Loading ...
Read those EULAs
Law, Privacy, Technology Comments (2)
I don’t have much sympathy for people who scroll to the bottom of an End User License Agreement (EULA) and click “OK” just to get on with it. I do have some because it is a legal document and people do tend to glaze over when reading those. But, if you have installed the Microsoft AntiSpyware Beta it could be important if you suffer data loss.
Their EULA for AntiSpyware Beta contains a liquidated damages clause:
10. LIMITATION ON AND EXCLUSION OF DAMAGES. Microsoft’s liability under this agreement is limited. You can recover from Microsoft and its suppliers your direct damages up to U.S. $5.00. You cannot recover any consequential damages, lost profits, special, indirect or incidental damages from Microsoft and its suppliers. This limitation applies to:
· anything related to the software, services, content (including code) on third party Internet sites, or third party programs, and
· claims for breach of contract, breach of warranty, guarantee or condition, strict liability, negligence, or other tort to the extent permitted by applicable law.
It also applies even if Microsoft knew or should have known about the possibility of the damages. [emphasis added]
Since I hadn’t installed it before reading a CNET News.com story on it, I downloaded a copy of the software myself and looked for it. The block quote above is what I found. Unfortunately, not everyone takes the time to even skim through the documents that they agree to using “click-wrap agreements.”
To prove the point that EULAs are widely ignored, PC Pitstop recently inserted a “special consideration” clause in its agreement that offered money to anyone who sent an e-mail to an address contained in the license. After 3,000 downloads and four months, one person finally took advantage of the offer and received a check in the mail for $1,000, according to the company’s Web site.
Now think about that. Four months with no response. Three thousand individuals downloaded and presumably installed this software without knowing the very first thing about what they were agreeing to when the installation was finished.
If you do treat the other programs you download and install with the same non-chalance you could open yourself to a heap of trouble. Here’s an example of a Conditions of Use section for a large, well-known online store:
When you visit [redacted] or send e-mails to us, you are communicating with us electronically. You consent to receive communications from us electronically. We will communicate with you by e-mail or by posting notices on this site. You agree that all agreements, notices, disclosures and other communications that we provide to you electronically satisfy any legal requirement that such communications be in writing. [emphasis added]
Fortunately, this company doesn’t have an email address for me. Notice, though, what the Terms say: the act of visiting their website gives them all of the permission they need to communicate with me “electronically.” That’s a broad term that includes e-mail, instant messaging, and a myriad of other methods — all of which are electronic in nature. Even though they specify e-mail in the next sentence, that could easily get tossed aside. But the question the shopper has to ask is “If the price of getting this is I give them so much money and let them send me all of the email they want, is this really worth it?”
But that question never gets asked because most people who have shopped there don’t know that they’ve agreed to all of this. They did not take the time to read the documents that govern use of that site. And, in this case that lack of knowledge would be to their detriment if they do not really want to receive a bunch of e-mail from this company.
Why? Because that document is actually binding. The alternatives are to accept the terms or shop elsewhere.
To not investigate the policies of the companies you do business with is just like signing a contract while wearing a blindfold and ear plugs. You don’t know what you’ve agreed to, you just know that you’ve agreed to something.
MickC @ February 25, 2005
yeah i do agree with that, but at times people just presume that the licenses agreement are just the same or almost the same (take for example win 2000, XP, 2003, and the MS office products) so they/we jus install, again the time is another factor imagine working for a company which believes in time management they dont normally recommed people (employees) reading the EULA’s since they think its a waste of time/money. but i really like the advice though…
I agree for the most part, but I do think the big thing here is that most people “TRUST” the companies they do business with. If the EULAs weren’t 5-10 pages long and you could understand what they said people would read them. Good advice though………