|
But yesterday you said that no company is save from abuse of your data stored at them.
And quite a lot openly or not-so-openly abuse it for themselves.
"We trained hard, but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form up into teams we would be reorganised. I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganising: and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress, while producing confusion, inefficiency and demoralisation."
-- Caius Petronius, Roman Consul, 66 A.D.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes but like with everything in life you weigh up the risks and make a decision.
And really if you use internet banking then you have no leg to stand on by saying you don't want to share your email address with DivX. Your banking data is far more important and yet, if you use internet banking, you are putting it out there.
I weighed up the options and decided that I would to share usage and personal data with companies as they can then tailor their products and services to my needs. The risk that their systems will be compromised is negligible and worth the gains.
Risk. It is part of life.
regards,
Paul Watson
Ireland & South Africa
Shog9 wrote: And with that, Paul closed his browser, sipped his herbal tea, fixed the flower in his hair, and smiled brightly at the multitude of cute, furry animals flocking around the grassy hillside where he sat coding Ruby on his Mac...
|
|
|
|
|
ok... just to keep the chain going: 
I always send data to companies when they collect "non-personal" information about my PC, such as processor, memory, video, etc. This allows such companies to map trends in PC capability and tailor their development accordingly. If they notice 256Mb+ video cards are becoming the norm, then they could invest in the advanced graphics architectures they've been holding off on.. same with proc and ram. Knowing your customer base ultimately results in a better end product.
|
|
|
|
|
DivX ahs included nefarious bundleware in their distributions in the past. Due to public pressure they've "supposdedly" removed such wares from their installs.
Todd Smith
|
|
|
|
|
Generally, you're right.
But what exactly means, they "collect"? They can collect whatever they want as long as I DECIDE if they ever are able to transmit their "collection" at all. Thanks to firewalls - I still believe in their security  and block the most internet activities like auto-updates, if possible). But yeah i know there always might be a few tricks to "get things outside".
regards,
Thomas
|
|
|
|
|
Nisamudheen wrote: Most of the users don't even look at the EULA.
Especially as most of the time the EULA has no legal value (and is just there to scare people enough that they stop copying).
"We trained hard, but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form up into teams we would be reorganised. I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganising: and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress, while producing confusion, inefficiency and demoralisation."
-- Caius Petronius, Roman Consul, 66 A.D.
|
|
|
|
|
I think it has. It acts as a contract between seller and buyer (unless other contract is signed and is "tougher" than this one). Even if the seller just put a EULA for the sake of having one, me I take seriously what is written there.
Nuclear launch detected
|
|
|
|
|
Cristian Amarie wrote: I think it has.
I dont know where you live,but here in Germany (and most other European countries) it has not.
Cristian Amarie wrote: It acts as a contract between seller and buyer
Thats the point: The contract about the sale is between me and the shop owner.
I get the software, he gets the money.
There is nothing about any contract between the software vendor and me.
And the contract between the shopowner and the software producer can not possibly have any meaning to me.
Contracts indebting third parties ar a huge no-no. Otherwise, me an my colleage would in no time sign a contact that 'Cristian Amarie' has to pay both of us $100,000 and sue you for that.
For this reason, and because you can not see the EULA before sale, it is not validly enlosed in the sale contract.
All this is only valid for Standard software you buy in a shop. For "build to order" software, the regulations are differing.
Disclaimer: IANAL, and especially I have no knowledge about the US or other foreign law systems.
"We trained hard, but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form up into teams we would be reorganised. I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganising: and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress, while producing confusion, inefficiency and demoralisation."
-- Caius Petronius, Roman Consul, 66 A.D.
|
|
|
|
|
(Romania)
I was not referring about money, but about what the program is installing, what restriction are ((re)distribution, copying etc). For what you buy in a shop, for sure the invoice/payment/paper, is *the* contract.
If you buy a piece of software without signing a contract (as most large-dist software is), I am not sure what the contract is. The box? the invoice? This may be an agreement regarding refund, warranty etc., but not about saying "I do" for the installation itself.
Anyway, I digress. Fact is, buy or no buy, I will keep reading EULA. Just in case.
Nuclear launch detected
|
|
|
|
|
so once you bought a software, you're free to do what you feel wanting with it (like things prohibited bot the sotware editor) ??
i doubt you're allowed to do that
when you buy a software, you own only the license which allows you to use it, nothing much (in most cases), that means, not the whole software...
|
|
|
|
|
toxcct wrote: when you buy a software, you own only the license which allows you to use it, nothing much
This is what the industy wants to make you belive.
Disclaimer:
You are french, I am german so we probably have very similar law systems (code napoleon versus angloamerican and EU/UE vers USA). But most of my knowledge is limited to german laws.
All I say is under the assumption that we talk about "blister packed" software sold as a standard good. And pease remember that I am no lawyer
toxcct wrote: so once you bought a software, you're free to do what you feel wanting with it
Basically, yes.
For example, you can not be forbidden to re-sell the software.
A link to the german wikipedia:http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ersch%C3%B6pfungsgrundsatz[^] Sorry, no french or englich translation, but the article states specifically that it is relevant in the whole EU/UE
Specifically, Microsoft has to tolerate the sale of unbundled OEM-Licenses.
Rule of Thumb: If you could do it with a book you own, you could do it also with Software you own. And giving away copys is forbidden with either!
"We trained hard, but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form up into teams we would be reorganised. I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganising: and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress, while producing confusion, inefficiency and demoralisation."
-- Caius Petronius, Roman Consul, 66 A.D.
|
|
|
|
|
maybe for reselling.
but what about decompiling, modifying and such things ?
|
|
|
|
|
toxcct wrote: what about decompiling, modifying and such things
Forbidden by the copyright laws. No need to make EULA-fuss about that.
"We trained hard, but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form up into teams we would be reorganised. I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganising: and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress, while producing confusion, inefficiency and demoralisation."
-- Caius Petronius, Roman Consul, 66 A.D.
|
|
|
|
|
As I understand it‡, the EULA assigns rights to the user under certain conditions. If these conditions are breached, then any assigned rights are revoked. This then, potentially, opens you up to prosecution under Copyright law.
If you try to make the EULA into a ‘Contract’ rather than a ‘Licence’ then you are probably going to have trouble enforcing in legally. A contract is an agreement between two or more parities, not having explicit proof of who installed the software would cause problems legally. As the copyright owner has the right to grant permissions to anyone, licenses are effective without the assent of the end user.
‡ I am in no way a legal expert. 
Regards,
Gary Harpin.
"...a computer is a stupid machine with the ability to do incredibly smart things, while computer programmers are smart people with the ability to do incredibly stupid things. They are, in short, a perfect match". - Bill Bryson
|
|
|
|
|
You're right, most people don't read them. But the thing is, you need one to stand a chance when things get ugly and users start sueing you. It protects you from liability and limits garantuees that you otherwise would give implicit to the user (At least the law does in the Netherlands).
WM.
What about weapons of mass-construction?
"What? Its an Apple MacBook Pro. They are sexy!" - Paul Watson
|
|
|
|
|
In all honesty, get a good lawyer and you can fight any EULA. You can also argue that different countries have different laws, and as far as software goes, there are many, many routes you can take to make any EULA worthless.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I found that usually Ms Windows users tend to look for the "Next" button. People in the Linux world sometimes care about Licenses.
I don´t read in general the EULA texts, but try to use free software with well-known licenses (GPL, etc.).
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
