As far as I know EULAs have never been tested in court and there is considerable support for the opinion that they would not hold up in any case. It is a very grey area. For the most part EULAs are only written for software and were originated for the purpose of attempting to avoid liability for the software.
Again, I'm going to have to ask if you have any documentation to back this up- are there any legal precidents for them? I'm not convinced that they are illegeal, or invalid, but even if they are grey, you have to admit, from a Software companies point of view, its really better than nothing. If you've got a huge investment in software you're going to do what you can to protect it. Regardless of their original purpose, they are now also used to impose certain restrictions to protect their rights.
I hope you would not buy a car with a license agreement as it would mean that you do not own the car but rather own the privilege of driving the car which could be revoked at the true owners whim. In a sense you have this with the Dept. of Motor Vehicles but it attaches to the license plate which is then physically attached to the car.
Fair point, that wasnt a great analogy (perhaps renting a car would be better- those have terms of service, Im pretty sure). Or think of it as, you can do whatever you want with a piece of hardware you purchase, but the warranty also has terms of service which you must abide with for a warranty to be valid.
My real point was, companies dont impose restrictions without there being a reason for doing it. They dont generally like annoying customers; its just plain illogial. So if you apply Occam's Razor and say, are they protecting their rights or pissing off customers for the sake of it... you tell me.
As time has gone by software producers have started to put more and more things into their license and to reduce the things you are allowed to do with it. Almost all software comes with a license agreement of some sort. The main difference is what you are permitted to do with that software.
Yes, yes they have. Any why are they doing that? Is it because they like restricting people and annoying them, or because of people pirating software and making viruses to target their programs? You tell me.
It is kind of a shame that the only time you can own a piece of software is if you wrote it yourself or paid someone to write it for you and made such provision in the contract. The rest of the time you own, at best, the media that the software came on and a license to use the software on the media.
Thats the basic idea of copyright. If you 'own' a piece of software, that means you have the right to do whatever you want with it. If I want to sell you a bit of software, but you have the right to sell it to anyone else, then suddenly, I cant sell it to bob, either because he can get it cheaper or for free off you. So basically (whether you realise it or not) you want the abolishment of all sale of software. Yeah, its a shame, but thats life. Thats how it works. Theres no way to make everyone own everything they ever wanted. Its a shame that life isnt fair, but its something we have to deal with.
Its in fact, the same with any media as well: You dont 'own' a picture, you buy the right to look at it. (Technically speaking: you own the paper it's printed on, but you dont own that image and you dont own the right to make copies of it, to sell copies of it, to change it etc. Just like you dont own the right to copy software, to sell copies, to change it). If you have some revolutionary new way the entire world can function without copyright I'd like to hear it. Seriously.
