I know, this has probably been beaten to death. But it hasn't since I've active in the last few months (or I didn't see it).

I never read a EULA. Not one. And I'm pretty sure that I could bet the farm on me not being the only one.

In a just world, they would be illegal. Oh, not EULA's in general, I mean EULA's that are more than, say, 250 words, would be illegal. Or more than 2-3 minutes of reading time for a reasonable reader (not a sped reder).

So, I wanted to get others thoughts on this. And see if any others out there are so bold as to admit out loud, in public

I DO NOT NOW, AND NEVER WILL, READ A EULA. Unless and until they make them reasonable.

Thoughts?

If they were printed then all I can say is I'd never be short on toilet paper. They're utterly worthless and the amount of attention you've paid to them so far is the correct amount.

An EULA you don't see before buying the game is almost always void under German law.*

* The exception of course is if you need a key to activate the full game and tried it before and saw the EULA there, or similar scenarios.

EULA's are fine if they're there just to protect a company but the problem is that far too often they're just a license to print money.

Indeed.

The EULAs are like a big chunk of our legal system: made to assert the authority of the rich over the poor and to give lawyers more importance than they deserve.

IMHO, EULAs that are not clearly understandable by a high school grad should be null and void, either that or provide legal consultation to everyone free of charge.

It's not surprising to me that a country in Europe would have more consumer friendly laws than here in the US. Here in the US, the corporations own and run the government (I still don't know how that isn't fascism, but many still insist it isn't). I lived there for over two years and learned and appreciated much about Europe.

I fear things are changing though, as the US model seems to be spreading to Europe instead of the much preferable reverse of that. Well, much preferable for 99% of the population. There are some that it wouldn't be much preferable for that to happen. They are called the 1% I believe, if I've been catching the news correctly.

I'm confused... that 1% (holds 50% of US wealth) is not something that just arose during Obama's term or anything like that. It's been there for a loooooong time. How is that not 'the US model'? Obama is getting blamed for going more European, but the 1% vastly predate that.

Well, I'm confused too, perhaps I wasn't clear enough in my post.

I think that the 1% thing IS the US model, and it's spreading to Europe and the rest of the world. And yes, it's been happening far longer than Obama has been in office. Probably ever since FDR. But ever since Reagan, it's been on superspeed.

As far as Obama getting blamed for going more European.... if only. That's a bunch of BS just like it's a bunch of BS that he's a "socialist" (my God anyone that thinks he's a socialist either doesn't have a clue about the definition of socialism or doesn't have a clue about Obama. Or both). Just like it's BS that his health care law, which was written by, and for, the insurance industry is somehow "socialized medicine." Like I said, if only.

So, I'm not sure what you're saying???

Then I misunderstood your post, my bad.

That's probably because I wasn't clear enough. I'm bad about that.

I don't read every EULA, though I do tend to give them a quick once-over when installing software from a company I'm not familiar with. But I have read a couple completely, just because I was curious as to what could possibly be in those things to make them so long. They're really not that hard to understand. They're just very detailed and cover every possible legal situation that might come up. It's a necessary evil, because if you don't cover every possible circumstance, someone will come along and take advantage of a loop hole.

I don't know where this definition originated, other than in a misunderstanding of the use of the word 'corporation' relative to fascist governments.

No, as someone quite familiar with this historical period, I assure you that Mussolini, Franco, and Hitler (if you want to include him in this group) were not taking their marching orders from business interests. It almost makes me giggle out loud even considering the thought.

EDIT: Here, this should completely dispel the notion for you once and for all: LINK. As you can see, the word 'corporatism' here does not refer to the rule of Coca-Cola.

No big deal of course, just wanted to make sure you know.

Perhaps you mean to speak of the concept of Plutocracy?

In any event, as a general rule, I would dare say that government is *ALWAYS* the domain of the privileged few, who are almost always wealthy and powerful (and if they aren't wealthy yet, it's because they haven't had the power of government long enough.)

The only thing that makes this more complicated is the existence of a large bureaucracy to give government the "look" of being middle-class. But they sometimes get their hands into the coffers, too. Did you happen to hear about that GSA story recently?
Ah, you solved the problem for me. That's probably what's going on. Somewhere along the line, someone threw out this kind of definition. Then people in turn went on to assume that it was being used in the same way that the fascists used it. Thus they linked the two definition when they shouldn't have.

Thanks for figuring it out!