A Single-User License Agreement

A common criticism of end-user licensing contracts is that they are often far too long for users to spend time reading them carefully. In March 2012, the PayPal end-user license agreement was 36,275 words[15] and in May 2011, the iTunes agreement was 56 pages long. [16] The sources of information that reported these results stated that the vast majority of users do not read the documents because of their length. Forms often prohibit users from reverse engineering. It can also make it more difficult to develop third-party software that collaborates with the software conceded, thereby increasing the value of the publisher`s solutions by reducing customer choice. In the United States, the provisions of the CLUE may prejudge engineering inversion rights, which are implied by fair dealing, c.f. Bowers v. Baystate Technologies. End-user licensing agreements were also criticized for containing conditions that impose incriminating obligations on consumers. For example, Clickwrapped, a service that evaluates consumer companies based on respect for users` rights, indicates that they increasingly contain a term that prevents a user from suing the company. [21] The term narrowing wrap license commonly refers to any software licensing agreement that is included in software and is not accessible to the customer until after purchase. As a general rule, the license agreement is printed on paper contained in the boxed software. It can also be displayed on the screen during the user`s installation, in which case the license is sometimes called the Click-Wrap license.

The client`s inability to verify the license agreement prior to the purchase of the software has led to the absence of legal difficulties in some cases. Jerry Pournelle wrote in 1983: “I have not seen any evidence that… Levian agreements – full of “You must not” have any impact on piracy. He gave an example of a CLA that was impossible for a user to stick to, and he said, “Come on, guys. No one expects these agreements to be respected.?Pournelle noted that, in practice, many companies were more generous to their customers than their U.S. required: “So why do they insist that their customers sign “agreements” that the customer refuses to keep and that the company knows they are not respected? … Should we continue to make hypocrites for both publishers and customers??[14] End-user licensing agreements are generally lengthy and written in very specific legal language, making it more difficult for the average user to give informed consent. [3] When the company designs the end-user licensing agreement in such a way as to deliberately deter users from reading it and is difficult to understand, many users may not give their informed consent.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.