Granted that most people probably don’t actually read the EULA, for those of us who do ( and I am one of those sad people in the main), how many of us [em]actually[/em] understand what we are being told…?? I am confident that I don’t – yes, I will look for the obvious points at the top of the page, but usually you are in a hurry to install the package.

Let’s assume that you have forked out a considerable amount of cash for a product, in the process of installing it, you realise that the EULA is totally unaceptable for you and you cannot go further, what do you do? You can’t take the product back because, unlike any other product, there is no guarantee covering software if it is not fit for purpose, and once you have opened the package you have forfited your rights to a refund…

But as someone who often spends a year developing a product the idea of piracy is appalling.

The point about the book published in Russia having generated better legal sales because from the pirate version seemed valid.

Perhaps a bit of piracy could be seen as cost neutral advertising, but surly the pirate copies of the Russian book increasing the sales of legal copies is the exception not the general rule.

As to the other article cracking down on those who up load software illegally surley it is a sledge to crack a walnut approach.

After reading numerous comments on this subject, I MUST agree with DragonMaster that most OSS is “good software” !!!! But as a Business User who believes the published UBUNTU philosophy, I could not resist creating a blog for my comments and those of Many friends who use UBUNTU – about the state of OSS from the Business User point of view… Not as in the view of “Aunt Tilly”…

“Why Free Software has poor usability, and how to improve it” by Matthew Paul Thomas and “The Usability of Open Source Software” by David M. Nichols and Michael B. Twidale are seen by us as the sun breaking thought the clouds… Please gentlemen, maintain this type of direct, clear and open discussion not – as in Other forums – religious confrontations.

Google’s Rebecca Ward, Senior Product Counsel for Google Chrome, now tells Ars Technica that the company tries to reuse these licenses as much as possible, “in order to keep things simple for our users.” Ward admits that sometimes “this means that the legal terms for a specific product may include terms that don’t apply well to the use of that product” and says that Google is “working quickly to remove language from Section 11 of the current Google Chrome terms of service. This change will apply retroactively to all users who have downloaded Google Chrome.”

As it turns out, the Google Chrome EULA controversy is just another case of a high-profile company lazily copying and pasting together a EULA with little regard for the terms therein. And as humorous as the entire 24-hour fiasco might be, Google’s misstep reminds us yet again why it’s important for end-users to read the EULAs that come attached to software and services and why it’s doubly important for companies to run a fine-tooth comb over the language in their EULAs before releasing them into the wild. In all honesty, though, end-users shouldn’t have to dig through every EULA for fear that something like this might be buried inside. If a EULA requires that a user relinquish significant rights in order to use a piece of software or a service, that fact should be made abundantly clear to the user, through some means other than a condition buried deep inside a click-through EULA.”
Via Mehan Jayasuriaya @ Public Knowledge
http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/1726

What is interesting here is that the Chrome is being released under the
BSD open source agreement which effectively makes any EULA prety well
null and void – the man controvesy is over this statement:
[blockquote]“By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give
Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and
non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish,
publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any content which you
submit, post or display on or through, the services. This license is for
the sole purpose of enabling Google to display, distribute and promote the
services and may be revoked for certain services as defined in the
additional terms of those services.”[\blockquote]
If I am reading this correctly, it would imply that any code I upload
using their browser would immediately become their property! I think this
needs a bit more research before I make a final judgement call…

Also, is this figure just concentrating on CD sales, or are the Legal downloads from iTunes etc also being taken into account, as these are direct revenue rather than Performance Rights – thinking of the

Declining CD sales mean songwriters will earn more from performance rights – playback in shops and pubs, than recorded music sales.

comment in particular, as the media trend is shifting to an extent…