|
Authored by: Tkilgore on Sunday, September 02 2012 @ 02:24 PM EDT |
Again. I asked:
"Or is it that she said EULAs have the law behind them whether anyone likes
that state of affairs, or not?"
Having looked at your link to see whether PJ was "defending EULA's" or
not, I see that she was saying nothing other than that EULA's are upheld by
existing law and precedent, and giving some detail and giving citations to
actual case decisions to back that up. In other words, the article says nothing
which I did not remember it saying, back when I read it the first time, which
was back when it was written.
Those who dislike the current legal acceptability of EULA's ought to try to get
the legal acceptability turned back around. An excellent first step is to
understand that EULA's *are* upheld by current law and precedent. To point out
that this is reality is not the same thing as "defending EULA's."
Just by the way, I do not like EULA's very much, either. But what does my
individual dislike have to do with the current legal environment regarding
EULA's? Nothing.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|