This is my favorite EULA, and one I wish more people would use:

DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO PUBLIC LICENSE
Version 2, December 2004

Copyright (C) 2004 Sam Hocevar <sam@hocevar.net>

Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim or modified
copies of this license document, and changing it is allowed as long
as the name is changed.

DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO PUBLIC LICENSE
TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION

0. You just DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO.
***************
source: http://sam.zoy.org/wtfpl/COPYING

Simple, easy, and to the point. I think this is how normal people treat software anyways, the only ones that give a crap are the lawyers and corporations.

Corporations can put whatever they want on EULA or an employer contracts (i.e., the contracts that someone has to signs when he is hired by the company,) but not everything in those contracts is legally enforceable or stand up in court. Sometimes, the terms in the contracts are actually illegal.

California Supreme Courts have struck down employers contracts numerous times. I believe other states have struck down various EULA in recent years. Just because a corporation like EA or Activision put something in writings and make you sign it does NOT mean it is legal or will stand up in court.

So far, none of the employer contracts or EULA cases have gone all the way to the US Supreme Court, because when corporations were sued, they always settled in the end. They knew they would lose the case, and then the US Supreme Court would set the case as a legal precedence, and the case would be publicized. They do not want that, that is why they always settled when they knew they would lose -- which has been ALL of the cases. They want to use all those unreasonable and exploitative terms in EULA and employer contracts for intimidation to enforce compliance, which makes more financial sense for them. Once the US Supreme Court rules against them, they will no longer be able to intimidate. They do not want that, do they

Herein lies the problem, and it reinforces what many have said in this thread. Corporations have the money, so they can generally buy their way out of trouble one way or another (through lawyers and/or by lobbying for legislation). There is no doubt in my mind that much of EULA's are not legally enforceable, but they will have to grossly overstep their bounds while affecting many people at once for there to be a big enough push to make it the Supreme Court. Until such a class-action suit is filed, I don't think much, if anything, will change.

I propose the creation of LILYs, also known as "Less Idiotic Legal Yammering", in which we are given bullet points of the agreement, then followed by short paragraphs that expand upon them. Something like:

*EA is your sole savior and lord.
*Don't modify game content.
*Digital Distribution without EA permission isn't authorized.
*You must utilize our online Origin service.
*Upon buying this game through Origin, you may not buy another copy through other retailers.
*After six months renting this game, your license will expire and you will be required to purchase another. It is illegal in the United States of America* to not do so.

*This requirement is void in Alaska, Haiwaii, and Texas.

The thing is if you live in a more or less free, capitalist and democratic country you don't really need to read this long pieces of boring legalspeak. Chances are you won't be agreeing to anything that would endanger your Constitutionally guaranteed rights (which include customer rights) and that the capitalist issuing the EULA will try his best(ish) to ensure you are treated well(ish) since you are a customer.

In fact I'm sure this whole "by clicking next and/or using this piece of software you are agreeing to all this" won't actually hold much water in a court with a sensible Judge.

(And yeah there are cases of people getting owned by some EULA article violation and getting banned or otherwise prohibited from using a software they paid for, but they amount to like 0.00000001% of people who accept EULAs and they probably deserved the ban or whatever.)

I pretty much just assume every EULA boils down to "We reserve all possible rights and power and you get absolutely none." I also couldn't give a flying fuck what EULAs say, as I have no intention of holding myself to their content (and unless I paint a big-ass target on myself there is pretty much no possibility of any EULA violations landing me in court). If any terms are put up clearly, in plain English, prior to the sale taking place, then I'll consider those terms as part of the transaction and enter into the transaction with the intention of abiding by those terms (or passing on the transaction if I don't like the terms). If the terms are presented in a huge wall of legalese, presented as a tiny link to a separate, massive document, or presented after the sale, then I consider the whole thing as being done in bad faith and thus have no issue with ignoring the entire thing.

I think one site said you sold your soul to them or something for agreeing with their eula or something lol.

lol you made me google it http://www.geek.com/articles/games/gamestation-eula-collects-7500-souls-from-unsuspecting-customers-20100416. that's the kind of user friendly EULAs I would like to see more!

I heard of a EULA that had written in it contact this number and we will give you $10000

no one got in touch

99% of people won't read EULA. Let alone know what one is...Boy the 1% who do musta been bored outta their minds to actually bother to..;)

Well, the fine print under the copyright info at the bottom of the page for the Ctrl+Alt+Del comic states this:

"By reading this fine print your soul is now the exclusive property of Ctrl+Alt+Del Productions and its Subsidiaries. Unauthorized use of Ctrl+Alt+Del characters, images, materials, souls, odors and oxygen is strongly discouraged. We know where you sleep."

That might be what you are thinking of. It does have great similarity to a great many EULAs, which is, I am sure, the point.
Oops, should have read the rest of the thread before replying. Oh well, I still like the fine print thing too.

If you mean EULA as general synonym for commiting to a contractual relation in our everyday's life, then I would say that many people should take the time to read them and if they don't than it's actually their fault. After all if you spend hours with a product you can easily spend a minute with reading the strings that are attached. Some things are so complex that you have to print a bit of text to make it clear what actually changes ownership and what not and 250 characters being not enough for it.

Having said that EULAs and others are overly verbose, mostly irrelevant in their content and in general just annoying complicated legal talk. I must be possible to explain things in an easy understandable compact form. It also must be possible to sell products with a low number of limiting conditions, so that a good Agreement paper manages with about 3 to 10 bullet points of 1 to 2 sentence each.

The problem that the EULA might not be valid anyway can easily be circumvented by displaying it to customers before buying. If you then buy you agree to all of it. I am afraid the only solution would be not to buy. Good old voting with the wallet.

So the main thing is make them shorter and easier to understand and preferably buy things only that come with a low number of limits.

it's pointless to argue that EULAs aren't legally binding under your country's laws when they haven't been challenged in court yet. if you think you don't have to agree with what the EULA says, are you prepared to go to court over it?

it's all fine and good for Germans to casually dismiss EULAs and claim that they are not legally binding under German law, but would you take a publisher like EA or Activision to court over it? lawyer fees alone would be too much for most people to bear. and then the judge might as well decide in favour of the publisher, leaving you with a considerable financial loss.

unless you - or anybody else for that matter - is willing to test an EULA in court, i think you should consider them legally binding. everything else is speculation and wishful thinking at this point.

I would be willing to take them to court for violating Articles 307 - 309 BGB. And they would lose.

http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bgb/__307.html
http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bgb/__308.html
http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bgb/__309.html

I just wonder. If this is so sure - why is nobody doing it? This is really important, because it would affects thousands of people.