Slashdot Log In
Don't Like EULAs? Get Your Cat To Agree To Them
Posted by
timothy
on Wed Feb 18, 2009 02:43 PM
from the my-cat-toy-is-a-model-m dept.
from the my-cat-toy-is-a-model-m dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Anne Loucks built a device which, when her cat steps on it, can click the 'I Agree' button of a EULA. Who knows what the lawyers will make of this sort of madness. Can a cat make a legal agreement? Does it need to be of legal age? She lures the cat onto the device, and the cat steps on it of its own free will. Anyway, folks who hate EULAs now have another tool to make the lawyers freak out."
Related Stories
Submission: Dont like EULAs? Get your cat to agree to them. by Anonymous Coward
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Call me crazy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Call me crazy (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm pretty sure that, no matter what, you can't authorize anything other than another human adult to act on your behalf.
At the same time, if she's luring it there with bits of food or whatever, then that's (in my mind) her effectively agreeing to it. Now, if she set this thing up, and the cat just happened to walk on it at some point, I could maybe see that, but I don't know that a judge would see it that way.
Parent
Re:Call me crazy (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Call me crazy (Score:5, Funny)
FLAWLESS VICTORY
Parent
Re:Call me crazy (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Call me crazy (Score:5, Interesting)
I just asked my father, who is a lawyer, a few questions about it. Note that he is primarily what I like to refer to as a financial lawyer (bankruptcies, IRS/tax problems, certain real estate things, wills, and a few others), so this is outside of his normal repertoire. Here was his answers (paraphrased):
Q: Do you know what an EULA is?
A: No
Q: You know, those end user license agreements you have to accept when you buy or download certain software?
A: Oh ok yes what about them
Q: If you built a device that would allow a cat to accept an EULA, would you be legally bound by the EULA?
A: Well it depends on the intent. If you specifically built the device and coerced the cat your intent is obvious and you would probably be held to the agreement in court. If the cat was just dancing around on your computer and accepted it though you probably wouldn't be bound.
Q: What if you got a small child to accept the agreement, would they not be bound because of their age?
A: It depends on your jurisdiction and the law of that area, but here in Illinois it probably wouldn't be binding in court and would be tossed out.
Q: Do EULA's violate any sort of doctrine of first sale since they require you to agree to the license after you've bought the product and limit what you've gotten if you don't agree to it?
A: I'm not exactly sure, but its defiantly a good question. They could get around that pretty easily by making you agree to the EULA before you purchase the computer, but I'm not familiar with the law so its just an educated guess.
There you have it.
Parent
Re:Call me crazy (Score:5, Funny)
I lured the cat into hitting cancel, but he missed! What now!!?
-Dan
Parent
Re:Call me crazy (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Call me crazy (Score:5, Insightful)
Either that or you still actively caused the cat to click it, therefore you did it. Just like if you held a basketball over your mouse and dropped it to cause the click. The ball didn't agree to the EULA, invalidating it, you agreed to it and just clicked the mouse button in a convoluted way.
Just because you didn't click the link/button in the traditional, hand on mouse, one finger on the button does not mean you did not agree to the EULA.
Parent
Re:Call me crazy (Score:5, Insightful)
> Call me crazy, but since you built a device to allow your cat to agree to EULAs,
> wouldn't that mean you authorized the cat to act on your behalf - regardless of how
> inept a decision maker it may be?
Cats are property. Property cannot be "authorized", cannot "act", and cannot make decisions. The cat is merely a tool she uses to push the button.
"I didn't sign that contract. My pen did. Sue it."
Parent
Children (Score:5, Interesting)
Just have your underage kid click. They cant enter into a contract.
Of course if this happens too much, they will require you to produce a CC# and SSN for each EULA that gets sent back to the company. Or even force you get it at the store you bought the box from.
The alternative case (Score:5, Funny)
Seriously (Score:5, Funny)
So what if it's a cat? (Score:5, Interesting)
Can a cat make a legal agreement?
A cat is property, not an individual. Animal law has been quite unsuccessful in breaking out of that mold. So, no, a cat can't make a legal agreement anymore than your keyboard and mouse can.
However, the cat here is just a tool for you to accept the agreement. If you set up a device to automatically agree to a license without you fully reading it, you've still manifested an intent to accept the terms, whatever they may be. I don't think a court would have anymore problem with holding you to the contract than if you used machine to automatically stamp a signature on a stack of paper contracts. It wouldn't matter if it worked on a timer, on a RNG, or on the fickle movements of a cat so long as you set it up to happen with certainty that it would eventually happen (because you can't proceed with the installation without it happening).
Re:So what if it's a cat? (Score:5, Funny)
However, the cat here is just a tool for you to accept the agreement. If you set up a device to automatically agree to a license without you fully reading it, you've still manifested an intent to accept the terms
Yeah, well, what if you used Schrodinger's cat? Then you have both accepted and not accepted the terms.
Parent
Re:So what if it's a cat? (Score:5, Funny)
However, the cat here is just a tool for you to accept the agreement. If you set up a device to automatically agree to a license without you fully reading it, you've still manifested an intent to accept the terms
Yeah, well, what if you used Schrodinger's cat? Then you have both accepted and not accepted the terms.
The BSA would just sue you twice, using the "signed it" theory in one case and the "didn't sign it" theory in the other.
They're total quantum assholes!
Parent
Re:So what if it's a cat? (Score:5, Funny)
Your decision will collapse to 'accepted' once it has been observed in a court of law.
Parent
free will? (Score:5, Insightful)
"She lures the cat onto the device, and the cat steps on it of its own free will."
Doesn't really seem to be free will then, does it? I mean, is the term "free will" even allowed in the same sentence with "lures"?
Apologies in advance (Score:5, Funny)
That won't take you off the hook. By luring the beast onto the device and having it agree to the EULA, you're employing the it as your proxy or agent, your utensil or tool, your...um, what's the word...your cat's-paw.
Re:Apologies in advance (Score:5, Funny)
what you are referring to is power of catorney.
Parent
What if you bypassed the EULA (Score:5, Interesting)
What if someone bypassed the EULA entirely (e.g. hacking the installer so that "I Decline" still continues).
Since you've never agreed to the EULA in the first place, you're not disallowed from hacking it (consumer-unfriendly millennial laws not withstanding).
Cat? (Score:5, Funny)
This is not news! I have a mouse that has been accepting EULAs for years!
All EULAs are superceded by my posted SPLAs (Score:5, Interesting)
I have an SPLA posted on the front of my computer, very clearly labelled, and in big bold print.
It basically states that by allowing your software to be installed on this hardware, you (the software provider) agree to the following.
1) Your EULA is null and void.
2) Your software cannot make any changes unless I agree to them beforehand.
3) Your software cannot call home unless I authorize it, every time (this is enforced via firewall rules outside the box).
4) Your software cannot interfere with the operation of any other software on the hardware installed to. (prohibits viruses, malware, adware and automatic disabling software)
5) Any violation of the above terms can constitute a cyber attack against the hosting hardware, and treated as such, and dealt with using the strongest legal measures available at the time of attack.
Granted, my SPLA will hold up in court as well as their EULA, but it is posted, and yet their software installs - so they are as bound by my terms, as I am by their terms.
Sure, *this* will be the final straw (Score:5, Funny)
Do they have your signature, do they have a spoken contract, do they even have any communication of acceptance? No, but they don't seem think a judge will require any evidence of agreement before holding you to page after page of "boilerplate" mixed with "gotcha" legalese.
Did they already take your money and give you your product before even showing you a EULA? Yes, but they don't seem think a judge will care about "first sale" doctrine when deciding how valid that EULA is.
Does the EULA offer you any new rights beyond what copyright already allows you to do? Does it offer anything of value in exchange for what they claim you're voluntarily giving away? Usually no, but they don't think judges will bother worrying about "consideration" anyway.
Are they trying to disable the advertised features of their product until and unless you agree to additional terms made after the sale? Yes, but they seem confident that a judge won't invalidate terms agreed to under duress.
And up until now, legal challenges looked like they could go either way. But what if we used a cat? That's foolproof! Surely if a cat clicked the button, no judge would possibly enforce that EULA! That's been clear since Plessy v. Whiskers! Case dismissed!
Better solution (Score:5, Funny)
Get a bottle of tequila. Drink at least a quarter of the bottle. Take pictures or a BAC test or get witnesses or something so you can later prove you were hammered. Click "I agree." You can't be bound by a contract you sign while inebriated, so you didn't really agree. Much cheaper than cats in the long run; no need to worry about feeding and cleaning litter boxes and cuddling and such. Plus getting drunk is fun!
Needs a "sarcasm" tag? (Score:5, Insightful)
I am amazed by all the posts complaining that this is "retarded". Guess what, folks... she may not be completely serious.
The same woman also claims that, if you watch the three best Star Wars movies in order, they make a story arc different from what George Lucas had in mind overall.
http://www.ohesso.com/essays/essay004.htm [ohesso.com]
She also devotes a whole essay to explaining how her friends like to drink beer out of a prosthetic leg.
Next up: Slashdot analyzes the wisdom of Steven Wright to decide which of his suggestions are best not tried out in real life.
P.S. Her funniest essay is "I Like Babies". It's not what you expect... or, if it is, you are very strange.
http://www.ohesso.com/essays/essay002.htm [ohesso.com]
steveha
Re:Retarded (Score:5, Funny)
I CAN HAS LAWSUIT?
Parent
Re:Retarded (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Retarded (Score:5, Funny)
Only slightly better legal advice than "Don't like your girlfriend? Tie the knife to a dachshund and call it an animal attack."
Parent
Re:Retarded (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, actually- it points out the absurdity of a contract without a signature.
Parent
Re:Retarded (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Retarded (Score:5, Insightful)
A contract doesn't need a signature, dumbass. It's just a convenient way to prove you agreed to the terms. An EULA does exactly the same thing.
Correct, it doesn't need a signature. However, some proof of a 'meeting of the minds' is required. A click-wrap agreement doesn't necessarily provide this.
Parent
Re:Retarded (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, you and your cousin Vinny are an example I was going to make here.
If I "encourage" you two to shoot someone, regardless if I'm there or not, does that free me from any criminal responsibility? Nope. I'd be willing to bet that I'd be sitting in jail waiting for my conviction (bah, who needs a trial) on 1st degree murder.
Instead of using you and Vinny, what if I rigged up a shotgun (with a hair trigger, of course), through a pulley, to the cat's collar? At the time an intended victim was in front of the shotgun, I call the cat, and it shoots. I don't think there's a jury in the world that would go for the "Oh no, the cat did it." defense.
I know there's been at least one conviction where a guy set up an "anti-intruder" system at his house. He tied a string to the doorknob, which lead to a shotgun mounted in the hallway. Someone broke in, and was shot (surprise). Through his action or inaction, he caused the final result.
A shrinkwrap/clickthrough agreement is a joke at best. I would be more concerned about being hit by you or Vinny (since I haven't pissed off that many people, I doubt I'm a target yet), than I would be about even hear a word from a lawyer about some shrinkwrap agreement. But you never know, the economy is starting to really suck. Maybe big businesses will start trying to cash in on their shrinkwrap licenses.
Parent
But what if someone else did it for you? (Score:5, Insightful)
Your point is very clear - but I could leave my laptop to a shop, a handy cousin or anyone really and they could install and agree to things without my consent.
Not so clear now, I think.
Yes, I should not lend my computer. I should, I should. But when my TV breaks I bring it somewhere to fix. Same with the computer.
Really, it's not that clear-cat.
Parent
Re:Retarded (Score:5, Interesting)
"Encouraging" someone to murder is called conspiracy to murder and it's a different crime from murder.
The other example you give is called manslaughter.
Yes, these are all crimes, but they're all different crimes and are all tried differently!
Click-throughs have little or no legal basis, let alone the ability to hold a conspirator to clicking "OK" accountable.
In the UK, you absolutely cannot enter a contract without it being a fair contract. A fair contract is where both parties have equal opportunity to amend the contract and both have to agree the final terms before jointly signing it. If it's one-sided, "take it or leave it", then it is simply not a contract and has no legal strength.
Parent
Re:Retarded (Score:5, Insightful)
If my kid installs it, the kid isn't of legal age to agree to any contract - what does $MEGACORP do in the face of that?
EULAs themselves are rather brittle and fragile anyway, even legally. I suspect that once challenged head-on in court (notice that no corporation is really willing to do that), it'll come apart like a house of tissue paper in hurricane-force winds.
Parent
Re:Retarded (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Retarded (Score:5, Insightful)
Here you go:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=EULA+upheld+in+court [lmgtfy.com]
Parent
Re:Retarded (Score:5, Insightful)
It's absolutely idiotic to say "if you don't like the terms, return the software" but then make the manner of knowing what the terms are preclude returning the software.
That is what shouldn't be legal. All EULAs should be provided in outside-the-shrinkwrap envelopes for immediate, pre-purchase perusal.
Parent
You Are Not A Lawyer (Score:5, Interesting)
This is just begging to be discussed by the article series featured on Slashdot last week, "You Are Not A Lawyer", which had the stated purpose to "try to disabuse computer scientists and other technically minded people of some commonly held misconceptions about the law (and the legal system).":
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/02/10/1749208&from=rss [slashdot.org]
At the time, the comments were filled with snark about how it is an unfair stereotype that geeks don't understand the law and try to "hack" the law with overly cute tricks. This article is the stereotype.
Parent
Re:Retarded (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Retarded (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Retarded (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Retarded (Score:5, Interesting)
You can always get drunk...most contracts aren't enforceable if one party is incapacitated.
If you voluntarily incapacitate yourself by getting drunk, you're responsible for any and all contracts you enter into while impaired. See Lucy v. Zehmer, the "heh, sure, I'll sell you my house for $100. I'll even sign a contract. I know you don't have a hundred dollars on you- oh, crap" case.
Parent
Re:Retarded (Score:5, Interesting)
If you voluntarily incapacitate yourself by getting drunk, you're responsible for any and all contracts you enter into while impaired. See Lucy v. Zehmer, the "heh, sure, I'll sell you my house for $100. I'll even sign a contract. I know you don't have a hundred dollars on you- oh, crap" case.
Intoxication was not a significant factor in Lucy v Zehmer. The court did not believe he was actually drunk at the time. The real issue was whether he was actually joking about the intent to sell. They found that he was not joking, and even if he were, his manifest intention was serious and thus his hidden inner motive was irrelevant.
Parent
Re:Retarded (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Nahh, you must embrace them ! (Score:5, Interesting)
I put a text file at the root directory, reading more or less :
"By actually completing the install process on this computer, you accept to deliver a bug-free software, that will not nag me every 5 minutes with internet connection requests, not hog the cpu and memory and actually provide me with all the benefits you promised in your marketing brochure. This Eula allows you to install ONE (1) copy of your software and supercedes all preceding agreements that might exist between us. Ignorance of the existence of this Eula cannot be used as an argument not to deliver your promised benefits. If you do not accept those conditions, your software must fail to install. Otherwise, you recognize that you accept all those conditions and must perform as promised"
Now I'm covered... 8)
Parent
Re:Retarded (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd argue that since you were the one that "coaxed" the cat onto the device, for the sole purpose have having an "I Agree" button pressed, that your will was done through the cat. I'm not sure why this is any different than pressing the button on a mouse. You're still deciding the outcome. You decided to either coax the cat onto the device... or not. It most likely was not the cat's idea to go through this exercise.
Parent
Re:Retarded (Score:5, Interesting)
It's stupidity at it's height. Not agreeing to the EULA doesn't put you in a stronger position. Without agreeing to it, you have no right to copy the software, and they'll just sue your ass for copyright infringement.
Wrong.
The law was changed/amended a while back to allow "incidental" copies to be made that would occur in normal use without needing any extra permission from the copyright holder, other than legitimate purchase. This was mentioned in a post above.
The company in question could attempt to sue for breach of contract or similar civil tort, but not under copyright law under the notion that not agreeing to the EULA makes any copy of data into RAM etc a copyright violation.
Of course, that may have changed as I'm not sure anyone has yet determined what all was slipped into the stimulus package at the last minute. Seeing as how the Democrats are famously in the bag for Hollywood & the RIAA/MPAA, it wouldn't surprise me if they added some kind of last-minute paybacks to these folks. As I understand, the text of the stimulus package was initially placed online in a searchable format and then, realizing their mistake, was quickly format-shifted to a non-searchable text. (.pdf? Not sure.)
Strat
Parent
Re:Rules lawyer (Score:5, Insightful)
The EULA itself is already a case of rules-lawyering. It's trying to avoid those irritating steps normally necessary to forming a contract, in particular both (actual) agreement and consideration, by holding the use of purchased software hostage until you indicate "agreement". Either the act of clicking "agree" means nothing, or various ways to use the software without clicking "agree" really do mean you aren't bound by the EULA.
I hold to the principle that the EULA is meaningless, and clicking on "Agree" signifies agreement to the EULA like clicking on "Yes" to the quit box in Wolfenstein 3D signifies you agree that you are a wimp. But if the courts want to pretend that clicking "Agree" actually is agreement, they can hardly complain about rules-lawyering if someone avoids clicking "Agree".
Parent