CNN Uses P2P Video & Adds Terrible EULA 254
Futurepower(R) writes "CNN's use of software called Octoshape presents an incredibly abusive EULA. If you agree to the EULA, you agree that CNN can use your bandwidth, and that you will pay any costs. Also, you lose the right to monitor your own network traffic. You can't even use information collected by your own firewall. Quoting the EULA:
'You may not collect any information about communication in the network of computers that are operating the Software or about the other users of the Software by monitoring, interdicting or intercepting any process of the Software. Octoshape recognizes that firewalls and anti-virus applications can collect such information, in which case you not are allowed to use or distribute such information.' "
Dear CNN, (Score:4, Informative)
No.
Re:good luck with that (Score:2, Informative)
Yes. The US Legal system believes that they are valid. Does anyone else matter? I know its "common knowledge" on slashdot that they aren't valid, but find one US case that says they aren't valid. There are many that say they are...
Re:good luck with that (Score:3, Informative)
Yes. The US Legal system believes that they are valid.
Actually the US case law is inconsistent and have only ruled on the validity specific EULAs not about them in general. There have been cases where EULAs have been ruled enforceable and valid and others to the contrary. So your statement is actually misleading.
I know its "common knowledge" on slashdot that they aren't valid, but find one US case that says they aren't valid. There are many that say they are...
In this case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that a EULA disclaimer waiving all express and implied warranties, printed on the outside of the box, was not binding.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Step-Saver_Data_Systems,_Inc._v._Wyse_Technology [wikipedia.org]
Also Rich, Mass Market Software and the Shrinkwrap License (23 Colo. Law 1321.17)
So, there you go. And, yes, there are cases where particular EULA has been held up by a court, but contrary to your claim there has been no case law that has ever ruled on EULAs in general in such a definitive manner as you have claim.
Re:Really? (Score:5, Informative)
It sure does.
here is the official EULA [octoshape.com]
Half way down in section three. What is it about EULAs that, despite being universally hated and legally toothless, inspires companies to make fucking assholes of themselves when writing them?
Simple solution... (Score:2, Informative)
Don't let CNN or any of its software into your computer/network. This just adds to the list of reasons why I deleted the channel from my TV listings.
Explains why my work banned it. (Score:4, Informative)
They need these permissions (Score:4, Informative)
Imagine you didn't agree to these conditions. How do you expect CNN to deliver the service?
If you agree to the EULA, you agree that CNN can use your bandwidth, and that you will pay any costs.
Its a P2P service - so if you use it, you are sharing your bandwidth with other users. Or, top put it another way, CNN are using your bandwidth to deliver their material to their customers.
So if some joker leaves it running in his hotel room and gets charged $1 per megabyte, he shouldn't sue CNN. Sounds fair.
You may not collect any information about communication in the network of computers that are operating the Software or about the other users of the Software by monitoring, interdicting or intercepting any process of the Software.
So if I collected data about the other CNN customers who are sharing my bandwidth via the P2P service, their IP addresses, what they were watching, and when and published it, that would be OK, would it?
We take these things as read when we use P2P, but obviously some lawyer at CNN has done a bit of due dilligence and covered his arse in case some troll comes along and sues them.
The fuss about this is a bit like the scare stories photo-sharing sites requiring permission to reproduce/modify/sub license your photos: they need these permissions to run their service.
It becomes illegal to read your own firewall logs. (Score:3, Informative)
The issue is that the EULA says you lose control over your network.
Not quite (Score:1, Informative)
You're confusing contractual obligation with actions that are illegal. It requires a law to make something illegal, not a contract. If you breach the contract, you are not a criminal, you have merely opened yourself to whatever actions open to the other party stipulated in the contract (which is what a license agreement is).
Re:good luck with that (Score:5, Informative)
This post is wrongly moderated. It is not informative. It is misinformative, or uninformative at best. The argument that the recognition of particular EULAs is distinct from recognition of the validity of EULAs "in general" betrays an ignorance of the judiciary and of contract law. This is simply not the way that the legal system works; courts must rule on an actual case or controversy and are not permitted to announce "general" rules of law. Furthermore, Step-Saver is anachronistic and the Third Circuit is relatively unpersuasive. In fact, there are NO major legal markets and NO major software companies within the Third Circuit's jurisdiction. ProCD v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996), however, has higher persuasive authority because it is (a) newer, (b) out of a major circuit, (c) written by an enormously influential appellate judge. In addition, it is the law in the entirety of the Seventh Circuit, which includes Chicago. Others may point to Klocek v. Gateway, 104 F. Supp.3d 1332 (D. Kan. 2000), but Klocek is a district court case, and therefore has no precedential value beyond its persuasiveness, which is in turn less than that of ProCD.
Trial courts don't make law. The only U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals cases on point hold, unanimously, that EULAs are enforceable. The law is relatively clear here, and is unlikely to change unless and until the Ninth Circuit or the Supreme Court take up the issue. I'm sorry, but you're just wrong.
Re:good luck with that (Score:3, Informative)
Can't believe I fucked that up.
There's no ship as can match the Interceptor for speed.
I've heard of one. It's supposed to be fast. Nigh-uncatchable. The Black Pearl."
Re:good luck with that (Score:3, Informative)
Does anyone actually believe that click-through licenses are valid?
Who gives a shit if it's valid? Is the no-monitoring part enforceable? They gonna install DRM on my machine that makes sure I'm not capturing packets? They gonna push that DRM out to my gateway to make sure I'm not capturing them there?
This is what happens when you let the lawyers draft the EULA without even consulting with the techies.....
What are you talking about? It seems pretty self explanatory.
1. They are using a Bittorrent type protocol for some reason or other. P2P.
2. They don't want to get sued when some twit on a pay as you go Internet connection runs up a huge bill, presumably after leaving the client open (perhaps even overnight). This is the same reason MMORPG boxes say an Internet Connection is required and that yes, you have to pay the ISP bill, not Turbine/Sony/Blizzard/etc.
3. They don't want you sniffing the IP addresses of every other person watching videos. There's probably some privacy law about that.
The linked story says it's done with Adobe's help. (Score:5, Informative)
Also, there is another point. Slashdot editors change stories submitted to them seemingly at random, but retain the submitter's name.
The story as I wrote it [slashdot.org] mentions that Adobe is allowing Octoshape to use Adobe's Express Installer to install the software.
Basically, that means that if you allow rights to Adobe, you are also giving rights to anyone who pays Adobe. Adobe's updating software is very annoying, in my opinion, but this new situation takes the abusiveness to a much higher level. See the linked story, Watch a live video, share your PC with CNN [windowssecrets.com], at WindowsSecrets.com [windowssecrets.com].
Re:good luck with that (Score:4, Informative)
Oh no. Is my computer broadcasting an IP address again?
Seriously, that's all the personally identifying info it should be sending out.
At the very least, you also have information on what content they are downloading.
Re:This language sounds good to me. (Score:3, Informative)
3. Legal language is necessary just to prevent (or make less inviting) outside agencies or users from spying, collecting IP addresses, and otherwise abusing all the other users of their P2P network. Isn't this a good thing for privacy?
No, it's misleading. No privacy is ensured because of some ckick-through legalese.
Would you rather grant every person/agency on the internet full permission to abuse their video customers instead?
Say it otherwise: what's the risk for the Internet user? Maybe these risks should have been clearly indicated within a notice before the installation. In all cases, those risks are still there.
Re:good luck with that (Score:3, Informative)
Re:good luck with that (Score:3, Informative)
Here I was thinking of the Interceptor from Mad Max - known overseas by the looks of it as the Pursuit Special [wikipedia.org], but we Aussies will always call it by its real name :)
Now THAT was nigh-uncatchable!