0501: "Faust 2.0"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
diwant
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 7:23 am UTC

Re: "Faust 2.0" Discussion

Postby diwant » Fri Nov 07, 2008 7:25 am UTC

Totally ripped from bash.org, but funny nonetheless.
#577451 +(7682)- [X]

<DmncAtrny> I will write on a huge cement block "BY ACCEPTING THIS BRICK THROUGH YOUR WINDOW, YOU ACCEPT IT AS IS AND AGREE TO MY DISCLAIMER OF ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, AS WELL AS DISCLAIMERS OF ALL LIABILITY, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL OR INCIDENTAL, THAT MAY ARISE FROM THE INSTALLATION OF THIS BRICK INTO YOUR BUILDING."
<DmncAtrny> And then hurl it through the window of a Sony officer
<DmncAtrny> and run like hell

http://bash.org/?577451

User avatar
Number3Pencils
The Torment of Existence Weighed against the Horror of Nonbeing
Posts: 516
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 6:27 am UTC
Location: Beyond reason, then take a left
Contact:

Re: "Faust 2.0" Discussion

Postby Number3Pencils » Fri Nov 07, 2008 7:44 am UTC

This is weird, because I just read Doctor Faustus for the very first time yesterday, and wrote about it for a class today. This, hot on the heels of the comic about #3 pencils. I'm finally getting a case of the "Randall, out of my head!" syndrome.
Image
Spoiler:
Image

darktalon
Posts: 38
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2007 7:40 pm UTC
Location: Manchester
Contact:

Re: "Faust 2.0" Discussion

Postby darktalon » Fri Nov 07, 2008 8:05 am UTC

I can't remember where I read this take on the EULA, but it was funny:

There's no way you've read this far. The next clause mentions llamas. The one after that says you'll sell us your granny. There's one at the end calling you a prat.


Edit:
diwant wrote:Totally ripped from bash.org, but funny nonetheless.
#577451 +(7682)- [X]

<DmncAtrny> I will write on a huge cement block "BY ACCEPTING THIS BRICK THROUGH YOUR WINDOW, YOU ACCEPT IT AS IS AND AGREE TO MY DISCLAIMER OF ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, AS WELL AS DISCLAIMERS OF ALL LIABILITY, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL OR INCIDENTAL, THAT MAY ARISE FROM THE INSTALLATION OF THIS BRICK INTO YOUR BUILDING."
<DmncAtrny> And then hurl it through the window of a Sony officer
<DmncAtrny> and run like hell

http://bash.org/?577451

Bash.org is back! Yay! :D

User avatar
phillipsjk
Posts: 1213
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 4:09 pm UTC
Location: Edmonton AB Canada
Contact:

Re: "Faust 2.0" Discussion

Postby phillipsjk » Fri Nov 07, 2008 8:21 am UTC

The comic beautifully illustrates how silly EULA's are.
`nuff said.

Going off on a tangent, the Microsoft EULA's are what pushed me to GNU/Linux. Over the years they have been getting longer and longer. I don't seriously think they are credible, but I don't want to take that chance. I am always in a dilemma when helping a friend with their computer. I can't force them to read the stupid thing. If I get them to sign something to that effect, I may accidentally give the EULA more force in a court of law than it deserves.

Edit: It's GNU/Linux, not just "Linux."
Last edited by phillipsjk on Wed Dec 09, 2009 7:12 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Did you get the number on that truck?

User avatar
nachtkriecher
Posts: 17
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 5:23 am UTC
Contact:

Re: "Faust 2.0" Discussion

Postby nachtkriecher » Fri Nov 07, 2008 8:21 am UTC

i have a cousin who used to read them. we used to make fun of her.
Image

Carnildo
Posts: 2023
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 8:43 am UTC

Re: "Faust 2.0" Discussion

Postby Carnildo » Fri Nov 07, 2008 8:47 am UTC

phillipsjk wrote:Going off on a tangent, the Microsoft EULA's are what pushed me to Linux. Over the years they have been getting longer and longer. I don't seriously think they are credible, but I don't want to take that chance.


Agreed. Should I ever need to install Vista on a computer I own, it's going to be a pirated copy, simply because there are some clauses in the EULA I refuse to agree to.

User avatar
Darkscull
Posts: 798
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 10:46 am UTC
Location: Now where I want to be

Re: "Faust 2.0" Discussion

Postby Darkscull » Fri Nov 07, 2008 8:57 am UTC

BlueNight wrote:This reminds me of a story which Isaac Asimov wrote. It was a locked room mystery in the form of a Faustian bargain. The human won.


how to escape from a four dimensional room, I believe it was called :D

To be fair, the human won because the demon let something slip.
It could be argued that the demon let something slip because the human was trying to get him to do so, but I don't buy it, it was a stupid demon in the first place.

humans win, by default.
Physicists do it in an excited state.
m/bi/UK/Ⓐ/chaotic good
b. 1988 d. 20xx

thetimman
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 11:54 am UTC
Location: UK

Re: "Faust 2.0" Discussion

Postby thetimman » Fri Nov 07, 2008 9:24 am UTC

linguistic wrote:
Snowdream wrote:Hey I made the first post!

...Shouldn't I have posted 'First!' or is that a Faux pas on the XKCD forums?


Maybe it was a... "Faust Pas"? *Dr Evil pinky*

I'm... I'm so sorry. I can't control it.


Well, you might have got away with an enthusiastic

"Faust post!"...

I'm sorry too.... it was irresistible.

User avatar
ScepticalTeddy
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 9:21 am UTC
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: "Faust 2.0" Discussion

Postby ScepticalTeddy » Fri Nov 07, 2008 9:33 am UTC

Hi guys, been an xkcd reader for ages, however this comic just prompted me to join the bbs as it is something i have been looking into for a few years now and something i feel very strongly about. I wrote a letter into PGC Mag (UK) about a year ago now that got printed, regarding my concerns over the issues of the EULA that is part and parcel with pretty much all software these days. The fact is, when you buy software, and particularly these days since most shops now have a 'no refunds' policy due to bootlegging, by buying the software you have pretty much automatically aggreed to their terms of use before you have even read the contract. If you disagree - you're pretty much screwed - imagine taking the disk back you the shop and saying "Hi there - i would like a refund on this as i do not agree with the software licence". 99% of employees would just give you an odd look and say something along the lines of "sorry mate, store policy - no refunds, exchange only" - at which point your only choice is to swap said product for another piece of software bound to have an extremely similar, if not identical EULA.
This is a serious, gaping flaw in software legislation, that puts the user at the mercy of the sofware developer's executives and legal teams...

Im sure Cory Doctrow would have something to say about this....

Ted

User avatar
TheHand
Posts: 178
Joined: Mon May 05, 2008 8:03 am UTC

Re: "Faust 2.0" Discussion

Postby TheHand » Fri Nov 07, 2008 9:42 am UTC

Hooray for horns!

Such a scary beast he is!

User avatar
Cynical Idealist
Posts: 1124
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 10:48 pm UTC

Re: "Faust 2.0" Discussion

Postby Cynical Idealist » Fri Nov 07, 2008 9:42 am UTC

Snowdream wrote:This reminds me of the arguments on the WoW boards about their EULA... Oi, it wasn't THAT BAD, however; I always suggested that they highlight the added changes to the EULA. I just felt that it'd be easier for us, rather than skimming the whole damn document over and over again.

...Of course, that was assuming I actually read the thing :3

...I don't really care for EULA's. But aren't they a necessary evil?

I was engaged in an argument over WoW's EULA just...an hour ago, or so. The other person was arguing that it violated the first amendment (wtf?).


Then, I saw this comic, and got a long and hearty laugh.
The internet removes the two biggest aids in detecting sarcasm:
1)The tone of voice
2)the assumption that the other person is sane
Elvish Pillager wrote:See? All the problems in our society are caused by violent video games, like FarmVille.

TwilightNecrosis
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 6:18 am UTC

Re: "Faust 2.0" Discussion

Postby TwilightNecrosis » Fri Nov 07, 2008 10:09 am UTC

Oddly enough, I beat Neverwinter Nights: Hordes of the Underdark just the other day... creepy.
Mephistophiles is the final boss.

It was a pirated copy, of course. :D

Paranoid__Android
Posts: 507
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 6:54 pm UTC
Location: Nottingham during term time, UK

Re: "Faust 2.0" Discussion

Postby Paranoid__Android » Fri Nov 07, 2008 10:24 am UTC

I had to look up what 'faust' was as well as 'mephistopheles'
it tok me a couple of attempts to get the spelling right.

but more to the point, it just goes to show that you should read things before clicking yes.
The Great Hippo wrote:My dearest, most cherished friend, Paranoid__Android:
... truly, you are a champion among champions. ...
Sincerely and with great fondness,
~The Great Hippo


Everything is possible. The impossible just takes longer.

Baza210
Posts: 219
Joined: Sat May 17, 2008 9:29 pm UTC
Location: Ireland.

Re: "Faust 2.0" Discussion

Postby Baza210 » Fri Nov 07, 2008 11:29 am UTC

Stickman is definitely on a Hackbook.
Here I'm allowed everything all of the time

User avatar
libra
Posts: 151
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 8:50 am UTC
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: "Faust 2.0" Discussion

Postby libra » Fri Nov 07, 2008 12:47 pm UTC

BlueNight wrote:This reminds me of a story which Isaac Asimov wrote. It was a locked room mystery in the form of a Faustian bargain. The human won.

It is curious, but I was thinking of that exact same story only yesterday, along with this whole theme of Faustian deals per se.

Once more, Randall takes a sojourn through my brain. Well, perhaps only the left hand side of my brain this time, at any rate ...

AvalonXQ
Posts: 747
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2008 5:45 pm UTC

Re: "Faust 2.0" Discussion

Postby AvalonXQ » Fri Nov 07, 2008 1:23 pm UTC

I think EULA's should be as enforceable as any other contract made with similar terms, AND that an effort should be made to visibly and generally enforce them. The main reason is because I believe that the easiest way to stop ridiculous EULAs is market power. If enough people won't buy your product because if unfair terms, eventually you may rethink those terms.
I've done my part on this exactly once. I was offered a position as an Adept on Magic Online, but their NDA included a forum choice clause and other terms that would have forced me to fight them in Seattle under very unfair terms should a fight occur. I declined the position on the grounds that I couldn't agree to that clause.
As for the reverse engineering clauses, I don't see why those wouldn't be enforceable. Somebody argued "Fair Use", but the WHOLE POINT of the EULA is to secure rights that you DON'T get under copyright. I see no reason why an agreement not to reverse engineer technology can't be enforced, and I know that in other circumstances it has been.

User avatar
radtea
Posts: 137
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 8:57 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: "Faust 2.0" Discussion

Postby radtea » Fri Nov 07, 2008 1:46 pm UTC

A EULA is not a contract. It is a license. If it was a contract it would be called a EUCA.

The whole "by doing X you are agreeing to Y" formulation is legally suspect. To have a contract you have to have a consideration (money has to change hands) and so given money HAS changed hands, if there was a contract you would have entered into it at that point. EULAs are attempt to change the terms of the exchange you've made after the fact, and whatever else they are they are certainly, in my non-lawyer's view, NOT contracts.

By reading this post you are agreeing I am right.
Coming on Midsummer's Day to a Web Browser Near You: http://www.songsofalbion.com

User avatar
Robert'); DROP TABLE *;
Posts: 728
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2008 6:46 pm UTC
Location: in ur fieldz

Re: "Faust 2.0" Discussion

Postby Robert'); DROP TABLE *; » Fri Nov 07, 2008 1:54 pm UTC

Noone mentioned the EULAlyzer yet?

jakerman999
Posts: 55
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 2:14 am UTC

Re: "Faust 2.0" Discussion

Postby jakerman999 » Fri Nov 07, 2008 2:01 pm UTC

you're all arguing about the aspect of the EULA, but why aren't you focusing on the fact that he has a sign sticking out of his floor? obviously he is in a room(it states that on the sign) but the sign is clearly jammed into floor as if it was dirt! what is going on here??!??
If all the worlds my stage let's go to intermission

chainofcommand02
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2008 9:51 pm UTC
Location: Tennessee, USA

Re: "Faust 2.0" Discussion

Postby chainofcommand02 » Fri Nov 07, 2008 2:18 pm UTC

Robert'); DROP TABLE *; wrote:Noone mentioned the EULAlyzer yet?



Hear hear! I was going to mention that if noone else did. Thank you sir/madam.

DSDM
Posts: 112
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 5:14 am UTC

Re: "Faust 2.0" Discussion

Postby DSDM » Fri Nov 07, 2008 2:32 pm UTC

Who actually reads EULAs? I don't. For all I know any number of software companies now have claim to my power of attorney, first-born child, and my shadow.

Random832
Posts: 2525
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 4:38 pm UTC

Re: "Faust 2.0" Discussion

Postby Random832 » Fri Nov 07, 2008 2:41 pm UTC

JonMW wrote:This was back when I hung around the forums for Supreme Commander before it was released. There was a lot of discussion, updates on general game direction, drooling over screenshots, unit suggestions and the like.
I eventually went back and read the EULA - it was relatively short. I then noticed that there was a clause that stated that any idea you put on the forums becomes the property of GPG, for them to use however they like.
Yikes. I went back and deleted my unit suggestion post.


That's standard - they don't want to get sued if someone else thinks of (and posts) an idea they were already working on anyway.

Why were you posting suggestions to their forum if you didn't want them to use them?

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 25540
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: "Faust 2.0" Discussion

Postby SecondTalon » Fri Nov 07, 2008 2:57 pm UTC

Snowdream wrote:Hey I made the first post!

...Shouldn't I have posted 'First!' or is that a Faux pas on the XKCD forums?

To quote Office Space

Lawrence wrote:"No. No, man. Shit, no, man. I believe you'd get your ass kicked sayin' something like that, man.
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

User avatar
Jack.H
Posts: 81
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2008 5:56 pm UTC
Location: Florida
Contact:

Re: "Faust 2.0" Discussion

Postby Jack.H » Fri Nov 07, 2008 3:24 pm UTC

I find it amusing this comes a few days after the "Democracy's Faustian Bargain" copypasta guy in SB...
We smile disdainfully at those old words fatherland and religion.

User avatar
Bulvox
Posts: 678
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 8:37 pm UTC
Location: Not Bunny
Contact:

Re: "Faust 2.0" Discussion

Postby Bulvox » Fri Nov 07, 2008 3:43 pm UTC

Honestly, I usually just click I accept because of tl;dr.
Image
See Ya Space Cowboy...

Verian
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:21 am UTC
Location: Sweden

Re: "Faust 2.0" Discussion

Postby Verian » Fri Nov 07, 2008 4:23 pm UTC

Haha, love it. Must admit I didn't recognize the name Faust, though. As for EULAs: I don't actually read them either. TL;DR indeed.

von Eisenstein
Posts: 40
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2008 8:37 pm UTC
Location: A desk.

Re: "Faust 2.0" Discussion

Postby von Eisenstein » Fri Nov 07, 2008 4:51 pm UTC

jakerman999 wrote:you're all arguing about the aspect of the EULA, but why aren't you focusing on the fact that he has a sign sticking out of his floor? obviously he is in a room(it states that on the sign) but the sign is clearly jammed into floor as if it was dirt! what is going on here??!??


What if he filled his room with 4 inches of dirt?
What if his room has a dirt floor?
What if he stuck the sign in a pot of dirt that he embedded seamlessly into his floor?
What if the sign is a genetically bioengineered life form that grew out of the dirt? (Hm, isn't "genetically bioengineered" redundant? Oh well.)

The possibilities are endless, and do not detract from the comic in any way, shape, or form. =D

Drake
Posts: 62
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 3:53 am UTC

Re: "Faust 2.0" Discussion

Postby Drake » Fri Nov 07, 2008 4:54 pm UTC

I just got a brand new laptop. Turned on the power and was presented with the Vista EULA AND Dell EULA at the same time (you can only use this computer by agreeing to...)! Turned off the power, installed intrepid. So now I am using the computer with out agreeing to any EULA whatsoever. Go Linux! Eat it Dell!

halcyon1234
Posts: 48
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 6:04 am UTC

Re: "Faust 2.0" Discussion

Postby halcyon1234 » Fri Nov 07, 2008 5:55 pm UTC

BlueNight wrote:This reminds me of a story which Isaac Asimov wrote. It was a locked room mystery in the form of a Faustian bargain. The human won.


Or the Larry Niven short story, "Limits", where...

Spoiler:
A guy summons a demon and gets a wish. The catch is that he only has it for 24 hours, and the demon tricks him so that time is frozen for those 24 hours (so he can't really enjoy it). After the 24 hours, the demon will reappear in the pentagram and take his soul. If the pentagram is moved, he'll appear there, and if its erased, the demon will be free to move at will.

So the guy erases the pentagram, and draws it on the demon's chest instead. After time restarts, the demon shrinks to fit the new pentagram, which shrinks the pentagram, which shrinks the demon-- and so forth. He'll never reach the point of being infinitely small, but he'll spend an infinite amount of time approaching the limit...
Writing for The Daily WTF
A More Permanent Join
Bessy Keeps You Safe
Passed Around

"I think Internet message boards used to be a lot funnier 10 years ago -- I've sort of stopped reading their new posts." -- Simpsons writer Matt Warburton

User avatar
Faust
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2008 12:38 am UTC

Re: "Faust 2.0" Discussion

Postby Faust » Fri Nov 07, 2008 8:07 pm UTC

thetimman wrote:
linguistic wrote:Maybe it was a... "Faust Pas"? *Dr Evil pinky*

I'm... I'm so sorry. I can't control it.


Well, you might have got away with an enthusiastic

"Faust post!"...

I'm sorry too.... it was irresistible.

:roll:
Last edited by Faust on Mon Nov 24, 2008 1:06 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5636
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: "Faust 2.0" Discussion

Postby Diadem » Fri Nov 07, 2008 8:19 pm UTC

This strip immidiately reminded me of these lines from Good Omens (by Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman):

Crowley [a demon] had been extremely impressed with the warranties offered by the computer industry, and had in fact sent a bundle Below to the department that drew up the Immortal Soul agreements, with a yellow memo form attached just saying: "Learn, guys."
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

Ezbez
Posts: 58
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 10:25 am UTC

Re: "Faust 2.0" Discussion

Postby Ezbez » Fri Nov 07, 2008 8:47 pm UTC

For anyone who has ever cut themselves on bad packaging, Amazon is now offering "Frustration Free (tm)" packaging for certain items. I love the idea, and hope that it catches on.

Greguardo
Posts: 13
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 9:40 pm UTC

Re: "Faust 2.0" Discussion

Postby Greguardo » Fri Nov 07, 2008 9:11 pm UTC

By reading this post you agree to give me all your money.

Bravo.
OH, UM, I'M SORRY, I WAS JUST...UM...I GUESS I CAN HANG OUT FOR A BIT.

tricky77puzzle
Will take "No Tresspassing Signs" for 500
Posts: 488
Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2008 11:02 pm UTC

Re: "Faust 2.0" Discussion

Postby tricky77puzzle » Fri Nov 07, 2008 10:51 pm UTC

This is... funnier than the Google one.

RanCorp
Posts: 65
Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 1:49 pm UTC

Re: "Faust 2.0" Discussion

Postby RanCorp » Sat Nov 08, 2008 2:07 am UTC

I can't believe no one has pointed out that "therein" should be "herein!"

Mephistopheles (or any reader of the sign) is already in the room when reading it.

RanCorp

User avatar
Eugo
Posts: 272
Joined: Sat May 31, 2008 5:38 am UTC
Location: here
Contact:

Re: "Faust 2.0" Discussion

Postby Eugo » Sat Nov 08, 2008 5:16 am UTC

Number3Pencils wrote:This is weird, because I just read Doctor Faustus for the very first time yesterday, and wrote about it for a class today. This, hot on the heels of the comic about #3 pencils. I'm finally getting a case of the "Randall, out of my head!" syndrome.

I think that's hereditary, or heritage, or whatever inheritance... my daughter just had one with #3 pencils one day in advance. Can't really remember who had the first one.

Drake wrote:I just got a brand new laptop. Turned on the power and was presented with the Vista EULA AND Dell EULA at the same time (you can only use this computer by agreeing to...)! Turned off the power, installed intrepid. So now I am using the computer with out agreeing to any EULA whatsoever. Go Linux! Eat it Dell!

Did that last year, with HP's. I've paid my taxes to the Vista, now the machine runs cool Ubuntu :mrgreen:
United we stand politically corrected, divided we fall in love

pjvandehaar
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: "Faust 2.0" Discussion

Postby pjvandehaar » Sat Nov 08, 2008 5:35 pm UTC

alt alt text: sorry, but you'll have to get it from the guys over at myspace... a few years ago I made a bet with Tom that he couldn't beat out drugs.

almightyze
Posts: 72
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2008 9:06 am UTC

Re: "Faust 2.0" Discussion

Postby almightyze » Sat Nov 08, 2008 10:03 pm UTC

jakerman999 wrote:you're all arguing about the aspect of the EULA, but why aren't you focusing on the fact that he has a sign sticking out of his floor? obviously he is in a room(it states that on the sign) but the sign is clearly jammed into floor as if it was dirt! what is going on here??!??


Actually, Randall's drawing "skills" come to his defence here: The shape of the post is oblong conical, wider at the base than the top. Placed upon that base, it surely can support its own weight, and perhaps that of a a paper/cardboard sign with a nail or piece of tape attached.

As per the whole "devil has a soul?" deal, I'm going there, and starting a debate: He does not. Angels never had souls, and fallen angels less so. So Mephisto has none.

And, really, Mephisto could have just been an asshole, and taken the sign and impaled the dick...and just as he's on the verge of death, pull off a "Life for yr soul" deal.
01010011 01110100 01101111 01110000 00100000
01110010 01100101 01100001 01100100 01101001
01101110 01100111 00100000 01100010 01101001
01101110 01100001 01110010 01111001 00101110

Allah o akbar! Azadi!

User avatar
Met
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 5:21 pm UTC
Location: Scotland
Contact:

Re: "Faust 2.0" Discussion

Postby Met » Sat Nov 08, 2008 11:58 pm UTC

VectorZero wrote:Pratchett did it first

and
diadem wrote:This strip immidiately reminded me of these lines from Good Omens (by Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman):
Crowley [a demon] had been extremely impressed with the warranties offered by the computer industry, and had in fact sent a bundle Below to the department that drew up the Immortal Soul agreements, with a yellow memo form attached just saying: "Learn, guys."

Dang it, beaten to the post twice! :twisted: :twisted:
Wish I could add something more interesting but I sold my intellect to a passing demon and got a pizza out of it. Good pizza mind.
Now to write a holophoner opera about the whole episode...
"Things that look like things often look more like things than things, well known fact!"

If at first you don't succeed, don't try skydiving.

AvalonXQ
Posts: 747
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2008 5:45 pm UTC

Re: "Faust 2.0" Discussion

Postby AvalonXQ » Sun Nov 09, 2008 5:03 am UTC

radtea wrote:A EULA is not a contract. It is a license. If it was a contract it would be called a EUCA.


No, a EULA is a contract, specifically a license agreement. If it were just a license, it would be called a EUL.

radtea wrote:The whole "by doing X you are agreeing to Y" formulation is legally suspect. To have a contract you have to have a consideration (money has to change hands) and so given money HAS changed hands, if there was a contract you would have entered into it at that point. EULAs are attempt to change the terms of the exchange you've made after the fact, and whatever else they are they are certainly, in my non-lawyer's view, NOT contracts.


And from a lawyer's point of view, you're totally wrong. Here's what Judge Easterbrook said on this same point twelve years ago:

ProCD v. Zeidenberg, Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, 1996 wrote: Transactions in which the exchange of money precedes the communication of detailed terms are common. Consider the purchase of insurance. The buyer goes to an agent, who explains the essentials (amount of coverage, number of years) and remits the premium to the home office, which sends back a policy. On the district judge's understanding, the terms of the policy are irrelevant because the insured paid before receiving them. Yet the device of payment, often with a "binder" (so that the insurance takes effect immediately even though the home office reserves the right to withdraw coverage later), in advance of the policy, serves buyers' interests by accelerating effectiveness and reducing transactions costs. Or consider the purchase of an airline ticket. The traveler calls the carrier or an agent, is quoted a price, reserves a seat, pays, and gets a ticket, in that order. The ticket contains elaborate terms, which the traveler can reject by canceling the reservation. To use the ticket is to accept the terms, even terms that in retrospect are disadvantageous. See Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute, 499 U.S. 585 (1991); see also Vimar Seguros y Reaseguros, S.A. v. M/V Sky Reefer, 115 S. Ct. 2322 (1995) (bills of lading). Just so with a ticket to a concert. The back of the ticket states that the patron promises not to record the concert; to attend is to agree. A theater that detects a violation will confiscate the tape and escort the violator to the exit. One could arrange things so that every concertgoer signs this promise before forking over the money, but that cumbersome way of doing things not only would lengthen queues and raise prices but also would scotch the sale of tickets by phone or electronic data service.

Consumer goods work the same way. Someone who wants to buy a radio set visits a store, pays, and walks out with a box. Inside the box is a leaflet containing some terms, the most important of which usually is the warranty, read for the first time in the comfort of home. By Zeidenberg's lights, the warranty in the box is irrelevant; every consumer gets the standard warranty implied by the UCC in the event the contract is silent; yet so far as we are aware no state disregards warranties furnished with consumer products. Drugs come with a list of ingredients on the outside and an elaborate package insert on the inside. The package insert describes drug interactions, contraindications, and other vital information--but, if Zeidenberg is right, the purchaser need not read the package insert, because it is not part of the contract. Next consider the software industry itself. Only a minority of sales take place over the counter, where there are boxes to peruse. A customer pay place an order by phone in response to a line item in a catalog or a review in a magazine. Much software is ordered over the Internet by purchasers who have never seen a box. Increasingly soft- ware arrives by wire. There is no box; there is only a stream of electrons, a collection of information that includes data, an application program, instructions, many limitations ("MegaPixel 3.14159 cannot be used with Byte- Pusher 2.718"), and the terms of sale. The user purchases a serial number, which activates the software's features. On Zeidenberg's arguments, these unboxed sales are unfettered by terms--so the seller has made a broad warranty and must pay consequential damages for any shortfalls in performance, two "promises" that if taken seriously would drive prices through the ceiling or return transactions to the horse-and-buggy age.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MistyCat, orion205 and 155 guests