEFORE I can read the "contract", which means the contract is null and void in the first place.
And don't get me started on EULA changes that accompany a "mandatory update to the software".

I challenge any lawyer in the world to demonstrate that I am wrong.
It was always the security axe, being pointed at and the fears of it falling, as an excuse for high prices for software. While all the security was economically unidirectional as to private computer users were concern.

Now Linux is out, with free software that nearly matches the wallet shredders. A blessing indeed. And an almost void of the need of third party security.

As for licencing:

A simplified formula integrated in the agreements would be best and yes Linux should have that too. The GNU is still problematic on that matter.

As in Green: Public Domain
Blue : Open Source
Orange: Open Play
Yellow: Open Restrictive
Red: Open None!

Including these into install files instead of lawyering it to death is best with the above with clear definitions to each which would be solid with no possibility of amendments!

The masquerade must stop! Please!