[sgrove]

I might misunderstand the fundamental point, but zoom doesn’t seem to be making new laws. Existing contract law is perfectly capable of handling two adults agreeing to a mutually beneficial set of restrictions.

Lots of things that are legal we’ll be restricted in contract agreements - free speech is a fundamental right, but mutual non-disclosure agreements still exist and can result in (civil) legal action if reneged on to one party’s detriment.

[eitland]

> Existing contract law is perfectly capable of handling two adults agreeing to a mutually beneficial set of restrictions.

I think you'll find that most people - and a number of leading law experts - don't consider click through EULAs for valid binding contracts and clicking next is not the same as signing.

You'll also find that many (most? I stopped reading EULAs years ago) contains something about "the following might not be applicable in your jurisdiction".

Besides, just think of it: can a click on a button, placed in a way that makes it easy to click through for someone who accepts the defaults, can such a click really be considered a meeting of minds?

And do we really think people can be expected to read a number of pages of dense legalese? I remember one EULA filling 13 A4 pages with text in a small font after I gave up and printed it two decades ago when I was young and still believed they were valid.

Besides: Expecting non lawyers to read and understand legalese is as crazy as expecting non programmers to read basic Java or Python: within reach for many after basic self study, but still not something I'd bet much money on random people being able to do on the fly.

[sangnoir]

> I think you'll find that most people - and a number of leading law experts - don't consider click through EULAs for valid binding contracts and clicking next is not the same as signing.

If you feel like you're potentially a target of a lawsuit, the only opinion that should matter to you are your lawyer's and the the court's. Some EULA restrictions are not enforceable, but some definitely are. No US court has ruled on whether EULAs are binding, or not - so there is no precedence.

[matheusmoreira]

What's the point of giving people rights when companies can just force you to relinquish them via contracts? That obviously leads to these "you can't exercise your rights" clauses becoming standard in every contract.

People should be able to do things that hurt a company's business interests, especially reverse engineering. They do not deserve any protection. Actually, it should be encouraged since it leads to better products for consumers.

[ahmedalsudani]

When you sign a contract, very often you are waiving some of your rights. There are rights which cannot be waived by you—I’m not sure the right to reverse engineer is one of them

[heyoni]

You never have to sign any TOS when reverse engineering, ergo no contract.

[ta8908695]

you probably sign TOS as part of the installation of the binaries

[gibs0ns]

clicking a button != signing your name

[LargoLasskhyfv]

There is a certain asymmetry in it, but you can also sue and have shit like that declared illegal. Thing is it would threaten most bizniz-models of the bullshit economy, so it doesn't happen that much.

I'm expecting that this finally changes for the better, at least in some parts of the world, where the parts which don't adapt to that change spiral further down.

Rightly so!