Sony's rootkit: an update [LWN.net]

Sony's rootkit: an update

Posted Nov 15, 2005 20:55 UTC (Tue) by NAR (subscriber, #1313)
In reply to: Sony's rootkit: an update by pr1268
Parent article: Sony's rootkit: an update

Isn't a EULA some kind of legally binding contract? Does that mean that I have to (a) sign somewhere when I purchace into the contract (in many places, a signature is required of such legal documents), or (b) be informed of such a legally-binding agreement at time of purchase?

If you buy a ticket for the train/underground/bus/etc., you enter into a contract with the public transport company but I doubt you sign anything.

Bye,NAR

(Log in to post comments)

Sony's rootkit: an update

Posted Nov 16, 2005 1:39 UTC (Wed) by phgrenet (guest, #5979) [Link]

For the difference between a license and a contract, no better source than LWN: The GPL is a License, not a Contract

license vs contract

Posted Nov 18, 2005 0:20 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link]

>For the difference between a license and a contract,

An important difference to know, but not relevant here. We're not talking about a license; we're talking about a EULA - end user license agreement. Agreement is a synonym for contract. This is a contract in which the copyright owner gives you a copyright license in exchange for money and various promises from you.

Sony's rootkit: an update

Posted Nov 16, 2005 10:13 UTC (Wed) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

In the UK at least there is the concept of `implied contracts', which are what you enter into when e.g. you pull something off the store shelves, and what you are violating if you then walk out of the shop without paying for it; you'd also have one with the public transport company. Intent and mutual understanding are very important here: you probably don't enter into an implied contract with Sony allowing Sony to dump rootkits on your computer merely because you bought a CD that they happened to originally produce!

(Disclaimer: IANAL but I've typed up stuff for lawyers on this subject when critically short of money over a decade ago; info may be terribly inaccurate)

contracts without signing

Posted Nov 18, 2005 0:30 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link]

In the UK at least there is the concept of `implied contracts', which are what you enter into when e.g. you pull something off the store shelves,

That's not even an implied contract, at least in US terminology. It's an explicit contract. (Technically, it isn't formed when you take the item from the shelf, but when you check out, which is why the price is allowed to change in between). An implied contract would be one defined in law that the two parties didn't actively choose to enter.

There's simply nothing in law that says a signature or piece of paper is required for a contract to be legally binding. The vast majority of contracts don't have that.

There are some laws, called "statutes of frauds" that make contracts of certain kinds unenforceable if not on paper. For example real estate transactions usually require paper, and many loans do. Under the Uniform Commercial Code (which is the law most places in the US), a contract that has elements that will take longer than 3 years to complete must be in writing.