Sorry but that doesn't make sense. When you buy from a supplier, you are already bound by a number of contractual stipulations, (almost) nobody reads those, either. They're still enforceable, there are mountains of jurisprudence on that. Should contracts be void because one of the parties can't be bothered to check the content of the agreement? Or should suppliers force users to read the contract to be enforceable? Some software makes you scroll down before you can click 'agree'; is this not enough? Should it show you the dialog for a certain amount of time? Or maybe software shouldn't be sold online, you'd always have to go to a store, where a clerk forces you to read and then quizzes you on the content before selling you the software?
You say the contract is 'unethical'; I understand that position and in some cases agree, to an extent. But do you agree with me that even if it's unethical, the principle is still sound and that the contract should be both enforceable and enforced?
But do you agree with me that even if it's unethical, the principle is still sound and that the contract should be both enforceable and enforced?
That's total nonsense, at least in my country. Any abusive clause would be nulified, even if the rest of the contract is valid. You can't put in a contract anything. You can't give up rights that the law gives you no matter what. I.e. you can't sign to be a slave.
That's not what I said. Of course there are things that can't be contractually agreed. I hope you see the difference in moral weight that contracts to commit murder or be someone's slave have when compared to contracts that stipulate certain restrictions on the use of objects, restrictions that don't influence the normal, primary use case of the object.
Is there actual case law supporting the notion that I can be party to a contract on the basis of a bunch of legalese buried in a manual I'll never read, for a product I purchased through a third party?
I paid for a product, I own it. If Sony wants ridiculously extended protections that turn the arrangement into some kind of conditional rental, they'd damned well better force the Walmarts of the world to have us sign documents to that effect at the point of purchase. This implicit agreement stuff is nonsense.
Yes, there is. I can't easily present a list, especially not one that shows it for multiple jurisdictions, but EULA's have existed since the 1980's at least and the general concept is well-accepted, in many countries.
(there are discussions over implementation details: is a eula that is only shown after you install the software which is in shrinkwrapped box and that says that breaking the shrink wrap constitutes acceptance valid, for example. Those corner cases are beside the point, the thing is that the concept of a contract that regulates the use of software is broadly accepted, to the point that the actual simplest case isn't even litigated over since it's not a point of discussion.
There is no need to sign anything to make a contract. I don't know where that idea comes from, it's so misguided I don't even know where to begin. When you go to Starbucks and order a double frappuccino latte with extra whipped cream, and the girl behind the counter gives it to you, do you then say 'I'm not paying because we don't have a contract'? Of course not, there is a contract: they offer to sell coffee, you accept by ordering, the result is an obligation on their part to deliver coffee, and an obligation on your part to pay for it. No signature or paper or whatever needed.
So when you bought a physical copy of DOS 3.0 or Windows 3.1, you effective own DOS or Windows? My god man, you should assert your rights and claim your billions!
I see I'm being downvoted because HN is becoming more like reddit in terms of discussion and debate.
To make my point clearer: You can own a physical device, but the software (IP) on that device is not your property. Is anyone familiar with court cases that might set a precedent if the root key is considered a software feature or a hardware feature? My bet is Sony is claiming it to be a software feature, and thus, not part of the property you purchase when you buy a PS3.
You're being downvoted because your comment was snarky and seemed disingenuous. Nobody's saying that buying a copy of a piece of software grants you the copyright to that software (rather than ownership of that copy of the software), and a copyright is very obviously not analogous to a PC.
Is it? I buy a PC loaded with Windows. I own the hardware. I have a license to windows.
I buy a PS3. It is a computer loaded up with a OS to which I have a license. I can do what I want with the hardware, but the software isn't mine. An encryption key (in my mind) is a software component.
Upvote because I believe you raise a valid question.
The enforceability of the contract depends on many factors. I'm no lawyer, but from what I remember from my Computer Ethics course and from some quick wiki-research[1], most cases revolve around whether the user made reasonably aware that they are agreeing to the contract, and if there is a reasonable way of disagreeing with the contract and returning the product.
I can't remember if my PS3 prompted me with a EULA when it first booted up, but it probably did. And I think the ability to return the product for a refund is considered a reasonable way of disagreeing with the contract. So it may be legally sound and enforceable, and in that respect I agree.
But it's common knowledge that the pattern of presenting a EULA with a submit button is not enough to make users read the terms of the agreement. Sony is using this fact to their advantage, as do most companies with restrictive EULAs. I'm against restrictive EULAs on principle, but particularly in the case of a physical good like a PS3 restricting you from using it, learning from it, modifying it, etc.
These things are intentionally made unreadable though. I'd be surprised if even people that spend a lot of time reading and encountering legal terms could sit through one unless they were trying to do something unusual and what to cover themselves.
EULA is shown to user, only after purchase is made.
SONY or their authorized retailers should first ask user if he/she agrees to EULA and only then take his/her money. Once you taking money upfront - you agree to any use of your device.
You say the contract is 'unethical'; I understand that position and in some cases agree, to an extent. But do you agree with me that even if it's unethical, the principle is still sound and that the contract should be both enforceable and enforced?