Re: [dvd-discuss] Shrinkwrap Licenses....extending them

[Joshua Stratton <cpt(at)gryphon.auspice.net>]

IIRC, even ProCD said that there has to be a reasonable opportunity to 
reject the terms and return the widget, and it's the leading case you 
sound like you're against.

Given that the ALI didn't like UCITA, maybe an effort to amend 2-204 and 
2-207 of the UCC (the relevant bits, IIRC) to make these things harder to 
do could work, but it would still require states to adopt the changes.

And in some cases, they're okay; I don't have serious problems with a EULA 
site license, because it regards copying which isn't allowed per a 17 USC 
117 sale. A typical consumer EULA use license that tries to avoid 17 USC 
117, 109, 107, etc. OTOH is something I'd be against.

And of course your terms here sound a bit unconscionable. (don't ask me 
why EULA terms often aren't)

Personally I prefer a theory of section 109, 117, etc. preempting 
contracts that try to do little more than conceal a sale. But I don't have 
high hopes for it realistically.

On Thu, 1 May 2003 microlenz@earthlink.net wrote:

> Something I've been pondering as I slowly reconstitute my home computing
> after problems, upgrades, and the like (the old machine is going to
> LINUX with a boot manager...the data acq. board doesn't have a linux
> driver)...The whole idea of a shrinkwrap license is that I can dump it
> on your doorstep using the mail, UPS or through the market place or
> Internet and when you open it, click on it or whatever a CONTRACT
> suddenly appears where none existed before. A contract without
> negociation or a meeting of the minds and in the case of the small print
> ones prolifferating one with questionable legality.
> 
> So...what other kinds of questionallby legal contracts can form from this 
> perverted notion...
> 
> Supppose I send a check to the Republican party in a box with a shrinkwrap 
> contract saying "you agree that if you cash this check the Republican party 
> platform will hence forth never mention the XXX issue and if you ever do you 
> will pay damages of $1000M to me!"....
> 
> What about donations to politicians?
> 
> Or  Charities...
> 
> 
> Any other ideas?
> 
> Realize this is a reductio ad absurdum sort of approach
>