Topic: If they're so meaningless, why have them?
Anonymous A started this discussion 15 years ago #15,772
If TOS and EULA agreements are so meaningless. How come they exist?
Check and mate.
Check and mate.
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 hours later[^] [v] #274,857
People have no control over the flow of information. That does not mean that they won't try.
cccuuunnttt !CaTLdYmooc joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 57 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #274,890
What?
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #274,893
@previous (cccuuunnttt !CaTLdYmooc)
Retarded argument against piracy. The argument is as follows:
Prima: The ToS and/or EULA of X software does not allow one to use it without authorization.
Secunda: The ToS and/or EULA is meaningless; I don't care what it does or does not allow.
Prima: If it was meaningless, it would not exist. I am retarded.
Retarded argument against piracy. The argument is as follows:
Prima: The ToS and/or EULA of X software does not allow one to use it without authorization.
Secunda: The ToS and/or EULA is meaningless; I don't care what it does or does not allow.
Prima: If it was meaningless, it would not exist. I am retarded.
cccuuunnttt !CaTLdYmooc replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #274,898
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #274,900
This thread confuses and enrages me.
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 6 hours later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #275,026
@274,893 (B)
> Prima: Use of X software is permitted by its owners only if one signs a contract with them.
> Secunda: I know that I signed a contract, but I don't want to abide by it!
> Prima: That's okay, the penalties for violating the contract will now apply.
> Secunda: But I want to violate contract with impunity!
> Prima: Go to bed, you have school tomorrow.
> Prima: Use of X software is permitted by its owners only if one signs a contract with them.
> Secunda: I know that I signed a contract, but I don't want to abide by it!
> Prima: That's okay, the penalties for violating the contract will now apply.
> Secunda: But I want to violate contract with impunity!
> Prima: Go to bed, you have school tomorrow.
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 31 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #275,033
I am a fag
(Edited 12 seconds later.)
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 26 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #275,034
Is that you, Ron?
cccuuunnttt !CaTLdYmooc replied with this 15 years ago, 11 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #275,035
@275,026 (E)
I think you're overstating EULAs and TOSs--courts in the US have often been unwilling to enforce them, depending on the provisions and other circumstances (and location). Not sure how it's looked at in other countries though.
I think you're overstating EULAs and TOSs--courts in the US have often been unwilling to enforce them, depending on the provisions and other circumstances (and location). Not sure how it's looked at in other countries though.
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #275,046
@previous (cccuuunnttt !CaTLdYmooc)
I think you're understating contracts. Courts in the USA are notorious for their disrespect toward contracts and freedom of association.
I think you're understating contracts. Courts in the USA are notorious for their disrespect toward contracts and freedom of association.
HaikerensGuide !0VegJ9Jl.Q joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 14 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #275,047
The pirated software I get is stripped of EULAs.
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #275,087
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 28 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #275,104
Anonymous D replied with this 15 years ago, 16 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #275,116
Anonymous I replied with this 15 years ago, 12 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #275,125
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #275,129
@275,026 (E)
> >Prima: Use of X software is permitted by its owners only if one signs a contract with them.
> >Secunda: I know that I didn't sign a contract, but I don't give a fuck and will use it anyway.
> >Prima: That's okay, the penalties for violating the contract will now apply.
> >Secunda: But I want to violate contract with impunity!
> >Prima: Theoretically you are unable to do so, but in reality you can do that as much as you like because nobody cares.
> >Prima: Use of X software is permitted by its owners only if one signs a contract with them.
> >Secunda: I know that I didn't sign a contract, but I don't give a fuck and will use it anyway.
> >Prima: That's okay, the penalties for violating the contract will now apply.
> >Secunda: But I want to violate contract with impunity!
> >Prima: Theoretically you are unable to do so, but in reality you can do that as much as you like because nobody cares.
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 19 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #275,139
@previous (B)> Prima: Theoretically you are unable to do so, but in reality you can do that as much as you like because nobody cares.
The party who made use of their property contingent upon signing a contract with them obviously cares about that contract, or else they wouldn't make use of their property contingent upon it.
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 9 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #275,211
@previous (E)
> The party who made use of their property contingent upon signing a contract with them obviously cares about that contract
They are powerless to do anything about it. In the vast majority of the time they aren't even aware that the EULA was agreed to. which makes breaking it even easier.
I obviously don't care about the law, otherwise I wouldn't be pirating in the first place. Your argument is a poor one.
> The party who made use of their property contingent upon signing a contract with them obviously cares about that contract
They are powerless to do anything about it. In the vast majority of the time they aren't even aware that the EULA was agreed to. which makes breaking it even easier.
I obviously don't care about the law, otherwise I wouldn't be pirating in the first place. Your argument is a poor one.
cccuuunnttt !CaTLdYmooc replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #275,217
@275,139 (E)
So to summarize, you're saying that people who use a product knowing that they should "sign a contract" but don't sign that contract are in the wrong, and the penalties for breaching the contract will apply to these people who didn't agree to the contract in the first place? Is that your argument?
So to summarize, you're saying that people who use a product knowing that they should "sign a contract" but don't sign that contract are in the wrong, and the penalties for breaching the contract will apply to these people who didn't agree to the contract in the first place? Is that your argument?
(Edited 54 seconds later.)
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 26 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #275,221
@previous (cccuuunnttt !CaTLdYmooc)
By installing the software, you agree to the EULA which is the contract he is talking about.
By installing the software, you agree to the EULA which is the contract he is talking about.
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #275,222
@previous (B)
but they are not legally binding, even if the document states that it is legally binding.
especially EULAs that are behind packaging (e.g. most of them) will fall flat in court if you have a lawyer worth half a fuck.
but they are not legally binding, even if the document states that it is legally binding.
especially EULAs that are behind packaging (e.g. most of them) will fall flat in court if you have a lawyer worth half a fuck.
cccuuunnttt !CaTLdYmooc replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #275,223
@275,221 (B)
Yes, but if a pirated version doesn't contain the EULA, I don't see how there's a valid contract at all. That's what I understand the post E was replying to to say, anyway.
I'm a bit confused by this whole thing, we are talking about piracy right? I can see going after the person who initially uploads material he bought for breaching the EULA, but it's a silly argument that everyone who downloads cracked versions without the EULA is similarly in breach.
Yes, but if a pirated version doesn't contain the EULA, I don't see how there's a valid contract at all. That's what I understand the post E was replying to to say, anyway.
I'm a bit confused by this whole thing, we are talking about piracy right? I can see going after the person who initially uploads material he bought for breaching the EULA, but it's a silly argument that everyone who downloads cracked versions without the EULA is similarly in breach.
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 24 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #275,229
cccuuunnttt !CaTLdYmooc replied with this 15 years ago, 41 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #275,230
@275,222 (J)
I agree, not always enforceable, but decisions on shrink/browse wrap contracts have gone both ways and probably depend a lot on where you're at and how liberal the court is you're heard in. It's an area of the law that's really in flux.
I agree, not always enforceable, but decisions on shrink/browse wrap contracts have gone both ways and probably depend a lot on where you're at and how liberal the court is you're heard in. It's an area of the law that's really in flux.
cccuuunnttt !CaTLdYmooc double-posted this 15 years ago, 46 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #275,232
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 51 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #275,233
cccuuunnttt !CaTLdYmooc replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #275,234
@previous (B)
Maybe r04r could code a feature where you can check a box and then no one can cite you.
Maybe r04r could code a feature where you can check a box and then no one can cite you.
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #275,235
cccuuunnttt !CaTLdYmooc replied with this 15 years ago, 49 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #275,236
@previous (B)
It could prevent the terrible problem you are encountering, where you've made a post and had someone reply to it.
It could prevent the terrible problem you are encountering, where you've made a post and had someone reply to it.
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #275,239
cccuuunnttt !CaTLdYmooc replied with this 15 years ago, 29 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #275,240
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #275,241
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #275,248
@275,217 (cccuuunnttt !CaTLdYmooc)
> So to summarize, you're saying that people who use a product knowing that they should "sign a contract" but don't sign that contract are in the wrong, and the penalties for breaching the contract will apply to these people who didn't agree to the contract in the first place? Is that your argument?
wtf? Where did you get this from? If people are using a product without signing a contract, then there was no contract, they have not broken anything. What are you even talking about?
> So to summarize, you're saying that people who use a product knowing that they should "sign a contract" but don't sign that contract are in the wrong, and the penalties for breaching the contract will apply to these people who didn't agree to the contract in the first place? Is that your argument?
wtf? Where did you get this from? If people are using a product without signing a contract, then there was no contract, they have not broken anything. What are you even talking about?
cccuuunnttt !CaTLdYmooc replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #275,250
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #275,252
@275,211 (B)
> They are powerless to do anything about it. In the vast majority of the time they aren't even aware that the EULA was agreed to. which makes breaking it even easier.
Only because the courts refuse to honor contracts, in an attempt to increase the realm of allowable state action, at the expense of individual liberty. Who isn't aware that the EULA was agreed to? The original software owner, or the new software owner?
> I obviously don't care about the law, otherwise I wouldn't be pirating in the first place. Your argument is a poor one.
This isn't a legal argument, really - it is a moral argument. Piracy, except where you have signed a contract saying that you won't pirate, is not immoral. Your immorality does not make my argument poor.
> They are powerless to do anything about it. In the vast majority of the time they aren't even aware that the EULA was agreed to. which makes breaking it even easier.
Only because the courts refuse to honor contracts, in an attempt to increase the realm of allowable state action, at the expense of individual liberty. Who isn't aware that the EULA was agreed to? The original software owner, or the new software owner?
> I obviously don't care about the law, otherwise I wouldn't be pirating in the first place. Your argument is a poor one.
This isn't a legal argument, really - it is a moral argument. Piracy, except where you have signed a contract saying that you won't pirate, is not immoral. Your immorality does not make my argument poor.
Anonymous E double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #275,254
@275,250 (cccuuunnttt !CaTLdYmooc)
Oh, ok. I am not anti-piracy, except where people have explicitly signed contracts stating they will not pirate.
Oh, ok. I am not anti-piracy, except where people have explicitly signed contracts stating they will not pirate.
Anonymous E triple-posted this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #275,259
@275,223 (cccuuunnttt !CaTLdYmooc)
> I can see going after the person who initially uploads material he bought for breaching the EULA, but it's a silly argument that everyone who downloads cracked versions without the EULA is similarly in breach.
100% agreed. The people downloading the file have done nothing wrong - only the uploader has breached contract.
> I can see going after the person who initially uploads material he bought for breaching the EULA, but it's a silly argument that everyone who downloads cracked versions without the EULA is similarly in breach.
100% agreed. The people downloading the file have done nothing wrong - only the uploader has breached contract.
Anonymous E quadruple-posted this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #275,264
@275,222 (J)
@275,230 (cccuuunnttt !CaTLdYmooc)
I don't really know enough about the legal nature of it, but it seems odd that you could purchase a product and not have ownership of it (which is essentially what shrinkwrap contracts say, isn't it?)
I guess you could say you are purchasing the right to make a contract with them.
@275,230 (cccuuunnttt !CaTLdYmooc)
I don't really know enough about the legal nature of it, but it seems odd that you could purchase a product and not have ownership of it (which is essentially what shrinkwrap contracts say, isn't it?)
I guess you could say you are purchasing the right to make a contract with them.
cccuuunnttt !CaTLdYmooc replied with this 15 years ago, 15 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #275,281
@previous (E)
You're really purchasing the right to use the product, it's why you're an "end user" not a "buyer." The purchase is itself an element of the contract (the exchange of money for the product to be used), it's just that the additional terms of the contract (the EULA) are not yet known to you as the buyer. In a commercial setting this may or may not be acceptable, depending.
Again, specific to US commercial contracts.
You're really purchasing the right to use the product, it's why you're an "end user" not a "buyer." The purchase is itself an element of the contract (the exchange of money for the product to be used), it's just that the additional terms of the contract (the EULA) are not yet known to you as the buyer. In a commercial setting this may or may not be acceptable, depending.
Again, specific to US commercial contracts.
(Edited 39 seconds later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 3 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #275,339
Aren't EULA and TOS agreements pseudo-contracts?
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 5 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #275,364
@275,281 (cccuuunnttt !CaTLdYmooc)
> You're really purchasing the right to use the product, it's why you're an "end user" not a "buyer." The purchase is itself an element of the contract (the exchange of money for the product to be used), it's just that the additional terms of the contract (the EULA) are not yet known to you as the buyer. In a commercial setting this may or may not be acceptable, depending.
>
> Again, specific to US commercial contracts.
Good post.
> You're really purchasing the right to use the product, it's why you're an "end user" not a "buyer." The purchase is itself an element of the contract (the exchange of money for the product to be used), it's just that the additional terms of the contract (the EULA) are not yet known to you as the buyer. In a commercial setting this may or may not be acceptable, depending.
>
> Again, specific to US commercial contracts.
Good post.