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.' "
OK, then... (Score:5, Interesting)
OK, then. Install it on your machine (and agree to the EULA, if you wish), and then plug your machine in to my network. I certainly didn't agree to the EULA, so I can and will make use of that information.
Re:good luck with that (Score:5, Interesting)
Person A accepts EULA.
Person B owns network and watches packets through router.
Person B did NOT accept the EULA and thus is not bound by it.
That's like people saying 'You can't read out signs' as a parade or protest walks by your window.
Safeguard?? (Score:2, Interesting)
I noticed this during the inauguration of Obama (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:good luck with that (Score:5, Interesting)
I think this issue recently arose with some user writing bots for an online game. The problem is, if you don't agree to the EULA, then (ostensibly) you haven't met the copyright owner's terms for using their work. And thus, using the service/software/whatever is a violation of copyright law at that point.
No Eula on Linux (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Any clue how to uninstall Octoshape? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:good luck with that (Score:3, Interesting)
You need to put it much more precisely. Here is an attemnpt.
Clauses in contracts entered into by click through may be binding and enforceable. You have, by clicking through, entered into the contract. So the question is, whether there is anything special about such contracts, and also, which clauses, even if they occur in contracts validly entered into, may not be enforceable.
All click through contracts are contracts of adhesion. That is they are take it or leave it contracts. You will mostly consent to them as an essential preliminary to using something you have bought and paid for. Clauses in it may be unenforceable for a number of reasons, including that they are unconscionable. Or they may conflict with the law of the jurisdiction in which the product is sold.
To diverge for a moment, sometimes people argue that when you buy a retail copy, you are in fact not buying but licensing, in law, and they draw various conclusions from this about the enforceability of clauses such as the OSX-only-on-Macs clause. This is certainly not true, following Softman. You have bought a copy in law. Whether it is OSX, Windows, Office, makes no difference. However, that does not affect the validity of the click through contract, which is independent of the fact that you have bought your copy. You may have bought your copy, and you will have various rights which are consequent on that, including the right to resell it, but it does not follow that when you subsequently entered into a different contract by clicking through, none of the provisions in that second contract were binding. So, to take the OSX case, you did buy your copy of OSX, it was a sale not a license, but it may still be that the click through contract you later entered into to only install on Macs is binding.
So, taking up the thread of the click through contract again, any clause in such a contract meets the first of two necessary tests for unconscionability, that of being a contract of adhesion. The question of its enforceability will depend on whether it meets other conditions in respect of its substance. The starting point for this is Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co. Its also part of the Uniform Commercial Code. It might be that the condition meets the criterion because it is simply unreasonable. It is not realistically possible for any business now to take the risk that would be involved in not using firewalls and anti viruses, so any EULA which forbids one to do that cannot be enforceable.
The effect of this would be, if it is correct, that you would have bought the software, not licensed it. You would have validly entered into a contract, by click through. But that contract would contain one clause which was not enforceable, so if the supplier tried to sue you for breach of contract, they would fail. However, the rest of the contract would still be in force.
The situation is very similar to the OSX issue. The difference is whether the very different clause is enforceable in the OSX case. Or in the case where MS proceeds against you because, contrary to the UELA, you are running your copy of Office under Wine. Or perhaps you are supplying PCs with Office preconfigured with Office running under Wine. You'd still have entered into a contract by clicking through. The question would be whether there is some reason why this particular clause is not enforceable. As an example, in the EU, it probably would not be, but for very different reasons to do with consumer protection legislation and post sale restraints on use. As another example, in some jurisdictions the iTunes DRM, whereby tunes were locked to a particular player, was in conflict with consumer protection legislation. You can be sure that a EULA which bound you to not trying to play your iTune on a non-Apple player would not have been enforceable. Its a very different reason for unenforceability, but it illustrates the principle.
This language sounds good to me. (Score:3, Interesting)
2. Because of how P2P works, it is unavoidable that you get direct IP addresses of other video watchers.
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? Would you rather grant every person/agency on the internet full permission to abuse their video customers instead?
Really, not every bit of legalese is a big attack on the average user.
Re:They need these permissions (Score:3, Interesting)
The consent is implied when the other person accesses your computer
Yes, but they didn't know they were accessing your computer. They thought they were accessing CNN. If they complain, they're going to complain to CNN, not you. The program they ran was branded "CNN" not "John Doe's PC".
This is defensive ass-covering from a big, deep-pocketed company which would be an attractive target for legal trolls. Nobody is going to be bothered to start a $20-million class action suit against your webcam.
Re:good luck with that (Score:1, Interesting)
Not so Fast.
Person A Accepts EULA for WOW.
Person B Invents bot to automate WOW without ever accepting EULA.
Person A Uses Bot.
Person B found guilty of millions of EULA violations.