[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss] Interesting 1st sale-shrinkwrap-EULA-(c)infringementcase
- To: Openlaw DMCA Forum <dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu>
- Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Interesting 1st sale-shrinkwrap-EULA-(c)infringementcase
- From: Jeme A Brelin <jeme(at)brelin.net>
- Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 13:17:58 -0800 (PST)
- In-Reply-To: <email@example.com>
- Reply-To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
On Fri, 2 Nov 2001, Bryan Taylor wrote:
> --- Noah silva <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > that's laughable. How about I "sell" you my house.. money now, terms
> > later. How can you assent if you don't know the terms. Also, at the very
> > _least_ EULAs are contracts of adhesion, which don't carry much weight.
> Well, I obviously don't agree with the analysis (which comes from the
> ProCD case), but it's important to understand it.
My girlfriend is a law student and in her Contracts course, she's been
studying the ProCD case.
We've been marvelling over the gymnastics (legal and linguistic) that the
judges had to go through in the decision to make this sound like a real
contract. Essentially, they were just trying to twist the law to
compensate for a common business practice and claim that there is really
"no other way" to do business. Poppycock.
The most stupid and frustrating bit is that it puts BOTH sides of the
contract deal (offer and acceptance) on the customer. It's almost like
the retailer and the manufacturer are not even parties to the deal.
Jeme A Brelin