🚀 go-pugleaf

Nick FitzGerald <nick@virus-l.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Xcott Craver <caj@baker.math.niu.edu> wrote:
>
>> 	Now, if the signature contained a bit of javascript which
>> 	auto-directed readers to the page, and didn't have a license
>> 	agreement, _then_ it would clearly be a virus.
>
>I suspect you mean "and it didn't have a description
>of its functionality".

	Not at all.  I did say "if [it] didn't have a license agreement."
	A virus can tell you explicitly what dirty thing it is doing
	(some do, in fact) and still be a virus.

>............................  Given the user is warned to read *all the 
>terms* AND that their assent is their assent *to all the terms*, standing 
>up and saying "well, actually, I'm a putz and didn't read all the terms and
>I now don't like what the terms that I accepted without reading said..." 
>is *not* going to win you much sympathy, no matter how dire the consequences.

	I disagree.  You might not have a leg to stand on legally, but
	you'll certainly get "sympathy."  As I said, a stunt like this 
	may cause sympathetic law-makers to pass restrictions on what can
	be done in these agreements.

	And in an environment where people are deluged with contracts to
	sign, just for everyday dicking around, people are more likely 
	(JMHO) to be sympathetic to someone who overlooked a nasty contract.

>Remmber people, the law often has nothing to say about, or interest in, 
>protecting you from someone else's bad judgement, and depends on you taking 
>responsibility for your judgements (good or bad).

	This is actually not true.  The government has been trying to 
	catch numerous cases of "legal fraud" for some time.  A company
	bilks you out of 15 bucks, but in a perfectly legal, if shady,
	way (telling you in the fine print exactly what's happening,) and
	the better business bureau can't lift a finger to stop this.
	That doesn't mean they're not dying to find some way to get 
	these guys, and often they are.

>I agree the packaging is deceptive.  The solution for that is caveat emptor 
>-- buyer beware. 

	In America, we have numerous consumer protection laws [which, 
	admittedly, might be bypassed via UCITA.]  The solution to a 
	problem of deceptive packaging is rarely just caveat emptor.

>I do not need to read all umpteen paragraphs of the MS
>license agreements.  I've read them all before and they
>have masses of corporate lawyers who are paid to write them
>and ensure a degree of consistency between products of
>vaguely simialr kinds.  But, were I to install a "free
>browser video enhancement" from a previously unheard of
>company that, at first glance, seems to be the "new boy on
>the block", I am going to look *very* closely at what they
>want me (and my company/client/whatever) to agree to.

	Agreed.  Tho, should one of those Microsoft licenses contain a 
	new, insanely awful clause that you missed under the assumption
	of consistency, I suspect that there'd be someone putting the 
	blame squarely on you for missing it.

	When just about everyone is conditioned not to read all those 
	agreements, they become irresistable dumping grounds for fraud.
	Further, in our litigation-happy society, companies are given
	incentive to discliam as much as possible in those things, often
	beyond what they should be allowed to do (if you sell toy trucks,
	you can't give the customer a "license agreement" absolving 
	yourself of all damage caused by broken glass and asbestos parts.)

	Maybe a solution is simply requiring that, contrary to UCITA,
	a product should be roughly as advertized, as demoed, and that 
	license agreements, like credit-card slips, should meet some kind
	of standard preventing a tiny "give me all your money" in the
	corner (or in general, new agreements wildly different from that
	which prompted the presentation of the contract in the first place.)

>> 	Legal?  I'm pretty sure.  A stunt like this might be _made_ 
>> 	illegal in the future, as the sheer number of license agreements
>> 	(and evil stunts) gets attention.
>
>Or, more precisely, as the sheer weight of "I couldn't
>care less and don't want to learn so let's have legislation
>to protect us" users further swamps the Internet and dodgy
>practices like GoHip's sully the reputation of the most of
>the "good guys" who are already on the net...

	Sadly, yes.

>-- 
>Nick FitzGerald
							-Scott