|
|
|
|
|
by acd
3107 days ago
|
|
The thing with EULAs is that you do not own the product. You are licensed to use the product under the company’s draconian terms. Agree that there needs to be new consumer laws protecting consumers. A contract used in the old times 1800s to be one to two pages of simple English that both parties negotiated the agreed terms on. Now EULas almost requires a degree in law to understand yet you abide to the terms under civil liability. Further more Eula’s are so long most people blind sign without reading and understanding the terms. There is also questions whether terms in Eula’s are legal such as limiting free speech about the product. In many countries free speech is a right regulated as basic first amendment laws. Can you limit free speech? |
|
That's definitely not true, please realise the whole free speech argument is useless outside the US. Anyway, I think you'll find it hard to get people interested with such an argument, even if it is an interesting way to put it.
But your first point - the argument about owning a product - is easy to understand and much more persuasive. That's why the John Deere DMCA thing got so much press, and also why I'm convinced that the downfall of the EULA will be because somebody tried to limit ownership of a physical product (and not software, which may or may not reap the benefits, but won't be the catalyst).